This is topic Afrocentrism vs Eurocentrism in forum Deshret at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=003849

---

Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
 
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."
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 



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 ?
 

---

Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:



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 ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
^Just curious Charlie, what DOES a non-fringe Afrocentris believe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:



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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:



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.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

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)?

,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:



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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:



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 Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:



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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

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.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
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.

_______.(1982b). "Zeus, Ethiopien Minos Tamoul", Carbet Revue

Martinique de Sciences Humaines,no. 2:31-50.

_______.(1989). "Le Lecon Dravidienne",Carbet Revue Martinique

de Sciences Humaines, no.9:7-58.

Asante,M.A. (July-August, 1996). "Ancient Truths", Emerge , 66-70.

Asante,M.K. (1990) Kemet,Afrocentricity,and Knowledge. Trenton

,NJ:Africa World Press.

_________ (1991). "The Afrocentric idea in Education",Journal

of Negro Education,60(2):170-180.

__________.(December 1991/January 1992). "Afrocentric Curri-

culum".Educational Leadership, pp.28-31.

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.

Survey Graphic, 670-672.

Schomburg, A.A. (1979). Racial integrity. Baltimore, M.D.:

Black Classic Press.

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.....
 

---

Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

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.

---

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."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:

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?

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
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.

---

quote:

---

I said the position that ancient Greeks were black is fringe, not Du Bois and my intent was never to attack him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

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"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

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

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

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.

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

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.

---

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.

---

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".
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
^Gentleman - There is the matter of the heads, and a plethora of other unmistakeably Black artifacts - would you care to speculate?
 

---

Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

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"
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
I REPEAT!

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 Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

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.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

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.

---

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?

---

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"

---

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 by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Well considering that some native mexicans ARE black I don't see the controversy.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtQDa42jzYE&feature=related


http://www.flickr.com/photos/el_memo/259963337/sizes/z/in/set-1208842/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/el_memo/4330493750/in/set-1208842/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/el_memo/4981524315/sizes/z/in/set-1208842/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/57029257@N00/297923085/sizes/z/in/photostream/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/57029257@N00/114862847/lightbox/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/57029257@N00/109826944/

Brazil:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/haykal/3007643720/in/set-72157606442522462/

http://www.tribesgallery.com/huichol/about_huichols.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=061VFVcbL-s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYN_60oJA1E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiaykGllXQ0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZZNdFces8g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2_hswMRSLI&feature=related

http://www.flickr.com/photos/etameze/3232694935/in/set-72157602066778992/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEXluMjAmgs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRwD5ExdHnA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_r_R_g4-cE&feature=related
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
^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.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

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.
.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

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.
.

---

Any qualified linguist would know that one syllable"ka" does not match the 3 syllable (remember a glottal stop is a consonant) "k'ach". Linguists also know that when trying to claim word identity you have to use words that mean the same thing i.e. "ka" maize and Maya "ixim" maize not even close.

Obviously you did not read well. "nyo" in mande is "millet". Linguists know that introduced(i.e. not native) plants and animals are commonly named by modifiying the name of a native product. Thus "mara-nyo" "millet of the masters"
Further evidence against claims that maize was native or Africa and imported to the New World. I guess you missed those classes in linguistics.

---

quote:

---

Thus "mara-nyo" "millet of the masters"
Further evidence against claims that maize was native or Africa and imported to the New World.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan:
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.

---

see
Current anthropology

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grumman:
I'm willing to bet if the statue had a long pointed nose and thin lips no one would moan and wail about that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan:

"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.)
originated from the Aswan region.4 As
expected, strong Nubian features and
dark coloring are seen in their sculpture
and relief work. This dynasty ranks as
among the greatest, whose fame far
outlived its actual tenure on the throne.
Especially interesting, it was a member of
this dynasty- that decreed that no Nehsy
(riverine Nubian of the principality of
Kush), except such as came for trade or
diplomatic reasons, should pass by the
Egyptian fortress at the southern end of
the Second Nile Cataract. Why would
this royal family of Nubian ancestry ban
other Nubians from coming into
Egyptian territory? Because the Egyptian
rulers of Nubian ancestry had become
Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they
exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and
adopted typical Egyptian policies." [/i]

- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient
Egyptians black or white?', Biblical
Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5,
1989)

---

Amenemhat III,

the XIIth Dynasty



Luxor Museum










 

---

Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan:
Clyde its too bad that in your writeup that you do
not provide a detailed rebuttal. You basically focus
on resemblances between Olmecs and Nubians and offer
little on the detailed arguments of VIera et al about
language, plants like maize, the voyage of Abu Bakari,
iconography, etc. Viera et al's critique is much more
solid and undermines Van Sertima on several key points.

Still, Viera et al offer some misleading impressions.
They say for example that that Van sertima "has
grudgingly accepted the Olmec chronology by emphasizing
the alleged importance of the "black-Egyptian" in pharaonic
society and by claiming that "the black African . . .
played a dominant role in the Old World at either end
of the dating equation, be it 1200 B.C. or 700 B.C."
(Van Sertima 1992b:38-39; 1995:74, 76). [12]"

But in fact, their reference to pages 38 and 39 has
nothing to do with the Olmecs. Van Sertima was emphasizing
that "Nubian" influence was very much in place at the
middle stages of Egyptian civilization not at the tail end.
Exactly what this has to do with the "Olmec chronology" in
unclear except to slyly leave the impression that Van Sertima
is claiming some sort of Nubian dominance in Mexico. The
word "Olmec" does not even appear in the referenced Van
Sertima book until page 65. Van Sertima by the way is
backed by Frank Yurco who noted several "Nubian" affinities
among the pharoahs of the 12th Dynasty way back in 1989.

quote:

"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.)
originated from the Aswan region.4 As
expected, strong Nubian features and
dark coloring are seen in their sculpture
and relief work. This dynasty ranks as
among the greatest, whose fame far
outlived its actual tenure on the throne.
Especially interesting, it was a member of
this dynasty- that decreed that no Nehsy
(riverine Nubian of the principality of
Kush), except such as came for trade or
diplomatic reasons, should pass by the
Egyptian fortress at the southern end of
the Second Nile Cataract. Why would
this royal family of Nubian ancestry ban
other Nubians from coming into
Egyptian territory? Because the Egyptian
rulers of Nubian ancestry had become
Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they
exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and
adopted typical Egyptian policies."

- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient
Egyptians black or white?', Biblical
Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5,
1989)

---

quote:

---

p. 128 “When the Nubians were paying tribute and bearing gifts to the Pharaohs, there was no doubt whatever as to their racial identity. Their blackness was not “wrapped in obscurity.”

---

quote:

---

p. 128 “Both Arkell and Shinnie seek to deny the Negro-ness of the Nubian king Taharka. . . . Fortunately , we do not have to depend on these gentlemen for proof on this point. We can go to the records of Taharka’s enemies themselves, the Assyrians, . . . p. 129 “the Assyrians have immortalized him. Esarhaddon had a portrait of him carved upon a stele at Sinjirli, which clearly represents him as Negroid.”

---

quote:

---

p. 136-37 “thus we have a picture of the culture complex of this period and the pressures which made it necessary for Taharka to intrigue with the Phoenicians under the noses of the Assyrians. It is during this period that we find at la Venta in the Gulf of Mexico, a complex of figures that were associated in the Nubian-Egyptian-Mediterranean milieu of that period—four massive Negroid stone heads in Egyptian-type helmets and a Mediterranean-type figure standing beside them, carved out on a stele, with a flowing beard, Semitic nose and turned-up shoes. . . These elements in combination suggest a crew with Nubian-Egyptian troops in command, a navigator of Phoenician ancestry, probably a Hittite or two, a number of Egyptian assistants, such as attended the black kings at Thebes and Memphis, a number of women, like the black Egyptian woman from the preclassic era of American terra cottas, whose resemblance to the Negroid Queen Tiy Professor von Wuthenau has remarked on.”

p. 145-146 “At the place where the Negroid figures[i.e. the 4 massive Olmec heads] in association with the Caucasoid figure with the beard were found, thee la Venta ceremonial court, nine samples of wood charcoal were taken. Five of these samples related to the original construction of the court. they gave an average reading of 814 B.C., plus or minus 134 years. In other words, the living human figures upon which these heads were modeled could not ha e appeared at La Venta later than 680 B.C. and could have entered the Gulf of Mexico anytime between the average 80 B.C. date and the 680 B.C. date, a period which roughly spans the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty of Egypt.. .{a more specific date] I would put it within the nine years between 688 B.C. (the year of Taharka’s assumption of the double crown of Egypt, his movement north, the beginning of his construction of a new pharaonic palace and gardens at Memphis, the first phase of his diplomatic campaign of alliances and military preparations against the Assyrians) and the 680 B.C., the latest possible date for the foreigners to be represented in the first phase of the construction of the ceremonial court. Let it be noted, however, that this is simply a selection of the likeliest period and the likeliest set of circumstances. The capacities, the pressures, the potential maritime trading relationship between the black rulers of Egypt and the Phoenician vassals of Assyria exited all through the period 730 B.C. to 656 B.C.,.. . That these aliens entered the Gulf of Mexico during the original construction of the ceremonial court (not later than 680 B.C.) is borne out by several factors.”

p. 155-156 “There were no pyramids in America before the “contact period” (800-680 B.C.). The very first American pyramid, or stepped temple, appears at la Venta, the site of the colossal Negroid heads and the stele on which is carved the Mediterranean-type figure with a beard and turned-up shoes.. . . There is, however, one serious objection. The Egyptians, it would appear, had stopped building pyramids (since 1600 B.C.), particularly this kind of pyramid.. . .The heyday of the Egyptian step-pyramid was long over.
Over in Egypt , but not in Nubia. The black kings of Nubia built the last of the Egyptian-type pyramids above their tombs (small but elegant copies) and the last of the stepped temples for sun worship.”

p. 173 “This, then, is the case for contact between Egypt and the New World in the 800-700 B.C. period, a period in which the blacks of Nubia had gained ascendancy over the Egyptian empire and appeared according to carbon-14 datings, in the Olmec world of Mexico as monumental figures, venerated and revered.

p. 266 “[Discussing the work of R. A. Jairazbhoy] Jairazbhoy claims that the Olmecs burst in on the Mexican Gulf Coast circa 1200 B.C., and that it is just after their appearance that “all kinds of civilized activity appears including massive organization of labour, a trade network, ceremonial centres with pyramids, colossal sculpture, relief carving, wall painting, an obsession with the Underworld, representation of foreign racial types, hieroglyphic writing and scribes, seals and rings, use of iron and so on.” He attributes all these to the Old World migrants who came to America in that period (circa 1200 B.C.), but admits “few artifacts so far found go back to the first generation migrants.” In fact, none (van Sertima underline[ indicating an Old World influence do go back to 1200 B.C.”

---

quote:

---

If you think about it, Clyde's whole "black Olmecs" thing is every bit as racist as the Eurocentrists' Dynastic Race Theory, for crediting Africans with Native American civilization is just like crediting Middle Easterners with African civilization. The truth is that people of every skin tone have participated in the history of civilization. History is not nearly as racially monochromatic as racist ideologues would like to believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan:
Clyde its too bad that in your writeup that you do
not provide a detailed rebuttal. You basically focus
on resemblances between Olmecs and Nubians and offer
little on the detailed arguments of VIera et al about
language, plants like maize, the voyage of Abu Bakari,
iconography, etc. Viera et al's critique is much more
solid and undermines Van Sertima on several key points.

Still, Viera et al offer some misleading impressions.
They say for example that that Van sertima "has
grudgingly accepted the Olmec chronology by emphasizing
the alleged importance of the "black-Egyptian" in pharaonic
society and by claiming that "the black African . . .
played a dominant role in the Old World at either end
of the dating equation, be it 1200 B.C. or 700 B.C."
(Van Sertima 1992b:38-39; 1995:74, 76). [12]"

But in fact, their reference to pages 38 and 39 has
nothing to do with the Olmecs. Van Sertima was emphasizing
that "Nubian" influence was very much in place at the
middle stages of Egyptian civilization not at the tail end.
Exactly what this has to do with the "Olmec chronology" in
unclear except to slyly leave the impression that Van Sertima
is claiming some sort of Nubian dominance in Mexico. The
word "Olmec" does not even appear in the referenced Van
Sertima book until page 65. Van Sertima by the way is
backed by Frank Yurco who noted several "Nubian" affinities
among the pharoahs of the 12th Dynasty way back in 1989.

quote:

"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.)
originated from the Aswan region.4 As
expected, strong Nubian features and
dark coloring are seen in their sculpture
and relief work. This dynasty ranks as
among the greatest, whose fame far
outlived its actual tenure on the throne.
Especially interesting, it was a member of
this dynasty- that decreed that no Nehsy
(riverine Nubian of the principality of
Kush), except such as came for trade or
diplomatic reasons, should pass by the
Egyptian fortress at the southern end of
the Second Nile Cataract. Why would
this royal family of Nubian ancestry ban
other Nubians from coming into
Egyptian territory? Because the Egyptian
rulers of Nubian ancestry had become
Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they
exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and
adopted typical Egyptian policies."

- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient
Egyptians black or white?', Biblical
Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5,
1989)

---

Thank you Zarahan for posting a substantive critique.

Your first point. You have to consider the context. Van Sertima in his They Came Before Columbus, 1976 spends a lot of time (2 entire chapters + scattered comments emphasizing that the people who arrived in Mesoamerica belonged to the 25th Dynasty and were clearly Black Nubians (at least in command). Van Sertima does not mention 1200 B.C. as a possible time for arrival and even refutes it in p. 266.
Chapter 8 deals mainly with the influence of Black Nubians in Egypt and how they restored it to glory—making a big point of the “blackness of the Nubians of the 25th dynasty.

quote:

---

p. 128 “When the Nubians were paying tribute and bearing gifts to the Pharaohs, there was no doubt whatever as to their racial identity. Their blackness was not “wrapped in obscurity.”

---

Van Sertima spends time rebutting Eurocentric claims that the 25th dynasty was not Black.

quote:

---

p. 128 “Both Arkell and Shinnie seek to deny the Negro-ness of the Nubian king Taharka. . . . Fortunately , we do not have to depend on these gentlemen for proof on this point. We can go to the records of Taharka’s enemies themselves, the Assyrians, . . . p. 129 “the Assyrians have immortalized him. Esarhaddon had a portrait of him carved upon a stele at Sinjirli, which clearly represents him as Negroid.”

---

The last pages of ch. 8 and ch. 9 emphasize both the “Negroness” of the voyagers and the dating circa 700 B.C.

quote:

---

p. 136-37 “thus we have a picture of the culture complex of this period and the pressures which made it necessary for Taharka to intrigue with the Phoenicians under the noses of the Assyrians. It is during this period that we find at la Venta in the Gulf of Mexico, a complex of figures that were associated in the Nubian-Egyptian-Mediterranean milieu of that period—four massive Negroid stone heads in Egyptian-type helmets and a Mediterranean-type figure standing beside them, carved out on a stele, with a flowing beard, Semitic nose and turned-up shoes. . . These elements in combination suggest a crew with Nubian-Egyptian troops in command, a navigator of Phoenician ancestry, probably a Hittite or two, a number of Egyptian assistants, such as attended the black kings at Thebes and Memphis, a number of women, like the black Egyptian woman from the preclassic era of American terra cottas, whose resemblance to the Negroid Queen Tiy Professor von Wuthenau has remarked on.”

p. 145-146 “At the place where the Negroid figures[i.e. the 4 massive Olmec heads] in association with the Caucasoid figure with the beard were found, thee la Venta ceremonial court, nine samples of wood charcoal were taken. Five of these samples related to the original construction of the court. they gave an average reading of 814 B.C., plus or minus 134 years. In other words, the living human figures upon which these heads were modeled could not ha e appeared at La Venta later than 680 B.C. and could have entered the Gulf of Mexico anytime between the average 80 B.C. date and the 680 B.C. date, a period which roughly spans the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty of Egypt.. .{a more specific date] I would put it within the nine years between 688 B.C. (the year of Taharka’s assumption of the double crown of Egypt, his movement north, the beginning of his construction of a new pharaonic palace and gardens at Memphis, the first phase of his diplomatic campaign of alliances and military preparations against the Assyrians) and the 680 B.C., the latest possible date for the foreigners to be represented in the first phase of the construction of the ceremonial court. Let it be noted, however, that this is simply a selection of the likeliest period and the likeliest set of circumstances. The capacities, the pressures, the potential maritime trading relationship between the black rulers of Egypt and the Phoenician vassals of Assyria exited all through the period 730 B.C. to 656 B.C.,.. . That these aliens entered the Gulf of Mexico during the original construction of the ceremonial court (not later than 680 B.C.) is borne out by several factors.”

p. 155-156 “There were no pyramids in America before the “contact period” (800-680 B.C.). The very first American pyramid, or stepped temple, appears at la Venta, the site of the colossal Negroid heads and the stele on which is carved the Mediterranean-type figure with a beard and turned-up shoes.. . . There is, however, one serious objection. The Egyptians, it would appear, had stopped building pyramids (since 1600 B.C.), particularly this kind of pyramid.. . .The heyday of the Egyptian step-pyramid was long over.
Over in Egypt , but not in Nubia. The black kings of Nubia built the last of the Egyptian-type pyramids above their tombs (small but elegant copies) and the last of the stepped temples for sun worship.”

p. 173 “This, then, is the case for contact between Egypt and the New World in the 800-700 B.C. period, a period in which the blacks of Nubia had gained ascendancy over the Egyptian empire and appeared according to carbon-14 datings, in the Olmec world of Mexico as monumental figures, venerated and revered.

p. 266 “[Discussing the work of R. A. Jairazbhoy] Jairazbhoy claims that the Olmecs burst in on the Mexican Gulf Coast circa 1200 B.C., and that it is just after their appearance that “all kinds of civilized activity appears including massive organization of labour, a trade network, ceremonial centres with pyramids, colossal sculpture, relief carving, wall painting, an obsession with the Underworld, representation of foreign racial types, hieroglyphic writing and scribes, seals and rings, use of iron and so on.” He attributes all these to the Old World migrants who came to America in that period (circa 1200 B.C.), but admits “few artifacts so far found go back to the first generation migrants.” In fact, none (van Sertima underline[ indicating an Old World influence do go back to 1200 B.C.”

---

However, subsequently, van Sertima had a big problem. La Venta was much older and the colossal heads, particularly at San Lorenzo had been unequivocally dated to 1011B.C. or older. But, if he unequivocally shifted the contact date he would contradict all the quotes I cited, AND could not justify pyramids as copies of the Egyptians because these pyramids had not been built for centuries prior to 1200 B.C. This explains why he tries to say that either end of the time period would work. We are not "slyly" inferring anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
Thank you Zarahan for posting a substantive critique.

Your first point. You have to consider the context. Van Sertima in his They Came Before Columbus, 1976 spends a lot of time (2 entire chapters + scattered comments emphasizing that the people who arrived in Mesoamerica belonged to the 25th Dynasty and were clearly Black Nubians (at least in command). Van Sertima does not mention 1200 B.C. as a possible time for arrival and even refutes it in p. 266.
Chapter 8 deals mainly with the influence of Black Nubians in Egypt and how they restored it to glory—making a big point of the “blackness of the Nubians of the 25th dynasty.

quote:

---

p. 128 “When the Nubians were paying tribute and bearing gifts to the Pharaohs, there was no doubt whatever as to their racial identity. Their blackness was not “wrapped in obscurity.”

---

Van Sertima spends time rebutting Eurocentric claims that the 25th dynasty was not Black.

quote:

---

p. 128 “Both Arkell and Shinnie seek to deny the Negro-ness of the Nubian king Taharka. . . . Fortunately , we do not have to depend on these gentlemen for proof on this point. We can go to the records of Taharka’s enemies themselves, the Assyrians, . . . p. 129 “the Assyrians have immortalized him. Esarhaddon had a portrait of him carved upon a stele at Sinjirli, which clearly represents him as Negroid.”

---

The last pages of ch. 8 and ch. 9 emphasize both the “Negroness” of the voyagers and the dating circa 700 B.C.

quote:

---

p. 136-37 “thus we have a picture of the culture complex of this period and the pressures which made it necessary for Taharka to intrigue with the Phoenicians under the noses of the Assyrians. It is during this period that we find at la Venta in the Gulf of Mexico, a complex of figures that were associated in the Nubian-Egyptian-Mediterranean milieu of that period—four massive Negroid stone heads in Egyptian-type helmets and a Mediterranean-type figure standing beside them, carved out on a stele, with a flowing beard, Semitic nose and turned-up shoes. . . These elements in combination suggest a crew with Nubian-Egyptian troops in command, a navigator of Phoenician ancestry, probably a Hittite or two, a number of Egyptian assistants, such as attended the black kings at Thebes and Memphis, a number of women, like the black Egyptian woman from the preclassic era of American terra cottas, whose resemblance to the Negroid Queen Tiy Professor von Wuthenau has remarked on.”

p. 145-146 “At the place where the Negroid figures[i.e. the 4 massive Olmec heads] in association with the Caucasoid figure with the beard were found, thee la Venta ceremonial court, nine samples of wood charcoal were taken. Five of these samples related to the original construction of the court. they gave an average reading of 814 B.C., plus or minus 134 years. In other words, the living human figures upon which these heads were modeled could not ha e appeared at La Venta later than 680 B.C. and could have entered the Gulf of Mexico anytime between the average 80 B.C. date and the 680 B.C. date, a period which roughly spans the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty of Egypt.. .{a more specific date] I would put it within the nine years between 688 B.C. (the year of Taharka’s assumption of the double crown of Egypt, his movement north, the beginning of his construction of a new pharaonic palace and gardens at Memphis, the first phase of his diplomatic campaign of alliances and military preparations against the Assyrians) and the 680 B.C., the latest possible date for the foreigners to be represented in the first phase of the construction of the ceremonial court. Let it be noted, however, that this is simply a selection of the likeliest period and the likeliest set of circumstances. The capacities, the pressures, the potential maritime trading relationship between the black rulers of Egypt and the Phoenician vassals of Assyria exited all through the period 730 B.C. to 656 B.C.,.. . That these aliens entered the Gulf of Mexico during the original construction of the ceremonial court (not later than 680 B.C.) is borne out by several factors.”

p. 155-156 “There were no pyramids in America before the “contact period” (800-680 B.C.). The very first American pyramid, or stepped temple, appears at la Venta, the site of the colossal Negroid heads and the stele on which is carved the Mediterranean-type figure with a beard and turned-up shoes.. . . There is, however, one serious objection. The Egyptians, it would appear, had stopped building pyramids (since 1600 B.C.), particularly this kind of pyramid.. . .The heyday of the Egyptian step-pyramid was long over.
Over in Egypt , but not in Nubia. The black kings of Nubia built the last of the Egyptian-type pyramids above their tombs (small but elegant copies) and the last of the stepped temples for sun worship.”

p. 173 “This, then, is the case for contact between Egypt and the New World in the 800-700 B.C. period, a period in which the blacks of Nubia had gained ascendancy over the Egyptian empire and appeared according to carbon-14 datings, in the Olmec world of Mexico as monumental figures, venerated and revered.

p. 266 “[Discussing the work of R. A. Jairazbhoy] Jairazbhoy claims that the Olmecs burst in on the Mexican Gulf Coast circa 1200 B.C., and that it is just after their appearance that “all kinds of civilized activity appears including massive organization of labour, a trade network, ceremonial centres with pyramids, colossal sculpture, relief carving, wall painting, an obsession with the Underworld, representation of foreign racial types, hieroglyphic writing and scribes, seals and rings, use of iron and so on.” He attributes all these to the Old World migrants who came to America in that period (circa 1200 B.C.), but admits “few artifacts so far found go back to the first generation migrants.” In fact, none (van Sertima underline[ indicating an Old World influence do go back to 1200 B.C.”

---

However, subsequently, van Sertima had a big problem. La Venta was much older and the colossal heads, particularly at San Lorenzo had been unequivocally dated to 1011B.C. or older. But, if he unequivocally shifted the contact date he would contradict all the quotes I cited, AND could not justify pyramids as copies of the Egyptians because these pyramids had not been built for centuries prior to 1200 B.C. This explains why he tries to say that either end of the time period would work. We are not "slyly" inferring anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
If you think about it, Clyde's whole "black Olmecs" thing is every bit as racist as the Eurocentrists' Dynastic Race Theory, for crediting Africans with Native American civilization is just like crediting Middle Easterners with African civilization. The truth is that people of every skin tone have participated in the history of civilization. History is not nearly as racially monochromatic as racist ideologues would like to believe.

---