Had A Chance To Listen To A Panel Of Native Americans Speak

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

You ask for evidence and either:

A: someone tells you there is an overwhelming amount (conveniently not posting any)
B. gives you vague theories based on a statue or painting looking like another (already discussed in the article I posted)

and now C... trying to change the topic (to surprise: religion, where you also failed to provide evidence/ignored presented evidence)

I don't know guys, your position doesn't seem very strong to me.

A. you posted one course while myself and others have posted countless ones and books and names for you to look into. A source that conveniently seeks to disprove ANYTHING pre-columbian...which we've already seen is patently false. You also haven't answered my question either. Are you willing to say that asians (in the way we think of them today) did not visit the new world pre-columbian?
B. vague theories? right. Like people havent explained how conservative groups prevent non-white views from being spread or how there is significant cases made in opposition. 

C. Uh...what?  

 I provided TONS of evidence to substantiate and disprove your claims. On top of that, your evidence for being a muslim = Its in the quran so its true. My point is, you so patently believe ONLY what people tell you (like religion) instead of seeking to confirm what it is that you accept as being true. You can't ask for evidence on this issue and neglect evidence on another. You asked for evidence and you keep getting it. 

GoldenChild9, keep dropping knowledge. 

 

[tkthafm]

Regarding the "African" skeletal remains:

http://www.angelfire.com/zine/meso/meso/rossum.html (completely dismantles this theory)

http://frontiers-of-anthr...3/tlatilco-typology.html (and again)

Basically, the methodology used to reach his conclusions were disingenuous.

The supposed etymology links are more interesting but still not a "smoking gun" - at least that I've seen.

Regarding the vikings, the reason that is more widely accepted is because there is actual archaeological evidence of settlements and DNA evidence of the connection. This is nowhere to be found with the Olmec/African theory. You cite a handful of anthropologists who support the Olmec/African theory but the fact is the wide majority of them reject the theory. I doubt this is simply due to racism.
Using patently false terms like "mountain of evidence" ; "overwhelming evidence" would have you think that I'm the one who's representing the minority/fringe position among experts here 

 

[goldenchild9]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Regarding the "African" skeletal remains:

http://www.angelfire.com/zine/meso/meso/rossum.html (completely dismantles this theory)

http://frontiers-of-anthr...3/tlatilco-typology.html (and again)

Basically, the methodology used to reach his conclusions were disingenuous.

The supposed etymology links are more interesting but still not a "smoking gun" - at least that I've seen.

Regarding the vikings, the reason that is more widely accepted is because there is actual archaeological evidence of settlements and DNA evidence of the connection. This is nowhere to be found with the Olmec/African theory. You cite a handful of anthropologists who support the Olmec/African theory but the fact is the wide majority of them reject the theory. I doubt this is simply due to racism.

I have read those armchair anthropologists rebuttals before and I still fail to see how they "dismantle" the field research of Wiercinski.
His methodology was not disingenuous and the article does not claim that, they try to extend the margin of error to the point where nothing can be analyzed from the skeletal remains. The same could be done for the majority of archaeological findings.  

And the only DNA evidence of a Viking connection is 80 Icelander with genetic linkings to 1 Amerindian woman 

. How many millions of Americans and Africans have genetic linkage to Amerindians?

 

[tkthafm]

An interdisciplinary analysis of Native American skulls has shown that there is no real evidence, apart from superficial misjudgments and erroneous conclusions, that Native Americans have any link to an African presence in America before the European encounter.


As for the Viking evidence... it's undeniable. Name some respectable scholars in the field who deny it (unlike the African/Olmec where the majority reject it as myth, supposedly due to racism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Anse_aux_Meadows
http://www.therightperspe...-found-in-north-america/

and not even the slightest/weakest DNA evidence to be mentioned for the African/Olmec theory.
Unlike the African/Olmec theory, the evidence for the Viking connection isn't primarily found in poorly written/refuted books, shoddy youtube videos or obscure "feel-good" Afrocentric blogs. Is this really due to racism ?

 It's sad that for some African-Americans self-esteem has sunk to such lows that they have to resort to mythology/pseudo-science/rubbish to try to find value in their history. 

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

Look at the facial structures of old Mayan and Aztec pieces. That nose doesn't look like a man of color to you?

Some Ancient Aztec and Mayan statues and art didn't look human at all, all we can do is speculate----

I love this answer.



Whenever we can't figure out how ancient people did something? It was aliens.




Whenever we can't figure out how modern people do something? Its god. 

South Park went in but the alien theories are about as valid as the "that's a black man" theories---there are Chinese statues with wide noses and thick lips


Like I said, all we can do sometimes is speculate with the evidence that we do have--some people go the alien route and some interpret based on their own agendas-

I didn't post that picture to say I think it's aliens, I posted it to show that alien theorists also speculate based on what they think statues "look like"

 

[goldenchild9]

I'm not arguing about anthropology on a sneaker message board on Thanksgiving bro.

Maybe another time.

Off to experience some "mythical feel good" time with my family and friends.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

An interdisciplinary analysis of Native American skulls has shown that there is no real evidence, apart from superficial misjudgments and erroneous conclusions, that Native Americans have any link to an African presence in America before the European encounter.

As for the Viking evidence... it's undeniable. Name some respectable scholars in the field who deny it (unlike the African/Olmec where the majority reject it as myth, supposedly due to racism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Anse_aux_Meadows
http://www.therightperspe...-found-in-north-america/

and not even the slightest/weakest DNA evidence to be mentioned for the African/Olmec theory.



Unlike the African/Olmec theory, the evidence for the Viking connection isn't primarily found in poorly written/refuted books, shoddy youtube videos or obscure "feel-good" Afrocentric blogs. Is this really due to racism ?

 It's sad that for some African-Americans self-esteem has sunk to such lows that they have to resort to mythology/pseudo-science/rubbish to try to find value in their history. 

I think...i'm...offended?

Yo real talk, how come you keep dodging the question? do you refute the notion that asians visited central and south america? 

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by sillyputty

I love this answer.



Whenever we can't figure out how ancient people did something? It was aliens.




Whenever we can't figure out how modern people do something? Its god. 

South Park went in but the alien theories are about as valid as the "that's a black man" theories---there are Chinese statues with wide noses and thick lips


Like I said, all we can do sometimes is speculate with the evidence that we do have--some people go the alien route and some interpret based on their own agendas-

I didn't post that picture to say I think it's aliens, I posted it to show that alien theorists also speculate based on what they think statues "look like"

I'm agreeing with you. 
We're on the same page. 

Basically invoking aliens leads us no where. 

 

[tkthafm]

Native Americans are originally Asians.

http://www.sciencedaily.c...2009/04/090428223836.htm

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

An interdisciplinary analysis of Native American skulls has shown that there is no real evidence, apart from superficial misjudgments and erroneous conclusions, that Native Americans have any link to an African presence in America before the European encounter.

As for the Viking evidence... it's undeniable. Name some respectable scholars in the field who deny it (unlike the African/Olmec where the majority reject it as myth, supposedly due to racism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Anse_aux_Meadows
http://www.therightperspe...-found-in-north-america/

and not even the slightest/weakest DNA evidence to be mentioned for the African/Olmec theory.
Unlike the African/Olmec theory, the evidence for the Viking connection isn't primarily found in poorly written/refuted books, shoddy youtube videos or obscure "feel-good" Afrocentric blogs. Is this really due to racism ?




 It's sad that for some African-Americans self-esteem has sunk to such lows that they have to resort to mythology/pseudo-science/rubbish to try to find value in their history. 

 

[wr]

This dude lame for that one. In studying history, u shun away information because the people simply discussing the ideas happen to be African Americans? You actually need a time out dude.
You sound like a real racist

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Wr

This dude lame for that one. In studying history, u shun away information because the people simply discussing the ideas happen to be African Americans? You actually need a time out dude.
You sound like a real racist

The irony is, if we were discussing how Muslims built the Mayan pyramids dude would be all over it with "evidence" from the Quran

 

[tkthafm]

No need to start twisting my words. Can't believe "racism" is even mentioned. (notice how many Qur'an/Muslim comments have been thrown at me already)

I didn't shun away any information just because it came from any particular person. I shun it for lack of evidence. The point of my statement is to highlight a real phenomenon (which isn't unique to any one group of people): trying to take credit for something your "people" did/achieved without any evidence; as if that makes you better in some way. In this case it happens to be Afro-centrists with the Olmec connection. Why not focus on all the other factually sound achievements ? Clinging on to this one thing even when the majority of experts have shown it to be unsupported just makes you look petty.
EDIT: for below, show me some evidence of the later visitations and we can go from there.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Native Americans are originally Asians.

http://www.sciencedaily.c...2009/04/090428223836.htm

Tell us something we don't know. 

Or better yet, tell us something about the actual topic at hand. 




We're not talking about crossing the Bering Strait land bridge.




We're talking about asian visitation VIA BOAT to central and south america in the first millennia BEFORE Columbus but AFTER it was settled by "native americans." If you want to talk about where native americans are theorized to come from then yes, we might have something to talk about. 


Define the time period you're speaking about and then again I ask you...do you refute the theories that show asian visitation to "native americans?" 

Originally Posted by tkthafm

No need to start twisting my words. Can't believe "racism" is even mentioned.

I didn't shun away any information just because it came from any particular person. I shun it for lack of evidence. The point of my statement is to highlight a real phenomenon (which isn't unique to any one group of people): trying to take credit for something your "people" did/achieved without any evidence; as if that makes you better in some way. In this case it happens to be Afro-centrists with the Olmec connection. Why not focus on all the other factually sound achievements ? Clinging on to this one thing even when the majority of experts have shown it to be unsupported just makes you look petty.

Majority of experts? How many? Did you even poke around on the sites you posted? Basically if it doesn't agree with what the history channel says then its wrong seems to be the theme here. The effort they've gone through to preserve european and (since they can't deny it like they used to) Egyptian history is hilarious here. There is so much hog-wash on here I don't know where to begin.




Dude all of your work (if you dare to actually read it) uses straw-men to discredit the claims that MAYBE africans might have visited the new world before you think they did by virtue of the fact that it sounds so bewildering. On top of that, all it does is call into question ONE author. Then it says that because egypt hadn't had pyramids yet that its impossible for them to have been built yet 

Bruh. I READ your work...thats why I disagree with it. How can this be an objective analysis when the authors of your sources see supporters of Olmec theories as "afrocentrists" and "cultural nationalists"...dude we just want to learn more about black people. if it turns out to be true SO BE IT...I really don't care...its just interesting, but I can't take you seriously when your sources are calling people on the other side play-ground school names. How is this dude going to use pictures of MODERN black people from east africa and compare them to how these people supposedly looked 2000+ years ago and say its not valid cause its not EXACT. I'm sure some changed in some way or form. 




Do you even know how much more calm the waters are between south america and africa? You could row across it if you wanted to. Add in the trade winds and you're GOOD TO GO. I don't see whats so unreasonable about west africans packing a boat and sailing over to modern day brazil and chopping up game with the indigenous people there. 




In fact the arguments used to support olmec identity have been used to support the identity of almost every other archeological find known to modern historians...yet somehow its different now. 

 

[i am stewrat]

 

[tkthafm]

Now it's not the vast majority on my side ? lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...tive_origin_speculations

Olmec alternative origin speculations are explanations that have been suggested for the formation of Olmec civilization which contradict generally accepted scholarly consensus. These origin theories typically involve contact with Old World societies. Although these speculations have become somewhat well-known within popular culture, particularly the idea of an African connection to the Olmec, they are not considered credible by the vast majority of Mesoamerican researchers.


Mind blowing ignorance. Apparently the VAST majority of people who have spent their lives researching this are racists and that's why they deny the apparent "MOUNTAINS" of evidence. You type so much in your reply yet provide 0 evidence.

Keep it moving, you're only embarrassing yourself at this point (just like the other religion thread 

)

and again, the reason why vikings visiting the Americas is considered factual by almost all researchers is not because of evil whites trying to bolster their image.... it's because actual settlements exist. DNA evidence exists. The African/Olmec theory is apparently so plausible/supported by "MOUNTAINS" of evidence yet we have no such evidence. All we have are some some poor attempts at contriving some such as the supposed "african skeletons" which was later disproved as I've shown; or wild inferences from statues/paintings

"hey... this looks like an African ! Forget all other missing forms of evidence, It has a wide nose, therefore Olmecs must have been African !

" 

 

[Jordan8]

Of course the Native Americans were originally from Asia. Over time they were introduced to the Moors where they shared ideas and lived in peace until the colonizers came.

The Cherokee, Washatou and Wichita which is in my family were black native american tribes. They were all hear centuries before Columbus.

Columbus reported that when he reached Haiti the native Americans told him that black-skinned people had come from the south and southeast in boats, trading in gold-tipped medal spears. At least a dozen other European explorers, including Vasco Nunez de Balboa, also reported seeing or hearing of "Negroes" when they reached the New World.

 

[Jordan8]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Wr

This dude lame for that one. In studying history, u shun away information because the people simply discussing the ideas happen to be African Americans? You actually need a time out dude.
You sound like a real racist

The irony is, if we were discussing how Muslims built the Mayan pyramids dude would be all over it with "evidence" from the Quran

There was an Islam influence in pre-columbus America too tho

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by cartune

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Wr

This dude lame for that one. In studying history, u shun away information because the people simply discussing the ideas happen to be African Americans? You actually need a time out dude.
You sound like a real racist

The irony is, if we were discussing how Muslims built the Mayan pyramids dude would be all over it with "evidence" from the Quran

There was an Islam influence in pre-columbus America too tho

Everyone had an influence on pre-Columbus America and Muslims probably built the pyramids and the great wall of China

 

[airmaxpenny1]

This is why I hate history discussions, 90% of what people talk about is based on assumptions and biases.

 

[mourf83]

Y'all should watch the PBS documentary " Chiefs " its about that High school team on the rez try to win the state title in Wyoming

 

[south sole]

 

[jbone2308]

More threads like these need to exist on NT.

My whole thing about history is the "his-story." As someone said biases and motives throw arguments out.

Dude not even giving it a chance of being true that we had some folk over here before Columbus.

It's almost like he feels it will change the world now lol.

 

[cwrite78]

damn it i love history.

going to pick up all the books mentioned here.

thanks for the post DC.

 

[GTA 809]

i like this thread but work early tomorrow. bookmarked.

 

[shinkuhadouken91]

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

Today I was blessed to be able to sit in on a roundtable discussion of 3 Native Americans from the Chesapeake Area (DC, MD, VA).

They mentioned that their families have been in this area for a long, long, long, long, long time. Before any of our ancestors even thought of "discovering" anything.

He spoke about Columbus and how his family were outcasts and were exiled from Spain. He also told us that the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria were filled with rapist, theives, killers, and child molesters, so just imagine all of those sick individuals coming over here to wreck havoc.

They mentioned how there was already African presence in America way before Euros set foot on these grounds. That is where Native and African blood mixed. They talked about how Africans and Indians exchanged ideas, love, and goods with one another. Never really an issue there.

The Natives were living at peace with EARTH and then YT came and just destroyed everything that they knew. Brought diseases that the Natives have never encountered as well as sick animals that the natives had never encountered.

They spoke about how offensive the name of the Washington Football team is and how a large group of Natives marched to Fed-Ex field like 10 years ago and had a prayer service and proceeded to curse the franchise. He was dead serious and by the looks of things, why shouldn't I believe him.

. But he was basically saying that the term is basically like saying the N-Word.

How the term ******* came about. When hunters were doing their seasonal missions, they would get paid to bring back certain animals. But there was a bonus in there. If they were to spot any Natives, they were told to kill them, skin their faces, and "Bring back a piece of that Red Skin."

They mentioned how they weren't salty about Thanksgiving at all. It was something that they in fact practiced. I think they said they called it the Great Harvest (pen ran out while taking notes). But they used this time of the year to celebrate the harvest that they had accumulated during the past season. They simply stressed being thankful for everything that is in your life, especially your family.

I spoke with 2 of the individuals "off the record" and we spoke about:

1. Injustices. We talked about how this world is full of cowards that don't stand up for what is right and just allow negative things to happen right in front of their faces. He told me to make sure I am not a coward and to speak up for what is right even if I am the only one speaking. I promised him that I will play my part.

2. Spirituality. One of them mentioned to me how religion is a joke and how it was only created to control the people and manipulate the economy. He says the Vatican and Wall Street are essentially one in the same and should not be trusted by any intelligent thinking human. He then mentioned how there is a history long battle about who has the better god. Is it the Christians or the Muslims and how people need to wake up and see that it is nothing but a distraction from the things that really matter. Just a tool to further separate humans.

They believe in the Great Spirit. It is more of a spiritually based believe system. No religion. He says when YT came along, they brought they control tool called religion, even though Africans and Native Americans were already in tune with the big man upstairs.

It was a good lecture, there is a radio show that talks about the struggle of the Native People. When I recall the link, I will send it your way.

Sources, proof, records or something 'cause this sounds made up.

Also, the popular theory is that native americans migrated from mongolia/northern asia so how and why would africans even be in this equation??