Origins of Humanity: Africa?

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Rexdale_Punjabi wrote:

 

kemet is wayyy older then china and the indian subcontient is part of africa. I didnt even mean that there was no war other places just that europe it was more concentrated. 1st of all go look at chinese history they attritbute a lot of the stuff in the beginning to the blacc headed ppl from the west which was us. U dont realize that ancient india for example had a lot of things similar to ancient kush and for most of its history has been called east ethiopia that should tell u enuff.

 

Europe had more tribal warfare and other shit that's proven by the fact that up till the formation of the EU there were many little or big wars going on between countries and the farther bacc u go the more it happens. My point in that was that more warlike places tend to be more patriarichal. On top of that ur saying how it racist about the asian tip. Ok lets see with that. Ancient china is younger then ancient india. kush, or kemet. South east asian ways itz already known they were heavily influenced by ancient india and one way u still see that is the prevalence of bhuddism.

 

The fact that you know so little and saying how we were runnin around in animal pelts while chinese were making shit? They admit that we taught them yall were running around in animal peltz cuz not us. Ethnocentric shit? na itz cuz you fail to realize 1/2 the points I been making which is evidenced by the fact that u thought that ancient china was older.

 

Benefit of the doubt? I told u look it up cuz my bookmarks got deleted but why would I lie? To make myself feel better in front of a bunch of white ppl? LOL Im tryna show u shit that been stolen and hidden that you deny lets look at south amerikkka for example. New digs even suggest that the 1st ppl there were african/austrial aborigine. The 1st civilization were the olmecz for example. Go read the book fro example they came before columbus. You dont realize that one huge reason for keeping a lot of history hidden is to divide and conquer ppl and keep them from making claims. Did you know for example that a lot of louisana is owned by it was either the yamasee or wichita tribe. And a yamasee-wichita women owns most of georgia cuz she inherited it from her grandfather who was a chief bacc in the dayz.

 

n the proper name is not egypt thats a greek name it kemet. As for age they discovered the sphinx predates the sahara in the region cuz it has weathering on it from heavy monsoon like rainfall. on top of that since itz known that shit in india started from the horn of africa (civilization I mean) and bare stuff like the river ganges being named after him. And the fact that many of the oldest cities and the vedass are 6-7k years old then it pushes the date for other shit bacc and they still discovering new stuff that even older. Also the other problem is a lot of stuff for the oldest civilization would have disappeared and possibly been replaced one theory for that is this fact.

http://forum.grasscity.com/general/63637-nuclear-weapons-ancient-world.html

http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/13920_stones.html

http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=144283

 

Kemet is really not waaay older then ancient China. Though I suppose it depends on how your defining aspects of 'civilization'. What's the definition? When modern forms of homo sapiens were there? When they started forming permanent settlements? Because if just evidence of modern humans and just about people there  being there you're looking at 18,000 to possibly 60,000 years ago in China.  The earliest signs of domestication of animals which indicates some sort of agriculture that have been found date to around 7,000 BCE. Would something like that count?  In India recent findings suggest permanent settlements starting at around 7000 to possibly 9000 BCE but it was about 4000 BCE when things really started rocking in terms of ancient vedic civilizations in the Indus Valley.   Kemet and Kush had people for tens of thousands of years and more then likely a lot longer then China or India because as you say it seems that modern humans migrated out of that area and spread out yet that happened long before 'civilization' as it seems to being defined here.   If you're talking civilization as in permanant settlements and agriculture you're looking at around 5000-7000 BCE as well, give or take a couple thousand depending on who your talking too.    As you say there might have been things around earlier then that that have been lost to time but arguing about older or younger in terms of permanent settlement as a marker it's really only a matter of a few thousand years on either side. Historically in the history of humans that's a pretty short timespan.

  Even if what you say is true regarding the dating of the Sphinx and other things that suggest pushing the well established dates back further,  (I know about those things as well including suggestions of earlier dates of things that occured outside of the area now known as Africa) my question is what is the main point you're trying to make here?  I don't think anyone is disagreeing that humans in their modern form emerged out of that area, nor that much of what you're refering to as early civilizations formed in that area.   That is becoming pretty much established and is now taught that way.  There might be a debate about the exact timeline and the specific details of how it happened but anything that old is going to be full of such debate.

Jumping over the pond to both North and South America and you find evidence of agriculture and permanent settlements happening between 5000 to 7000 BCE for sure with some things suggesting earlier dates.  Though people were wandering around upwards of 12,000-15,000 years ago with recent findings possibly dating back further, upwards of another ten thousand years or more, though if you follow some indigenous histories orginating on this continant there is a lot of disagreement with dates, timelines and details.

As for the area now known as  Europe recent studies, primarily in areas like linguistics and etymology of myth are proving to be quite interesting as there appears to be a more direct connection with the Celtic peoples who moved all around Europe and as far as places like Ireland, with ancient Hindu culture.  Linguistics points to a commonally between ancent Gaelic and Sanskrit.  This is really interesting as it's causing a bit of an upheavel in what was commonly thought about the ancient european histories and it's ramfications will likely take a bit of time to filter into the historical narrative.  This both supports your assertion that the area known as India today birthed some of the earliest civilizations but also doesn't support an assertion that those people were largely uncivilized and wandering in some whitish European vaccumn. It's looking like it's more connected then people thought or better, connected way differently then what has been commonly thought.    Recent studies are showing commonalities in things like social structure and relgion as well as focus on arts and education which was purposely wiped out when the Romans started their thing. Quite similar to how in modern history indigenous cultures were suppressed both physically and culturally due to modern day colonialism by Europeans. Though in this case if we use the modern definition of who is considered 'white', you have white people colonizing white people.      Since those cultures histories were largely oral not recorded in any great measure. Then of course there were the peoples that the Celts moved in on like the Picts and other nameless cultures who are mostlt lost to history.    They do say history repeats itself over and over and there are countless examples of the oppressed evoling into an oppressor as time marched on.

  Druids, in their true form and not the fantasy version created in the Victorian era of folks running around in white robes  and talking to trees or if you talk to an ancient roman practicing human sacrifice,  appear to have more in common with the Brahmin class of hindu culture which makes sense if at some point in the past they originated out of a common culture, which as you say is connected right back into the civilazations of Kush, Kemet and the Indus Valley.   When I started school I was taught that pre-roman Europe was full of barbarians and uncivilized people. In my 30ish year lifespan that belief has been proven and is continuing to prove to be as much as imperial type myth as some of the common myths about modern day Africa's ancient peoples that you're illuminating here.

Recent scholarship doesn't say much different then the general  historical timeline of what you're saying.  In fact, give or take a few details and dates (like around ancient Chinese history) ,  it's not news or anything revolutionary to me at least.  Neither is it hidden because a lot of what you've said here in your posts about origins I was actually taught in school as far back as ten years ago. I have no idea what elementary versions of history teach now but if you take course in Uni much of what you're saying is covered.

Also using Buddishm as evidence of ancient India's influence on ancient China doesn't really work when your talking as far back as you are. Buddishm is positively modern in comparison as it only came into existence around 500 BCE.

There is much debate on what actually counts as 'civilization' and you'll find oodle of definitions of what it's markers are. They've also changed over the years for one as we learn more about the past and two as it moves away from strictly a eurocentric definition.  In these types of discussions it really needs to be defined on what exactly you are anyone else means by it.  Some say permanent settlement, some say the advent of agriculture which tend to be more common nowadays though even that's problematic when talking about very many nomadic peoples both ancient and modern.   What people do tend to agree upon is that sometime around 10,000 years ago modern humans figured out agriculture and agricultural peoples began to pop into history in numerous different areas all within a couple of thousand years of each other.  You'll find debates about whether this was an independent development or not but the question remains, beyond academic talk, why is it truely relevent today?  Is the person trying to put food on their families table or deal with some sort of crappy situation whether due to racism, class, misogyny or whatever really going to care about whether culture A fostered culture B some 8,000 years ago?  I ask this seriously because beyond asserting that white or europeon's history is not all that and the be all and end all of human history,  which to me is just so blatantedly obvious and something that I think most people who post here understand even if they don't know the specific details of how it all played out, I'm just not sure of the point.  Though for me it's been interesting racking my brain for the info I filed away in the far reaches of my brain. :D

 

Now you brought up tribal histories a up thread as well as question about ancient India and nuclear weapons. Well according to some of the tribal histories that I've been told that originated with people here way back in the mists people indeed had forms of technology that aren't in evidence now. In this case I've been told stories about old treaties between NA peoples and what we now call Africa and the Mid-east and that people from Turtle Island travelled there to help out allies using flying machines and fought in great wars across the oceans.   This long before what eurocentrically has been called the dawn of modern history which at least when I went to school way back when was when the Greeks and Roman started their thing. Though this dating has long since changed as now it's moved back into places like Kush, Kemet, Mesopotamia, Indus and China as you suggest.  These 'tribal' histories talk about the 'Great Law' moving from this continent to Africa and the Mid-east again way back when after it was established with some people here. They talk about the trade treaties that ran north and south for thousands of years, long before europeans came and established it east west.   One elder actually talked about South America and stated that contrary to what people say it was  the people here went to places over there and vice versa.  And no you're not likely to find such stories in books or on the internet. I've looked because some of it was so durn cool. 

The people that told me these stories say similar things that this history is hidden as well.  Can I prove any of it? No or course not. Neither will I attempt to try one way or another.  I just think its important to note that such stories do exist in other places and with other peoples as well.   I don't think that anyone whether white, black, red, yellow or polka-doted holds an absolute truth about ancient human history or even more modern history for that matter.  Just go talk to a FN's historian and you'll find a much different history of NA then the common narrative and disagreements about 'what happened' in only the past few hundred years. There's no agreement even with modern history.  Heck get 5 WWII historians in the same room and you'll have a good debate about this thing or that thing.   What's important I think is to recognize that yes indeed human history is not just 'white' or based on 'white' or what white values but that very many people from all sorts of places, color and cultures have contributed both positively and negatively to where we all are globally today.

 

 

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

I knew about the celtz and the influence as well itz why u find the orig swastika in ancient europe but much of that was wiped and you could say shit only started rebuild with the greeks and romans. As well Ive seen that it was suggested to columbus to use the trade route that the mandinka used to go to the new world but he never wanted to.

 

I was never using bhuddism to suggest an influence on china I was saying that south east asia one way of seeing the influence on it is bhuddism today but it more complicated and ancient but that a basic view u know.

 

There are actually very old treaties AmerIkkka has a treaty with the moorish empire for example stating that unless a moor directly harms a citizen aka product of the corporation called the USA laws don apply to them and this has been used as a succesful defence because it's true. There are many stories as well as models of planes found in pyramids drawn as well as physical.

 

There's a story of how the mayans I think i twas dissappeared suddenly. The story being that the olmecs who were the parent culture forced them to leave cuz they practiced human sacrifice etc and that's why the pyramids in cambodia as well as camobodians themselves look similar to mayans.

 

The history of the amerindians of south and central amerikkka esp is discussed here btw

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=ECC16299C53AE9E2

 

one part that u should take in is that even looking from looks they get the darker skin from the east and west africans, straighter hair from the east africans and the eyes from the chinese. n there known to be ppl called the blacc chinese and they were the 1st there. A lot of this is dismissed for mayn reasons like I said one they dont want africans here making land claims along with the first nations (not kkkanda but amerikkka)

edit - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgLJSUacF74 look at that article from taiwan news about the little blacc ppl.

 

and this comment "
jean19721997 (7 months ago) Show Hide
+1
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
I'm originally from Surinam. In the beginning of the twentieth century Chinese migrated to Surinam. And they still migrate to Surinam. As a little girl a befriended a Chinese girl who had just migrated to Surinam. She only spoke Chinese and a litle bit of English when she attended the school I went to. Anyway, this girl didn't had typically straight Asian hair. Her hair almost stood upright. In fact sometimes it really stood upright. People made fun of her like:
"how come a Chinese like you has hair like that?" Or: "You must have stuck your finger in a wall-plug."

Then my grandmother told me a story she heard from a Chinese woman herself. This woman told her that Chinese are somewhat related or are descandents from people of dark skin color. And that most Chinese are aware of that, but won't admit it.
I really did not take this serious. But you can see that these people were right all along. "

 

edit - on top of that look at ppl liek the ainu as another example

and there the article

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2004/11/27/2003212815

im just saying it how it is think about the chinese spirtual system and how similar it is to the african ones that preceded it. as well as many words. Shang= Shango. I ching as well Ifa lol

 

edit - also to add you could say o they aint african or w.e but the one huge thing that likns them that I talked about in anotheer thread but never knew the word is this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steatopygia

booty booty booty Laughing

 

edit - ok u set me off ima keep going so also u ever been to asian countries? Know brothas n sistas who have you realize they call white ppl anything from outsiders, and foreginers to devils and ghosts while they throw their arms up and say to the brothas and sistas you are one of us? You realize the vietnamese never wanted to fight blacc soldiers during the war?

o but the reason it matterz is because the truth is the truth

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Rexdale_Punjabi wrote:

I knew about the celtz and the influence as well itz why u find the orig swastika in ancient europe but much of that was wiped and you could say shit only started rebuild with the greeks and romans.

No not quite. :D That's the old Euro way of looking at it. :D  The Romans didn't rebuild something that wasn't already there, they wiped and built their understanding of 'civilzation' on top of what already existed. Evidence is scant but they did things like wipe out the Celtic cultures learned people by shutting down the schools and trying to replace  religion and religious places, replacing laws  and of course killing anyone that got in their way.  The people they conquered weren't wandering around in the mud.  It's also not totally correct to say that 'Europe' before the Romans was entirely patriarchal.  Women's status in the Celtic cultures was pretty high relative to the time and they were able to hold positions of power in terms of law, religion, healthcare and culture as well as fought in battle.  Boudica kicked some roman ass before her army was defeated and there's Roman writing of them basically freaking out at having to fight women because it was so 'uncivilized'.   Old Ireland held onto those traditions the longest even with the advent of Christianity and spent years fighting with Rome about it. In the early days women held religious positions and both men and women lived together religious houses. . Women could divorce men and hold property with relatively little problem.   Many aspects of Brehon Law which covered all of that held as late at the 10th cen.

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

ye I know that but I mean yo on a personal tip when i think of europe and all taht I think like u know from the middle ages onwards cuz thatz when shit started popping like u know bare outside contact etc. if you realize that a lot of the old european culture was based on u know our shit not even detracting from it but it was bacc those times when u know every1 sat around the fire n took a puff then u see that the romans was like the way that it been ever since and that europe gets associated with. Do you get what I mean? Even early german tingz had women as part of the fighting force.

Rome is like the turning point

remind remind's picture

Webgear wrote:
remind wrote:
Thank you Erik, I agree. It was the late 1700's that the idea of "race" was introduced.

In respect to history and warfare, and of  interest to me are the recent Swedish findings regarding Gotland and who were the actual Vikings there and it seems from their findings that they were actually of Mongolian descent, at least in Gotland.

Can you provide a link? I have been studying Vikings for the last few months. 

No sorry, I can't, I can only point you to Discovery Channel, which is where I watched a program, several times, on the 2007 Gotland digs.

remind remind's picture

R_P post #52 wrote:
A lot of this is dismissed for mayn reasons like I said one they dont want africans here making land claims along with the first nations

And here we have the reason, I am sure for all of this by R_P.

Natural allies my ass.

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

remind wrote:

R_P post #52 wrote:
A lot of this is dismissed for mayn reasons like I said one they dont want africans here making land claims along with the first nations

And here we have the reason, I am sure for all of this by R_P.

Natural allies my ass.

wtf r u talking about? many times ppl white ppl would call "red" indian and blacc were in the same tribe so it aint even like that. Do you not realize that it was both b4? the moors as well as other tribes? n ur right by the actions put on us yall aint been our natural allies but that could change.

 

edit - most of the darker skinend tribes were in states like missispi, louisana, georgia, etc incidentally also the states that today are part of the "blacc belt" as well as the ones with the most slavery. Do you know there a blacc belt independance movement? There bare shit that rarely talked about

oldgoat

I haven't had time to really read this thread, but first of all, R_P, don't tell Papal Bull to STFU, ok?  No need for this to descend into acrimony. 

Rexdale_Punjabi, you're welcome to read, believe, and argue what you wish (within policy) but I am of the opinion that you're abusing the study of history, and in your readings, are failing to be sufficiently objective and critical of your sources. 

This is a pretty interesting and content-rich thread, but I'll try to read it more thoroughly and respond better as time allows.

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

im not really abusing the study of history... im showing what I said go checc it im taking bacc my history n papal bull did nothing but just talk shit go look at his post

remind remind's picture

R_P it was not "both" before the advent of slavery in the USA and the south Atlantic. There was only First Peoples, who in no way considered themselves "African" or descendants of Africans.

And you are abusing the study of history, and apparently for your own ends.

 

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

remind wrote:

R_P it was not "both" before the advent of slavery in the USA and the south Atlantic. There was only First Peoples, who in no way considered themselves "African" or descendants of Africans.

And you are abusing the study of history, and apparently for your own ends.

 

r u only talking about kkkanada? or the entire"new world" just tell me that b4 I say anything.

oldgoat

R_P, the history of non white peoples has been taked away from them, and I encourage and celebrate the taking back of this history.  At the same time white European based history has suffered a fair bit of abuse as we try to justify whatever unjustfiable self belief requires it at the moment.  Further, I appreciate the enthusiasm you are bringing to this.  I think you're a bit all over the place in your research though.

 

 

remind remind's picture

In specific I am talking of Turtle Island

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

so go look at the fact that the 1st ppl here were australian aboriginies and the 1st civilization was the olmecz. U can look for specific books links etc my bookmarks are gone n I aint even gonna go try n get all that info bacc or u can see the links I sent.

oldgoat

Quote:
A lot of this is dismissed for mayn reasons like I said one they dont want africans here making land claims along with the first nations

 

Just noticed this. You're kind of getting off into la la land here. I don't care if you're using western methods of historiography, working with the oral tradition, studing prime sources or artifacts, you can't start from the postion of thinking what you want history to say and then looking for stuff that fits that. That's abusing history, anyones history.

 

One of the satisfying things about looking at history, and especially the history of the people which with one identifies, is that it's personally strengthening, and it helps you feel centered in the universe. This has been taken away from so many people. The pursuit of this history still has to be done thoughtfully though.

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

na but that did happen for example I stated the example of the women owning bare parts of georgia and there a dispute over most of louisana between the fed and state gov vs the yamasee-wichita tribe which has african members. So it aint la la land it happeneing right now. Im not looking for history to say shit im speculating on the agenda of why it was hidden in the 1st place it has nothing to do with the history itself. n it even my speculation go checc the videos it lists sources at the end.

Bookish Agrarian

Rexdale_Punjabi wrote:

so go look at the fact that the 1st ppl here were australian aboriginies and the 1st civilization was the olmecz. U can look for specific books links etc my bookmarks are gone n I aint even gonna go try n get all that info bacc or u can see the links I sent.

Wow.  I'll have to go talk to some Elders I know and let them in on the secret that they are really from Australia.  Don't forget that Turtle Islands First People theory of them being Polynesians. 

Yes Olmec civilization is pretty fascinating and there is clearly some sort of link with a non-Turtle Island culture - but it is not knowable- at this point - where that link came from.  Nor were the Olmecs the first civilization as you claim in this part of the world.  They were one of several such as the Anisazi, along with Nations in the Great Lakes Basin.

I cannot fathom your intent on denegrading the history and culture of others in order to promote your beliefs.  It is, as I said before, a great deal like what took place in the Victorian Parlour. 

remind remind's picture

Rexdale_Punjabi wrote:
so go look at the fact that the 1st ppl here were australian aboriginies and the 1st civilization was the olmecz. U can look for specific books links etc my bookmarks are gone n I aint even gonna go try n get all that info bacc or u can see the links I sent.

Pffft, your grip on history is severely lacking.

remind remind's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
I cannot fathom your intent on denegrading the history and culture of others in order to promote your beliefs.  It is, as I said before, a great deal like what took place in the Victorian Parlour.

Yes it is, and perhaps for the same reasons. Note the references to "land claims".

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

aii so ur a white person telling me a white version of history about a land currently occupied and colonized by whtie ppl about what a colonized and opressed ppl thought of themselves and considered themselves? REALLY NOW? why dont u go see it have u really said anything but lil dismissals here and there or an unbased claim like ur grip on history is laccing?

 

edit - australin aborigine dont mean they from australia just used that word to u know describe the look cuz there a bunch of terms like austroloid or w.e and others just used one of em. Polynesians is proyl the same thing

Bookish Agrarian

Holy Crap.  I just listened to some of these links.  There are a couple of actual facts in it - but most of it is just pure fantasy.

No wonder you are confused RP if you think this has some sort of historical accuracy.

One of the claims is that First Nations people are interlopers on Turtle Island and that the entire place is really the homeland of Africans.  Replacing racism for another racism is no answer in my book.  If this is the kind of fantasy RP is basing his hectoring on than trying to provide actual - you know facts - is a waste of time.

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

remind wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
I cannot fathom your intent on denegrading the history and culture of others in order to promote your beliefs.  It is, as I said before, a great deal like what took place in the Victorian Parlour.

Yes it is, and perhaps for the same reasons. Note the references to "land claims".

those are on-going with many tribes man fucc it im not even gonna repeat myself

edit - where is the fantasy? the blacc chinese? chinese ppl admit to their existence and they still exist throughout southeast asia. the trading routes? itz reported even columbus knew about them and there various records of mandinka sailors esp sailing to various parts of the world b4 european contact. U already know how east ethiopians rolled with the rest of africa so there u go cuz. u have to remember that the 2nd group of ppl to there u could say the asian ones went to war with the orig ones which created the various mixtures as well as the fact aht many of the orig ones are deep in the jungle now.

 

edit - not no homeland but the moorish empire did exist here b4 columbus hence why amerikkka has a treaty on top of that the first nations are the descendants of the various groups that came here hence the word aboriginal. Which means after original or came from the original so it is their land just the fact that first nations are supposed to have a certain look which white ppl stated and to this day it is white ppl who control who is 1st nations and who isnt remember that also with the use of things like blood quotas. So no BA

 

edit - n which links im mostly talking about this one for this part http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=ECC16299C53AE9E2

watch the whole thing n read the comments then say something till then no as for the other links tell me which one ur talking about

Bookish Agrarian

Rexdale_Punjabi wrote:

remind wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
I cannot fathom your intent on denegrading the history and culture of others in order to promote your beliefs.  It is, as I said before, a great deal like what took place in the Victorian Parlour.

Yes it is, and perhaps for the same reasons. Note the references to "land claims".

 

those are on-going with many tribes man fucc it im not even gonna repeat myself

 

 

You are confusing two very different things.  Having non-First Nation heritage comingled with First Nations heritage is just a part of the human condidtion - it does not make the First Nation African. 

The First Nations you refered to are not AFRICAN in origin - beyond the likelihood that we are all probably African in origin.  We don't however know what those original peoples looked like.  They could have been very different looking than any of us look today -  or looked surprisingly like Brazilians or whomever, that's the thing about evoloution.

remind remind's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
Holy Crap.  I just listened to some of these links.  There are a couple of actual facts in it - but most of it is just pure fantasy.

No wonder you are confused RP if you think this has some sort of historical accuracy.

One of the claims is that First Nations people are interlopers on Turtle Island and that the entire place is really the homeland of Africans.  Replacing racism for another racism is no answer in my book.  If this is the kind of fantasy RP is basing his hectoring on than trying to provide actual - you know facts - is a waste of time.

Exactly!

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

go look at what I posted... and u dont realize aii ima stop saying african and just say blacc. first nations if u mean it to mean the 1st ppl on this side of the world would mean more then 1 race.

 

edit - An old saying said by mothers and grand mothers bacc home is Man Knows not be being told but by wanting to. If u dont want to therez no point of me wasting my time peace if ur gonna checc the shit out then repost something that argues it n ill say something

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

remind u havent exactly said anything to argue it dont even think u seen the links ur just here lol but I stand by what I said to BA towards u too peace

oldgoat

Before this turns into a pile-on, and also before I leave for a while, let me point out that most people's grip on history is lacking.  In most instances though, it's because people don't give it much thought, and read little. 

R_P, that's clearly not your problem.  You are definitely a seeker of knowledge.  My initial exposere was to Euro-centric history, but I've also been exposed to HOW to approach history, and there are lots of different perfectly legitimate ways.  But there's also uncritical, un thought out, self serving, and just plain bad sources.  That's where you're running into problems.  You're myriad sources conflate all sorts of bits of different things, of varying merit, some with just enough truth to be confusing.  I'm not trying to be patronizing here, but that's what I'm seeing.

Bookish Agrarian

No it doesn't.  It means the original inhabitants of Turtle Island and there is simply no archeological evidence to suggest that they were African.  None.  If you talk to Elders they will tell you how they came here and it isn't by way of Africa.

The stuff presented in your links is just pure fantasy starting with America really being a code word for a place lived in by Moors.  It is Graham Hancock nutty - but at least Graham Hancock tries to provide some 'evidence' and is entertaining.  Here's a hint RP never put too much credence in something self-produced as being hard core historically accurate and that has a very annoying repetative soundtrack that tries to make itself seem important.

And your edited comments about First Nations people in post # 72 are out and out racist.  To suggest that First Nations do not know who they are is beyond the pale even for you.

Bookish Agrarian

Jeez read post 73 again.  You are confusing very, very different things.

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

1 thing thatz the problem with ur argument many do I named some of the tribes that do and are currently fighting the us gov over shit.

edit - the word breaking it down has more sense to it then getting amerikkka from amerigo u know how europeans did liek colbumbus saying all natives were cannibals so they could be legally enslaved. go watch the shit bro n there bare tribes that know it like I said thats all im gonna say n OG I see u but this tip is on point for the most part for one thing this was and is a place inhabited by moors the gov has a treaty with the moorish empire go look it up. so ur shit falls flat

 

edit - they say themselves where they come from... and let those tribes say for themselves what they are. (also u do know slaves went and hid and blended in with the FN tribes right? like the tribes in florida for example?)

Sven Sven's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

The First Nations you refered to are not AFRICAN in origin - beyond the likelihood that we are all probably African in origin.

How can someone simultaneously be "not AFRICAN in orgin" and "probably African in orgin"?  Maybe I'm missing a nuanced distinction you're trying to make?

The great weight of scientific evidence indicates that all humans originated in Africa.  I don't have a link handy but I recall reading sometime in the last year or so that those studying mitochondrial DNA (the human genome studies) believe that all humans alive today descended from about 2,000 individuals living in Africa a mere 60,000 years ago or so.  It's a great reminder that we are all related to one another as one human family.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

here BA see "Dr. Ivan Van Sertima, Dr. Jose Piementa-Bey, old ships captain logs, old book detailing who the people met when they came to this continent, and the other unbiased archeologists and historians even Mexican, who tell the truth of our-story on this continent. People will believe the prejudiced eugenicist over the Washitaw and other "natives-who-know-the-truth" who have been here for centuries....pitiful. F*** the smithsonian, criminal bastidges who pillage, steal our history."

there u go if u still aint gonna checc it just shows wus really gwanin n u still never answered what u meant by fake posturing?

Bookish Agrarian

Sven

Rexdale is trying to make the point that First Nations people are directly connected to Africa -like direct link.

I recognize that we all come out of what we now call Africa - as you say - but that does not mean that First Nations people are African as Rexdle keeps trying to assert.  That's why I capitalized the first African, but not the second. 

Rexdale links to this fantasyland video on youtube that is making the claim that First Nations people are really just Moors who were running the place when Columbus showed up - not actual -you know - First Nations people.  It is a crazy as it is racist and frankly little different than the bizarre contentions of many Victorians.

Sven Sven's picture

Thanks for that clarification, Bookish Agrarian

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Sven Sven's picture

Rexdale_Punjabi wrote:

F*** the smithsonian, criminal bastidges who pillage, steal our history."

I can understand a claim that someone has misinterpreted history (even grossly and intentionally -- e.g., Holocaust deniers).  But, how does one "steal" history?  Historical information is not "owned" by anyone.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Sven Sven's picture

Rexdale_Punjabi wrote:

edit - sven aint my words but the way it done is to rewrite it with u as everything good, etc. For example saying the creators of ancient kemet and india were white ppl who came from central asia. Thats stealing our shit as an example

Like I said, historical information may be grossly and intentionally distorted -- but I don't think anyone "owns" any historical information, hence, it cannot be "stolen".

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

remind remind's picture

Sven wrote:
Bookish Agrarian wrote:
The First Nations you refered to are not AFRICAN in origin - beyond the likelihood that we are all probably African in origin.

How can someone simultaneously be "not AFRICAN in orgin" and "probably African in orgin"?  Maybe I'm missing a nuanced distinction you're trying to make?

The great weight of scientific evidence indicates that all humans originated in Africa.  I don't have a link handy but I recall reading sometime in the last year or so that those studying mitochondrial DNA (the human genome studies) believe that all humans alive today descended from about 2,000 individuals living in Africa a mere 60,000 years ago or so.  It's a great reminder that we are all related to one another as one human family.

Out of Africa is a theory, like the Multiregional model

  • Proponents of the Multiregional Model, such as Milford Wolpoff, cite evidence in Asia of regional continuity. They see an evolutionary link between ancient Homo erectus in Java right through to Australian aborigines. A possible problem with this view is that recent dating of late surviving Homo erectus in Indonesia suggests that they survived here until 50,000 years ago, which is potentially when fully modern humans may have arrived in the region from Africa.

  • China may contain the best evidence for supporting the Multiregional Model. Here there are discoveries of a couple of skulls dated to roughly 100,000 years ago that seem to possess a mixture of classic Homo erectus and Homo sapiens traits. Better geological dating and more complete specimens are needed to more fully assess this possibility

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html

 

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

here another comment "my great grandmother was telling me some stuff about this like around 1996 and i was like yea right then i hear this and im like what the hell, because my greatgrandmother was a native of kentucky and she said she was never mixed with african until she married my great grandfather who was from mississippi . her indian stood out she has no white blood in her and she claimed that the native americans are not all red. lol this is crazy she lived till she was 93"

when u gonna actually watch/read the shit instead of u know just debasing it when there are tribes themselves that admit. See ur the one saying the tribes dont know who/what they are so real talkz ur doing the same shit ur ancestors been doing

 

edit - sven aint my words but the way it done is to rewrite it with u as everything good, etc. For example saying the creators of ancient kemet and india were white ppl who came from central asia. Thats stealing our shit as an example

edit - and BA calling it racist assumes that there a racial divide between us or that we have something to lose from uniting. We have the same enemy and I stare it in the face and spit in it everyday and I will till im lyin 6 feet deep

Bookish Agrarian

Rexdale_Punjabi wrote:

here BA see "Dr. Ivan Van Sertima, Dr. Jose Piementa-Bey, old ships captain logs, old book detailing who the people met when they came to this continent, and the other unbiased archeologists and historians even Mexican, who tell the truth of our-story on this continent. People will believe the prejudiced eugenicist over the Washitaw and other "natives-who-know-the-truth" who have been here for centuries....pitiful. F*** the smithsonian, criminal bastidges who pillage, steal our history."

there u go if u still aint gonna checc it just shows wus really gwanin n u still never answered what u meant by fake posturing?

 

 

Well here goes.

 

Dr. Ivan Van Sertima was not without a great deal of criticism.  His book "They came before Columbus" was widely panned as being anti-First Nations and dispariging of their cultures.  His claims about Olmec cultures were never backed up by any archeological evidence. 

 

Jose Pimienta-Bey I assume you mean claims about the Moors and the pigmentocracy that arose in First Nations culture is pure la la land fantasy and again ubelievably dispariging of First Nations people and culture.

 

Why this insitance on stealing the legacy of First Nations is beyond me. It smacks of real down home racism to me. First Nations couldn't have made anything of themselves without the all present African influence sure sounds like something out of Victorian era England to me.

remind remind's picture

Rexdale_Punjabi wrote:
here another comment "my great grandmother was telling me some stuff about this like around 1996 and i was like yea right then i hear this and im like what the hell, because my greatgrandmother was a native of kentucky and she said she was never mixed with african until she married my great grandfather who was from mississippi . her indian stood out she has no white blood in her and she claimed that the native americans are not all red."

Funny....this refutes your claim way back when you started posting here, that you were not of American slave heritage, nor  of any FN's in NA.

So which is it?

 

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

I was born in africa...

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

and BA im not even gonna say anything cuz ur missing the point 1 n the same ppl

Bookish Agrarian

Hi remind

I hinted at that theory in post # 48.  But you are right the out of Africa theory is just that.  Truth is we will likely never really know. 

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Rexdale_Punjabi wrote:

1 thing thatz the problem with ur argument many do I named some of the tribes that do and are currently fighting the us gov over shit.

edit - the word breaking it down has more sense to it then getting amerikkka from amerigo u know how europeans did liek colbumbus saying all natives were cannibals so they could be legally enslaved. go watch the shit bro n there bare tribes that know it like I said thats all im gonna say n OG I see u but this tip is on point for the most part for one thing this was and is a place inhabited by moors the gov has a treaty with the moorish empire go look it up. so ur shit falls flat

 

edit - they say themselves where they come from... and let those tribes say for themselves what they are. (also u do know slaves went and hid and blended in with the FN tribes right? like the tribes in florida for example?)

 It's not just US tribes fighting the gov't but there are people within tribes fighting each other like the case of the Black Cherokee fight for recognition within the particular band of the Cherokee nation.  It's unfortunately not just a fighting the government thing.   And yes it is a well known fact that slaves went and joined with FN's.  I know a few people who can trace part of their ancestry back to slaves and have know problem talking about that part of their history.  One guy even knows from which plantation they come from.  They don't however say they are black. Nor say they are a black tribe. They are Cherokee, they are Haudenosaude, they are Seminole or whatever their respective nation is.

As for your history of the Moorish Treaties. According to the tribal histories I was told you've only got it partially right. Yes there were old treaties between different regions one of which being the Moorish region. These treaties also were amongst whites in once is now Europe.  And no it's not that 'gov't' that has that treaty. It was between the Moorish people or African people or however you want to name them  now and the people of Turtle Island.  There was also one between Turtle Island and people in the European Region and there was one which involved people in the east in Asia.   If the Moors indeed were over here with desire to settle then they were breaking the treaty.  The elders talked about how these treaties were broken at various times and how they had to drive the people out when they tried to take over and go against the agreements and it wasn't just 'white' people doing it.     One of the main principles of those great treaties was that no one from their respective regions would lay claim to the others and if they did they had every right to deal with it.   One talked about how and why the last great breaking of the treaties occured around 2000 years ago leading to the people 'forgetting' or memory of these agreements suppressed which eventually led to the Europeon colonization of Turtle Island.  One talked about how WE all needed to try to remember back to the mists and he has been comforted in his later years as he's seen more people remembering,  if at least in spirit.

 

remind remind's picture

No, they ARE NOT, R_P, and stop insisting such okay!

Bookish Agrarian

Rexdale_Punjabi wrote:

and BA im not even gonna say anything cuz ur missing the point 1 n the same ppl

Please do tell, what profound point am I missing?

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

ElizaQ wrote:

Rexdale_Punjabi wrote:

1 thing thatz the problem with ur argument many do I named some of the tribes that do and are currently fighting the us gov over shit.

edit - the word breaking it down has more sense to it then getting amerikkka from amerigo u know how europeans did liek colbumbus saying all natives were cannibals so they could be legally enslaved. go watch the shit bro n there bare tribes that know it like I said thats all im gonna say n OG I see u but this tip is on point for the most part for one thing this was and is a place inhabited by moors the gov has a treaty with the moorish empire go look it up. so ur shit falls flat

 

edit - they say themselves where they come from... and let those tribes say for themselves what they are. (also u do know slaves went and hid and blended in with the FN tribes right? like the tribes in florida for example?)

 It's not just US tribes fighting the gov't but there are people within tribes fighting each other like the case of the Black Cherokee fight for recognition within the particular band of the Cherokee nation.  It's unfortunately not just a fighting the government thing.   And yes it is a well known fact that slaves went and joined with FN's.  I know a few people who can trace part of their ancestry back to slaves and have know problem talking about that part of their history.  One guy even knows from which plantation they come from.  They don't however say they are black. Nor say they are a black tribe. They are Cherokee, they are Haudenosaude, they are Seminole or whatever their respective nation is.

As for your history of the Moorish Treaties. According to the tribal histories I was told you've only got it partially right. Yes there were old treaties between different regions one of which being the Moorish region. These treaties also were amongst whites in once is now Europe.  And no it's not that 'gov't' that has that treaty. It was between the Moorish people or African people or however you want to name them  now and the people of Turtle Island.  There was also one between Turtle Island and people in the European Region and there was one which involved people in the east in Asia.   If the Moors indeed were over here with desire to settle then they were breaking the treaty.  The elders talked about how these treaties were broken at various times and how they had to drive the people out when they tried to take over and go against the agreements and it wasn't just 'white' people doing it.     One of the main principles of those great treaties was that no one from their respective regions would lay claim to the others and if they did they had every right to deal with it.   One talked about how and why the last great breaking of the treaties occured around 2000 years ago leading to the people 'forgetting' or memory of these agreements suppressed which eventually led to the Europeon colonization of Turtle Island.  One talked about how WE all needed to try to remember back to the mists and he has been comforted in his later years as he's seen more people remembering,  if at least in spirit.

 

ye the treaties were forgotten slowly still but the main thing u got 2 take in is that when ameriKKKa was established there was a moorish presence here for example and they signed a treaty also remember this.

 

Most of the world even today does not see things in a racial but tribal POV. This is waht ppl forget that race how it is here is not the same everywhere else. A african in africa may not consider themselves blacc but w.e tribe they are and even light cuz they maybe compared to the surroundign tribes. But, bringing them into a modern context would they be considered blacc? or lets say go bacc 40 years for even more in ur face definition.

Webgear

I was wondering if someone could link a website on First Nations beliefs for me.

Is there a major difference between North and South American First Nation beliefs?

remind remind's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
Hi remind

I hinted at that theory in post # 48.  But you are right the out of Africa theory is just that.  Truth is we will likely never really know.

I don't know, I think there is a lot evidence to coming to light, like that which is being found in China, and now with the findings  regarding the Swedish dig and DNA matches with Mongolians, that are only just staring to be more fully explored.

For example, the arising evidence regarding the First Peoples of the Great lakes area inhabiting the area when it was  almost completely glacier covered, and  there is current evidence which suggests they were actually living under the glacier, in its caverns and tunnels.

 

 

Bookish Agrarian

Wow were did you read that.  I would be fascinated to read that myself.  Personally I subscribe to the theory that North and South America were settled much longer ago than the last Ice Age.  I think the evidence is starting to pile up pretty high to support that.

Pages

Topic locked