Indian DNA links to 6 'founding mothers' - Mormon Racism

I just watched the History Channel's Journey to 10,000 B.C.. Great show (2hrs) and very worth watching as much of the information relates to this thread, and in particular the Clovis people.



Click on the link above for current time and dates of upcoming showings.

There was also a great Geico/History Channel Promo featuring the Geico Caveman giving a tour of a museum.

YouTube Link

Caveman Museum Tour







[edit on 17-3-2008 by yankeerose]

Could you link to some text instead of a video? We'd like to be able to see who these guys are, what credits they're claiming for themselves and what the full text was. A lot of times, vids are "mashups" and splice together bits and pieces to give a different context.

And it's a pain to find the real full length material.

So how about a summary or a written piece?

That's based on racial stereotyping... the cartoon idea that all Blacks have huge lips and round heads. In fact, people of African descent have long heads (like the Europeans.. it's the Asians and Amerinds who have round heads (if you look down on the top of the head it appears more circular than oval).

Thick lips are also a trait found among the people in that area... as well as many other tribes. Plus, there's a very clear "epicanthic fold" at the edge of the eyes.

It's Olmec/Aztec as long as you're presented it without context other than the place where it was found. If someone shows you cartoons from the 1930's showing Black characters, you will suddenly decide it looks African.

It seems like the Book of Mormon is completely undone. Their own scholars are testifying to that fact. Has there been any official Mormon response to this evidence?

reply to post by Byrd

---

With all due respect you couldnt be more incorrect. The Olmecs were gone for more than 1600 years, before the mexicas migrated south into the valley that would bear their name, from very northern mexico.
The mexicas would eventully come to control the valley of mexico and found the aztec empire. They did absorb a great deal of their culture from the people that already lived there, who had inturn been influenced by the long gone Olmecs.
Although the aztecs were culturally descended from the Olmecs they were infact a very different people.
They spoke languages from different language families, and physicaly they were different people all together.
I think that what most people see as african traits is a really just the face of a very FAT king. The king is always the best feed person in any culture.

Ack.... you're right, and thanks for the catch. I really flubbed that one up -- mixed up the locales, too. Some of the material's in museums in Mexico that have sources from Aztecs and Omecs and my brain decided for some reason to put them together in time and space.

Don't know that it's actually a trait of a "fat" king, because they depict other beings with that same round head and thick lips. I'm thinking of the "were-jaguar" artifacts in particular:
www.delange.org...

www.pre-columbianjade.com...

The Olmecs believed they were descended from the jaguars and their depictions of jaguars often show them with thick lips. I don't know that this has been discussed in any of the literature, but the people of the area certainly have bullet shaped heads and larger lips. I have wondered if the large heads have a tie-in to the were-jaguar statues... but that context is lost.

reply to post by Byrd

---

What made me think of a fat king was a couple of things, #1 there are some examples of olmec scupture that are very realistic, and given that they were carved 800?ish bc, the quality is amazing.
And given the fact they used NO METAL TOOLS, their skills as stone carvers were almost unmatched at the time.
Anyway, there are some figures that are very realistic and not at all stylized in there apperance, anf they are repersented with lips that are thicker, but if you look at the heads as a whole, only a small portion of the have the very exagerated features.
Some kings are warriors and the fight their way to the throne, some find themselves in the throne and make the best of it, and some where never meant to be there.
Like the fat little 3rd or 4th son of a king, the best he can hope for is not to be killed by his brothers.
And by sheer chance he finds himself on the throne, thats who some of the heads represent.

#2 that fat little kid that was the son of the mayan king in "Apocolypto", made think of that as well.

reply to post by Byrd

---

With many agrarian and nomadic cultures the shape of the head was indicative of the way in which the infant is carried by the mother as she goes about her daily chores.
If they were strapped to a board on the back they will have flat backed heads.
If the infant is bundeld up in a cloth type thing, then head can take on more conical shape.
Or the head can be purposefuly shaped. there are very good examples of cranial shaping from the nazca plain, and in central africa.
In both cases infant's heads were wrapped in cloth to give an extremely elongated skull.
What I find creepy is the two widely separated cultures came up with the very same look, with their almost alien heads, and plugged lips and ears.
What were they emulating?