posted
Note: Those on the fringe are *NOT* Afrocentrists in the sense that they are a minority voice, most "Afrocentrists" don't believe in Black Olmecs and Black Greeks
When I weigh the two, Eurocentrism and Eurocentric thought by far exceed any extremism and untruths by "Afrocentrists." Eurocentrism relies heavily on old colonial and antiquated anthropology and ideology from the past.
Eurocentrists call anything "Afrocentric lies" if it doesn't meet or agree with Eurocentric rules and ideology, thus for example, the concept of Elongated Africans is considered an Afrocentric lie because so called "Afrocentrists" reject the notion that Elongated Africans are tropically adapted Europeans or "Caucasoids."
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
W.E.B. DuBois firmly placed the presence of Blacks in ancient America and Greece as legitimate research areas. In The Gift of Black Folks (1924), he discussed the Black presence in ancient America, including European references to Pre-Columbian Blacks, and the influence of Africans on the Amerindian religions.
In The World and Africa, DuBois (1965) provides a full explanation of the role of Blacks in the early world. He explains the history of Blacks in China and India (pp.176-200); Blacks in Europe(the Pre-Indo-European Greeks and during the Dark Age of Greece), and Asia Minor (pp. 115-127), and the Egyptian foundation of Grecian thought (pp. 125-126).
Are you saying WEB DuBois is on the fringe ?
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
W.E.B. DuBois firmly placed the presence of Blacks in ancient America and Greece as legitimate research areas. In The Gift of Black Folks (1924), he discussed the Black presence in ancient America, including European references to Pre-Columbian Blacks, and the influence of Africans on the Amerindian religions.
In The World and Africa, DuBois (1965) provides a full explanation of the role of Blacks in the early world. He explains the history of Blacks in China and India (pp.176-200); Blacks in Europe(the Pre-Indo-European Greeks and during the Dark Age of Greece), and Asia Minor (pp. 115-127), and the Egyptian foundation of Grecian thought (pp. 125-126).
Are you saying WEB DuBois is on the fringe ?
He wasn't right about everything and Blacks being in Pre-Columbian America is possible but not Black Olmecs.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Just curious Charlie, what DOES a non-fringe Afrocentris believe?
They do proper research and have standards and just don't say and proclaim what they want and say thats it true because Eurocentrists have done it in the past. Take that answer and apply it and then you'll be able to separate the fringe from the non-fringe.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
W.E.B. DuBois firmly placed the presence of Blacks in ancient America and Greece as legitimate research areas. In The Gift of Black Folks (1924), he discussed the Black presence in ancient America, including European references to Pre-Columbian Blacks, and the influence of Africans on the Amerindian religions.
In The World and Africa, DuBois (1965) provides a full explanation of the role of Blacks in the early world. He explains the history of Blacks in China and India (pp.176-200); Blacks in Europe(the Pre-Indo-European Greeks and during the Dark Age of Greece), and Asia Minor (pp. 115-127), and the Egyptian foundation of Grecian thought (pp. 125-126).
Are you saying WEB DuBois is on the fringe ?
He wasn't right about everything and Blacks being in Pre-Columbian America is possible but not Black Olmecs.
What are you talking about the Olmec were pre-Columbian Blacks.
Also, please explain why DuBois was wrong about the Black ancient Americans and Black Greeks.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Just curious Charlie, what DOES a non-fringe Afrocentris believe?
They do proper research and have standards and just don't say and proclaim what they want and say thats it true because Eurocentrists have done it in the past. Take that answer and apply it and then you'll be able to separate the fringe from the non-fringe.
Are you saying that DuBois did not do proper research and practice standards when he wrote about the Black Greeks and Olmecs (remember they didn't use the term Olmecs back then, they only talked about the giant heads)?
W.E.B. DuBois firmly placed the presence of Blacks in ancient America and Greece as legitimate research areas. In The Gift of Black Folks (1924), he discussed the Black presence in ancient America, including European references to Pre-Columbian Blacks, and the influence of Africans on the Amerindian religions.
In The World and Africa, DuBois (1965) provides a full explanation of the role of Blacks in the early world. He explains the history of Blacks in China and India (pp.176-200); Blacks in Europe(the Pre-Indo-European Greeks and during the Dark Age of Greece), and Asia Minor (pp. 115-127), and the Egyptian foundation of Grecian thought (pp. 125-126).
Are you saying WEB DuBois is on the fringe ?
He wasn't right about everything and Blacks being in Pre-Columbian America is possible but not Black Olmecs.
What are you talking about the Olmec were pre-Columbian Blacks.
Also, please explain why DuBois was wrong about the Black ancient Americans and Black Greeks.
Cite the work disputing the findings of DuBois.
.
There is no evidence of black ancient Greeks, just because DuBois said it doesn't make it true.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Just curious Charlie, what DOES a non-fringe Afrocentris believe?
They do proper research and have standards and just don't say and proclaim what they want and say thats it true because Eurocentrists have done it in the past. Take that answer and apply it and then you'll be able to separate the fringe from the non-fringe.
Are you saying that DuBois did not do proper research and practice standards when he wrote about the Black Greeks and Olmecs (remember they didn't use the term Olmecs back then, they only talked about the giant heads)?
,
Show the me evidence that DuBois did research that conclsuively proved that ancient Greeks were originally black. Its a fringe position that even the majority of Afrocentrists reject.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
W.E.B. DuBois firmly placed the presence of Blacks in ancient America and Greece as legitimate research areas. In The Gift of Black Folks (1924), he discussed the Black presence in ancient America, including European references to Pre-Columbian Blacks, and the influence of Africans on the Amerindian religions.
In The World and Africa, DuBois (1965) provides a full explanation of the role of Blacks in the early world. He explains the history of Blacks in China and India (pp.176-200); Blacks in Europe(the Pre-Indo-European Greeks and during the Dark Age of Greece), and Asia Minor (pp. 115-127), and the Egyptian foundation of Grecian thought (pp. 125-126).
Are you saying WEB DuBois is on the fringe ?
He wasn't right about everything and Blacks being in Pre-Columbian America is possible but not Black Olmecs.
What are you talking about the Olmec were pre-Columbian Blacks.
Also, please explain why DuBois was wrong about the Black ancient Americans and Black Greeks.
Cite the work disputing the findings of DuBois.
.
There is no evidence of black ancient Greeks, just because DuBois said it doesn't make it true.
I am not asking your opinion, what evidence supports your conclusion?
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Just curious Charlie, what DOES a non-fringe Afrocentris believe?
They do proper research and have standards and just don't say and proclaim what they want and say thats it true because Eurocentrists have done it in the past. Take that answer and apply it and then you'll be able to separate the fringe from the non-fringe.
Are you saying that DuBois did not do proper research and practice standards when he wrote about the Black Greeks and Olmecs (remember they didn't use the term Olmecs back then, they only talked about the giant heads)?
,
Show the me evidence that DuBois did research that conclsuively proved that ancient Greeks were originally black. Its a fringe position that even the majority of Afrocentrists reject.
You are just like the Eurocentrists. You have no evidence DuBois' is wrong but you call him a "fringe" individual when he is recognized as the greatest Afro-American historian and sociologist--just because his Black.
I accept DuBois' research as valid. You are saying he's wrong. Either put up the evidence or remain silent about matters you know nothing about.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
W.E.B. DuBois firmly placed the presence of Blacks in ancient America and Greece as legitimate research areas. In The Gift of Black Folks (1924), he discussed the Black presence in ancient America, including European references to Pre-Columbian Blacks, and the influence of Africans on the Amerindian religions.
In The World and Africa, DuBois (1965) provides a full explanation of the role of Blacks in the early world. He explains the history of Blacks in China and India (pp.176-200); Blacks in Europe(the Pre-Indo-European Greeks and during the Dark Age of Greece), and Asia Minor (pp. 115-127), and the Egyptian foundation of Grecian thought (pp. 125-126).
Are you saying WEB DuBois is on the fringe ?
He wasn't right about everything and Blacks being in Pre-Columbian America is possible but not Black Olmecs.
What are you talking about the Olmec were pre-Columbian Blacks.
Also, please explain why DuBois was wrong about the Black ancient Americans and Black Greeks.
Cite the work disputing the findings of DuBois.
.
There is no evidence of black ancient Greeks, just because DuBois said it doesn't make it true.
I am not asking your opinion, what evidence supports your conclusion?
.
What evidence do you have Clyde? You're basically trying to hide behind DuBois and put me in a position to where it looks like I'm attacking him when I'm not.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Just curious Charlie, what DOES a non-fringe Afrocentris believe?
They do proper research and have standards and just don't say and proclaim what they want and say thats it true because Eurocentrists have done it in the past. Take that answer and apply it and then you'll be able to separate the fringe from the non-fringe.
Are you saying that DuBois did not do proper research and practice standards when he wrote about the Black Greeks and Olmecs (remember they didn't use the term Olmecs back then, they only talked about the giant heads)?
,
Show the me evidence that DuBois did research that conclsuively proved that ancient Greeks were originally black. Its a fringe position that even the majority of Afrocentrists reject.
You are just like the Eurocentrists. You have no evidence DuBois' is wrong but you call him a "fringe" individual when he is recognized as the greatest Afro-American historian and sociologist--just because his Black.
I accept DuBois' research as valid. You are saying he's wrong. Either put up the evidence or remain silent about matters you know nothing about.
I said the position that ancient Greeks were black is fringe, not Du Bois and my intent was never to attack him. I'm asking *YOU* to prove that this was DuBois' position which you haven't proven yet, he never stated anything about Black Olmecs and ancient Greeks being black.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
W.E.B. DuBois firmly placed the presence of Blacks in ancient America and Greece as legitimate research areas. In The Gift of Black Folks (1924), he discussed the Black presence in ancient America, including European references to Pre-Columbian Blacks, and the influence of Africans on the Amerindian religions.
In The World and Africa, DuBois (1965) provides a full explanation of the role of Blacks in the early world. He explains the history of Blacks in China and India (pp.176-200); Blacks in Europe(the Pre-Indo-European Greeks and during the Dark Age of Greece), and Asia Minor (pp. 115-127), and the Egyptian foundation of Grecian thought (pp. 125-126).
Are you saying WEB DuBois is on the fringe ?
He wasn't right about everything and Blacks being in Pre-Columbian America is possible but not Black Olmecs.
What are you talking about the Olmec were pre-Columbian Blacks.
Also, please explain why DuBois was wrong about the Black ancient Americans and Black Greeks.
Cite the work disputing the findings of DuBois.
.
There is no evidence of black ancient Greeks, just because DuBois said it doesn't make it true.
I am not asking your opinion, what evidence supports your conclusion?
.
What evidence do you have Clyde? You're basically trying to hide behind DuBois and put me in a position to where it looks like I'm attacking him when I'm not.
You are attacking DuBois'. You wrote that the idea that the Olmec were Black African was on the "fringe".
I wrote that W.E.B. DuBois firmly placed the presence of Blacks in ancient America and Greece as legitimate research areas. In The Gift of Black Folks (1924), he discussed the Black presence in ancient America, including European references to Pre-Columbian Blacks, and the influence of Africans on the Amerindian religions.
Since I was talking about DuBois's work you are attacking him. As a result, it is up to you to prove that he was wrong by citing works that contradict his position.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Just curious Charlie, what DOES a non-fringe Afrocentris believe?
They do proper research and have standards and just don't say and proclaim what they want and say thats it true because Eurocentrists have done it in the past. Take that answer and apply it and then you'll be able to separate the fringe from the non-fringe.
Are you saying that DuBois did not do proper research and practice standards when he wrote about the Black Greeks and Olmecs (remember they didn't use the term Olmecs back then, they only talked about the giant heads)?
,
Show the me evidence that DuBois did research that conclsuively proved that ancient Greeks were originally black. Its a fringe position that even the majority of Afrocentrists reject.
You are just like the Eurocentrists. You have no evidence DuBois' is wrong but you call him a "fringe" individual when he is recognized as the greatest Afro-American historian and sociologist--just because his Black.
I accept DuBois' research as valid. You are saying he's wrong. Either put up the evidence or remain silent about matters you know nothing about.
I said the position that ancient Greeks were black is fringe, not Du Bois and my intent was never to attack him. I'm asking *YOU* to prove that this was DuBois' position which you haven't proven yet, he never stated anything about Black Olmecs and ancient Greeks being black.
As I stated earliar : In The World and Africa (1965), DuBois provides a full explanation of the role of Blacks in the early world. He explains the history of Blacks in Europe(the Pre-Indo-European Greeks and during the Dark Age of Greece), and Asia Minor (pp. 115-127), and the Egyptian foundation of Grecian thought (pp. 125-126).Here I have listed the pages where he made the comments about Black Greeks.
Since he clearly made these comments you are attacking DuBois. It is obvious you don't know much about the ancient history of Blacks written from an Afro-American perspective. You appear to lack knowledge about Afro-American scholarship--where and what have you been all these years?
This is sad. Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Charlie Bass it is truely sad that you come into this forum and write about ancient Black history and you don't even know what the founders of this field of study wrote.
Knowledge is cumulative. In other words we build new knowledge on the research of the giants in our field. From your lack of knowledge about DuBois' it is clear you have no recognition of the fact that what you guys are writing about has already been discussed formerly, and your job should be confirming or disconfirming what these giants wrote.
I teach educational philosophy on occasion. In this class I just don't talk about contemporary educators I also talk about the Greek philosophers.
Charlie I have posted the following previously. I hope you will read it this time and begin to recognize that what Mike, Marc and I write about is part of a 200 year tradition of Afro-American scholarship. Learn to respect your own scholars. Don't let white supremacy continue to blind you to the truths of history.
Afrocentrism, is a mature social science that was founded by Afro-Americans almost 200 years ago.
These men and women provided scholarship based on contemporary archaeological and historical research the African/Black origination of civilization throughout the world. These Afro-American scholars, mostly trained at Harvard University (one of the few Universities that admitted Blacks in the 19th Century) provide the scientific basis the global role played by African people in civilizing the world.
Afrocentrism and the africalogical study of ancient Black civilizations was began by Afro-Americans.
Edward Blyden
The foundation of any mature science is its articulation in an authoritive text (Kuhn, 1996, 136). The africalogical textbooks published by Hopkins (1905), Perry (1893) and Williams (1883) provided the vocabulary themes for further afrocentric social science research.
The pedagogy for ancient africalogical research was well established by the end of the 19th century by African American researchers well versed in the classical languages and knowledge of Greek and Latin. Cornish and Russwurm (1827) in the Freedom Journal, were the first African Americans to discuss and explain the "Ancient Model" of history.
These afrocentric social scientists used the classics to prove that the Blacks founded civilization in Egypt, Ethiopia, Babylon and Ninevah. Cornish and Russwurm (1827) made it clear that archaeological research supported the classical, or "Ancient Model" of history.
Edward Blyden (1869) also used classical sources to discuss the ancient history of African people. In his work he not only discussed the evidence for Blacks in West Asia and Egypt, he also discussed the role of Blacks in ancient America (Blyden, 1869, 78).
By 1883, africalogical researchers began to publish book on African American history. G.W. Williams (1883) wrote the first textbook on African American history. In the History of the Negro Race in America, Dr. Williams provided the schema for all future africalogical history text.
Dr. Williams (1883) confirmed the classical traditions for Blacks founding civilization in both Africa (Egypt, Ethiopia) and West Asia. In addition, to confirming the "Ancient Model" of history, Dr. Williams (1883) also mentioned the presence of Blacks in Indo-China and the Malay Peninsula. Dr. Williams was trained at Howard.
A decade later R.L. Perry (1893) also presented evidence to confirm the classical traditions of Blacks founding Egypt, Greece and the Mesopotamian civilization. He also provided empirical evidence for the role of Blacks in Phoenicia, thus increasing the scope of the ASAH paradigms.
Pauline E. Hopkins (1905) added further articulation of the ASAH paradigms of the application of these paradigms in understanding the role of Blacks in West Asia and Africa. Hopkins (1905) provided further confirmation of the role of Blacks in Southeast Asia, and expanded the scope of africalogical research to China (1905).
This review of the 19th century africalogical social scientific research indicate confirmation of the "Ancient Model" for the early history of Blacks. We also see a movement away from self-published africalogical research, and publication of research, and the publication of research articles on afrocentric themes, to the publication of textbooks.
It was in these books that the paradigms associated with the "Ancient Model" and ASAH were confirmed, and given reliability by empirical research. It was these texts which provided the pedagogic vehicles for the perpetuation of the africalogical normal social science.
The afrocentric textbooks of Hopkins (1905), Perry (1893) and Williams (1883) proved the reliability and validity of the ASAH paradigms. The discussion in these text of contemporary scientific research findings proving the existence of ancient civilizations in Egypt, Nubia-Sudan (Kush), Mesopotamia, Palestine and North Africa lent congruency to the classical literature which pointed to the existence of these civilizations and these African origins ( i.e., the children of Ham= Khem =Kush?).
The authors of the africalogical textbooks reported the latest archaeological and anthropological findings. The archaeological findings reported in these textbooks added precision to their analysis of the classical and Old Testament literature. This along with the discovery of artifacts on the ancient sites depicting Black\African people proved that the classical and Old Testament literature, as opposed to the "Aryan Model", objectively identified the Black\African role in ancient history. And finally, these textbooks confirmed that any examination of references in the classical literature to Blacks in Egypt, Kush, Mesopotamia and Greece\Crete exhibited constancy to the evidence recovered from archaeological excavations in the Middle East and the Aegean. They in turn disconfirmed the "Aryan Model", which proved to be a falsification of the authentic history of Blacks in early times.
The creation of africalogical textbooks provided us with a number of facts revealing the nature of the afrocentric ancient history paradigms. They include a discussion of:
1) the artifacts depicting Blacks found at ancient sites
recovered through archaeological excavation;
2) the confirmation of the validity of the classical and Old
Testament references to Blacks as founders of civilization in Africa and Asia;
3) the presence of isolated pockets of Blacks existing outside Africa; and
4) that the contemporary Arab people in modern Egypt are not the descendants of the ancient Egyptians.
The early africalogical textbooks also outlined the africalogical themes research should endeavor to study. A result, of the data collected by the africalogical ancient history research pioneers led to the development of three facts by the end of the 19th century, which needed to be solved by the afrocentric paradigms: (1) What is the exact relationship of ancient Egypt, to Blacks in other parts of Africa;
(2) How and when did Blacks settle America, Asia and Europe;
(3) What are the contributions of the Blacks to the rise, and cultural expression ancient Black\African civilizations;
(4) Did Africans settle parts of America in ancient times.
As you can see the structure of Afrocentrism were made long before Boas and the beginning of the 20th Century.In fact , I would not be surprised if Boas learned what he talked about from the early Afrocentric researchers discussed in this post.
As you can see Afro-Americans have be writing about the Global history of ancient Black civilizations for almost 200 years. It was Afro-Americans who first mentioned the African civilizations of West Africa and the Black roots of Egypt. These Afro-Americans made Africa a historical part of the world.
Afro-American scholars not only highlighted African history they also discussed the African/Black civilizations developed by African people outside Africa over a hundred years before Bernal and Boas.
Your history of what you call "negrocentric" or Black Studies is all wrong. It was DuBois who founded Black/Negro Studies, especially Afro-American studies given his work on the slave trade and sociological and historical studies of Afro-Americans. He mentions in the World and Africa about the Jews and other Europeans who were attempting to take over the field. Hansberry There is no one who can deny the fact that Leo Hansberry founded African studies in the U.S., not the Jews.Hansberry was a professor at Howard University.
Moreover, Bernal did not initiate any second wave of "negro/Blackcentric" study for ancient Egyptian civilization. Credit for this social science push is none other than Chiek Diop, who makes it clear that he was influenced by DuBois.
DuBois
These scholars recognized that the people of ancient Greece, Southeast Asia and Indo-China were dark skined, some darker than African and Afro-American people. But when they discussed Blacks in Asia they were talking about people of African descent.
REFERENCES
Anselin, A. (1982). Le mythe d' Europe. Paris: Editions Anthropos.
Bernal, M. (1996, Spring). The Afrocentric interpretation of history: Bernal replies to Lefkowitz. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 86-95.
Bernal,M. (1987). Black Athena. New York: Free Association Press. Volume 1.
________. (1991). Black Athena. New York: Free Association Press. Volume 2.
Blyden, E.W. ( January, 1869). The Negro in ancient history.
Methodist Quarterly Review, 71-93.
Blyden, E.W. (1887). Christianity, Islam and the Negro Race. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
_____________. (1890). The African Problem and the method for
its solution. Washington, D.C.: Gibson Brothers.
_______________.(1905). West Africa before Europe. London:
C.M. Phillips.
Clegg, L.H. (1975). Who were the first Americans? The Black
Scholar, 7(1), 32-41.
Coleman, B.E. (1971). A history of Swahili, The Black Scholar,
2 (6), 13-25.
Cornish, S. & Russwurm, J.B. (1827). European colonies in America, Freedom Journal, 1.
Carruthers, J. (1977). Writing for Eternity, black book bulletin,
5 (2), 32-35.
Carruthers, J. (1980). Reflections on the history of afrocentric
worldview, black book bulletin, 7(1), 4-13, 25.
Delany, M.R. (1978). The origin of races and color. Baltimore, M.D.: Black Classic Press.
Diop,C.A. (1974). The African Origin of Civilization. (ed. & Trans) by Mercer Cook, Westport:Lawrence Hill & Company.
_________.(1977). Parente genetique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique et
des Languaes Negro-Africaines. Dakar: IFAN ,Les Nouvelles
Editions Africaines.
__________.(1978) The Cultural Unity of Black Africa. Chicago: Third World Press.
__________. (1981). A Methodology for the study of migration.
UNESCO (Ed.), African Ethnonyms and Toponyms, (pp.87-110).
Paris: UNESCO.
___________.(1986). "Formation of the Berber Branch". In Libya
Antiqua. (ed.) by Unesco,(Paris: UNESCO) pp.69-73.
____________.(1987). Precolonial Black Africa. (trans. ) by
Harold Salemson, Westport: Lawrence Hill & Company.
____________.(1988). Nouvelles recherches sur l'Egyptien ancient
et les langues Negro-Africaines Modernes. Paris: Presence
Africaine.
_____________(1991). Civilization or Barbarism: An Authentic Anthropology. (trans.) by Yaa-Lengi Meema Ngemi and (ed.) by
H.J. Salemson and Marjoliiw de Jager, Westport:Lawrence
Hill and Company.
Douglas, F. (1966). The claims of the Negro ethnologically considered. In H. Brotz (Ed.), Negro social and political
thought (pp. 226-244). New York: Basic Books, Inc., Pub.
DuBois, W.E.B. (1924). The Gift of Black Folks. Boston.
DuBois, W.E.B. (1970). The Negro. New York: Oxford University
Press.
DuBois, W.E.B. (1965). The world and Africa. New York :
International Publishers Co., Inc.
Ferris, W.H. (1913). The African abroad. 2 vols. New Haven,CT
:Tuttle, Morehouse and Taylor.
Garvey, M. (1966). Who and What is a Negro. In H. Brotz (Ed.), Negro social and political thought (pp. 560-562).New York: Basic Books, Inc. Publishers.
Graves, Robert. (1980). The Greek Myths. Middlesex:Peguin Books
Ltd. 2 volumes.
Hansberry, L.H. (1981). Africa and Africans: As seen by classical
writers (Vol. 2). Washington, D.C.: Howard University Press.
Hopkins, P.E. (1905). A Primer of Facts pertaining to the early greatness of the african race and the possibility of restoration by its descendants-with epilogue. Cambridge: P.E. Hopkins & Com.
Hume, D. (1875). Essays: Moral political and literary. T.H. Green
and T.H. Grose. 2 Vols. London.
Jackson, J. (1974). Introduction to African civilization.
Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel Press.
James, G.M. (1954). Stolen legacy. New York: Philosophical Library.
Kuhn, T.S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolution.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lacouperie, Terrien de. (1891). The black heads of Babylonia and ancient China, The Babylonian and Oriental Record, 5 (11), 233-246.
Lawrence, H.G. (1962). African explorers of the New World,
The Crisis, 321-332.
Merton, R.K. (1957). Social theory aand social structure.
Glencoe, Ill. : The Free Press.
Moitt,B. (1989). "Chiekh Anta Diop and the African Diaspora:
Historical Continuity and Socio-Cultural Symbolism".
Presence Africaine, no. 149-150:347-360.
Parker,G.W. (1917) . "The African Origin of Grecian Civilization
".Journal of Negro History, 2(3):334-344.
___________. (1981). The Children of the Sun. Baltimore,Md.:
Black Classic Press.
Perry, R.L. (1893). The Cushite. Brooklyn: The Literary Union.
Rawlinson, George. (1928).The History of Herodutus. New York
: Tudor.
Schomburg, A.A. (March, 1925).The Negro digs up his past.
Thompson, Jr. A.A. (1975). Pre-Columbian [African] presence
in the Western Hemisphere,Negro History Bulletin, 38 (7), 452-456.
Williams, G.W. (1869). History of the Negro Race in America. New York: G.P. Putnam.
Wimby, D. (1980). The Greco-Roman Tradition concerning Ethiopia and Egypt, black books bulletin, 7(1), 14-19, 25.
Winters, C.A. (1977). The influence of the Mande scripts on ancient American writing systems", Bulletin l'de IFAN, T39, serie B, no. 2 (1977), pp.941-967.
Winters, C.A. (1979). Manding Scripts in the New World", Journal of African Civilizations, l(1), 80-97.
Winters,C.A. (December 1981/ January 1982). Mexico's Black Heritage. The Black Collegian, 76-84.
Winters, C.A. (1983a). "The Ancient Manding Script". In Blacks
in Science:Ancient and Modern. (ed.) by Ivan van Sertima, (New Brunswick: Transaction Books) pp.208-215.
__________. (1983b). "Les Fondateurs de la Grece venaient d'Afrique en passant par la Crete". Afrique Histoire (Dakar), no.8:13-18.
_________. (1983c) "Famous Black Greeks Important in the development of Greek Culture". Return to the Source,2(1):8.
________.(1983d). "Blacks in Ancient China, Part 1, The Founders
of Xia and Shang", Journal of Black Studies 1 (2), 8-13.
________. (1984a). "Blacks in Europe before the Europeans".
Return to the Source, 3(1):26-33.
Winters, C.A. (1984b). Blacks in Ancient America, Colorlines, 3(2), 27-28.
Winters, C.A. (1984c). Africans found first American Civilization , African Monitor, l , pp.16-18.
_________.(1985a). "The Indus Valley Writing and related
Scripts of the 3rd Millennium BC". India Past and
Present, 2(1):13-19.
__________. (1985b). "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians,
Manding and Sumerians". Tamil Civilization,3(1):1-9.
__________. (1985c). "The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils",
Journal of Tamil Studies , no.27, pp.65-92.
__________.(1986). The Migration Routes of the Proto-Mande.
The Mankind Quarterly,27 (1), 77-96.
_________.(1986b). Dravidian Settlements in Ancient Polynesia.
India Past and Present, 3 (2), 225-241.
__________. (1988). "Common African and Dravidian Place Name
Elements". South Asian Anthropologist, 9(1):33-36.
__________. (1989a). "Tamil, Sumerian, Manding and the Genetic
Model". International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics,18(1):98-127.
__________. (1989b). "Review of Dr. Asko Parpola's 'The Coming of the Aryans'",International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 18(2):98-127.
__________. (1990). "The Dravido-Harappan Colonization of Central Asia". Central Asiatic Journal, 34(1/2):120-144.
___________. (1991). "The Proto-Sahara". The Dravidian Encyclopaedia, (Trivandrum: International School of Dravidian Linguistics) pp.553-556. Volume l.
----------.(1994). Afrocentrism: A valid frame of reference, Journal of Black Studies, 25 (2), 170-190.
_________.(1994b). The Dravidian and African laguages, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 23 (1), 34-52.
________.2007. Afrocentrism Myth or Science.www.lulu.com Here
Woodson, C.G. & Wesley, C.H. (1972). The Negro in Our History. Washington, D.C. Associated Publisher.
Get up off your knees and learn from the Afro-American scholars who began the study of Blacks in ancient history.
In conclusion, Afrocentrism is a mature social science. A social science firmly rooted in the scholarship of Afro-American researchers lasting almost 200 years. Researchers like Marc Washington, Mike and I are continuing a tradition of scholarship began 20 decades ago. All we are doing is confirming research by DuBois and others, that has not been disconfirmed over the past 200 years.
Aluta continua.....The struggle continues.....
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Just curious Charlie, what DOES a non-fringe Afrocentris believe?
They do proper research and have standards and just don't say and proclaim what they want and say thats it true because Eurocentrists have done it in the past. Take that answer and apply it and then you'll be able to separate the fringe from the non-fringe.
Are you saying that DuBois did not do proper research and practice standards when he wrote about the Black Greeks and Olmecs (remember they didn't use the term Olmecs back then, they only talked about the giant heads)?
,
Show the me evidence that DuBois did research that conclsuively proved that ancient Greeks were originally black. Its a fringe position that even the majority of Afrocentrists reject.
You are just like the Eurocentrists. You have no evidence DuBois' is wrong but you call him a "fringe" individual when he is recognized as the greatest Afro-American historian and sociologist--just because his Black.
I accept DuBois' research as valid. You are saying he's wrong. Either put up the evidence or remain silent about matters you know nothing about.
I said the position that ancient Greeks were black is fringe, not Du Bois and my intent was never to attack him. I'm asking *YOU* to prove that this was DuBois' position which you haven't proven yet, he never stated anything about Black Olmecs and ancient Greeks being black.
As I stated earliar : In The World and Africa (1965), DuBois provides a full explanation of the role of Blacks in the early world. He explains the history of Blacks in Europe(the Pre-Indo-European Greeks and during the Dark Age of Greece), and Asia Minor (pp. 115-127), and the Egyptian foundation of Grecian thought (pp. 125-126).Here I have listed the pages where he made the comments about Black Greeks.
Since he clearly made these comments you are attacking DuBois. It is obvious you don't know much about the ancient history of Blacks written from an Afro-American perspective. You appear to lack knowledge about Afro-American scholarship--where and what have you been all these years?
This is sad.
I'm not attacking DuBois, I'm asking you to post where he states that ancient Greeks are black and that Olmecs were black. I don't have a lack of knowledge of African American scholars, but I just do not accept someone's scholarship just because they're black, I critically evaluate everything.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: thus for example, the concept of Elongated Africans is considered an Afrocentric lie because so called "Afrocentrists" reject the notion that Elongated Africans are tropically adapted Europeans or "Caucasoids."
So Charlie - Are YOU saying that "Elongated Africans" ARE tropically adapted Europeans or Caucasoids?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: thus for example, the concept of Elongated Africans is considered an Afrocentric lie because so called "Afrocentrists" reject the notion that Elongated Africans are tropically adapted Europeans or "Caucasoids."
So Charlie - Are YOU saying that "Elongated Africans" ARE tropically adapted Europeans or Caucasoids?
Of course not and anyone that knows me knows my position on this, why even ask that question?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^so called "Afrocentrists" reject the notion that Elongated Africans are tropically adapted Europeans or "Caucasoids."
So then you are saying that the "so called Afrocentrists" are right?
On this yes they are right because evidence proves this. There's nothing wrong with being Afrocentric as long as your assertions are supported with evidence.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^so called "Afrocentrists" reject the notion that Elongated Africans are tropically adapted Europeans or "Caucasoids."
So then you are saying that the "so called Afrocentrists" are right?
On this yes they are right because evidence proves this. There's nothing wrong with being Afrocentric as long as your assertions are supported with evidence.
What evidence would that be Charlie?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^so called "Afrocentrists" reject the notion that Elongated Africans are tropically adapted Europeans or "Caucasoids."
So then you are saying that the "so called Afrocentrists" are right?
On this yes they are right because evidence proves this. There's nothing wrong with being Afrocentric as long as your assertions are supported with evidence.
What evidence would that be Charlie?
Evidence from Hiernaux, Keita and genetics.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Just curious Charlie, what DOES a non-fringe Afrocentris believe?
They do proper research and have standards and just don't say and proclaim what they want and say thats it true because Eurocentrists have done it in the past. Take that answer and apply it and then you'll be able to separate the fringe from the non-fringe.
Are you saying that DuBois did not do proper research and practice standards when he wrote about the Black Greeks and Olmecs (remember they didn't use the term Olmecs back then, they only talked about the giant heads)?
,
Show the me evidence that DuBois did research that conclsuively proved that ancient Greeks were originally black. Its a fringe position that even the majority of Afrocentrists reject.
As usual, it is imperative to check Winters' references. look at gifts of black folk
1) the world Olmec does not appear in the index, not does a search turn it up.
2) Du Bois did no research about pre-columbian blacks. All that is covered is on p. 6 where basically Du Bois parrots Weiner's 1920 book,.
4) On page 6 Du Bois (based on Weiner, and Oviedo) claims that tobacco, sweet potato, cotton, peanuts , maize!!!, sugar cane, and manioc came to the New World from Africa. The only valid one is sugar cane and it came after 1492. see new world plantsPosts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^so called "Afrocentrists" reject the notion that Elongated Africans are tropically adapted Europeans or "Caucasoids."
So then you are saying that the "so called Afrocentrists" are right?
On this yes they are right because evidence proves this. There's nothing wrong with being Afrocentric as long as your assertions are supported with evidence.
How are you defining "Afrocentric"?
Posts: 7080 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^so called "Afrocentrists" reject the notion that Elongated Africans are tropically adapted Europeans or "Caucasoids."
So then you are saying that the "so called Afrocentrists" are right?
On this yes they are right because evidence proves this. There's nothing wrong with being Afrocentric as long as your assertions are supported with evidence.
How are you defining "Afrocentric"?
As being African-centered and focused on the study of African peoples, cultures, language, etc
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Just curious Charlie, what DOES a non-fringe Afrocentris believe?
They do proper research and have standards and just don't say and proclaim what they want and say thats it true because Eurocentrists have done it in the past. Take that answer and apply it and then you'll be able to separate the fringe from the non-fringe.
Are you saying that DuBois did not do proper research and practice standards when he wrote about the Black Greeks and Olmecs (remember they didn't use the term Olmecs back then, they only talked about the giant heads)?
,
Show the me evidence that DuBois did research that conclsuively proved that ancient Greeks were originally black. Its a fringe position that even the majority of Afrocentrists reject.
As usual, it is imperative to check Winters' references. look at gifts of black folk
1) the world Olmec does not appear in the index, not does a search turn it up.
2) Du Bois did no research about pre-columbian blacks. All that is covered is on p. 6 where basically Du Bois parrots Weiner's 1920 book,.
4) On page 6 Du Bois (based on Weiner, and Oviedo) claims that tobacco, sweet potato, cotton, peanuts , maize!!!, sugar cane, and manioc came to the New World from Africa. The only valid one is sugar cane and it came after 1492. see new world plants
As you know they did not use the word Olmec back in 1940's. Wiener was talking about the Tuxtla statue which is recognized as an Olmec artifact.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: ]I'm not attacking DuBois, I'm asking you to post where he states that ancient Greeks are black and that Olmecs were black. I don't have a lack of knowledge of African American scholars, but I just do not accept someone's scholarship just because they're black, I critically evaluate everything.
In The World and Africa (1965), DuBois provides a full explanation of the role of Blacks in the early world. He explains the history of Blacks in Europe(the Pre-Indo-European Greeks and during the Dark Age of Greece), and Asia Minor (pp. 115-127), and the Egyptian foundation of Grecian thought (pp. 125-126).
Above I have listed the pages where he made the comments about Black Greeks.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^so called "Afrocentrists" reject the notion that Elongated Africans are tropically adapted Europeans or "Caucasoids."
So then you are saying that the "so called Afrocentrists" are right?
On this yes they are right because evidence proves this. There's nothing wrong with being Afrocentric as long as your assertions are supported with evidence.
What evidence would that be Charlie?
Evidence from Hiernaux, Keita and genetics.
DuBois said the Egyptians were Black too--but it appears that you only rely on white scholars or Blacks that have been found acceptable by whites like Keita.
Are you attacking DuBois because whites don't accept his findings in relation to ancient Black cultures and civilizations?
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: All that is covered is on p. 6 where basically Du Bois parrots Weiner's 1920 book,.
4) On page 6 Du Bois (based on Weiner, and Oviedo) claims that tobacco, sweet potato, cotton, peanuts , maize!!!, sugar cane, and manioc came to the New World from Africa. The only valid one is sugar cane and it came after 1492. see new world plants
What makes Wiener and Oviedo wrong and you right. There is evidence of pre-Columbian Maize in Africa, and the Mayan word for maize is ka, just like the Mande word.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: ]I'm not attacking DuBois, I'm asking you to post where he states that ancient Greeks are black and that Olmecs were black. I don't have a lack of knowledge of African American scholars, but I just do not accept someone's scholarship just because they're black, I critically evaluate everything.
In The World and Africa (1965), DuBois provides a full explanation of the role of Blacks in the early world. He explains the history of Blacks in Europe(the Pre-Indo-European Greeks and during the Dark Age of Greece), and Asia Minor (pp. 115-127), and the Egyptian foundation of Grecian thought (pp. 125-126).
Above I have listed the pages where he made the comments about Black Greeks.
What does this have to do with my OP? You're changing the argument, I said the notion of ancient Greeks being black and Black Olmecs were fringe position, Du Bois never makes these claims as you have made them so whats your point Clyde? You gave the false impression that Du Bois made those claims yet when one reads the pages you gave none of those claims are found.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Note: Those on the fringe are *NOT* Afrocentrists in the sense that they are a minority voice, most "Afrocentrists" don't believe in Black Olmecs and Black Greeks
When I weigh the two, Eurocentrism and Eurocentric thought by far exceed any extremism and untruths by "Afrocentrists." Eurocentrism relies heavily on old colonial and antiquated anthropology and ideology from the past.
Eurocentrists call anything "Afrocentric lies" if it doesn't meet or agree with Eurocentric rules and ideology, thus for example, the concept of Elongated Africans is considered an Afrocentric lie because so called "Afrocentrists" reject the notion that Elongated Africans are tropically adapted Europeans or "Caucasoids."
It is not only "Afrocentrists" on this score but more objective scholars like Hiernaux 1975 and a lot of others. Keita on the cranial studies 1990, 1992 notes that even back in the early days of Egyptology there were scholars who dissented from the prevailing Aryan models and rendered a much more balanced picture of Africa and Africans. It took Afrocentrists in part to force a re-examination of certain assumptions and models. Today, the diversity of Africa, including the range of elongated and other types is mainstream scholarshship.
And of course so-called 'Afrocentrists" vary widely. They are not a monolithic group. Many for example reject assorted diffusionist theories holding Egypt to be the source of all subsequent culture and civilization development on the continent. And they don't see ancient Greece as a cultural clone of Egypt, nor are they celebrating early Egyptian gliders allegedly flitting thru the tombs of Thebes. And they dont need to "claim" Beethoven as "black", and other such allegedly monolithic Afrocentric "beliefs".
Too often the term "Afrocentrism" is used as a strawman, a diversion to hide, screen and distort the real scientific facts. Get them arguing over semantics about the word "black" for example, and a whole lot of profitable diversion can be made from the hard data on the ground.
Eurocentrics know full well that much of what 'Afrocentrists" say is true, but still need to maintain the diversionary propaganda front. Some are candid enough to admit the truth if an a low key way.
Others admit the truth but are quick to trot out the usual diversionary boogiemen to provide cover. Here's Donald redford for example:
[QUOTE:]
"The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time).
Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons...
Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization (rather than diffusion from sub-Saharan Africa, as claimed by some Afrocentric scholars.)"
[endquote] Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 28
redford admits the African foundations of Egypt but then a few years later writes a book with the presumptuous title: 'From Slave to Pharaoh: the Black Experience in Ancient Egypt.'
In it he conveniently skips over the foundations he documented earlier and jumps to New Kingdom struggles between Egypt and Nubia, effectively attempting to confine the so-called "black experience" to Nubian slaves & the relatively short 25th dyn period. You can see the hypocrisy and "spin", and the presumption of the academy. Any talk about "the black experience" has to begin with that African cultural substratum and the Saharan population movements into the Nile valley. But the "spin" of the academy is to create a propaganda image of alien "Nubians" who would appear sometime later on, like walk-on "colored" extras in "Gone with the WInd."
Furthermore it has been known for almost a century that the Nubians were ethnically the people closest to the Egyptians, but this too is screened and papered over with "spin." Redford in his book speaks of "letting the ancient inscriptions speak for themselves, and rounds up a series of statements about "wretched Kush", again to provide the bogus impression of some alien black "other", while carefully avoiding a roundup of similar statements directed towards "Caucasoid" Asiatics, and creating the impression of some sort of "racial wars" between Egypt and "Nubia" or "Kush."
Note I am not accusing such scholars of racism but they carry a certain mindset, and it is not only "Afrocentrists" who point out these problems. See below for example where one white academic criticizes some of the dubious work of Cavalli-Sforza and his methods and racial models of Africa and Africans. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007107;p=1#000000
But even this critic seems to accept certain beginning assumptions of Cavalli-Sforza as Keita notes in his follow-up critique.
It is these kinds of assumptions and sometimes cynical tactics, both in the academy and with assorted "biodiversity" types that ES is doing such a great job of exposing.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Just curious Charlie, what DOES a non-fringe Afrocentris believe?
They do proper research and have standards and just don't say and proclaim what they want and say thats it true because Eurocentrists have done it in the past. Take that answer and apply it and then you'll be able to separate the fringe from the non-fringe.
Are you saying that DuBois did not do proper research and practice standards when he wrote about the Black Greeks and Olmecs (remember they didn't use the term Olmecs back then, they only talked about the giant heads)?
,
Show the me evidence that DuBois did research that conclsuively proved that ancient Greeks were originally black. Its a fringe position that even the majority of Afrocentrists reject.
As usual, it is imperative to check Winters' references. look at gifts of black folk
1) the world Olmec does not appear in the index, not does a search turn it up.
2) Du Bois did no research about pre-columbian blacks. All that is covered is on p. 6 where basically Du Bois parrots Weiner's 1920 book,.
4) On page 6 Du Bois (based on Weiner, and Oviedo) claims that tobacco, sweet potato, cotton, peanuts , maize!!!, sugar cane, and manioc came to the New World from Africa. The only valid one is sugar cane and it came after 1492. see new world plants
As you know they did not use the word Olmec back in 1940's. Wiener was talking about the Tuxtla statue which is recognized as an Olmec artifact.
As is your custom, you habitually insert your own "interpretations" or recent research into the mouths of earlier "Afrocentric" scholars to bolster your citation base. Bass and this thread is dealing with the claim you say Du Bois made-- not your claims. neither Du Bois nor Wiener use the word Olmec, (w by the way, was used by Mesoamerican scholars way before 1940). What Du Bois said paraphrasing Wiener was (on p. 6)
quote:The chief cultural influence of Negro America was exerted by a negro colony in Mexico, most likely from Teotihuacan and Tuxtla, who may have been instrumental in establishing the city of Mexico. From here [Mexico] their influence pervaded the neighboring tribes and ultimately, directly or indirectly, reached Peru.
i.e. no "Black Olmecs" in Du Bois. Further, way before Wiener wrote his piece (1920) we had primary sources about the foundation of Tenochtitlan in 1325-- for example, the Codex Boturini and many others. NO Black founders. Tenochtitlan had fallen 600 years earlier and Tula {Tuxtla is an error by Wiener] was also not involved.
The bottom line, Wiener was wrong even by the standards and available knowledge at his time. How wrong do y'all think he is nowwith 90 more years or research. Wiener as a source is laugable as I have shown repeatedly here and elsewhere.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ All true. Dubois has nothing to say about Olmecs and such. More proof that so-called "Afrocentrics" are not a monolithic bloc that advocate black Olmecs or Black Greeks, and that there are indeed "fringe" beliefs out there, not backed by sufficient evidence.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Wiener as a source is laugable
As was your attempt to use Brace (1993) "clines" study to prove the AEs weren't related to "negros". Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Gentleman - There is the matter of the heads, and a plethora of other unmistakeably Black artifacts - would you care to speculate?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: All that is covered is on p. 6 where basically Du Bois parrots Weiner's 1920 book,.
4) On page 6 Du Bois (based on Weiner, and Oviedo) claims that tobacco, sweet potato, cotton, peanuts , maize!!!, sugar cane, and manioc came to the New World from Africa. The only valid one is sugar cane and it came after 1492. see new world plants
What makes Wiener and Oviedo wrong and you right. There is evidence of pre-Columbian Maize in Africa, and the Mayan word for maize is ka, just like the Mande word.
.
I have 500 years on Oviedo and 90 years on Wiener-- there have been some advances in botany and phytochemistry in the intervening time. For example, the studies by Wendel that showed that the hybridization of AADD American cotton in the New World took place 2 million years ago before the evolution of modern humans (much less the Mande). As I pointed out above, people who are interested in documented evidence about how wrong Wiener is about plants see plants New World
As usual, you made up the linguistics. Participants should notice that Winters' does not cite his references on the terms. His Mande source is De LaFosse. M. 1929. La Langue Mandinge et ses Dialectes 2vols. Paris: Paul Geuthner. {I can't reproduce all the diacritics in Mande of French]
Vol 1, p. 525 But ka is not the first listed meaning "ma-nyo;mara-nyo;naka-nyo;maka;kanga;kanga-ba;ka..."
If Winters were a true scholar and linguist, he would have pointed out that "nyo" means millet in Mande. True linguists know, that when foreign foods and plants are introduced into a new area they are usually named by adding a modifier to a native food. Thus, as expected, if we look at Vol.2 p. 484 we find, " maka "mais' (peut etre pour maka-nyo ou mara-nyo "mil de maitre', cf. ma-nyo a ma 1)
i.e. maize = "millet of the master (white man remember this is 1890)
Examples of this from my own studies-- the Aztecs (Nahuatl language) called wheat "castillan tlaolli" "Spanish maize" a direct analogy to the Mande usage. Also carrots were called "castillan camotli" "Spanish camote (akind of yam", and donkeys were called "castillan tochtli" "Spanish rabbit."
As usual,you just invented the supposed Maya name (perhaps you think that the participants don't have Maya dictionaries and won't check). Also real linguists know that the apostrophes in Maya words represent glottal stops and that glottal stops are consonants-- just like in Arabic. You have denied this in the past.
Here are the Maya words for maize : The standard Yucatec Maya dictionary is the Diccionario Maya Cordemex 1980. Merida, Yucatan: Ediciones Cordemex and my page citations come from there
p. 77 chakabye' = "maize kernels" p. 99 chik'in = a blue corn variety p. 275 ixim = generally maize (Zea mays) p. 372 k'ach = "flowering mize" p 557 nal= "corn cob" p. 708 sahem = a yellowish maize variety p; 713 sak tux = "a white indented maize variety" p. 944 xiim =" corn cobs that are saved for planting p. 966 yal nal= "a spoiled corn cob"
None of these are your claimed "ka"
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Gentleman - There is the matter of the heads, and a plethora of other unmistakeably Black artifacts - would you care to speculate?
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Just curious Charlie, what DOES a non-fringe Afrocentris believe?
They do proper research and have standards and just don't say and proclaim what they want and say thats it true because Eurocentrists have done it in the past. Take that answer and apply it and then you'll be able to separate the fringe from the non-fringe.
Are you saying that DuBois did not do proper research and practice standards when he wrote about the Black Greeks and Olmecs (remember they didn't use the term Olmecs back then, they only talked about the giant heads)?
,
Show the me evidence that DuBois did research that conclsuively proved that ancient Greeks were originally black. Its a fringe position that even the majority of Afrocentrists reject.
As usual, it is imperative to check Winters' references. look at gifts of black folk
1) the world Olmec does not appear in the index, not does a search turn it up.
2) Du Bois did no research about pre-columbian blacks. All that is covered is on p. 6 where basically Du Bois parrots Weiner's 1920 book,.
4) On page 6 Du Bois (based on Weiner, and Oviedo) claims that tobacco, sweet potato, cotton, peanuts , maize!!!, sugar cane, and manioc came to the New World from Africa. The only valid one is sugar cane and it came after 1492. see new world plants
As you know they did not use the word Olmec back in 1940's. Wiener was talking about the Tuxtla statue which is recognized as an Olmec artifact.
As is your custom, you habitually insert your own "interpretations" or recent research into the mouths of earlier "Afrocentric" scholars to bolster your citation base. Bass and this thread is dealing with the claim you say Du Bois made-- not your claims. neither Du Bois nor Wiener use the word Olmec, (w by the way, was used by Mesoamerican scholars way before 1940). What Du Bois said paraphrasing Wiener was (on p. 6)
quote:The chief cultural influence of Negro America was exerted by a negro colony in Mexico, most likely from Teotihuacan and Tuxtla, who may have been instrumental in establishing the city of Mexico. From here [Mexico] their influence pervaded the neighboring tribes and ultimately, directly or indirectly, reached Peru.
i.e. no "Black Olmecs" in Du Bois. Further, way before Wiener wrote his piece (1920) we had primary sources about the foundation of Tenochtitlan in 1325-- for example, the Codex Boturini and many others. NO Black founders. Tenochtitlan had fallen 600 years earlier and Tula {Tuxtla is an error by Wiener] was also not involved.
The bottom line, Wiener was wrong even by the standards and available knowledge at his time. How wrong do y'all think he is nowwith 90 more years or research. Wiener as a source is laugable as I have shown repeatedly here and elsewhere.
Tuxtla Statuette
You have never shown that Wiener was wrong.
Please demonstrate that his discussion of the influence of the Mande on the Mexicans were wrong.
Demonstrate that the cognate terms of Mexican languages and Mande don't exist.
You're such a fraud
Tuxtla was an Olmec center. So he was talking about Olmecs.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: ^^ All true. Dubois has nothing to say about Olmecs and such. More proof that so-called "Afrocentrics" are not a monolithic bloc that advocate black Olmecs or Black Greeks, and that there are indeed "fringe" beliefs out there, not backed by sufficient evidence.
Tuxtla was an Olmec center. So you don't know what you're talking about. Sure he did not use the term Olmec. This term was not used when Wiener and DuBois were writing.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ In which work does Wiener mention Tuxtla? Google Books has a PDF public domain file and it does not appear there either in his book "Africa and the discovery of America." Can you supply a direct quote and citation from your source?
Also your maize example seems uncertain as judged by your own reference. For example you say that there is evidence of "Pre-Columbian maize" but Wiener states: [quote]:
"Peter Martyr mistook the Indian maize for the Guinea corn" (sorghum vulgare), and applied it to the name which was already current in Spain or Portugal."
and
".. the appellation maize for the 'Indian corn' rests on a misunderstanding.." pg 123
In fact Weiner mentions this error twice. So which is it? You claim there was maize in Africa before Columbus, but the scholar you reference says that talk about "maize" is not that native to the Americas but a misunderstanding based on a comparison to African sorghums.
Are you saying that the South American grain we know as maize was already in Africa before Columbus? If so, what current scholars support that scenario?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: ^^ In which work does Wiener mention Tuxtla? Google Books has a PDF public domain file and it does not appear there either in his book "Africa and the discovery of America." Can you supply a direct quote and citation from your source?
Also your maize example seems uncertain as judged by your own reference. For example you say that there is evidence of "Pre-Columbian maize" but Wiener states: [quote]:
"Peter Martyr mistook the Indian maize for the Guinea corn" (sorghum vulgare), and applied it to the name which was already current in Spain or Portugal."
and
".. the appellation maize for the 'Indian corn' rests on a misunderstanding.." pg 123
In fact Weiner mentions this error twice. So which is it? You claim there was maize in Africa before Columbus, but the scholar you reference says that talk about "maize" is not that native to the Americas but a misunderstanding based on a comparison to African sorghums.
Are you saying that the South American grain we know as maize was already in Africa before Columbus? If so, what current scholars support that scenario?
MDW Jeffreys, in "Maize and the Mande Myth" Current Anthropology (1971) 12(3):291-305, supports the view that maize was in Africa before Columbus.
Wiener mentions Tuxtla in Africa and the Discovery of America, volume 3, p.271.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: As usual, you made up the linguistics. Participants should notice that Winters' does not cite his references on the terms. His Mande source is De LaFosse. M. 1929. La Langue Mandinge et ses Dialectes 2vols. Paris: Paul Geuthner. {I can't reproduce all the diacritics in Mande of French]
Vol 1, p. 525 But ka is not the first listed meaning "ma-nyo;mara-nyo;naka-nyo;maka;kanga;kanga-ba;ka..."
If Winters were a true scholar and linguist, he would have pointed out that "nyo" means millet in Mande. True linguists know, that when foreign foods and plants are introduced into a new area they are usually named by adding a modifier to a native food. Thus, as expected, if we look at Vol.2 p. 484 we find, " maka "mais' (peut etre pour maka-nyo ou mara-nyo "mil de maitre', cf. ma-nyo a ma 1)
i.e. maize = "millet of the master (white man remember this is 1890)
Examples of this from my own studies-- the Aztecs (Nahuatl language) called wheat "castillan tlaolli" "Spanish maize" a direct analogy to the Mande usage. Also carrots were called "castillan camotli" "Spanish camote (akind of yam", and donkeys were called "castillan tochtli" "Spanish rabbit."
As usual,you just invented the supposed Maya name (perhaps you think that the participants don't have Maya dictionaries and won't check). Also real linguists know that the apostrophes in Maya words represent glottal stops and that glottal stops are consonants-- just like in Arabic. You have denied this in the past.
Here are the Maya words for maize : The standard Yucatec Maya dictionary is the Diccionario Maya Cordemex 1980. Merida, Yucatan: Ediciones Cordemex and my page citations come from there
p. 77 chakabye' = "maize kernels" p. 99 chik'in = a blue corn variety p. 275 ixim = generally maize (Zea mays) p. 372 k'ach = "flowering mize" p 557 nal= "corn cob" p. 708 sahem = a yellowish maize variety p; 713 sak tux = "a white indented maize variety" p. 944 xiim =" corn cobs that are saved for planting p. 966 yal nal= "a spoiled corn cob"
None of these are your claimed "ka"
Delafosse makes it clear that the term for maize is ‘ka’ on page 315.
You are indeed the great deciever. In your post you mention Maya: k'ach = "flowering maize", this would be a good fit with Mande : Ka ‘maize’.
The best fit with Mande ka, is the Yucatec Maya word : co /ko ‘maize grain’ (See:M Swadish et al, Diccionario de elementos deel Maya Yucateco Colonial, p.40).
You are such a liar. Nyo is not the Mande term for maize, the term is ka. This is made clear by MDW Jeffreys, in Maize and Mande Myth( Current Anthropology (1971) 12(3):291-305), who notes that West African people who know of maize use the mande term ka to identify this cultigen. Based on the linguistic evidence Jeffreys is sure that the Mande spread cultivation of maize in West Africa before Columbus. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No scholarly input at all for me and I agree with Mike111, but... what are those colossal African heads or Australian heads doing in Central America? Or are you guys, not you Clyde Winters, going to continue to argue over a word here and there and ignore the heads that just happened to be buried in the dirt along a trail. The last archaeology magazine I read two years ago said mainstream is puzzled by the statues and how they got there. So this means they ain't there at all, is that right? I'm willing to bet if the statue had a long pointed nose and thin lips no one would moan and wail about that.
Hey bearded white sky-god Quetzalcoatl, you know about this? Who carved the statues and turned them into ''negroid''-looking types. Do you know? Do you?
Zarahan, other than you saying 'no Olmecs in Dubois'' can you explain these statues?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: No scholarly input at all for me and I agree with Mike111, but... what are those colossal African heads or Australian heads doing in Central America? Or are you guys, not you Clyde Winters, going to continue to argue over a word here and there and ignore the heads that just happened to be buried in the dirt along a trail. The last archaeology magazine I read two years ago said mainstream is puzzled by the statues and how they got there. So this means they ain't there at all, is that right? I'm willing to bet if the statue had a long pointed nose and thin lips no one would moan and wail about that.
Hey bearded white sky-god Quetzalcoatl, you know about this? Who carved the statues and turned them into ''negroid''-looking types. Do you know? Do you?
Zarahan, other than you saying 'no Olmecs in Dubois'' can you explain these statues?
posted
Almost all established scholars of Mesoamerican archaeology reject the notion that native Olmec civilization was influenced in any significant way from Africa. [quote]:
"Fourth and finally, all lines of evidence point to Olmec art as being an indigenous creation of the Native American inhabitants of Mesoamerica, without any influence from Old World regions such as Africa or China. Claims of such contacts are not based on serious scholarship. They ignore context; they often make grave anthropological errors, by, for instance, using stereotypical concepts of what African facial features should look like, and simplistically attempting to identify such features in Olmec art. Haslip-Viera et al. (1997) provide a good review and critique of claims concerning an African source for Olmec art." --Mesoamerican archaeology: theory and practice. by Julia Ann Hendon, Rosemary A. Joyce, 2004, pg 75
and the Haslip-Viera ref is:
Haslip-Viera, et al. (1997) 'Robbing Native American cultures: Van Sertima's Afrocentricity and the Olmecs. Current Anthropology, 38: 419-441
Note, I do not rule out the possibility of contact between Africa and Mexico prior to Columbus. Hyerdhal proved it could be done, and native peoples elsewhere did not need European ships or sailing methods to make ocean voyages across thousands of miles of ocean, as the Polynesians proved repeatedly.
The crucial issue is whether any such contacts had a significant impact on indigenous cultures or civilizations. I do not have access to Current Anthropology but it would be interesting to see whether Haslip-Viera has a specific, detailed rebuttal to Van Sertima. Maybe Clyde can post his data, and someone else put Viera's on the table. Winters says Quetzcoatl is lying about the evidence. Let's see if it is indeed so.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
So are the others who quote books, not as a place to start, but as an end unto itself.
Any Ass-hole can write a book, Any Ass-hole can do a study - so what does that prove - Nothing. Are you getting my drift Charlie?
To look at thousands of authentic Black artifacts, and somehow fail to connect them to Africa, is not only absurd: it reflects a basic silliness of mind, and in the case of Rosemary A. Joyce, a virulent racism.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Dark Caucasians!
Quetzalcoatl, you're a silly person.
So are the others who quote books, not as a place to start, but as an end unto itself.
Any Ass-hole can write a book, Any Ass-hole can do a study - so what does that prove - Nothing. Are you getting my drift Charlie?
To look at thousands of authentic Black artifacts, and somehow fail to connect them to Africa, is not only absurd: it reflects a basic silliness of mind, and in the case of Rosemary A. Joyce, a virulent racism.
This is so true. This is why they invented the myth that races don't exist in the social sciences--only in the real world.
They created the myth races don't exist because the artifacts found by archaeologists of the ancient civilizations revealed Negroes.
Rather than admit that Blacks founded civilization--the Euronuts, liberal whites, house negroes and conservative whites deny the existence of Blacks playing any role in the rise of civilization to satisfy their desire to deny Africans a role in world history except, as slaves.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic