It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Negritic peoples

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Negritic peoples are among the first and oldest races to conquer earth. There is more than enough evidence of their journeys of ancient earth. So why isn't it accepted as mainstream or taught in history books? Racism maybe?

They were advanced and seafaring, and had set up trade routes. From north and South America to India and Australia they have colonized.

Will they ever be credited with being an advanced people who have discovered America?

They are very ancient in age and may have had a very advanced global culture at one time.




posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
www.raceandhistory.com...

This link has a wealth of information.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   


They were advanced and seafaring, and had set up trade routes. From north and South America to India and Australia they have colonized.

but they weren't advanced and seafariong very long ago
the oldest afrcian civilisations (with the exception of egypt) date from around 1000bce


Will they ever be credited with being an advanced people who have discovered America?

well they didn't discover america so its hardly likely is it

[im=510x384]http://static.flickr.com/21/34640397_66bdfa931e_o.jpg[/im]
In 1862, while drilling for oil in the modern Mexican state of Tabasco, a startling discovery was made. Buried beneath the jungle floor was a Colossal Stone head! Exhibiting negroid features, the head fell into none of the artistic styles of the known civilizations of Mexico. Years later in 1942, Archeologist Matthew Stirling was intrigued by this Colossal Head and began excavations at the nearby ancient city of La Venta.

What Stirling discovered shocked the world. He found evidence of an ancient civilization, one that pre-dated the mighty Mayan, Incan and Aztec civilizations! The Olmecs are now considered the "mother-culture" of Mexico
www.micahwright.com...

since then its been so widely debated but the one thing that is sure is that the Olmecs themselves didn't make them
they defaced and buried them but the olmecs themselves as is known from their normal figurines and artwork are native south americans in every way, not negro, not chinese and definitely not aliens
but who are the olmec heads modelled on

the argument for africans

geocities.com...

the argument for chinese

www.chinese.tcu.edu...

the argument for aliens

www.jornalinfinito.com.br...

the argument for indians

ctct.essortment.com...

only you can decide
:wink:
but your questionh about racism doesnt apply here
unless you realise that claiming that only Negros have wide noses and thick lips is actually racist in itself

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
converted large image to link
[edit on 12/12/06 by masqua]

[edit on 12/12/06 by masqua]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
When it comes to the discovery of the Americas, you are entering some pretty seedy stuff. It is really hard to tell who was here first..

First, it needs to be understood that there are actually only three races. Everything else is a derivative of those three races. There are the Angloids, Mongloids and Negroids...

That's it..

I personally am of the opinion that there were Asians here long before anyone else was here.. I am sure that there were seafaring African nations or tribes, but they didn't discover America.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 12-12-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   


There are the Anglonds, Mongloids and Negroids...

well firstly speakeroflies there's no such thing as the anglond race and mongoloid isn't spelled like that either
there is only one race of man you may have heard of it its called the human race
there are four sub sets of the human race
Caucasoid, Australoid. Negroid and Mongoloid



When it comes to the discovery of the Americas, you are entering some pretty seedy stuff. It is really hard to tell who was here first..

no its very easy
it was the native americans who were there first, thats why they are called Native americans.



I personally am of the opinion that there were Asians here long before anyone else was here

luckily then no one needs to rely on your opinion.
the human race evolved in Africa
so all the other races developed from African species
I'm sorry that you don't like that but you have already proven your track record for not liking the truth haven't you



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
Negritic peoples are among the first and oldest races to conquer earth. There is more than enough evidence of their journeys of ancient earth. So why isn't it accepted as mainstream or taught in history books? Racism maybe?

Since race doesn't exist in the first place, what does it matter if 'negritic peoples conquered the earth'?


They were advanced and seafaring, and had set up trade routes. From north and South America to India and Australia they have colonized.

That doesn't mean that they were 'advanced'. People spread out of africa, largely by walking, and partly by rafting and canoing.


Will they ever be credited with being an advanced people who have discovered America?

How can the first people be advanced, definitionally?


They are very ancient in age and may have had a very advanced global culture at one time.

Since there is no evidence for a global culture, why should we pretend that there was one?


This link has a wealth of information.

Paul Barton, quite simply, is a racist. He's obsesed with race, he denigrates other races, and he thinks that everything that is good in the world is because of black people, and that every other race is really 'black'.


speakeroftruth
There are the Anglonds, Mongloids and Negroids...

None of these groups actually exist, at least not biologically. There are no biological markers of 'race'. Race, simply, does not exist.

marduk
there are four sub sets of the human race
Caucasoid, Australoid. Negroid and Mongoloid

I am sure that speaker means the same as you. The fact still stands, these divisions simply do not biologically exist. Yes, you can take a guy from sweden, and then a guy from nigeria, and say 'gosh, these guys look different'.
So what? Those are individual people, not 'races'. There are not 'types' for the races, and the supposed 'races' are intermixing now, and have been intermixing for millenia, as long as there have been humans really. So how can there be subdivisions if there are now and allways have been intermixing?



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
This is a olmec magician? What exactly race is this person?



[edit on 12-12-2006 by AMANNAMEDQUEST]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   
This precisley illustrates the point. You can't look at that statue and tell where it came from. It could've come from anywhere. You can't look at it and say 'the makers of it must've been from subsaharan africa'.
People can look like that statue does and NOT be from africa.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   


In general, those who have insisted that the Olmec Heads have
"negroid" features have not taken the time to look at the area's
Native Americans and how their features correlate with the features
shown on these sculptures; neither have they given much thought
to the idea that the natives could have produced these artworks
themselves.

Even worse, such theories suggest superiority. To suggest that
someone traveled to the New World and created these monuments is to
imply that the natives themselves were not capable of making great
artworks -- that someone had to "make it for them," or at the very
least, "show them how to make it." This is inherently, if not
openly, racist.


Source

I can't say it much better than that.

The worst part about it is that most people don't take the time to really find out the truth. They would rather believe some half baked sensational theory than the not so sensational truth.

The truth is:

Finally, there is no concrete archaeological evidence of African
cultures in the New World in Pre-Columbian times -- no imported
animals or plants, no imported artifacts, no imported techniques,
not even any imported materials from which native objects may have
been made. In fact, there is no known black African culture that
produced colossal, naturalistic stone sculptures like the Olmec
Heads.

There is, however, overwhelming archaeological evidence that the
Olmec Colossal Heads were made by and for Native Americans.



Do not fall into the trap of- Digital Maoism



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Ooooooooooooookayyyyyyyyyyyyy..... since Nygdan dragged me over here (everyone can blame you now!
), let me interject some Technical Stuff.

Byrd's Technical Stuff

There are physical differences between the skulls of people who are classed as "Caucasian", "Negritic", and "Oriental" and "Australian Aboriginal." Here's how a forensic anthropologist determines race from skulls:
www.anthrogirl.com...

Here's skulls to look at. Notice how different the eye sockets are, the brow ridges, and the shape of the nose opening (the nose widths are all about the same.) There's also differences (minor) in the teeth and other features, but the eyes and the nose are what we look at for a "quick diagnosis":

There's fewer skull differences between the races than there is between a Persian cat and a Siamese cat, so you have to look really close. Review Anthrogirl's page and then have a gander at these:


Aboriginal:
www.skullsunlimited.com...

African:
www.skullsunlimited.com...

Chinese/Native American (it's hard to tell one from the other because the separation of these two groups only occured within the past 50,000 years)
www.skullsunlimited.com...

Caucasian:
www.skullsunlimited.com...


Now, if we will all quit looking at the art and INSTEAD go looking at the skulls, this matter can be settled quickly.

The only skulls in Native American burials (on all continents) conform to the Oriental/Native types of skulls. There are no African type skulls there... etc, etc.

The dark-skinned Hindus, by the way, have Caucasian type skulls.

So go look at the skulls. That's where the real record is; the real data and the hard truth.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Skull Anatomy Resources

...because, unlike me, you didn't spend the semester teaching anatomy...

Skull tutorial page:
www.gwc.maricopa.edu...

Skull (cadaver) anatomy page
anatome.ncl.ac.uk...

Pictures and labels:
face-and-emotion.com...

face-and-emotion.com...

Now go ye forth and deny some ignorance. Or ognorance. Or some such.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

There are physical differences between the skulls of people who are classed as "Caucasian", "Negritic", and "Oriental" and "Australian Aboriginal." Here's how a forensic anthropologist determines race from skulls:
www.anthrogirl.com...


I'm not foolish enough to question the fact that there are differences in skulls...because there are. But, I'm not so certain that it pertains to race alone.

Could regional influences like diet affect skull structures? For instance, it's well known that the Inuit historically have eaten little or no food other than animal protein while people who live in more temperate climes eat both plant and meat to varying degrees. Can this affect bone structure?

Secondly, there are some diseases (ie malaria) which can affect bone structure as well (or so I have read)


www.pbs.org...

What was the significance of Franz Boas' skull experiments?

Franz Boaz was a very prominent public intellectual, and he taught at Columbia and gave birth to a brand of anthropology that was labeled "cultural relativism." Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict and Zora Neal Hurston were among the followers.

-snip-

It was assumed that different groups of Europeans - Slavs, Jews, Italian, Irish - that they had distinct skull types and shapes, and that these wouldn't change with environmental circumstances; they were primordial. There was an Irish type, a Jewish type - all were types and races, and all unchanging. So if you knew that, you could then read into the skull certain characteristics such as intelligence.

But what Boaz noticed and wrote about in the early 1900s was that the skulls differed depending on whether the individuals were born overseas or here in the United States. In fact, as Eastern European immigrants' children were born in the United States, they began to look more like the Western Europeans that were already here in the United States. They became more Americanized, rounded in their skull shape.

His assumption, although he wasn't so sure of it then - the assumption now is the diet changed and the diet allowed for greater skull growth and allowed it to round out a little bit. So within the same family he saw changes in skull shape. And the bottom line of all this is that it really showed that skulls don't reflect something deep and genetic, or if they do, it's definitely hidden by the way the skull reflects even subtle changes in nutrition - changes that we didn't expect would have dramatic effects on the skull shape.



So, to sum my question up...how much does regional differences play into the formation of skulls and what does that do to the idea of 'race'?

Because, in my mind is still the notion that there are no different races, only the Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Through their migrations into different regions, developing distinct characteristics by the effects of diet and environmental situation people's skulls changed and we now wrongly call such genetically adapted divergences 'race'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edited for grammar and sentence structure





[edit on 12/12/06 by masqua]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I have to agree with Nydgan here. It's blatently obvious that the OP is motivated by race, and the concept alone invalidates all the points he is trying to make. You are not in this for historical accuracy.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
This is a olmec magician? What exactly race is this person?


I had allready heard about this but I had never saw one example.

Looking at the picture posted, to me, the first thing that came to my mind was a chinese demon.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Looking at the picture posted, to me, the first thing that came to my mind was a chinese demon.


Well, as I alluded to, I tend to think that the Asians were here long before anyone else was.. Now, we can all argue about Columbus and yada,yada, but we all know that he wasn't the one who really discovered America. There were already people here when he got here. The most that we can credit Columbus with is circumnavigating the globe..



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
You can't "discover" a continent if there's already people there. That would be like "discovering" a technology that people already use.

The reason the "Negritic" peoples, as you call them, aren't in history books, is because they kept the worst history records of any race. Europeans and Middle Easterners and Asians all kept excellent records of their history, while those in the Americas also kept their history somewhat, but Africans preserved very little of their history and the result of this is that they are excluded from many works.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   


The reason the "Negritic" peoples, as you call them, aren't in history books, is because they kept the worst history records of any race

nope, that honour falls to the australian aborigines who even when they were askled to write their history down by missionaries didn't make any sense at all
40,000 years they'd been there
nothing to show for it

thats like going to school for your whole lifetime and not getting any qualifications
hehe



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_cross3
The reason the "Negritic" peoples, as you call them, aren't in history books, is because they kept the worst history records of any race.


Maybe they didn't record their history in the same way, but they do have the oldest recorded history in rock art...


Southern African Rock Art

For thousands of years, Khoisan-speaking San, popularly known as Bushmen, were the only inhabitants of southern Africa. These people hunted and gathered wild plants. There are 15,000 known San rock art sites in South Africa, perhaps as many as 50,000 in southern Africa. The highest concentrations of rock art are found at Tsodilo, Botswana, Brandberg and Twyfelfontein in Namibia, Drakensburg Mountains of Lesotho and South Africa, and the Matobo Hills (Matopos National Park) of Zimbabwe. Direct dating of these paintings is difficult. The oldest dates recorded are painted slabs or mobile art (see first photo) excavated by Eric Wendt in the Apollo 11 Cave, Namibia. These painted slabs are associated with charcoal, which was dated between 25,500 and 27,500 BP (Wendt 1976). The next oldest date is 10,500 BP in the Cave of Bees, Matopos, Zimbabwe (Thackeray 1983).

LINK



[edit on 12/12/06 by masqua]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
Could regional influences like diet affect skull structures? For instance, it's well known that the Inuit historically have eaten little or no food other than animal protein while people who live in more temperate climes eat both plant and meat to varying degrees. Can this affect bone structure?


So far they haven't. The AmerInds eat a different diet than the Inuit (who actually migrated to North America considerably later than, say, the Chumash) and their skulls are very similar.


Secondly, there are some diseases (ie malaria) which can affect bone structure as well (or so I have read)

That affects the individual who has it (and it's mostly changes to the bone marrow) but isn't transmissible.


So, to sum my question up...how much does regional differences play into the formation of skulls and what does that do to the idea of 'race'?

In one sense, the answer is "considerably." Over a long period of time, a lot of factors contributed to skeletal differences (same as with breeding cat sor dogs.) So we can actually say "people whose close relatives came from Africa have skulls that... (etc, etc.)

It's a shame we use the old race stereotypes because many of them are so cartoonish. However (to the topic at hand) the data from the skulls show that the familiy ancestors came from certain areas and except for the initial wave of migration out of Africa, all have regional differences that show clearly that people from the African continent did not travel to and influence cultures on the American continent 4,000 years ago and longer.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   
No one has mentioned anything about diseases that would cause distortions in facial as well as body images.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join