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

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 02:14 AM
link   
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.



Discover the thrilling real story of life on earth in prehistoric times. Viewers will go back in time to when early humans are just starting to inhabit North America and huge climate fluctuations cause a mini-Ice Age. The saber tooth cat, the giant ground sloth and the woolly mammoth are suddenly becoming extinct. How does man survive? Travel to early archaeological sites in North America and watch as scientists uncover fossilized bones, ancient homes and weapons of stone. State-of-the-art green-screen computer animation re-creates the great mammoth hunts of the time.


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.



Caveman Museum Tour







[edit on 17-3-2008 by yankeerose]




posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnb1
Wow Then What about this Prominent Scientist have To say (^^,)


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?



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by stikkinikki
As far as orgins of people in the Western Hemisphere:
I am still struggling with this one Olmec head. A couple of the others seem out of place too. Some say it looks African.

Olmec Heads at Wikipedia


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.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
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?



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 





It's Olmec/Aztec as long as you're presented it without context other than the place where it was found.


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.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks
reply to post by Byrd
 





It's Olmec/Aztec as long as you're presented it without context other than the place where it was found.


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.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 03:55 AM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 04:11 AM
link   
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?



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Ruggeder
 

I am an Ojibway from Ontario. I have been following the discovery of X type DNA with interest. The use of Ojibway as a name for our tribe means " puckered moccasins" and was used by the whites to identify our tribe (we do wear a particular type of moccasin that is puckered). In our own language, we call ourselves Anishnaabe, which translates to "First People".Given the dates of origin for the X type DNA, I believe our oral history is right. Our stories also tell of living in the east, knowing the white man was coming and moving to where the megis shell lies and the food grew in the water (wild rice).



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by yankeerose
 


Morman's need to give up. There is 0 DNA evidence that we came from the Lost Tribes of Israel. I started my own thread about this too and realized there was 0 evidence at all for the idea. The people that still support this Morman notion despite the DNA evidence are quacks, even by their own Morman colleagues.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   


Nearly all of today's Native Americans in North, Central and South America can trace part of their ancestry to six women whose descendants immigrated around 20,000 years ago, a DNA study suggests.


A very Stupid question from my side,




The term "Mormon" is a reference to the Book of Mormon.[1] The book is believed by LDS adherents to be a historical record of God's dealings with three of the civilizations in the Americas from approximately 2700 BC through 420 AD, written by their prophets and followers of Jesus Christ.
en.wikipedia.org...

I see a discrepancy between the time scale shown in the 1st quote and the second.

Did the lost tribes exist 20,000 years ago????



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by yankeerose
 


It is funny that when Speaking of the Ojibwe you are speaking of one of the Ancient peoples of the Americas whos' language has been unchanged for thousands of years. The language is very complex and hard to translate because the language is a history book in itself. They are part of the Algonquian Language, but to the Algonquian people there is no such word. The Proto-Algonquian people would have called them self simple Anishinaabeg or iLiniwag both meaning people or mankind. We find that in the recent mtDNA findings that the Ojibwe have a major concentration of this X haplogrouping as do the Basque. Even in the Basque language there are some common suffixes and words that match to the Anishinaabeg or Ojibweg peoples, but whom is the oldest. The Ojibwe believed that they came from a continent that no longer exsist this is from what we would believe a physical phenominan and from there they left and came to the Americas, but when. I find that the Anishinaabeg are one of the oldest peoples on Earth today and I would like to see if they have strong lineage to the Neanderthols as studies conduct that there are traces in the Basque which could explain the ties between the Ojibwe or Anishinaabeg ( which is a huge nation consisting of the Blackfeet, Cheyanne, Arapaho, Odaawaa, Obodawaadomi, Passomoquoddy, Innu, Lnu'k, Cree, Fax, Sauk, and much more) The world is an interesting place. I would not be surprised if they are what we would call the lost Altantians. There language is a language upon connections which is very historical, because you can see an ancient picture that could have been what the people who developed this language seen all aroung them specially when we talk of Earth. To the Anishinaabeg Earth is Aki which means nothing more than a picture of a secluded place and there view is translated into an object such as a Pot = Akik. You have to see this picture though in a scientific way. Akik, like an island. There are many symbols in our humanity that hold truth and the truth of the Anishinaabeg or Ojibweg isin the language. It is known that the Cheyenne and the Ojibwe are the Keepers of Ancients and History. Who knows. We may never know.




top topics
 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join