PDA

View Full Version : I found a series on the origins of humanity in north america and other places


spiggity_ace
07-20-2009, 03:10 AM
this is real dope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Teyj2UrvHOM&feature=PlayList&p=6441287E105E09E9&index=1
i decided not to embed because their is a whole playlist of this series, if you have a lot of time and this interests you you should take a look, im on video 3 right now and it explained how archaic civilization in mexico resembled ethiopian inhabitants, this actually has research and facts and isnt some dude saying shit, its real interesting i suggest you do watch this.

I don't know if i'm goin to watch the whole thing becuase their is like an infinite amount of these vids but ill try to watch the whole series and see what its all about. Please watch this.

Uncle Steezo
07-20-2009, 07:06 PM
i watched 24 eps so far... good find.

ALCATRAZ
07-21-2009, 03:35 AM
propers

spiggity_ace
07-21-2009, 05:35 AM
damn i hope other people are watchin this, i thought this would get a lot of publicity, he actually backs shit up with facts and isnt spewin some random bullshit, explains the origins of native americans and how theyre related to blacks, how the chinese are related to blacks how the inhabitants of the middle east are moors that have mixed with whties, how their was a moor tribe in america that was classified as natives even though they considered themselves moors, i wanted to know about the origins of the actual people of india but he didnt touch on that im just geussin they relate to the arabs.

It also touches on the slave trade and how it was reversed from the true story, how keeping slaves under a ship for 4 montsh n letting them urinate n defecate would have drowned them, how slavery really started from america by columbus whne he shipped moors to spain, then these moors were sent to africa n then back to america, some of those pictures of the natives really look like moorish people, i learned not to classify moors as african americans or blacks because it classes them as second class citizens, due to the 14th ammendment, the treaty of morocco is realy some inciteful shit, people need to know this stuff, the first civilization in north america was BLACK!

and its not like im just lookin at one side of the story, we've all learned the other side in social studies and history classes, damn, people lookin at africans like they are primitive as a people is fuckin sad to me, this shit should be taught in schools, the moor domination of spain should be taught instead of christopher columbus' murder of the moors of america.

WARPATH
07-21-2009, 12:59 PM
The narrator talks a lot about African and Asian's activities the Western Hemisphere, with respect to the Olmecs, but it is also completely biased because he shows a disregard for history and culture of "Red Indians."

I'm not saying it's not well researched, but there's a very large chunk of information that is missing and misleading in these videos.

ALCATRAZ
07-21-2009, 01:16 PM
whats misleading about the videos

WARPATH
07-21-2009, 01:35 PM
The narrator completely disregards the history of the tribes he mentions. He's talking about a time when the continent was populated with a large variety of tribes, each with different cultures, languages, and beliefs.

The narrator says:

"What's more important is not the feelings concerning indigenous people, but more so the truthful data and validity and acceptance of that data"

Yet, he completely disregards history and culture of "Red Indians."

The narrator draws similarities between African and native tribes, but in his own studies he ignores "data" about the history of "Red Indians" in North and South America.

It's funny.

He's saying that even though thousands of Native Americans know about their history and ancestry, you have to disregard it, because "they're catching feelings."

WARPATH
07-21-2009, 02:44 PM
Historiography:

The study of the writing of history.

Emphasis or downplay on histories elements, and the values assigned to them- change reflecting the writers cultural and personal beliefs.

ALCATRAZ
07-21-2009, 02:59 PM
so is there anything to be learned from these videos or should i disregard the entire shit

WARPATH
07-21-2009, 03:25 PM
so is there anything to be learned from these videos or should i disregard the entire shit

Depends on who you ask.

In my honest opinion it would be better to disregard the entire series, because of the extreme bias.

Or

You can use it as a basis to start looking for answers. Look into each of these cultures in depth and on their own, Get other view points. Then you can come back and look at specifically which parts the narrator has truth in what he was talking about and which parts were his personal bias.

LoTec
07-21-2009, 05:03 PM
i wanted to know about the origins of the actual people of india but he didnt touch on that im just geussin they relate to the arabs.

My guess would be a close connection with Ethiopia or Kemet. But thats really just a guess mainly based on physical features of Dravidians and some northeastern african peoples. Plus there are similarities between Hindu and Kemetic theolegy.

spiggity_ace
07-21-2009, 11:09 PM
Yea i see what slippy is saying, but i think the information he is saying is very usefull to find a basis of your own research on, im not just goin to go on this dudes word but i always believed that somehow that everyone was related except white people because white people just look different to me than everyone else, maybe im just a weirdo but thats what i think, yo i dont like it that laced's posts get erased, the guy brings up good poitns most of the time you cant just censor wut he's saying.

ALCATRAZ
07-22-2009, 01:53 AM
word plus it ain't like they teach you all of his story in schools, most of the time youre gettin some watered down eurocentric view of how things went down

Black Man
07-22-2009, 11:55 AM
The narrator talks a lot about African and Asian's activities the Western Hemisphere, with respect to the Olmecs, but it is also completely biased because he shows a disregard for history and culture of "Red Indians."

I'm not saying it's not well researched, but there's a very large chunk of information that is missing and misleading in these videos.

What exactly is a "Red Indian" (that term is misleading and shows a disregard for the people who are called this name)? What makes them different from the other Indians?

How is the narrator completely biased when he's given the history and culture of the indigenous people who settled in the Americas at different points in time?

Why mention the narrator being biased against one group of people and not the other groups of people that weren't mentioned? You sound biased. The "Red Indians" weren't the first, second or third group of indigenous people to settle in the western hemisphere.

The "Red Indians" are the last group of indigenous people to settle in what's now known as North and South America, not the first.

The Olmec came BEFORE the "Red Indians" yet they weren't the first either there's two other major migrations that's not been mentioned, and ever indigenous group of people who migrated to the America's have their origin in this world in the eastern hemisphere more specifically "Africa" and "Asia".

Black Man
07-22-2009, 12:25 PM
There's been much attention onblack contact with the Americas in the pre-Columbian period beginning in approximately the 1st millennium B.C., b.u.t. hardly anyone has yet "focused on the presence of Black people in prehistoric America, i.e c. 40,000 to 6,000 B.C."

Contrary to the common belief, the earliest Americans were not Mongoloid but actually members of the so-called Australoid family, which in the old days roamed overmost of the Earth (1:14, 3:14)

There's been four migrations to enter North America, and the earliest wave, taking place sometime around 25,000 B.C. occurred across a land bridge scientists refer to as Beringia, rather thanthe waters of the Bering Strait.

The classification of the people of the four successive waves of migration are as follows: 1. Australoids 2. Asiatic Negroids 3. Algonquins 4. Eskimos

The face of the Native American peoples currently inhabiting the Americas is not the face of the protohistoric, prehistoric, or ancient periods of Native American history and ethnography. Instead, the face has been shaped by a succession of "four separate migrations, each of which was distinct from all the others in regard to both the physical appearance of the people and the culture which they brought with them."

Frederick Peterson, in his 1959 work Ancient Mexico remarked, "We cantrace the slow progress of man in Mexico without noting any definite Old World influence during this period (1000-650 B.C.), except possibly a strong Negroid substatum connected with the Magicians."

The first wave fo people to penetrate the Americas were called Austaloid as its been held that they descend from the same stock of early settlers to spread throughout Asia and populate its far eastern extremes in India, China, japan, and the southeastern fringes of continental Asia before finally establishing their strongest base in Australia and at the same time spreading from the east Asian shores to the islands of the Pacific. These Australoid Blacks, called Austro-Asiatic in their continental dimension and Austronesian in their more adventrous sea-faring branch were generally of the same type as modern Australian aborigines. That is, most were exceedingly dark-skinned, platyrrhine and possessed full lips and prognathism but unlike Blacks of the African interior, also possess a receding forehead and beetling brow ridge topped by hair ranging from a straight to wavy texture. Many of these features are also still found duplicated amongst the Vedda nd Veddoid populations of India and Sri Lanka, said to be descendants of the original Australoid inhabitants.

ALCATRAZ
07-22-2009, 01:52 PM
glad this thread is gettin sum attention, i think i'll continue watchin those vids ....

Ghost In The 'Lac
07-22-2009, 01:59 PM
their whole idea is fraudulent based purely on the fact they think Pangea supercontinent was only 10,000 years ago, when in scientific reality it was billions.

This is pseodo science, not even done well.

It will fool people without knowledge, but those who actually know abotu shit they are talking about will just laugh at most of this.

LORD NOSE
07-22-2009, 04:03 PM
this is a portion of your post that got deleted

there was already a thread on this dumb shit.

don't come up in here with all that old lady complaining nonsense - why haven't you learned your lesson


why the fuck was my post deleted?

this place fucking sucks, on some ignorant shit.

Are you fucking kidding? IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN HERE now Sunnys in charge. It was there, i saw it, in light blue text.

where have you been lol, do you not know how sunnys been using this place?

Im not gonna take the time to write it out again, fuck this place, im sick of making posts and seeing them deleted.

Fuck Sunny, fuck KTL, fuck the nigga who put this guy in charge.

fuck that whats the point, nice sig vid btw


now watch the rest of your silly post disappear

ALCATRAZ
07-22-2009, 04:11 PM
damn is that erykah badu ... i wanna do nasty things to her

spiggity_ace
07-22-2009, 05:11 PM
their whole idea is fraudulent based purely on the fact they think Pangea supercontinent was only 10,000 years ago, when in scientific reality it was billions.



they dont mention pangea but they mention the bridge between siberia and alaska, and sailing between continents.

WARPATH
07-22-2009, 05:30 PM
What exactly is a "Red Indian" (that term is misleading and shows a disregard for the people who are called this name)? What makes them different from the other Indians?

I used the term Red Indian, because that's what the narrator uses to describe the tribal people of North and South America. What I am referring to are the Original people of the western hemisphere. What makes the french different from the spanish? What makes the Zulu different from the Igbo?


How is the narrator completely biased when he's given the history and culture of the indigenous people who settled in the Americas at different points in time?

He doesn't give any insight into the culture. He just points out some similarities between cultures, he draws his conclusions based on outer appearances.

He does not go into language, culture, religion, in depth.

That's all.


Why mention the narrator being biased against one group of people and not the other groups of people that weren't mentioned? You sound biased. The "Red Indians" weren't the first, second or third group of indigenous people to settle in the western hemisphere.

I didn't make any claims any which way so I can't really have bias. I'm just telling people here to look at all the facts. I'm just trying tell people not to take the word of anyone just because it sounds good. I would do the same if the narrator was white, black, green, brown, purple.........etc.



The "Red Indians" are the last group of indigenous people to settle in what's now known as North and South America, not the first.

Native Americans have a rich history and culture. Many of the tribes were pre-literate, or rather- posessed a strict oral traditon. Because most Native Americans were killed from famine, disease, and war, much of that history has been lost. However they did have some written history.

Speaking strictly from my own cultural perspective, we had our winter counts that were written on hides of animals. When European settlers came they destroyed much of that history. However some of our oral history remained. Yet, because many native Americans do not posses influence in academia a lot our oral history is disregarded as legend.

And that's as bias as I can get. I don't know if "Black" people were here first too, or whites, or Asians or whoever. I don't how much of interracial tribal breeding took place. I do know there were people on this continent. I do know that history for the western hemisphere interacting with the rest of world date far back then most people will acknowledge.


The Olmec came BEFORE the "Red Indians" yet they weren't the first either there's two other major migrations that's not been mentioned, and ever indigenous group of people who migrated to the America's have their origin in this world in the eastern hemisphere more specifically "Africa" and "Asia".

Respectfully,

You have as much proof of people immigrating here as I do that some people did not immigrate.

I think it would be best if we just left it at that.

Ghost In The 'Lac
07-22-2009, 05:33 PM
they dont mention pangea but they mention the bridge between siberia and alaska, and sailing between continents.

the last video like this tried to tell us that when africa was connected to america,the africans walked over to america

only problem wwith their theory was that africa was only connected to america abotu a billion years before humans or any animal we know now even existed

Black Man
07-22-2009, 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Man http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1630247#post1630247)
What exactly is a "Red Indian" (that term is misleading and shows a disregard for the people who are called this name)? What makes them different from the other Indians?

I used the term Red Indian, because that's what the narrator uses to describe the tribal people of North and South America. What I am referring to are the Original people of the western hemisphere. What makes the french different from the spanish? What makes the Zulu different from the Igbo?

THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE.....THE 1ST PEOPLE IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE WERE NOT THE "RED INDIANS" ALTHOUGH THEY ARE ORIGINAL (BLACK) PEOPLE TOO. THEY (THE PEOPLE CALLED "RED INDIANS") WERE NOT THE FIRST TO BE IN THE WEST.

IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT MAKES THE "RED INDIANS" DIFFERENT FROM OTHER "INDIANS" ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SAY, I DON'T KNOW.



Quote:
How is the narrator completely biased when he's given the history and culture of the indigenous people who settled in the Americas at different points in time?
He doesn't give any insight into the culture. He just points out some similarities between cultures, he draws his conclusions based on outer appearances.

IF THIS IS THE CASE, THEN YOUR STATEMENT IS STILL IN ERROR BECAUSE THE NARRATOR IS NOT COMPLETELY BIASED. JUST AS YOU SAID, HE POINTED OUT SOME SIMILARITIES BETWEEN CULTURES....IF THE NARRATOR WAS COMPLETELY BIASED THEN THAT WOULDN'T BE THE CASE.

WAS THE NARRATOR TRYING TO FOCUS OR EVEN GET INTO THE CULTURE? HOW MANY DIFFERENT "TRIBAL" CULTURES WOULD THE NARRATOR HAVE TO EXPRESS? SURELY NOT ONE OR TWO FOR THERE WERE NUMEROUS TRIBES WITH DIFFERENT CULTURES IN THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH. THEN THE NARRATOR WOULD ALSO HAVE TO GET INTO THE CULTURE AT VARIOUS POINTS IN TIME.

He does not go into language, culture, religion, in depth.

NOT GOING INTO THE LANGUAGE CULTURE RELIGION IN DEPTH IS NOT BEING BIASED. JUST DEALING WITH ONE TRIBAL LANGUAGE IN DEPTH WOULD BE A SERIES OF VIDEOS/BOOKS/LECTURES ETC. ETC.

That's all.

Quote:
Why mention the narrator being biased against one group of people and not the other groups of people that weren't mentioned? You sound biased. The "Red Indians" weren't the first, second or third group of indigenous people to settle in the western hemisphere.
I didn't make any claims any which way so I can't really have bias. I'm just telling people here to look at all the facts. I'm just trying tell people not to take the word of anyone just because it sounds good. I would do the same if the narrator was white, black, green, brown, purple.........etc.

YOU'RE TELLING THE PEOPLE HERE TO LOOK AT ALL THE FACTS, YET YOU YOURSELF ARE NOT WILLING TO LOOK AT ALL THE FACTS, AND IT SEEMS AS IF YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE INFORMATION PRESENTED. THAT'S BIASED.

Quote:
The "Red Indians" are the last group of indigenous people to settle in what's now known as North and South America, not the first.
Native Americans have a rich history and culture. Many of the tribes were pre-literate, or rather- posessed a strict oral traditon. Because most Native Americans were killed from famine, disease, and war, much of that history has been lost. However they did have some written history.

OK, NOBODY (SPECIFICALLY ME) IS TAKING ANYTHING AWAY FROM THOSE REFERRED TO AS "NATIVE AMERICANS" (THOSE SO-CALLED NATIVE AMERICANS NEVER CALLED THEMSELVES NATIVE AMERICANS BTW) THEIR HISTORY OR CULTURE. THEIR HISTORY AND CULTURE FOR THE MOST PART IS NO DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER INDIGENOUS GROUP OF PEOPLE. WASN'T THAT MENTIONED IN THE VIDEO....THE SIMILIARITES? WHY WAS THAT DONE? WHY MENTION SIMILIARITIES?

Speaking strictly from my own cultural perspective, we had our winter counts that were written on hides of animals. When European settlers came they destroyed much of that history. However some of our oral history remained. Yet, because many native Americans do not posses influence in academia a lot our oral history is disregarded as legend.

SO BY YOUR OWN ACCOUNT, YOU CAN'T KNOW YOUR OWN (PEOPLE'S)HISTORY ONLY A PORTION OF IT....THE PORTION THAT'S BEEN PRESERVED. WITH THAT ALONE, YOU'RE IN NO POSITION TO SAY WHAT'S RIGHT AND WHAT'S WRONG BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW. THAT KNOWLEDGE/HISTORY HAS BEEN DESTROYED. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS WRITTEN ON THOSE ANIMAL SKINS.

YOU SPEAK OF LEGEND.....INTERESTING BECAUSE THERE'S LEGENDS OF A PEOPLE BEING HERE BEFORE THE NATIVE AMERICANS AND THIS IS COMING FROM THEIR ORAL/WRITTEN HISTORY AND TRADITIONS.

And that's as bias as I can get. I don't know if "Black" people were here first too, or whites, or Asians or whoever. I don't how much of interracial tribal breeding took place. I do know there were people on this continent. I do know that history for the western hemisphere interacting with the rest of world date far back then most people will acknowledge.

SO MANY THINGS YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU DON'T KNOW, SO WHY TELL PEOPLE TO DISREGARD EVERYTHING MENTIONED IN THE ENTIRE VIDEO SERIES WHEN YOU YOURSELF SIMPLY DOESN'T KNOW?

Quote:
The Olmec came BEFORE the "Red Indians" yet they weren't the first either there's two other major migrations that's not been mentioned, and ever indigenous group of people who migrated to the America's have their origin in this world in the eastern hemisphere more specifically "Africa" and "Asia".
Respectfully,

You have as much proof of people immigrating here as I do that some people did not immigrate.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT I HAVE AND WHAT I DON'T HAVE. BECAUSE YOU LACK SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN THE NEXT PERSON LACKS SOMETHING. AGAIN, YOU'RE SPEAKING ON THINGS AS IF YOU KNOW WHEN YOU SIMPLY DON'T KNOW. YOU SPEAK AS THOUGH YOU'RE AN AUTHORITY DISMISSING THE ENTIRE VIDEO SERIES AND THEN ADMITTING THAT YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW....YOU ADMITTED THAT YOU CAN'T KNOW BECAUSE THAT HISTORY/KNOWLEDGE HAS BEEN DESTROYED.

I think it would be best if we just left it at that.

WARPATH
07-22-2009, 06:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Man http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1630247#post1630247)
What exactly is a "Red Indian" (that term is misleading and shows a disregard for the people who are called this name)? What makes them different from the other Indians?

I used the term Red Indian, because that's what the narrator uses to describe the tribal people of North and South America. What I am referring to are the Original people of the western hemisphere. What makes the french different from the spanish? What makes the Zulu different from the Igbo?

THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE.....THE 1ST PEOPLE IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE WERE NOT THE "RED INDIANS" ALTHOUGH THEY ARE ORIGINAL (BLACK) PEOPLE TOO. THEY (THE PEOPLE CALLED "RED INDIANS") WERE NOT THE FIRST TO BE IN THE WEST.

IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT MAKES THE "RED INDIANS" DIFFERENT FROM OTHER "INDIANS" ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SAY, I DON'T KNOW.



Quote:
How is the narrator completely biased when he's given the history and culture of the indigenous people who settled in the Americas at different points in time?
He doesn't give any insight into the culture. He just points out some similarities between cultures, he draws his conclusions based on outer appearances.

IF THIS IS THE CASE, THEN YOUR STATEMENT IS STILL IN ERROR BECAUSE THE NARRATOR IS NOT COMPLETELY BIASED. JUST AS YOU SAID, HE POINTED OUT SOME SIMILARITIES BETWEEN CULTURES....IF THE NARRATOR WAS COMPLETELY BIASED THEN THAT WOULDN'T BE THE CASE.

WAS THE NARRATOR TRYING TO FOCUS OR EVEN GET INTO THE CULTURE? HOW MANY DIFFERENT "TRIBAL" CULTURES WOULD THE NARRATOR HAVE TO EXPRESS? SURELY NOT ONE OR TWO FOR THERE WERE NUMEROUS TRIBES WITH DIFFERENT CULTURES IN THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH. THEN THE NARRATOR WOULD ALSO HAVE TO GET INTO THE CULTURE AT VARIOUS POINTS IN TIME.

He does not go into language, culture, religion, in depth.

NOT GOING INTO THE LANGUAGE CULTURE RELIGION IN DEPTH IS NOT BEING BIASED. JUST DEALING WITH ONE TRIBAL LANGUAGE IN DEPTH WOULD BE A SERIES OF VIDEOS/BOOKS/LECTURES ETC. ETC.

That's all.

Quote:
Why mention the narrator being biased against one group of people and not the other groups of people that weren't mentioned? You sound biased. The "Red Indians" weren't the first, second or third group of indigenous people to settle in the western hemisphere.
I didn't make any claims any which way so I can't really have bias. I'm just telling people here to look at all the facts. I'm just trying tell people not to take the word of anyone just because it sounds good. I would do the same if the narrator was white, black, green, brown, purple.........etc.

YOU'RE TELLING THE PEOPLE HERE TO LOOK AT ALL THE FACTS, YET YOU YOURSELF ARE NOT WILLING TO LOOK AT ALL THE FACTS, AND IT SEEMS AS IF YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE INFORMATION PRESENTED. THAT'S BIASED.

Quote:
The "Red Indians" are the last group of indigenous people to settle in what's now known as North and South America, not the first.
Native Americans have a rich history and culture. Many of the tribes were pre-literate, or rather- posessed a strict oral traditon. Because most Native Americans were killed from famine, disease, and war, much of that history has been lost. However they did have some written history.

OK, NOBODY (SPECIFICALLY ME) IS TAKING ANYTHING AWAY FROM THOSE REFERRED TO AS "NATIVE AMERICANS" (THOSE SO-CALLED NATIVE AMERICANS NEVER CALLED THEMSELVES NATIVE AMERICANS BTW) THEIR HISTORY OR CULTURE. THEIR HISTORY AND CULTURE FOR THE MOST PART IS NO DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER INDIGENOUS GROUP OF PEOPLE. WASN'T THAT MENTIONED IN THE VIDEO....THE SIMILIARITES? WHY WAS THAT DONE? WHY MENTION SIMILIARITIES?

Speaking strictly from my own cultural perspective, we had our winter counts that were written on hides of animals. When European settlers came they destroyed much of that history. However some of our oral history remained. Yet, because many native Americans do not posses influence in academia a lot our oral history is disregarded as legend.

SO BY YOUR OWN ACCOUNT, YOU CAN'T KNOW YOUR OWN (PEOPLE'S)HISTORY ONLY A PORTION OF IT....THE PORTION THAT'S BEEN PRESERVED. WITH THAT ALONE, YOU'RE IN NO POSITION TO SAY WHAT'S RIGHT AND WHAT'S WRONG BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW. THAT KNOWLEDGE/HISTORY HAS BEEN DESTROYED. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS WRITTEN ON THOSE ANIMAL SKINS.

YOU SPEAK OF LEGEND.....INTERESTING BECAUSE THERE'S LEGENDS OF A PEOPLE BEING HERE BEFORE THE NATIVE AMERICANS AND THIS IS COMING FROM THEIR ORAL/WRITTEN HISTORY AND TRADITIONS.

And that's as bias as I can get. I don't know if "Black" people were here first too, or whites, or Asians or whoever. I don't how much of interracial tribal breeding took place. I do know there were people on this continent. I do know that history for the western hemisphere interacting with the rest of world date far back then most people will acknowledge.

SO MANY THINGS YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU DON'T KNOW, SO WHY TELL PEOPLE TO DISREGARD EVERYTHING MENTIONED IN THE ENTIRE VIDEO SERIES WHEN YOU YOURSELF SIMPLY DOESN'T KNOW?

Quote:
The Olmec came BEFORE the "Red Indians" yet they weren't the first either there's two other major migrations that's not been mentioned, and ever indigenous group of people who migrated to the America's have their origin in this world in the eastern hemisphere more specifically "Africa" and "Asia".
Respectfully,

You have as much proof of people immigrating here as I do that some people did not immigrate.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT I HAVE AND WHAT I DON'T HAVE. BECAUSE YOU LACK SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN THE NEXT PERSON LACKS SOMETHING. AGAIN, YOU'RE SPEAKING ON THINGS AS IF YOU KNOW WHEN YOU SIMPLY DON'T KNOW. YOU SPEAK AS THOUGH YOU'RE AN AUTHORITY DISMISSING THE ENTIRE VIDEO SERIES AND THEN ADMITTING THAT YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW....YOU ADMITTED THAT YOU CAN'T KNOW BECAUSE THAT HISTORY/KNOWLEDGE HAS BEEN DESTROYED.

I think it would be best if we just left it at that.

I wouldn't expect anything less. Peace.

Black Man
07-24-2009, 04:00 PM
....of the finds in southern California,southwstern Colorado, southern Arizone, the Texas Gulf coast, Punin and Paltacalo in ecuador, and Lagao Santa in eastern Brazil, Gladwin remarded that all deomonstrated....

.....characteristics which link these various instnaces together and pont to their wide distribution and common ancestry with other Australoid peoples, as do also certain vestigal traces in some modern people, such as the Perieu of Lower California, the Seri on nearby Tiburon Island, and various tribes in Central and South America....People of Australoid type were once widely distributed and survivals of some their features customs and culture are still to be find in isolated localities.

The Punin Skull, so-called for its discovery in small village by the same name in the Andean region of Ecuador is what Rashidi touts as "the most well documented single piece of evidence for the early presence of Australoids in the prehistoric Americas during the period of Gladwin's writing." Indeed, the skull, accompanied by the remains of an Andean horse, known to have been extinct for over 10,000 years, was heralded by the American Museum of Natural History of New York as the earliest evidence of humans in the Americas. At the same time, it was evidence of Australoid humans in America.

Black Man
07-24-2009, 04:11 PM
The "dean of English anatomists" Sir Arthur Keith, noting the similarities between the skull and those of indigenous Australian women, declared: "The discovery at Punin does compel us to look in the possibility of a Pleistocene invasion of America by an Australoid people." On the other side of the Atlantic, Harvard anthropologist Earnest Hooton echoed Keith in stating that the skull was on "that any competent craniologist would identify as Australian in type." Yet he added much to the bigger picture by following: "It is easier to find Austraoloid-looking dolichocephals in the more ancient burials in the New World than anything in the way of a skull that resembles a Mongoloid." "It is most suggestive that the earliest human skulls found inthe Americas are practically exclusively "long-headed" or what anthropologist term Australoid-Melanesian (i.e. Pacific) in type," wrote Blair Moffett....

Black Man
07-24-2009, 04:15 PM
An author in Pattaya, Thailand observed:

When we speak of American Indians we have to specifiy whom, because they are even more divefrsified than the Europeans in language, race, and customs. the savants are nowadays mostly of the opinion that the first Americans must have been Negroid (not to be confused with Negroes) or Australoid. The latter were the intrepid travellers who millennia ago peopled the Melanesianislands inthe Pacific, the Australian continent as well as New Guinea and the eastern islands inthe Pacific the Australian continent as well as New Guinea and the eastern islands of Indonesia with among them Timor and Ambon. Remnants of these people can still be found in the south of Thailand where they are called "Sakai" and in Malaysia where they are Orang Asli or "the Original People."

Black Man
07-24-2009, 04:24 PM
Another eminent Harvard anthropologist, Roland Dixon also discerned the Australoid characteristics of crania found throughout the prehistoric remains of the westernmost regions of North America but fearing the reprisal of the academic community, with which he would be put at odds by identifying a unambiguously Black presence there, opted instead to classify these peoples with the more cuphemistic term "Proto-Australoid." Thus the connectionto the dejected, but solidly Black, Aborigine population of Australia was much muted and the relation distorted. Still, Dixon asserted:

It seems on the whole probable that the Proto-Austroloid must have been one of the earliest, if not the earliest type to spread into the North American continent. On the Pacific coast in California and Lower California it appears to constitute the oldest stratum characterizing as it does the crania from the lower layers of the shell-heaps from the islands of Santa Catalina and San Clemente off the coast and from the extinct Pericue, isolated int eh southern tip of the peninsula of Lower California. It is moreover, prominent among the ancient basket-weavers of northern Arizona who represent probably one of the ealriest peoples inthe whole area. In the northeast the type is of importance among the Iroquois and the southern Algonkian tribes, such as the Lenape.

Black Man
07-24-2009, 04:34 PM
.....consistently refused to recognize the definite implications of the many references by physical anthropologist to such tribes as Australoid or Negroid in the makeup of various Indian tribes - even though veiled by such qualifications as Proto-Negroid or pseudo-Australoid. Terms such as these will be found only in technical papers on physical anthropology, but never in orthodox reconstructions of native American history. We have included them here because we think they cannot be fairly ignored and once you accept them as facts to be reckoned with they turn out to beessential for anunderstanding of the problem since they show that Mongoloid people could not have reached North America before the time of Christ.

Gladwin makes quite a bold statement i nhis last sentence above, and it drives the question of origins. Not only the origins of the curernt "Mongoloid" face of Native America, but when exactly that transformation was made. As well the same must be known for the earliest migrations of Blacks, and these dates are all the more elusive for their greatr antiquity.

WARPATH
07-24-2009, 06:08 PM
And these prove what?

That some people migrated at different points in time.

That is all. People have been moving around the world for years.

Get real knowledge on the history of Native Americans. Not this biased BS everyone's been promoting.

Native Americans that still practice their culture and customs make up less than 1% of American population.

That translates even less to world population.

Less than 1%.

You're promoting oppression.

Olive Oil Goombah
07-24-2009, 08:24 PM
Depends on who you ask.

In my honest opinion it would be better to disregard the entire series, because of the extreme bias.

Or

You can use it as a basis to start looking for answers. Look into each of these cultures in depth and on their own, Get other view points. Then you can come back and look at specifically which parts the narrator has truth in what he was talking about and which parts were his personal bias.



Exactly...any type of study of culture is going to lead to an automatic bias. THis is like Anthropology 101 stuff.

What is the backround of the maker of the video??? What is his purpose in making this video??

word plus it ain't like they teach you all of his story in schools, most of the time youre gettin some watered down eurocentric view of how things went down

Your not going to get this in depth in high school. There just is not enough time.

If 'school' is a watered down 'eurocentric' version of things, in your own words, would these videos be a 'doctored up afrocentric' version of things???


So is the single celled organism superior to the human being because it came first???


Something always came from something else.....so lets say blacks were in the AMericas before the red indians...well which blacks, and which blacks amongst this tribe and amongst that tribes family etc. etc.

You can go on and on, and if you just want to trace it for pure historical purposes than great.

But if you are doing it in an attempt to prove that your people were greater, than your work more than likely will be biased. Especially the farther back you go.

Black Man
07-27-2009, 12:06 PM
Sarah toyne, in an article published in the UK daily Sunday Times, declared boldly that"the first people to inhabit America were Australian Aborigines not American Indians." citing evidence for the theory of a trans-Pacific migration by way of sea, rather than land. The 12,000 year old remains of a young girl unearthed in Brazil comprise to date the early human skeleton found in the Americas. This girl, whomscientist have named Luzia has proven to be conclusive evidence that the first Americans were Blacks out of Asia.

Walter Neves, professor of biological anthropology at the University of Sao paolo examined the skull for clues into the anthropological ancestry of the earliest Americans and shocked by the results he responded:

"When we started seeing the results it was amazing because we realized the statistics were not showing these people to be Mongoloid; they were showing that they were anything except Mongoloid. They are similar to modern-day Aborigines and Africans and show no similarities at all with Mongoloids from east Asia and modern-day Indians."

Luzia's skull was then reconstructed by University of Manchester forensic artist Petr Neave, who echoed the remarks of Neves remarking:

"That to me is a negroid face. The proportions of the face do not say anything about it being Mongoloid."

Toyne asserted lastly the possibility that these "American Aborigines" were almost entirely decimated by the encroaching populations of later American migrants (who would form the bulk of today's Native American population) but anthropologist believe that some of their descendants interbred with these later arrivals survived in the remote island off the souther tip of South America known as Tierra del Fuego. Relatively isolated here they survived until European settlement, bringing with it its typical plethora of unfamiliar sicknesses and diseases struck the final deathblow for the majority of the native Fuegan peoples.

Black Man
07-27-2009, 12:15 PM
The people of the 2nd wave were of the type labeled "Asiatic Negroids." These Blacks are akin to the Melanesian types of West Papua, New Guinea and other pacific Islanders who retain the dark skin pigmentation "snub nose" and full lips common to both the Australoid and Asiatic Blacks but do not share certain features the most prominent of which is hair textrure. These Blacks, unlike the Australoid have hair of the ulotrichoi type common in Sub-saharan Africa. Like them, these Asiatic "Negroids" (as opposed to Negro.....) are also differentiated into two major physical types. In both Afica and Asia, there is a taller slender population and a related diminutive "pygmy" population called "negrito" in Asia as opposed to "negrillo" in Africa. Of course, neither term is intended to be flattering nor a representation of what the individual peoples call themselves. At any rate the peoples Gladwin hesitantly refers to as "Pygmoid" are found in relatively sparse numbers in the Americas and seem to have accompanied the taller "Asiatic Negroid" peoples with whom they were closest related. The two populations "Negroid" and "Negritoid" share more affinities with each other than either does with the Australoid type.

V4D3R
07-27-2009, 12:42 PM
This is answers to questions nobody but a time traveler could answer. There are many therories. Many laughed at scholars, the proof can be manipulated by anybody to fit their own paradigm.

Peace God,
What is your source Blackman?

11 almighty