...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Palo-Americans and their descendants
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [qb] Doug [QUOTE] You are stuck on using terms like African, Negroid and Mongoloid that have NO BEARING on the facts we are discussing. By the time the aboriginal types reached Australia and New Guinea, they were not AFRICANS anymore as AFRICAN refers to a geographic place. And by the time that they crossed into the Americas, this was even MORE true. So WHAT ON EARTH are you talking about? They WERE NOT AFRICANS. [/QUOTE]You live in a fantasy world of your own making. These are the terms used to refer to these populations by modern anthropologists stupid. In your world these terms no longer exist but in the literature I cited above they remain. Just because you prefer to look at the world in rose colored glasses that is your right. But it does not change the way science is presented fool. The Amerinds come from Siberia, so we say they are Asians. The white Americans come from Europe so we call them Europeans. Stupid, if the original Blacks of Asia came from Africa we can call them African fool, just like we call Blacks in America :African American. Get up off your knees. Read your own scholars instead of trying to protect white feelings teach the truth stupid boy. . [/qb][/QUOTE]The only one stuck in a world of rose colored glasses is you Clyde. You claim to be an African scholar who is attempting to redress the deception of white supremacy but it is YOU who cling to that same deception. And YOU ACKNOWLEDGE IT YOURSELF. Therefore, the only one stuck protecting WHITE SCHOLARSHIP IS YOU CLYDE. You are a joke. The point is YOU don't understand the reason why mixing terms like black, negroid and African are MEANINGLESS and THAT is why I am calling you DUMB. It is isn't about the scholarship from WHITES. It is that YOU PERSONALLY are too dumb to see that ALL of these terms simply mean the same thing: BLACK FOLKS. YOU are caught up in trying to make DISTINCTIONS that do NOTHING that change the facts and OVERLY COMPLICATE something QUITE SIMPLE. BLACK FOLKS are the oldest form of human on the planet. BLACK FOLKS are the most diverse population ON THE PLANET. BLACK FOLKS are the FIRST PEOPLE on every continent on earth. And ALL HUMANS originated in Africa as BLACK PEOPLE. The first NATIVE AMERICANS were BLACK PEOPLE of various types who MIGRATED to the Americas FROM ASIA and RETAINED many of the traits COMMON TO ALL EARLY HUMANS that migrated OOA. There is NOTHING EXTRA to ADD to it and YOUR ATTEMPTS to pretend to ADD VALUE to this by making up FAUX distinctions BETWEEN AND AMONG these BLACK FOLKS is retarded. And in all actuality you are only using WEASEL WORDS to try and make a CONCLUSION that has no merit. You want the first people of the Americas to be AFRICANS, but you HAVE NO PROOF that the first populations to populate the ENTIRE continent of the Americas came DIRECT from Africa. So instead of trying to provide proof, you resort to FAUX TYPOLOGIES to try and make your case. All so you can claim that these people were AFRICAN AMERICANS. How cute. Don't that just make everything swell..... BULLSH*T. HOW on earth were these AFRICANS if they came from ASIA Clyde? YOU posted maps CLAIMING to show the connections between Africans and the first Americans and NOT ONE of those maps actually showed this. And so of course, you instead rely on your usual bag of tricks involving HALF BAKED premises and contorted logic to make your case. Please stop clowning yourself and start making sense for a change. I am not at all against the idea that Africans may have indeed been some of the first migrants to the Americas many thousands of years ago. However, I disagree with YOUR METHODOLOGY, which relies on TWISTED LOGIC as opposed to DIRECT EVIDENCE and convincing proof. All of which makes something that has merit into something of a laughable position, simply because YOUR METHODOLOGY is so questionable in many cases. It isn't that THE IDEA is bad in itself, it is that YOU don't follow through and make a convincing case for it. And yes, black folks only means people with dark skin. That is the point. [/qb][/QUOTE]You wouldn't know methodology if you tripped over it. There is only one methodology in science: you make a hypothesis and support it with evidence. The aim of science is theory construction (F.N. Kirlinger, Foundations of behavior research, (1986) pp.6-10; R. Braithwaite, Scientific explanation, (1955) pp.1-10). A theory is a set of interrelated constructs, propositions and definitions, that provide a systematic understanding of phenomena by outlining relations among a group of variables that explain and predict phenomena. There are four methods of knowing 1) Method of tenacity (one holds firmly to the truth, because "they know it" to be true); 2) method of authority (the method of established belief, i.e., the Bible or the "experts" says it, it is so); 3) method of intuition (the method where a proposition agrees with reason, but not necessarily with experience); and 4) the method of science (the method of attaining knowledge which calls for self-correction). You use the method of authority. Because you have been beatdown by white supremacy anything an establishment Europeab writes must be correct especially when it appears in a referred journal as long as it agrees with your bias. Since your research is based on the method of authority you don't know how to make hypotheses. What you do is simply repeat what you read without any analysis. Scientist, real reasearchers make hypotheses. Mike made a hypothesis and we supported it with data. You on the other otherhand, make statements absent supporting evidence. Since you are a midget in the world of research and think like whites. Anybody dark skinned is Black to you, when the term Black refers to people of African origin. As a result, when books recognize that the Australians and Melanesians are not alike you continue to advocate the idea they are one and the same eventhough Australians represent the OOA population, and the Melanesians do not appear in mainland Asia until 18kya, 12k after homo sapiens arrived in South America. Next you claim that just because some one is dark skinned they much be labled Black. And eventhough whites in America are called Europeans; Blacks African Americans; and Amerinds Asians--you can not call the people who settled Asia and the Americas from Africa Africans, eventhough we call the former slaves of African origin: African Americans. Oh you confused ignorant fool. Scientific inquiry involves issues of theory construction, control and experimentation. Scientific knowledge must rest on testing, rather than mere induction which can be defined as inferences of laws and generalizations, derived from observation. This falsity of logical possibility is evident in the rejection of the of the idea that Africans were not the first settlers of America, when we know that: 1) Africans had the naval technology to make a voyage to America; 2) no one could cross the Beringa between 110kya to 12kya , yet numerous skeletal remains dating back to 30kya have been found on the east coast of the Americas, coastline that could be easy reached by currents; and 3) the craniometrics make it clear the people were of the Melanesian/African type. Your answer to this evidence is: The first Blacks to arrive in America were members of the OOA population that crossed Beringa. Yet you provide no data in support of this idea which disconfirms the evidence of a connection. Oh what a fool you are. Stop claiming to be a careful researcher and supporter of science. You only support what you believe in--not what the science says. . [/qb][/QUOTE]Clyde, you can't read and are dumb. I said that the first populations of the Americas were like Australian aborigines. They were NOT Africans. So please go somewhere else with your nonsense. Only you are the one TRIPPING over words and insisting on using terms like AFRICAN to refer to populations that had not been in Africa for over 30,000 years by the time they reached Africa. YOU are simply silly and here is YOUR OWN convoluted logic: [QUOTE][b] Let's look at the facts: 1) the Australians represent the OOA population that settled Asia [/b][/QUOTE]So that makes them AFRICANS does it not? Nobody said that the first Americans were not black. The point is YOU have provided NO EVIDENCE of Africans colonizing the American continent 30,000 years ago. On top of that it has been shown over and over again that some of the earliest skulls found in south America were closer to AUSTRALIANS AND AFRICANS than modern native Americans. You only present nonsense in the way of conjecture in terms of what "TYPES" of blacks were in Asia versus what TYPES of blacks were in Africa and how YOU can tell (with no evidence) that the features of the first Americans are the result of DIRECT migrations from Africa. Blacks don't have to be from Africa to be BLACKS Clyde. Most native American populations are descended from people like Australian Aborigines Clyde. And they are indeed black and those first migrations from Asia into the Americas were LIKE them and ALSO black Clyde. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3