Today I’d like to direct your attention to the Ancient Aliens Debunked blog where Frank Johnson has a long and detailed article dismantling David Childress’s many and varied claims for the global cultures he thinks influenced the Olmec (hint: everyone except for any Native Americans), centering on his assertion that the Olmec stone heads represent African people. Johnson memorably declares Childress’s cut-and-paste methodology “Spaghetti Diffusionism,” because it throws everything at the wall to see what sticks. It’s a great read and well worth the time to check out in full. To Johnson’s discussion, however, I would add a bit of background about the origins of some of Childress’s claims about the Olmec heads. The first Olmec heads were discovered in the nineteenth century, and they were lumped in with Mayan art at first because the Victorians thought the Maya were indescribably ancient. Augustus Le Plongeon, font of so much fringe theorizing (he inspired James Churchward to invent the sunken continent of Mu), introduced the concept of “ancient relations that existed between [the Maya] and the inhabitants of the west coast of Africa” (letter, reproduced in Stephen Salisbury’s The Maya). In 1877, he sent to the International Congress of Americanists a letter outlining his claims, and it was published in the Boston Daily Advertiser in September of that year. In the letter, Le Plongeon asserted that the post-classic Mayan city of Chichen Itza was the center of a global trade network extending to Africa and Asia, adding that Easter Island must have been influenced by Tiahuanaco. But if the builders of the strange structures on Easter Island have had, then, communications with the rearers of Tiahuanaco by land, then we may easily account for the many coincidences which exist between the laws, religious rites, sciences,—astronomical and others,—customs, monuments, languages, and even dresses, of the inhabitants of this Western continent, and those of Asia and Africa. Hence the similarity of many Asiatic and American notions. Hence, also, the generalized idea of a deluge among men, whose traditions remount to the time when the waters that covered the plains of America, Europe, Africa and Asia left their beds, invaded the portions of the globe they now occupy, and destroyed their inhabitants. Le Plongeon also did Graham Hancock one better by pronouncing Central American images of bearded men to be Assyrian. Hancock merely declared them “white.” Stephen Salisbury popularized Le Plongeon’s views in his The Maya (1877), and it is from a summary of this book in John T. Short’s The North Americans of Antiquity (1880) that Ignatius Donnelly adopted the ideas an applied them specifically to the Olmec heads in Atlantis: The Antediluvian World (1882), which is the wellspring of most modern fringe ideas. Donnelly asserted that the Olmec heads were “negroid,” but, being a man of his age, he had no time for the idea that Africans could be anything but inferior, he came to what he saw as the only logical conclusion: The features are unmistakably negroid. As the negroes have never been a sea-going race, the presence of these faces among the antiquities of Central America proves one of two things, either the existence of a land connection between America and Africa via Atlantis, as revealed by the deep-sea soundings of the Challenger, or commercial relations between America and Africa through the ships of the Atlanteans or some other civilized race, whereby the negroes were brought to America as slaves at a very remote epoch. Donnelly did not explain why Mexicans would make statues of slaves or wandering serfs.
The only evidence there ever was for this “theory” was the observer’s own ignorance of what actual descendants of the Olmec and the Maya continue to look like today (hint: just like the Olmec and the Maya of the past) and their own assumptions about some imaginary essentialist view of what “negroid” features were supposed to be. Today only the most credulous fringe theorists like David Childress maintain that Maya art depicts Africans, so obvious is the similarity of the Maya still living to those depicted in ancient art. Yet the Olmec connection to Africa continues across a much broader array of fringe writing. This is the legacy of Leo Wiener, a Russian-born Harvard scholar of Slavic studies who in the 1920s wasn’t aware of the Olmec per se but claimed a widespread African influence in Mexico in a series of popular books, though he assigned it to the historical period, specifically the High Middle Ages. His three-volume Africa and the Discovery of America (1920-1922), for all its scholarly problems, became the intellectual foundation for Afrocentrism because it was written by Harvard professor, albeit one whose expertise in Mesoamerican history derived entirely from his time living on a vegetarian commune in British Honduras. Wiener famously argued that Columbus’s journals were forgeries, and he argued that Mayan and Aztec languages were filled with medieval African loan words from the Mandé tongue, no matter how much he had to stretch the definitions to make them fit. (For example, he argued that Herodotus’ word for loin cloth, ζειραί [zeirai] yielded via the Arabic ’izar the Mandé masirilli, a word for personal ornamentation, which then transformed back into the Nahuatl word for loincloth, maxtli—but only in the 1200s or 1300s CE, when the Mandinka arrived in Mexico!) Ivan Van Sertima took inspiration from both Donnelly and Wiener and made the Olmec heads a cornerstone of his Afrocentric view of history. It is from Wiener that Van Sertima derived many of his claims for Africans in America, and he reversed Ignatius Donnelly’s racist views by asserting that the Africans had been the dominant race. Van Sertima extended Wiener’s argument by pressing the Nubians and the Egyptians into service to extend “African” domination of Mexico from prehistory to the coming of the Spanish—even though this compromised the Olmec head claim since the Egyptians and Nubians lack the allegedly “negroid” features seen on the heads!
102 Comments
Pacal
1/9/2014 03:38:12 am
Van Sertima's theory in its original form assumed that Nubians came into contact with the Olmecs during the period of the Nubian dynasty in Egypt. (8th early 7th century B.C.E.), and that Olmec civilization originated then. Well that was wrong the start of Olmec civilization was apparently by at least 1200 B.C.E. and probably earlier. Certainly village cultures which are clear ancestors to the Olmec civilization have been found.
Reply
Choctaw Charles
1/10/2014 09:47:24 pm
What do native americans look like? I mean we are many tribes. No cherokee looks like a lakota, No Seminole looks like a Cheyenne. No Navajo looks like a Mayan, no Apache looks like a Pequot. I understand where you are coming from but its lumping all tribes in one basket and we are not all the same other that being first nations and natives
Reply
Varika
1/11/2014 04:23:06 am
I don't see where Pacal was "lumping all tribes in one basket" at all, Charles. Other than in the last part, where he actually acknowledges that Native American cultures were pretty much NOT dependent on peoples from other nations to function.
Harry Hubbard
1/9/2014 02:17:48 pm
I am also willing to debate for $$$$$ that Jason Colavito never existed.
Reply
Jason the Argonaut
1/9/2014 04:09:50 pm
If this is Harry Hubbard from the illinois Caves???You rock! There are stories about the Native that have had contact with Egypt And Kemet long before Columbus (of Course). Love your theory (or truth) as those that know the truth do about this. There are too many sites with Egyptian ( or kemetian) heiroglyphs putting them here many years ago. I think it was AMerican archeology that has an article of Egyptian (or Kemetian) writings on the New Jersey Pallisades and new yorrk pallisades. Keep up the good work!
Reply
Harry Hubbard
1/10/2014 09:23:17 am
Thanks for your support. You are obviously a very wise person.
Tek El Menen
1/9/2014 03:24:30 pm
I agree Harry Hubbard! This Jason has a bias toward anything that may be of a darker hue! Noone wants to credit Africans in America or (black people) yet even verrazano gives a description of "the original indians" on the coast of the carolinas in his own writings. The Olmec heads do look Nubian, south east aia and Kenetian (not Egyptian) The Egyptians came after ALexander the great while the Kemetionas are who Ramasess, Akhenaton, and King Tut were. Look at theris monuments and try to dispute it. Black people were already here way befor columbus and the moder Indian came (at least east of the Mississippi du to the mising of white colonist and the native darkskinned people here. If you are going to call Sertima and others Afrocentric, admit a eurocentric bias. egyptians and kemetians both were over here before columbus. Research and lern and know the difference between a race and a nationality. Many dark skinned (black, negro, colored, african people) have the features people claim are only Asian. Nubiand do not just have one features.
Reply
Only Me
1/9/2014 03:46:44 pm
"This Jason has a bias toward anything that may be of a darker hue!"
Reply
Jason The Argonaut
1/9/2014 04:05:41 pm
Is this the same Dr. Menen from the AU Cairo? If it is, this is awesome, if not, your info sounds a lot like him. Yes I have to agree with your point!
Reply
Tek El Menen
1/9/2014 04:19:52 pm
Yes it it! Is this one of my students or webpage followers? Hello to you friend!
Tek El Menen
1/9/2014 03:39:25 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4_lZkxFYnI
Reply
Only Me
1/9/2014 04:09:05 pm
Consider this from Wikipedia:
Reply
zonanti
1/9/2014 04:13:23 pm
But why would anyone wat to make them in the form of something they did not want to give credit to. By the 1800's as the video says, they knew what the real indians looked like. Why would they depict them black and not lighten them up earlier ??
Tek El Menen
1/9/2014 04:16:11 pm
Verazanno on his description of the natives of the Carolinas "Some of them wear garlands of birds' feathers. They are dark in color, not unlike the Ethiopians, with thick black hair, not very long, tied back behind the head like a small tail. As for the physique of these men, they are well proportioned, of medium height, a little taller than we are. They have broad chests, strong arms, and the legs and other parts of the body are well composed. There is nothing else, except that they tend to be rather broad in the face: but not all, for we saw many with angular faces. They have big black eyes, and an attentive and open look. They are not very strong, but they have a sharp cunning, and are agile and swift runners. This proves that either close look alikes or someone in their family were over here from Nubia, or admit that there was a black presence in AMerica long before
Tek El Menen
1/9/2014 04:18:00 pm
Consider this from the journal of Verazanno on his description of the natives of the Carolinas "Some of them wear garlands of birds' feathers. They are dark in color, not unlike the Ethiopians, with thick black hair, not very long, tied back behind the head like a small tail. As for the physique of these men, they are well proportioned, of medium height, a little taller than we are. They have broad chests, strong arms, and the legs and other parts of the body are well composed. There is nothing else, except that they tend to be rather broad in the face: but not all, for we saw many with angular faces. They have big black eyes, and an attentive and open look. They are not very strong, but they have a sharp cunning, and are agile and swift runners. This proves that either close look alikes or someone in their family were over here from Nubia, or admit that there was a black presence in AMerica long before
Only Me
1/9/2014 04:25:14 pm
One man's description of a people he's meeting for the first time isn't proof. You must know that taking any earlier writing literally spawns a host of problems.
Judith Murry Leboiwitvz
1/9/2014 04:53:34 pm
Only me, you seem to be pretty smart! about quick research. Check out Othellos children in the new world by Dr. Jose Pimenta Bey! Or Aficans and Native AMericans by Jack D Forbes!They have wonderful informationof the African civilization over here and proof, no materr what others say, its worth the read. Interesting conversation here
Harry Hubbard
1/10/2014 09:25:38 am
I'll be glad to debate you on this topic.
Duende
5/24/2015 01:29:15 am
http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot/the-four-quarters-of-the-globe-four-4121271-details.aspx?intObjectID=4121271 1/9/2014 04:24:19 pm
To fully understand the intellectual decrepitude of Afrocentrism,one has to watch the Black Athena Debate: http://youtu.be/p06ft0kDUPc
Reply
Jason the Argonaut
1/9/2014 04:40:37 pm
One mans commentary on wikipedia (which is constantly changed ) is not proof either. This does however explain why so many early drawings of the indians (that the colonist invaders "saw" look dark beacuse that is who they say Only Me. As for you Tara Jordan! To fully understand the asinine dismemberment of Eurocentrism, one has to watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e5mivkXmsc 1/9/2014 04:51:23 pm
Afrocentrism is not representative of "Black culture",it is a perversion of the accomplishments of African civilizations,
Only Me
1/9/2014 04:58:32 pm
So...you didn't catch the newspaper reference I included? All you have to do is check the sources listed to find it.
Rlewis
1/10/2014 10:33:17 am
I think I would pay to watch Harry Hubbard debate the Afrocentrist. I am willing to pay $100 for any verifiable fact either side uses.
lee collins
1/10/2014 04:58:36 pm
I think Hubbard and The Afrocentrist would win over the euroracists on this page!
Jason the Argonaut
1/9/2014 04:44:30 pm
And yes the Moors were here beefore columbus and traveled the world and were occpying Spain! Look up Spanish history, the Al Alhambra
Reply
Jason The Argonaut
1/9/2014 04:46:42 pm
Just some food for thought to remind yo that African people traveled the world! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwh4MWKEp8w
Reply
1/9/2014 05:00:57 pm
The Moores were Africans (North Africans - Arabo Berbères),indeed they conquered the Iberian Peninsula (Al-Andalus) but Moores were not Black
Reply
jason the argonaut
1/9/2014 05:14:12 pm
Moors or blackamoors eith ery way only me you are backtracking! When I say the indians wer black you claim they are blackamoors. When I say the moors are black you say that is a different term meaning then. They knew exactaly what they meant when they were saying , however dark is a translation into english of Itallian of buio which is blue black or dark brown as Verazano was Itallian. You must look up the definition of etomology? Then look up the origins of the word dark in an oxford dictionary also. Do not send me some repeated parront generalities about the meaning being different then. But even if it meant something else he refers to them as dark in color not unlike the Ethiopeans. If he meant someone of a lighter shade, would he not have compared them to siciallians? or some sun tanned european. He saw ethiopeans and knew what they looked like.
Suzuki!
1/9/2014 05:16:30 pm
Moors not Moores. You are correct as black is a status. They were darkskinned Africans and also in West africa. According to you partner Only Me they were also called blackamoors and that I agree with.
Suzuki
1/9/2014 05:25:08 pm
Looks like Tara Jordan got educated by you Jason! LOL! Alose ( since people are using Wikipedia, it even says about Moors Incluse --West Africans from Mali and Niger who had been absorbed into the Almoravid dynasty. They were Berber! And yes berbers were dark skinned people also. Berber derives from variants of the root "barbar, You have just been schooled! go get your diploma and go to bed
Only Me
1/9/2014 05:30:45 pm
What are you talking about? 1/9/2014 05:35:59 pm
@Only me
Morgans row
1/9/2014 05:01:41 pm
Jason and Dr. Menen! I appreciate your passion and giving references and will check them out, but these people do not want to discuss facts or references from what I can tell. They want to base their information on in favor of Eurocentric history "PERIOD". Do not battle with a chicken who wants to call themselves a bull as you will never win. Let them stay ignorant or arrogant as they are. I cant throw pearls to swine.
Reply
jason the argonaut
1/9/2014 06:01:38 pm
No problem and excuse the confusion Only me as the postings and repy have caused confusion. The American indiand were called indian because they were thought to be from India (formerly Hindustan) The reason the people of India (hinsustan) were called Indian was because of their connection to the Indius Kush Valley and/or the color of the description of their skin, Indigo (blue black) as the dravidians or the jarwarwa people of India are. Whe you look at the original etching and drawings 1st hand from explorers, they draw the indians and natives as darkskinned people!
Harry
1/10/2014 12:02:29 am
Puh-lease!!! Crossing the Strait of Gibraltar is ridiculously easy compared to crossing the Atlantic. Citing the Moorish conquest of Spain as evidence that Africans reached America before Columbus is like saying that if I can jog around the block, I must be able to run a marathon.
Reply
Jason the Argonaut
1/9/2014 06:04:28 pm
Etchings and drawing by John Stedman of what he saw indians looking like in the early 1800's
Reply
Jason the Argonaut
1/9/2014 06:07:44 pm
California Indians at a Mission by Louis Choris early 1800s
Reply
1/9/2014 09:52:13 pm
Visual observations are unreliable.You cannot differentiate skin pigmentation,morphology & physiognomy from genetic characteristics based on visual observations.
Reply
Miki Chau
1/10/2014 03:36:53 pm
Really? Then why is the whole basis of this everlasting fight based on the way monuments, sculptures, and people look! Too many hippocrites posting!
Varika
1/11/2014 04:29:54 am
Miki Chau, it's because some people think that these representations are as accurate as photographs, when they're not. And I can tell you that I do in fact have the authority to say that, because I am an artist and while I'm not exactly the next Michelangelo, I can certainly tell you from experience that even the best artists aren't always photographically accurate. Therefore, what Tara says it correct: drawings of peoples are not reliable enough to determine genetics from, particularly when you don't know how good the artist was in the first place, nor his or her biases. And yet some people want to use artistic renderings as proof of theories that aren't upheld by any OTHER evidence, such as DNA or archaeology. 1/11/2014 04:38:02 am
Miki Chau
Varika
1/11/2014 07:46:37 am
Tara, no offense, but in nothing flat, you are capable of making me wish you weren't on my side.
Only Me
1/9/2014 06:14:29 pm
Gotcha, JtA. I mentioned the connotation of "dark" being different, because it is common for modern definitions to be used.
Reply
Jason the Argonaut
1/9/2014 06:22:17 pm
Oh I know the difference between status and content. and terminology. They definately meant dark skinned as I said Verazannos translation was from the word buio which is blue black or dark brown or meaning a dark shade. This often comes up when describing the original natives as copper. The common copper was a dark reddish brown but even if we take all the shades of copper from light to brown they still are hefty in color. Now Im not saying all tribes, but east of the Mississippi and mid us going into the south, yes! They were heavily color shades of mahogany!
Reply
SouthCoast
1/11/2014 03:01:00 pm
Just to add to the mix, the Colonial British often referred to the Indians of India as "black", and some of the less mannerly among them even referred to them with the "N" word. For that matter, in Elizabethan England, calling someone "black" or "dark" meant nothing more than that they had sallow skin and dark hair.
Reply
Duende
5/24/2015 01:33:36 am
https://www.facebook.com/AboriginalLegend?pnref=story
Reply
Alulkoy 805
1/11/2018 01:45:53 pm
The acts only pertained to the South Eastern Natives, not all Native American people, because at that time there were NAs that had never seen a black person, and had no contact with them. It only applied to Natives that were non tribal with African admixture. There were still many Natives who had neither White or Black admixture who were considered Native Americans that lived in tribal villages or reservation. These two acts never applied to most Native Americans, so this doesnt prove that there were black africans in the Americas before the Atlantic Slave Trade. Native Americans are genetically distinct from all world population, and have been a isolated breeding population, that broke apart from The people of Asia 36,000 years ago. Geneticists know that NAs are descendants of Upper Paleolithic Siberian populations, that do not exist anymore, except in and were closely related to the 24,000 Malta-Buret Culture. Native Americans are the furthest phylogenetically from Sub Saharan Africans and are more closely related to East and West Eurasians. There is no evidence for an African genetic contribution in the ancient Pre-Columbian skeletal remains found in the Americas, but plenty of evidence of pure Amerindians all over the double continents. Skull Shapes and Art form means nothing, especially since the geography of the two continents is vast and.Native Americans in different environments have a wide variety of skull shapes and phenotypes, just like Europe, Asia, and Africa do.
Normandie you are try to put two racists acts or laws from two or three states that the NAs and AA were both classified as negros. Wrong! The weste
1/11/2018 04:09:06 pm
You are trying your hardest to imply that those two racist law's applied to all of the Native American people from Alaska to Tierra Del Fuego, when most of these lands hadnt even been colonized by Euros or their slaves, and the Natives hadnt even seen a Black man before. If the Americas had if blacks here in the past they would of been cold adapted, which they are not. They are tropical adapted so they couldnt of been here before the Natives who evolved for thousands of years during the coldest lart of the ice age. We would also see thousands of African remains that when genetically sequenced would show specific African haplogroups You would rather rely on dubious renditition of sketches and artwork that supposedly show Native Americans with African or negoid features, well since we are going by features and not dna, then how do you explain the Millions of Africans in Africa with big lips and coiled hair and black skin? Thats evidence enough for me that you and all african Americans are direct descendants of people from the continent of Africa,, so where do you get off saying " African Americans are not Africans, since since the Negroid Phenotype is most concentrated in Western, Central and Southern Africa,. Phenotypes dont lie remember?! Stereotypical negoid features dont lie either remember!? Only Native Americans LIE, AND THE WHITE MAN,
Jason the Argonaut
1/9/2014 06:17:15 pm
I saw the info on the ciagr indian ans I am not buying a commentary on the indians being made to look like African blackamoors and europeans if they are from the 1800's By1800 they had over 300 years from late 1400's to early 1500's to know and determine what a "cigar store indian" looked like. These were made over in America. not in the UK. They depicted them exactly like they described them. If colombus, verazanno, Desoto, champlain, and others saw them and told them how they looked, why is it diminished to copying off of Africans. Yes they are dark or what you call black but they are american not african by continental title. The same way black people are from Indian but I would not call them American. Look at the owners cigar collection and the links as to where they came from
Reply
Only Me
1/9/2014 07:05:02 pm
Here's another account of the origins of the cigar store Indian.
Reply
Jason The Argonaut
1/9/2014 07:20:36 pm
LEts look at the dates 1610 and 1611 This is over 100 years after coloumbus so called landed in the new world. about 90 years after the death of Verazanno. Ummmm NO ! They knew from descriptions of what the colonists looked like. Jamestown was founded in 1607 and they took "Natives" back to England. If they were being made in England the statement in the article attached makes no sense as they would have seen the natives over there. If it was made in Jamestown that would not make any sense as they could clearly see what they looked like. Look at the dates. Even Husdon in New Amsterdam had met the natives of Lenapehoking. The reason the cigar indians were placed in the front of stores was to show that they were doing trade with these peope! As very few colonist could read, but they knew the description of an Indian. Remember that the Indians were trading with the colonies. Ask a native "Cherokee, Lenape, Montauk as to why thesey put these indians in front of their stores.
Jason the Argonaut
1/9/2014 07:27:15 pm
Another Quote " As to why I see differences on various sites. They do mention them as black depicted also but natives were darrkskinned as I stated before colonial mixing.
Only Me
1/9/2014 08:01:42 pm
There we go! I was hoping you'd see that. See, that's why I looked into this from the start. It's one thing to say that these carved statues are proof of AFRICANS in North America, when the actual statues are dependent on their individual artisans. Were some akin to the blackamoor? Yes. Were some Caucasian, in Native American clothing? Yes. As time went on, before the decline, it became the norm for such statues to more accurately depict Native Americans.
Shane Sullivan
1/9/2014 06:22:37 pm
I can personally attest that there are, infact, plenty of native American ethnic groups whose skin tone is just as dark as--if not darker than--that of the average Nubian.
Reply
Jason The Argonaut
1/9/2014 07:29:39 pm
Thank you Shane! It seems they wont believe a real native telling them and use logic based on stereotypes they see on tv or limited info from misinformed websites
Reply
marc mcgehee
1/9/2014 10:10:59 pm
Well, I guess you didn't bother to look, but many native tribes have taken in blacks who escaped from slavery or where freed from it, into the tribes making it completely logical for say a Cherokee to be black in skin color. However this is not proof of Africans coming to the Americas prior to Columbus.
Shane Sullivan
1/10/2014 04:02:44 am
I hope I wasn't unclear, Jason The Argonaut, but my point was that having skin tone comparable to that of a Nubian does not prove or even suggest recent African ancestry.
Atulya Raven
1/10/2014 03:07:55 pm
Osiyo ! I am Ani-Yun-Wiya and yes it is true that they did take in Africans, but they also have very dark indians in many eastern bands that were of a dark brown skin, not to be associated with African, but could easily be mistaken for them. Remember most "Cherokee" (which is a name given and not our true name) came from the colonist who married into our bloodline so of course we are a mixed people. But we also took in white people (Europeans) who were running away from many of the colonist Puritan beliefs. Some of us do not want to admit that we became part of the "civilized tribes" because we accepted and married European men and adapted their customs but there are writings that refer to some of us as dark or copper. By the trail of tears, many of the Cherokee that assimilated were mixed with European ancestry and that is 300 years after Columbus and Verazanno came so we certaily did not look the same then. I am also part Narragansett and many of us are different shades of brown and always have been. I saw the comment
Alulkoy805
1/11/2018 04:24:38 pm
AtulyaRaven@The Native Americans are entitled to have their own ancient identity without it being challenged by White and Black outsiders!!! They are their own race separate from all others, and have been isolated for 25,000 thousand years, so why would you think.its okay to call them black when they are NOT? If you take it as an insult to bad, but you are a outsider and a.guest on Native American land, so instead of trying to force your black african identy.on Natives And America, why dont you go back to Africa where there are real Africans and you dont have to lie and rewrite the documented history of the last 500 years, and research your own ancestral homeland? Maybe people find it offensive because it warrants being offended! Its not like Native Americans havent been marginalized and lied about, and had their homeland appropriated, now to have their history and identitys appropriated too!? I dont think so!
JAson the Argonaut
1/9/2014 07:55:12 pm
Also! J.L. Morrison is an author with a 1928 book with soe info that is incorrect! Why is it when I give books and references, or othere here do, its thrown out as rubbish, but I and other are supposed to look up an out of print book like Morrisons (which I have read) to dispute. I think you may want to read wat a few other books had to say on Morrisons work? I did enjoy the convo Only Me, but it is not as simple as a few links on people who may not have had the best interest of the natives.
Reply
Only Me
1/9/2014 08:07:57 pm
Actually, I read some of Africans and Native Americans Judith recommended. I made it as far as Columbus and the slave trade in 1500 before I stopped (about 30 or so pages in).
Reply
Jason The Argonaut
1/9/2014 08:30:52 pm
Then Only Me you should read Othellos children in the new world. by Jose Pimenta Bey. Or They Came before Columbus by Dr. Ivan van Sertima. The olmec head I have seen look reminiscient of Nigerian heads and those of Cambodia also! Please get the full book and not the segments from Google books as some of these people do on these sites. Google books has small fragments. Also remember the term Native american is a broad one and a modern one. Before 1900 they were called American indian. before that Indian. That is like saying I spoke to a European---well what counrty? nation? France? Germany? Italy. When you say Native American not african id does not dismiss that there was a (what people now call black) presence long before European colonies here. What I dont understand in the article Jason posted is the flipant comment dismissing these people could have been of black origin as they have various features. But as I said before, Ask the natives from Canada to Mexico and they will tell you!
Reply
Jason The Argonaut
1/9/2014 08:38:44 pm
I really dont know what physical evidence you want. Buildings? that wont show a race of people unless you look at the mayan depictions and they are brown and black? roads? monuements? they are there along with the jewelry and regalia found. Well all that the museums did not pull and hide. With that ill give you info and also say that Van sertima did not have to copy anyones work as Colavito said as he is from Belize and they have ruin and monuments there being researched that show African and black American connections http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IywJ1DGuecY&list=PL7A22DDDE7F19A7AF
Reply
1/9/2014 10:42:02 pm
I am not sure what sort of strange definition of scholarship you have, but Van Sertima explicitly cites Wiener. It isn't "copying" to build on others' work, and it isn't a secret. I've previously discussed several important scholarly problems with Van Sertima's work, but frankly I can't imagine that there is anything productive to discuss since your claims are based only on superficial similarity (the exact topic of Frank Johnson's article!) and emotion.
Fantasy History Watcher
1/9/2014 10:46:40 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_van_Sertima 1/9/2014 11:05:00 pm
Even the quackery of Cheikh Anta Diop is way too sophisticated for these American Afrocentrist lunatics.49 comments to far & not a single reference to the big Mac Daddy of Afrocentrism
Only Me
1/9/2014 08:44:47 pm
Then may I also suggest you read Frank Johnson's article Jason linked to in his own. I'm doing so now, and it is quite an informative read. It provides analysis on the various claims made by Van Sertima and David Childress, with links to relevant sources.
Reply
Mandalore
1/9/2014 11:56:31 pm
Only Me and Tara are right, a few anecdotal statements and representations by isolated individuals is not enough. This is especially true when trying to build on such things from a period of European history when anyone that wasn't pale white was a dark-skinned barbarian. If one wishes to prove African contact with the Americas, which I dont think happenned, physical evidence is needed. Artifacts, buildings, jewelry, etc. The claim of museums hiding things is a cop out trying to deal with a lack of evidence by claiming a conspiracy for which there is also no evidence. Vikings and Polynesians both had very limited contact with America and physical evidence remains. A full scale African colonization would have left something clearly indicating African origins (not modern forgeries).
Reply
A.D.
1/10/2014 06:37:24 pm
lol Most people commenting here are black supremacist as you've noticed.They all have similar patterns in their arguments and behaviors,very cult like.They like to pretend to be other people online but are only fooling themselves.lol at all the fake names they create and the repetitive garbage claims and trash sources
Reply
Nachozi Zuma
1/10/2014 09:32:09 pm
While I dont agree with the Afrocentric Black supremest or Eurocentric white supremist debate, just because you type you are Mayan here does not make you qualified to determine age of cultures. Do not disrespect my people and culture by saying you are Mayan to with a debate with someone you call an Afrocentrist. I am a Mayan not a descendant which makes me wonder the validity of you claim as we in La Venta do not refer to ourselves as descendants. The names can go back and fourth but I know you are no Mayan displayed by your lack of terminology! 1/10/2014 10:41:45 pm
Almost all of the Afrocentrists posting here are just one Afrocentrist posting under multiple aliases. "Nachozi Zuma," "Jason the Argonaut," and others all are posting from the same IP address. 1/11/2014 04:42:59 am
Nita
1/10/2014 02:16:23 am
I am curious? What does an african building look like? What does an indian building look like? I think some of the comments made are based on stereotype, and unless you actually see someone of african decent from 1000 years ago, you would not believe it. Its funny that Mandalore you say Only me and and Tara wew right, when it seem Only me may have been trying to have a discussion, and Tara was dismissing some of the comments as afrocentric. Seems to me someone is not happy about people of color being here. Alose according to the discussion Jason at least seemd to leave links on books! Only me left links on a few articles, but that was off of that professors Menens comments. This really could be an interesting conversation, but if you already dont want to see people of color here, you should check the skeptic mindset. Africans (as in nationality) could not have been here as this was America.so dark people here are American. THe same way a jet black person comes from Indian and you would not call them American. ( Not to be confused with the United States). I get what Jason was saying about translation of Verazanno as I have had to do translations of French from Dusable and Champlains work in Montreal. ( Translation does differ in some instances from english). The other thing I do agree with is ask a person from on of the first nations,or native american tribes about who they are. They seem to keep a verbal history, since when whaite and black, and indian and ets scholars have stated about the (African) or black presence in america. The mounds are another bit of proff, but it does not have a billboard saying africans were here. Some would say that was the scotts or irish but even iIrelad and Scotland was rumored to have been founded by an Egyptian Princess (Kemetian) named Scotio. Even if I did not agree with the Scota story, I would check out where this came from which puts those people in Egypt which is in Africa. This could really be a great site for discussion and I agree that the History channel does go wild with certain guest, but what I see here on this site are people getting emotional if they dont agree with a poster, rather than checking it out. Jason Colovito you also stated "I can't imagine that there is anything productive to discuss since your claims are based only on superficial similarity (the exact topic of Frank Johnson's article!)" WELL....You posted the article. This sounds a bit condescending from a blogger who posts article to be discussed. If you were posting about pineapples in Guam, and it digressed to Van Sertima, I could have understod the comment. Seems there is a bit of Eurocentric minded domincance on this blog and not enough full critical thinking
Reply
Mandalore
1/10/2014 04:52:16 am
I hardly think I said anything to warrant this sort of response. I didn't link any articles because others have already done so who know this subject better than I. Just because I don't agree with a theory hardly means I would rather there be no 'people of color'' here. Besides, I referenced Polynesian contact in S America and the post of a previous poster whom self-identified himself as Native American. Or do only people of African descent count as people of color? I find these theories to belittle the accomplishments of Native Americans, and without good evidence to support them. If you wish to disagree, you are welcome to do so, bit at least do so in a somewhat polite manner.
Reply
Martha 21
1/10/2014 03:34:01 pm
If the world were filled with generalities? Wow! Too many errors in your statement. I like the way you think, but you have to look at things in a rounded way. You said Romans Greeks and Egyptians (who were Greeks invading Rome) and they were influenced by each other. Yes there are differences but If you go to North Africa to Lybia, and Algeria, there is Roman influence there! People dont just stay in one place. Thay would be like 500 years from now saying a colony called Martinique could not be influenced by French culture. Stop Generalizing and it is limiting ! IF it were as simple as that people from many countries would not seem to identify with the olmec. I think you stuydying is in the right place, but your mind has too many pre concieved notions about what should look a certain way in each region and as a scholar I hope you get out of that habbit and think outside the box.
Mandalore
1/11/2014 03:50:09 pm
I really don't know what you are talking about. Obviously nearby cultures influence each other, people move, and all cultures change over time. Do I need to specify and say that 5th century BC Romans in Latium, 4th century BC Greeks in Argos, 23rd century BC Egyptians of the Fayoum, and 13th century AD Bantu peoples of the southern Sudan build differently? That seems like overkill to me.
Only Me
1/10/2014 06:27:14 am
What does a Native American building look like, Nita? That depends on which tribe/culture you look at. The Anasazi lived in cliff dwellings. The Iroquois lived in timber longhouses up to 200' long. The Plains tribes were famous for their tepees.
Reply
Nita
1/10/2014 02:43:58 am
One more thing! The Cigar store Indians...... I am not sure what the man in the video was quoting, but I personally have seencigar store Indians heads on display in the mid 1600's in Virginia made here during that period. the few historians and tour guides have all debuked the rumor of (they did not know what the indians looked like) because the first cigar Indians were made here and shipped before they copied them . If you even ask some of the anyuniwija (Cherokee) inVirginia North Carolina area (another tobacco growing area) they will tell you they depicted them as the natives because they wanted everyone to know their (tobacco product) was authentic. THis is not my comment but to tribs, tour guides I talked to. If you are indispuite with their oral history (and these people were here before Columbus) then maybe this site is about confusion then hearing information. You can go to a few museums in DC and Virgina area. Yes Virginia was a major tobacco crop from the erroneous and ever labeled "Virginia Algonquians", but they were not the only ones planting it. PEOPLE please do a bit more research other than posting other articles by 3 and 4th hand sources ! I dont even want to star on Walter Ashby Plecker. He did a lot of racist editing in Virgina and classified them as negro and colored. Colored in New Orleans by definition was anything that was not French spanish, and later english, Black and white were not used then either, so when I hear certain terminologies, I know they are incorrect. This is why so many bloggers commence to name calling like foolery or "Quackery". It is easy to dismiss work they may be ignorant of because they have a midset set on one thing, and you are shaking their walls! Any theory should be looked at, but to dismiss it as Quackery and call it Afrocentric with such disdain make me wonder if there is a fear of the truth coming out!
Reply
1/10/2014 05:30:22 am
You have a chip on your shoulder.The race card is a canard but you`re welcome to stick by it.
Reply
Susan Stravinsky
1/10/2014 03:41:07 pm
That is a bit low for stating he was using the race card when in discussion. I am all for going through info, but he never once called you racist! I think there may be some truth coming out of your postings on who is the real racist!
Variika
1/10/2014 04:01:47 pm
Come on Tara! I was trying to have a logical debate! Im searching for answers!
Varika
1/11/2014 04:32:04 am
Nice try, but you spelled my name wrong for one, and for another, I actually use grammar.
Varika
1/10/2014 08:36:55 am
You know, it sounds to me more like you want to dismiss any research that doesn't match your preconceived notions than it does that you want other people to do actual research.
Reply
Varika
1/10/2014 08:37:59 am
....argh. "because let's face it, they couldn't be their own people, that would just be ridiculous."
Lynn Shulitz
1/10/2014 02:32:05 pm
I just saw your comment! You may want to check your research.I dont think you are looking at the years correctly??? Verazanno came upon the Carolinas On March 1, 1524? How is that after the Guadeloupe colony when as you stated, was founded in 1226. Also it has been written that the colony was made up of captured natives taken to be sold in Hispanola. ?? Please explain this! Also, I had to read carefull through the discussion and Jason neever denied europeans making the Cigar store indians, he just stated it was made in the likeness of the local indias. Im not here to argue I am just here for information. You also stated "There is no way that cigar store Indians prove that there was pre-Columbian contact with Africa" I think the discussion was about pre Coloumbian contack with darkskinned races in America and not African. I do have a masters of anthropology and I am not dismissing that, but I also know that other people were here also.
Varika
1/11/2014 04:53:32 am
Lynn, I said 1526, not 1226. I don't know where you got the idea that I said 1226; it's right up there in plain text that it's a 1*5*26. I have a hard time believing that you have a masters in anthropology based on your writing skills; how does one survive in a field based on writing papers with poor grammar? EVERY source I have found indicates that the colony was founded in 1526; what source do you have that states otherwise? If you really are an anthropologist, you should understand the difference between exploration and settlement and understand why there might easily be a two-year gap between first explorations and settlement. Furthermore, in ALL of the sources I have read, it indicates that while some of the slaves were natives, there were "a number of black slaves" (Peck, Douglas T. Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón's Doomed Colony of San Miguel de Gualdape. The Georgia Historical Quarterly Vol. 85, No. 2 (SUMMER 2001), p. 189)
Rev Gil Photsch
1/10/2014 09:40:46 am
Lighten up......
Reply
Rev Will Splosch
1/10/2014 10:12:21 am
Hey, that's my line!
Reply
Rev Bill Krotsch
1/10/2014 10:13:23 am
No, It's mine!
Dominico Salerno
1/10/2014 02:17:00 pm
I am of Italian and Sicilian blood. Last summer I went back to Sicily on a 14 day family trip, and yes the Moors were in Sicily for hundreds of years. When I saw sculptures of them the were Africa and not like that of the modern berber. On the flag of Corsica (where my Great grandfather came from) there is a moors head there. (blackamoor in an English term). In Sicily, Moor is synonomous with dark skinned African, and there are maps and stories there about the Moors navigating to the Americas in their history. Some of the racist thoughts and comments against black and Africans on this site are said out of pure bigotry and ignorance without even with an ounce of thought. I know as all Sicilians do, and many Italians (though they wont admit it) that we have African blood, so how can we dismiss what we are. It seems most people who are members here are posting to fight and not look at the facts .Cui scerri cerca, scerri trova.
Reply
Varika
1/11/2014 05:06:59 am
But we're not talking about SICILIAN heritage, honey, we're talking about Native American heritage. There are maps and stories that are INTERPRETES as being about the Moors navigating to America, but not one Moorish artifact, reliably found and dated in situ, in America. This raises significant doubt that the Moors ever made it to America. That's not a racist statement, it's a scholarly one, and it's also not some kind of slam against the Moors. It in no way denigrates their actually documented accomplishments.
Reply
Dominico Salerno
1/11/2014 10:05:29 am
Varika ! My response was discussing one of the comments of Moors not being black Africans in response to a few posters and the word blackamoor. I am telling you what I leard in Sicily and what is spoken of is history there. Have you been there? Have you researched Sicilian history. I dont have a problem with anyone questioning things but Im laying the facts down on what is on tours such as Galleria Regionale della Sicilia, the Museo Archeologico Luigi Bernabo' Brea , and the Museo Regionale di Arte Mediovale e Moderna. I saw and heard this my own eyes this summer and it was stated that those sicillians traded with African Moors who travelled to the new world. I you disagree, write and debate them.So yes when you say "we're not talking about SICILIAN heritage, honey, we're talking about Native American heritage". It may be best to read further up the post before insulting me. I wont be as condescending as calling you "honey, but I will leave you with this "Siri còmu l'uòvu: ciù assài còci cciù ddùru addivènta."
Reply
Varika
1/11/2014 10:41:05 am
I'm sure your last was an attempt at an insult, but if so, you would have done better to stick to English. I don't speak Italian and don't plan on learning just so I can figure out how a twit like you has insulted me.
Dominico Salerno
1/11/2014 11:58:35 am
Varinika! The lady doth protest too much! That was not an insult as I stated it was a proverb but a low IQ may probaly take it as such. (That was an insult)as you have taken it to another level. You are soo keen to battle your ignorance keeps you from responding with logic. FACT! I saw a comment about the Moor Fact! I told on my position of the Moor that a poster put above! FACT! I listed museums that I personaly heard the tour guides in different regions of Sicily discuss. ( you were not there so do not validate this) FACT: There is a history and tradition of local stories of the Moors trading and going to America . You many not agree but these are Facts that occur. I never said anything about you denying the Moors but you chimed in for battle when I was commenting on another poster about the Moors instead of reading. If the shoe fits yo must have worn it out.Seeing that you are a simple woman and not an educated one, it is a bit presumptive to assume what various tour guides say if you were not there. Just for clarification for you (since you even lack the capacity of a rotten peanut) Memeber posted Tara Jordan stated "The Moores were Africans (North Africans - Arabo Berbères),indeed they conquered the Iberian Peninsula (Al-Andalus) but Moores were not Black" and this is why I decided to chime in. I will take heed from this caucus of fools that you must be a part of it. Go read before getting upset over something that does not concern you and your"hooney" comments little woman! 1/11/2014 12:02:47 pm
Enough already, whoever you are. "Dominico" is the same person who was otherwise "Jason the Argonaut," the fake Varika, and innumerable other aliases. Either drop the personal insults and random aliases, or I will begin removing your posts.
Dominico Salerno
1/11/2014 12:06:57 pm
Also Varika !
KiloEcho
3/28/2018 02:43:11 am
You are wasting your time here.
Alulkoy 805
1/11/2018 04:55:44 pm
Maybe if some African Americans were not trying to racistly take credit for Native American acheivements and world contributions, we wouldnt be talking about it. Just because they were treated badly in the past doesnt give them the right to treat Native Americans with utter disrespect , much the same.way Whites treated them. Its straight up Black Supremacy on their part, taking credit for someone else civilizations. Native Americans are the most marginalized population in the USA and the Americas, and African Americans have more power than NAs..they have a voice and a platform to use it. Native Americans have neither!
Reply
Marty R
1/11/2014 05:07:04 am
Getting back to the blog lead-in, Frank Johnson's thorough "dismantling" of David Childress, it led me to the Ancient Aliens Debunked film. It was as good of a job as any in throwing a monkey wrench into the con of these snake-oil salesmen.
Reply
Deejay O
12/5/2016 11:32:01 pm
Who is this "Frank Johnson"? character? What are his qualifications? It would appear that he has a lot of time on his hands and has "biblical bias", so I put him in rthe "God-botherer" camp; maybe a Southern Baptist "Pastor".
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
October 2024
|