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.
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?
the argument for africans
the argument for chinese
the argument for aliens
the argument for indians
There are the Anglonds, Mongloids and Negroids...
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..
I personally am of the opinion that there were Asians here long before anyone else was here
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?
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.
This link has a wealth of information.
speakeroftruth
There are the Anglonds, Mongloids and Negroids...
marduk
there are four sub sets of the human race
Caucasoid, Australoid. Negroid and Mongoloid
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.
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.
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...
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.
Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
This is a olmec magician? What exactly race is this person?
Originally posted by ArMaP
Looking at the picture posted, to me, the first thing that came to my mind was a chinese demon.
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
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.
LINK
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).
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?
Secondly, there are some diseases (ie malaria) which can affect bone structure as well (or so I have read)
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'?