Origins of Humanity: Africa?

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

Rexdale_Punjabi wrote:

 

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.

 Not according to the history that has been passed to me. Any presence was breaking the basic principles of the great treaties.  If I remember correctly it might be the Eagle treaty or the Treaty of Isis.   If there was a treaty with the moors  it wasn't with the people of Turtle Island in terms of claim or land.   According to those stories anyone from another region who was here claiming anything was breaking the great treaties that were signed between all people along time before America was established.  The Moors or whatnot had no claim to Turtle Island anymore then the Europeans had claim when they came over.  

 I can see there will likely be no agreement on this but just realize that the oral histories that have been passed to you aren't quite the same, some similarities it seems to some of the oral histories that exists amongst other people. Perhap ALL people have been doing some forgeting.

 

 

Quote:

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.

 Yes and before the modern concept of race  came into usage (only a few hundred years) that pegged white and black into usage all of the 'whites' were tribal as well.  European history is not a history of countries fighting each other but of  basically one tribe fighting the other, merging with each, marrying each other for alliances sake etc etc.  Some people in Europe still even have clans and recognize the intercountry areas as traditionally belong to one group or another.  One only has to look at the rivalries between different modern countries or with people within modern countries to know that we aren't that far from it and much of it is an illusion.   Even in the early modern history in Canada and America there were 'tribal' divisions based on country of origin or religion.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

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.

 Yeah there does seem to be. I don't pay attention to the area as much as I should anymore because I do find it interesting but I recall coming across things here and there that basically consist of 'Oh hey look we found something! Oh wait...the dates. Mmmm geez that really shouldn't  be that old. Crap....thinking,  rethinking....'  Meanwhile there's some FN's person sitting somewhere, "Duh. Do you still think we've been talking out of our asses all this time?"   Smile 

 

 I just tried to find and article that I read sometime last year which was about how scientists are looking more to those stories to get clues especially after there was a case on the West Coast where the story the community told about their origins didn't match up with what the prevailing theory of migration and such. So with  advent of DNA they did some tests and wow, low and behold it looks more then likely that this story is correct.  I'll keep looking for it because it talked about the ramification for some of the prevailing theories that are generally being worked with.

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

ElizaQ wrote:

Rexdale_Punjabi wrote:

 

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.

 Not according to the history that has been passed to me. Any presence was breaking the basic principles of the great treaties.  If I remember correctly it might be the Eagle treaty or the Treaty of Isis.   If there was a treaty with the moors  it wasn't with the people of Turtle Island in terms of claim or land.   According to those stories anyone from another region who was here claiming anything was breaking the great treaties that were signed between all people along time before America was established.  The Moors or whatnot had no claim to Turtle Island anymore then the Europeans had claim when they came over.  

 I can see there will likely be no agreement on this but just realize that the oral histories that have been passed to you aren't quite the same, some similarities it seems to some of the oral histories that exists amongst other people. Perhap ALL people have been doing some forgeting.

 

 

Quote:

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.

 Yes and before the modern concept of race  came into usage (only a few hundred years) that pegged white and black into usage all of the 'whites' were tribal as well.  European history is not a history of countries fighting each other but of  basically one tribe fighting the other, merging with each, marrying each other for alliances sake etc etc.  Some people in Europe still even have clans and recognize the intercountry areas as traditionally belong to one group or another.  One only has to look at the rivalries between different modern countries or with people within modern countries to know that we aren't that far from it and much of it is an illusion.   Even in the early modern history in Canada and America there were 'tribal' divisions based on country of origin or religion.

I think it may have been the north FN groups who did not allow any moors to come because they were def there in the southern USA for example the evidence is still there and the olmecz retained ties so they where there too. Also tho the practice of sending kids to another place to learn basically trading kids has been a common practice so there was proly that too. N also the stories for example of the red eagle being captured by the white eagle and then freed by the blacc one and together they drive the white eagle bacc also shows they knew unity would be needed in the end.

Merowe

I'd recommend the book '1491' for a fascinating survey of recent archaelogy of the Americas.

Speaking to the conjecture around a 'Moorish' presence in America, the very term is confusing to me since Moor in my understanding connotes the Islamicized North African cultures that expanded into southern Europe before the middle ages.

Unless there is semantic confusion this would put a limit to how far back we can go to look for Moorish colonization of any part of the Americas.I am also curious at the dearth of historical and material evidence to support the notion. Unless evidence has been deliberately suppressed any direct genetic links between various African populations and American - predating modern slavery - would long ago have made waves in the scientific community, you couldn't keep the lid on something like that.

Furthermore genetic evidence indicates that Africans' closest biological kin are Europeans.

Also, something to do with haploids I recall: at any rate North American Indians carry 11 different types where Europeans have 47 or so. This suggests population bottlenecks in the early American inhabitants, wherever they came from - and also explains in part their increased vulnerability to European diseases apparently. This all seems credible enough to me and could be cross-referenced to explore the African link.

remind remind's picture

There is no historical findings of evidence of the Southwest Anasazi, or the Mississipians having any "Moorish/African/" influence within their societies. Nor is there any in the Archaic Floridian and lower Mississipian peoples, nor any in the Paleo Indian  and Early Archaic eras either.

remind remind's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
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.

I forget which Gear book it was contained in and the resources they listed, that I explored, it was a few years back now.

But the gist is, they now know there was a large shallow central sea  that lead to the formation of the upper Great lakes at the end of the last ice age, when doing digs in this area, archeologists found large amounts of ancient human bones, perhaps predating the paleo Indians, scattered in amongst the glacial till, that appears to have been all thrown together in a massive out pouring  of water. The theory being that when the glaciers collapsed en masse, there was a huge explusion of water, till and the peoples did not have time to flee the on slot brought about by the collapse.  This  findings of bones mixed with glacial till, means that the First Peoples  were present for sure at the time of the central sea and the collapse of the glaciers, and indeed either lived in the shadow of them, or under them.

Under them is extremely plausible, as they were miles thick in places and would be honey combed with caverns and tunnels just as glaciers are today. Having fire in them would not be any different than in an Igloo, and less so because they could have bigger fires. And they would escape the climatic external conditions around the glaciers, that would suffer under if they lived in the shadow.

Currently accepted in NA history, excluding Mexico,  and cCentral America are;  First Peoples dates going back 13,000 years with the Paleo Indian, then Early Archaic, at about 7300 -6000 BCE,  Archaic, around 6000-3000 BCE,  Basketmakers around 3000-1500 BCE, Woodland about 1500-100 CE, Mississipian, and Pueblo around 800-1000 CE.

However, with the findings in the Great Lakes area, and the chert blade recently found in the Jamestown area, from the time when NA and Europe were covered in Ice, suggest  that their were pockets of Peoples living here throughout the ice age.

Then of course there is what Eliza has recounted by way of oral traditions, being found to be true.

oldgoat

This is getting long.

Pages

Topic locked