|
Post by anansi on Nov 29, 2016 0:57:24 GMT -5
The below is a simple glossary of African or African derived words, that debunks the nativist creed among us. Are there or were there native Blacks in the so-called new world, answer yes. see the Brazil finds etc. Are the vast majority of Blacks today in the Americas is of native extraction, no! That does not match-up with genetics, linguistics or culture, are we a bunch of Hebrews then, No! Most of the African diaspora practice a combination of Christianity or African derived religion, are there exception to the rule? yes I am certain that Hebrews or Jews were in West Africa who maybe have been caught up in the slave raids along with a vast majority of people who were not of any Abrahamic faith, btw the exception also extend to Christian Blacks of the Kongo, is it possible that some families of Hebrew faith retained their faith only to reveal it of late, not impossible, also some Jewish slaver holders may have in fact past on their faith to their slaves, The Above are exception to the rule.but the retention of common African words found in the diaspora is significant, if Americas blacks were primarily peopled by Hebrews or Native Blacks we would expect higher retention of words and cultural practice through out, but as you will see this is not the case. WORDS OF AFRICAN ORIGIN
A poster Wally said Okra may have had Nile valley origins as the name of that plant was the same as in West Africa.
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Nov 29, 2016 2:23:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Nov 29, 2016 2:30:29 GMT -5
The American Bottle Tree
|
|
|
Post by snakepit on Dec 15, 2016 12:20:17 GMT -5
The below is a simple glossary of African or African derived words, that debunks the nativist creed among us. Are there or were there native Blacks in the so-called new world, answer yes. see the Brazil finds etc. Are the vast majority of Blacks today in the Americas is of native extraction, no!That does not match-up with genetics, linguistics or culture, are we a bunch of Hebrews then, No!Most of the African diaspora practice a combination of Christianity or African derived religion, are there exception to the rule? yesI am certain that Hebrews or Jews were in West Africa who maybe have been caught up in the slave raids along with a vast majority of people who were not of any Abrahamic faith, btw the exception also extend to Christian Blacks of the Kongo, is it possible that some families of Hebrew faith retained their faith only to reveal it of late, not impossible, also some Jewish slaver holders may have in fact past on their faith to their slaves, The Above are exception to the rule.but the retention of common African words found in the diaspora is significant, if Americas blacks were primarily peopled by Hebrews or Native Blacks we would expect higher retention of words and cultural practice through out, but as you will see this is not the case. WORDS OF AFRICAN ORIGINA poster Wally said Okra may have had Nile valley origins as the name of that plant was the same as in West Africa. Samba is a word derived from 'Semba' . It's of Angolan origin, most likely Mbundu.
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Dec 26, 2017 15:48:23 GMT -5
Great roundup Anansi.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Dec 27, 2017 3:27:59 GMT -5
Good summary. Nativist blacks won’t be swayed by logic though. They’re like the “Arabist” blacks, the “moorish-Israelites” and all the others who love believing in fanciful heritage.
What native new world blacks are you referring to? Do you mean the skulls found in South America and the Caribbean that were described by some anthropologists as belonging to blacks? There’s been too much info that’s come out to discredit that. Skull measurements aren’t so reliable. Depending on which measurement model you use and what you have as your source comparison skulls, a different result could be given and also populations’ cranio-facial area changes over time. And we already know some anthros we’re swearing up and down that ancient natives were descended from Polynesians (based on skull measurements) and not closely related to most current natives but that’s been proven wrong by genetics. In fact same populations described as Polynesian by some anthros were described as African by others if I’m not mistaken.. And the modern descendants of one of these ancient pops (people related to the “Luiza” skeleton from Brazil) were tested and no African dna showed up.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Dec 27, 2017 6:44:43 GMT -5
Africurious said [ What native new world blacks are you referring to? Do you mean the skulls found in South America and the Caribbean that were described by some anthropologists as belonging to blacks?] Yes, and my reasonings?? Certain phenotype combined with heavily melaninated skin found all over the world from Africa to Asia is not unusual, however didn't mean they are Africans based off those features, they could have acquired it locally or brought it with them from Asia. [And the modern descendants of one of these ancient pops (people related to the “Luiza” skeleton from Brazil) were tested and no African dna] Again I never claimed African, but there is some interesting finds on the Virgin Is. That's worth revisiting, off course this is no slam dunk but there is smoke,as the bones seemed to reflect an African precolombian connection. Analysis Of The Hull's Bay Skeletons St Thomas Read more: egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1682/study-precolumbian-african-skeletons-virgin#ixzz52Sau48sdKlik the study itself not a slam dunk but worth up dating.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Dec 27, 2017 8:46:24 GMT -5
Africurious said [ What native new world blacks are you referring to? Do you mean the skulls found in South America and the Caribbean that were described by some anthropologists as belonging to blacks?] Yes, and my reasonings?? Certain phenotype combined with heavily melaninated skin found all over the world from Africa to Asia is not unusual, however didn't mean they are Africans based off those features, they could have acquired it locally or brought it with them from Asia. [And the modern descendants of one of these ancient pops (people related to the “Luiza” skeleton from Brazil) were tested and no African dna] Again I never claimed African, but there is some interesting finds on the Virgin Is. That's worth revisiting, off course this is no slam dunk but there is smoke,as the bones seemed to reflect an African precolombian connection. Analysis Of The Hull's Bay Skeletons St Thomas Read more: egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1682/study-precolumbian-african-skeletons-virgin#ixzz52Sau48sdKlik the study itself not a slam dunk but worth up dating. Hmm, ok I kinda get your reasoning but that wouldn’t make pre-columbians black in the sense that black nativists and others who claim a “black” presence mean it. They mean it in the racial sense i.e. the “black race”, “negro”, etc. Today, we don’t call any group descended from pre-Colombians black so why would we refer to these ancient people as black? Also if by this quote “Certain phenotype combined with heavily melaninated skin found all over the world from Africa to Asia” you mean that more tropically adapted skeletal features go together with dark skin that could be called black that’s incorrect. The skeleton can have features common in tropical areas but the skin still be light and vice versa. The people who descend from ancient native Americans with those African/Polynesian/Australasian-like skeletal features still exist today but people act like there was some great disappearance of ancient “blacks” from the Americas without giving any compelling evidence. There’re still dark brown native Americans and nobody is going to Latin America and calling them black so why call their ancestors black? Where’s the evidence of pre-Colombians’ skin color? Aside from few descriptions from early euro conquest there is none. I’m familiar with the Virgin island skeletons. They seem most likely to be african but there remains the problem that the date of the skeletons has never been resolved. There were burial nails found that are associated with 1 of the 2 skeletons which contradicts the pottery from ~1200AD or earlier that’s associated with the other skeleton. Also, you seem to have assumed a black/near black complexion for the bodies based on anthros saying the skeletons are those of Africans. Since skeleton and skin are independent of each other, one can’t assume their skin color if as you say they aren’t necessarily Africans.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Dec 27, 2017 10:04:07 GMT -5
Also if there were pre-Columbian non-African blacks then why haven’t any of their dna been found yet? It’s claimed “blacks” were in mesoamerica, s. America and the Caribbean, founders of large civilizations. So, such a large population just disappeared off the face of the earth and left no genetic trace in modern populations? And the non-black natives survived or completely replaced them with no genetic admixture? Would we accept these kinds of arguments if people claim caucasoids founded ancient civilizations in Africa or were roaming about there?
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Dec 27, 2017 10:37:07 GMT -5
Africurious said: [Hmm, ok I kinda get your reasoning but that wouldn’t make pre-columbians black in the sense that black nativists and others who claim a “black” presence mean it. They mean it in the racial sense i.e. the “black race”, “negro”, etc. Today, we don’t call any group descended from pre-Colombians black so why would we refer to these ancient people as black]
For me "Black" is just a descriptive term and it have very little to do with anyone's ancestors or future descendants for that matter.
[Also if by this quote “Certain phenotype combined with heavily melaninated skin found all over the world from Africa to Asia” you mean that more tropically adapted skeletal features go together with dark skin that could be called black that’s incorrect. The skeleton can have features common in tropical areas but the skin still be light and vice versa.]
But why auto ruleout the possibility given similar ecological conditions in tropical Asia and Africa where the two phenotypes overlapped why disregard the eyewitness account of early Euros. [Also, you seem to have assumed a black/near black complexion for the bodies based on anthros saying the skeletons are those of Africans. Since skeleton and skin are independent of each other, one can’t assume their skin color if as you say they aren’t necessarily Africans.]
In this case the author of the study is assuming African traits I think he sight dental characteristics ,the problem is the body it cannot be properly dated, although the artifact could.
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Dec 27, 2017 14:02:36 GMT -5
Also if by this quote “Certain phenotype combined with heavily melaninated skin found all over the world from Africa to Asia” you mean that more tropically adapted skeletal features go together with dark skin that could be called black that’s incorrect. The skeleton can have features common in tropical areas but the skin still be light and vice versa. The people who descend from ancient native Americans with those African/Polynesian/Australasian-like skeletal features still exist today but people act like there was some great disappearance of ancient “blacks” from the Americas without giving any compelling evidence. There’re still dark brown native Americans and nobody is going to Latin America and calling them black so why call their ancestors black? Where’s the evidence of pre-Colombians’ skin color? Aside from few descriptions from early euro conquest there is none.
I am not sold myself on theories of Nubians/Egyptians sweeping into the New World before COlumbus, but general convergent adaptation is one factor. If you live in the tropics for a very long time you will start trending towards darker skin, elongated limb proportions etc., though this might not be identical to original stocks in Africa.
As for the blacks seen by explorers, I do not think they were DIRECT from West Africa or Nubia. I more think they were Native Americans, with some "black" tropical features- from dark skin, to broader noses (though narrow noses are nothing special in tropical Africa as well), etc. These people, in social construct terms of Europeans and Americans, would be "black" and would be enslaved, Jim Crowed, disrespected, lynched and "profiled" down to the present day in many areas because they "look black."
For all PRACTICAL purposes, there would be little difference between them and a Black American as far as the Jim Crow buses, restrictive covenant/FHA financed neighborhoods, or "suspicious looking black people" profiled in today's airports and stores.
Thus on (a) Phenotypical terms (general dark tropical features)
(b) Social construct race terms
They would for all social purposes be "black." DOes this mean their DNA would show a direct link with common DNA patterns of West Africa? I don;t think so. The DNA profiles of Native Americans are more linked with Asiatic peoples than African. Interestingly enough some right wingers insist on phenotype as "racial reality." OK, lets go with that. Using the "black looking" standard, them they were black. Wait a minute they suddenly say.. then begin to hypocritically backtrack..
That being said I think it was perfectly possible that there was Pre-Columbian contact between Africa and the Americas- whether by accident or by groups sailing for distant shores spoken of in legends or trade travel. Technically it was quite within the range of African peoples of West Africa to do so. Just their large watercraft, the 30-ton capacity "kanto" boats, prepped for long voyages are feasible enough, with favorable tides and winds. Thor Hyerdahl proved that fancy navigation equipment or European sailing ships are not necessary. I am sold on the MASSIVE AFRICAN FLEETS some claim - pulling up on Mexican or Caribbean beaches. Some people argue for this as it it were the gospel truth rather than a more cautious approach seeing this as one model or theory of pre-columbian contact. Its a theory with some data behind it, but with many facets still to be clearly established.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Dec 27, 2017 14:48:26 GMT -5
Africurious said: [Hmm, ok I kinda get your reasoning but that wouldn’t make pre-columbians black in the sense that black nativists and others who claim a “black” presence mean it. They mean it in the racial sense i.e. the “black race”, “negro”, etc. Today, we don’t call any group descended from pre-Colombians black so why would we refer to these ancient people as black] For me "Black" is just a descriptive term and it have very little to do with anyone's ancestors or feature descendants for that matter. So you are using black to describe what exactly as it refers to pre-Columbian natives? And it’s still unclear who these “blacks” are supposed to be. All you’ve mentioned are “Brazilian finds” and then the virgin island skeletons. Africurious said: [Also if by this quote “Certain phenotype combined with heavily melaninated skin found all over the world from Africa to Asia” you mean that more tropically adapted skeletal features go together with dark skin that could be called black that’s incorrect. The skeleton can have features common in tropical areas but the skin still be light and vice versa.] But why auto ruleout the possibility given similar ecological conditions in tropical Asia and Africa where the two phenotypes overlapped why disregard the eyewitness account of early Euros. [Also, you seem to have assumed a black/near black complexion for the bodies based on anthros saying the skeletons are those of Africans. Since skeleton and skin are independent of each other, one can’t assume their skin color if as you say they aren’t necessarily Africans.] In this case the author of the study is assuming African traits I think he sight dental characteristics ,the problem is the body it cannot be properly dated, although the artifact could. In science one goes by what is likely, not what is possible. Many things are possible but only few are likely. Your claim as well as it’s opposite are equally likely, making neither one sufficient. You should also note that in Asia and Africa the two phenotypes very often don’t overlap. Example, the San people have cranio-facial features that are “negroid”/more common in tropics but have extremely light skin. They wouldn’t be called black based on skin tone alone. This scenario is reversed in most Somalis. In Asia, Indians tend to have cranio-facial features akin to temperate and cold climate peoples even if their skin is black. And these are just a few examples. So again a claim can’t be made for skin color based on skeleton alone. Such a notion isn’t even claimed by any modern anthropologist. The genes controlling skin color and skeletal features aren’t the same and are independent of each other. I don’t disregard the accounts of early euros. But their descriptions don’t imply the idea you’ve put forth. Having very dark skin is quite within Native American variation. And again where’re the genes from this “black” population?
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Dec 27, 2017 15:15:34 GMT -5
Also if by this quote “Certain phenotype combined with heavily melaninated skin found all over the world from Africa to Asia” you mean that more tropically adapted skeletal features go together with dark skin that could be called black that’s incorrect. The skeleton can have features common in tropical areas but the skin still be light and vice versa. The people who descend from ancient native Americans with those African/Polynesian/Australasian-like skeletal features still exist today but people act like there was some great disappearance of ancient “blacks” from the Americas without giving any compelling evidence. There’re still dark brown native Americans and nobody is going to Latin America and calling them black so why call their ancestors black? Where’s the evidence of pre-Colombians’ skin color? Aside from few descriptions from early euro conquest there is none. I am not sold myself on theories of Nubians/Egyptians sweeping into the New World before COlumbus, but general convergent adaptation is one factor. If you live in the tropics for a very long time you will start trending towards darker skin, elongated limb proportions etc., though this might not be identical to original stocks in Africa. As for the blacks seen by explorers, I do not think they were DIRECT from West Africa or Nubia. I more think they were Native Americans, with some "black" tropical features- from dark skin, to broader noses (though narrow noses are nothing special in tropical Africa as well), etc. These people, in social construct terms of Europeans and Americans, would be "black" and would be enslaved, Jim Crowed, disrespected, lynched and "profiled" down to the present day in many areas because they "look black." For all PRACTICAL purposes, there would be little difference between them and a Black American as far as the Jim Crow buses, restrictive covenant/FHA financed neighborhoods, or "suspicious looking black people" profiled in today's airports and stores. Thus on (a) Phenotypical terms (general dark tropical features) (b) Social construct race terms They would for all social purposes be "black." DOes this mean their DNA would show a direct link with common DNA patterns of West Africa? I don;t think so. The DNA profiles of Native Americans are more linked with Asiatic peoples than African. Interestingly enough some right wingers insist on phenotype as "racial reality." OK, lets go with that. Using the "black looking" standard, them they were black. Wait a minute they suddenly say.. then begin to hypocritically backtrack.. That being said I think it was perfectly possible that there was Pre-Columbian contact between Africa and the Americas- whether by accident or by groups sailing for distant shores spoken of in legends or trade travel. Technically it was quite within the range of African peoples of West Africa to do so. Just their large watercraft, the 30-ton capacity "kanto" boats, prepped for long voyages are feasible enough, with favorable tides and winds. Thor Hyerdahl proved that fancy navigation equipment or European sailing ships are not necessary. I am sold on the MASSIVE AFRICAN FLEETS some claim - pulling up on Mexican or Caribbean beaches. Some people argue for this as it it were the gospel truth rather than a more cautious approach seeing this as one model or theory of pre-columbian contact. Its a theory with some data behind it, but with many facets still to be clearly established. But these dark skinned native Americans aren’t lumped in with black people in the racial construct of society tho—that’s my point. Melanesians, Polynesians and some other Asians would be but not native Americans. Anansi seems to be implying there’s a black people that were present who aren’t descended from Africans but different from native Americans (if I follow his drift correctly). So naturally they wouldn’t have african dna but where is this other dna? It’s not showed up. Genetics is already at the point where we can differentiate at finer scale than just “Asian”. None of the several Asian components that’ve shown up in Native dna could be from this unidentified “black” population. So where’re these people? Why don’t we see a genetic difference between meso and s Americans on one hand and northern Americans on the other that is reflective of this black population that supposedly settled in meso & s America?
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Dec 27, 2017 21:56:10 GMT -5
Africurious said.I don’t disregard the accounts of early euros. But their descriptions don’t imply the idea you’ve put forth. Having very dark skin is quite within Native American variation. And again where’re the genes from this “black” population?] The specific gene that made some darker than the average Native Americans or 1st world people I cannot answer for. But that's exactly what some of the earliest Euros implied before the massive trade in slaves, that they were black enough to be confused with Africans. {There were other sightings in the Americas that were reported. One sighting was by Peter Martyr who reported that Vasco Nunez de Balboa in September 1513 saw two black men in Panama. Native Americans reported to him that they were at war with a large settlement of these black men. It was believed these black men were ship wrecked. Another sighting was by Lopez de Gomara who described the people as identical to Africans seen in Guinea. The next sighting by Labbe' Brasseur de Bourbourg reported two indigenous peoples in Panama, the Mandinga (black skin) and the Tule (red skin). Also Fray Gregoria Garcia reports on blacks sighted in Cartagena, Columbia. Michael Coe even reported that Alonzo Ponce spoke of a boatload of "Moors" who landed off Campeche and terrorized the natives.} for a translation of the Columbus original journal go here NARRATIVE OF THE THIRD VOYAGE OF COLUMBUS AS CONTAINED IN LAS CASAS’S HISTORY May 30-August 31, 1498 www.gutenberg.org/files/18571/18571-h/18571-h.htm#voyage. {Ekchuah Also spelled Ek Chuah, the "black war chief" was the patron god of warriors and merchants, depicted carrying a bag over his shoulder. In art, he was a dark-skinned man with circles around his eyes, a scorpion tail and dangling lower lip. In early modern studies of Maya art and iconography, he was sometimes referred to as God M before his identity was firmly established. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Maya_gods_and_supernatural_beings Ek Chuah is the sixth most commonly depicted deity in the codices, and is portrayed 40 times. He has a thick, pendulous lower lip and is generally painted in black, in the Tro-Cortesian codex, or partially black, in the Dresden codex. In the former, his mouth is always surrounded by a dull red circle which makes his thick lips stand out. The hieroglyph of his name is an eye with a black ring. He was beneficial god for traveling merchants. As a beneficent god, he appears carrying a bundle of goods on his back, like a traveling merchant, and in some places he is shown with the head of Xamán Ek, god of the North Star, who, as we will see, is said to have been "The Merchants' Guide"} Back to the original premise, Blacks in the Americas today are African descendants, whatever native American blacks there were , seemed to have long been absorbed by other natives and newcomers.probably weren't that many to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by mellomusings on Jan 10, 2018 13:49:34 GMT -5
I don't see the point in debating the topic as I have found that their own arguments tend to contradict their own claims. Since I live in the deep South portion of the US I can give witness to African culture that survived via an offshoot of Voodoo we call "roots".
|
|