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.

 

Grand Canyon's Tunnel to The Underworld

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by 52ndStreet

If there is one "conspiracy theory" that truly has a lot of motive behind covering it up, it is our own human origins. It wasn't even until the last couple centuries that people finally would admit we came out of the African forests, as white europeans certainly don't want to be associated with Africa. We also certainly don't want to admit that the New World could have been explored by Africans or Asians long before Columbus, and that some of these people could have even settled in the Americas.


As a white European I'm afraid I totally disagree.

On the other hand, I don't want to believe something simply because it's contrary to orthodox thinking. But I'd love to see incontrovertible evidence that Africans (or whoever) made a planned settlement in the Americas. So far there is none. And all the while the evidence for the independent sophistication of native pre-Colombian Americans grows.




posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   


We also certainly don't want to admit that the New World could have been explored by Africans or Asians long before Columbus

Native Americans did originate in Asia. and Asians originated in Africa
i don't see how anyone can deny that



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
Native Americans did originate in Asia. and Asians originated in Africa
i don't see how anyone can deny that


It was very much denied when the first suggestions came out regarding the African origins, Darwin, et al. It was only widely accepted and taught starting in the 1900s. It was only accepted and taught (by some) that these people are equal to white people not even half a century ago, and really the problem is still around most would say..

And about the Hopi not being in the Grand Canyon...who knows. All I know is that it has been documented there were native american settlements in the grand canyon, and as far as your personal knowledge, you have no idea if it was the hopis or not, or some ancient hopi ancestral group that preceeded them. The original information was taken from an article in "Outside" magazine, which is a very reliable source. The "hopi" legends were according to some local hopi people that they interviewed, so take it up with them, I didn't just make the stuff up.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by Shoktek]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
As a white European I'm afraid I totally disagree.

On the other hand, I don't want to believe something simply because it's contrary to orthodox thinking. But I'd love to see incontrovertible evidence that Africans (or whoever) made a planned settlement in the Americas. So far there is none. And all the while the evidence for the independent sophistication of native pre-Colombian Americans grows.


Disagree with what? That throughout history the white historians and archeologists vehemently opposed any idea (including trying to alter or coverup archeological evidence in some cases) that white men came from Africa? This is well documented in the modern African history and Anthropology textbooks. You can still find history books that were used early in the 20th century depicting different groups of people as being either "civilized" or "savages", guess which races fall into either category? I'm a white person of european descent as well, but I'm not naive enough to believe the same documented lies which have been perpetuated in history books for centuries.

All I'm trying to say, is that it has been demonstrated throughout history that African heritage and African civilization has been covered up and/or downplayed by European peoples (the ones who write our history books). This mainly started with the slave trade when the idea of "race" was invented by Europeans, and they used the "fact" that Africans were savages to justify the treatment of the people. If it had come out during that time that we had all descended from Africa, or we admitted they were capable of great civilization, ideas, and more than just savages, we would suddenly have no reason for the terrible system.

These actions throughout history show that there would indeed be a motive to coverup, alter, lie about, etc. evidences that would suggest Africans were here first. It has only been in the last generation, not even that, that we have started to balance out the truth in history books, and the archeological discoveries in Africa about evolution can't be denied.

So far there is no conclusive evidence that Africans settled here of course, or were here at all, but I just think it's a worthy suspicion, as many historians and anthropologists do. How do you explain sculptures made by the native people in central america, which explicitly depict an African face...artwork that is nearly identical to that which is found in West Africa? Mayan and Aztec temples that are very similar to Egyptian pyramids? As well as native African domestic crops appearing in central america and being used by natives well before Columbus? The islamic historian Al-Umari also described a venture by the Mali peoples (west africa) who explored the atlantic, and supposedly traded and fought with people in the West Atlantic. Christopher Columbus even reported in his writings the makeup of spears being used in Hispaniola, and after they were analyzed back in Spain, it was determined they were exactly the same as those used by the people in Mali. He also mentioned encountering African traders just a few years after he originally landed. His son wrote about the "black" people found in Honduras. Other explorers around the time also mentioned people of "black" skin color, as opposed to the regular native people living there.

It has been proven that the vikings were here and had contact with native americans about 300-400 years before Columbus...is it not possible that others made the journey as well? The African evidence is mostly circumstancial and can be left to speculation, but there is definitely enough there to make me wonder, and at least consider other options in history, which many well known historians and archeologists already have proposed.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by Shoktek]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   


the Hopi reservation is in Arizona and at no time in their existence have they been anywhere near Colorado where the grand canyon is situated


Um actually the Grand Canyon National Park is in Arizona, I know because I've been there a number of times. The Grand Canyon was formed out of something called the colorado plateu and the colorado river runs through the grand canyon but it is in fact in Arizona.

The river runs from Colorado to california hence the name and the name of the plateu I suppose.

It's been said before but I'll say it again, it's really one of the only things in life that lives up to it's name and then some.

Spiderj

www.nps.gov...



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
That throughout history the white historians and archeologists vehemently opposed any idea (including trying to alter or coverup archeological evidence in some cases) that white men came from Africa?


Yes, I disagree with that. What evidence is there of any supression of evidence for the 'Out of Africa' theory? Maybe before there was evidence some disputed it. But not for a long time now.


This is well documented in the modern African history and Anthropology textbooks. You can still find history books that were used early in the 20th century depicting different groups of people as being either "civilized" or "savages", guess which races fall into either category?


Yes, black people were considered different in the past. Especially in the USA. But this has nothing to do with the modern 'Out of Africa' theory nor the idea of Egyptians visiting America.


All I'm trying to say, is that it has been demonstrated throughout history that African heritage and African civilization has been covered up and/or downplayed by European peoples (the ones who write our history books).


Maybe in the past. Not now.


This mainly started with the slave trade when the idea of "race" was invented by Europeans, and they used the "fact" that Africans were savages to justify the treatment of the people.


On what basis did the arabs and africans justify it
After all, they were in the game long before (and after) European involvement.


If it had come out during that time that we had all descended from Africa, or we admitted they were capable of great civilization, ideas, and more than just savages, we would suddenly have no reason for the terrible system.


I disagree. Slavery has been prevalent for thousands of years and is still widespread today.


These actions throughout history show that there would indeed be a motive to coverup, alter, lie about, etc. evidences that would suggest Africans were here first. It has only been in the last generation, not even that, that we have started to balance out the truth in history books, and the archeological discoveries in Africa about evolution can't be denied.


AIn the 18th/19th centuries, black Africans, maybe. But more likely the evidence would be interpreted as evidence for white Africans. Much as were early theories about Great Zimbabwe. But, anyway, are't we supposedly talking about Egyptians here? Why would anyone want to cover up the idea of Egyptians visiting America?


...is it not possible that others made the journey as well? The African evidence is mostly circumstancial and can be left to speculation, but there is definitely enough there to make me wonder, and at least consider other options in history, which many well known historians and archeologists already have proposed.


I agree. I just don't agree that any such evidence has been deliberately supressed in te past, and most certainly wouldn't be supressed today.

Any archaeologist who could prove Africans visited America in the past would make his name, and thus ensure funding for future research.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Here is a little good reading from Steve Quayle's website .

As for getting to this area, it is not possable. My dad is obsessed with this kid of stuff. He is retired, and spends all his time researching these very things. So he went there, and after pestering the HELL out of some people who were there (he said they were from the smithsonian) which believe me if there is anyone on this earth who can pester someone into insanity, its my dad. Anyway, the fella finaly lost it and told him a supposed outcome. He said supposed there is something their, if there is, then all the scientists, those with masters, or Dr.'s in the subject, their degrees would become invalid. All history books would need to be written, blah blah blah you get the pic.

BUT if any of you ARE able to get in there.....TAKE LOTS OF PIC's!!!!!! Talk about a jackpot!!!!! There are so many people who would pay top dollar for one photo of that area! Seriously, you would be set for life. Take lots of notes and tell us all about it.

[edit on 20-10-2006 by mrsdudara]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   
it was a hoax
the egyptians were just about the worst civilisation in the ancient world at maritime activities
this story sold a lot of papers in 1909 but we know better now
or at least
some of us do



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Very wiggy stuff chaps. I'm still wondering how the Grand Canyon got to Colorado
Even if folks from other than Asia cruised to this contenint before the Asiatics did, they weren't the catalyst for migration as the Mongoloids were. There are statues dipicted with unmistakable Negroid features in Central and South America so.....



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   


There are statues dipicted with unmistakable Negroid features in Central and South America so

no there aren't
you just want to believe there are



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Yes, I disagree with that. What evidence is there of any supression of evidence for the 'Out of Africa' theory? Maybe before there was evidence some disputed it. But not for a long time now.

Yes, black people were considered different in the past. Especially in the USA. But this has nothing to do with the modern 'Out of Africa' theory nor the idea of Egyptians visiting America.


You need evidence? Just review your modern history and archeology books. I don't have time to write it all out for you, but there are numerous examples throughout history which are now widely known in the texts. By stating such things, you prove you aren't versed in the subjects we are talking about. Here's one very recent example (1950s), ever heard of the piltdown man? Deliberate attempt by racist archeologists to "prove" early man came from eurasia and not Africa. Do some reading.



Maybe in the past. Not now.


Right. See above.



On what basis did the arabs and africans justify it
After all, they were in the game long before (and after) European involvement.


Yes, this is true, and of course, they didn't "justify" anything to anyone. They were in it for the profits, plain and simple. But they weren't selling their own people. Slavery had been with the Arabs and Africans for years, just having slaves from conquered enemies. They weren't selling people from their own groups, except for the criminals, or other unwanted people. They were selling people from other (enemy) tribes, in part, to take away their strength. But if you also know history, you know that "race", and the idea of different races being "less than human", savage, etc, was mainly used by europeans to keep Africans below them...celts and native americans were described by english as savages, but never had the "race" thing come up until slavery with africans.

It is just a bit funny that most of us would regard slavery as "uncivilized" or that of "savages", and yet the europeans were doing it at the same time, and using those terms to define the africans, while they were engaging in such low activities themselves.



I disagree. Slavery has been prevalent for thousands of years and is still widespread today.

Widespread today? Don't think so...in what places, and by what means would you determine that it is "widespread"? It still exists in some places, illegally...


AIn the 18th/19th centuries, black Africans, maybe. But more likely the evidence would be interpreted as evidence for white Africans. Much as were early theories about Great Zimbabwe. But, anyway, are't we supposedly talking about Egyptians here? Why would anyone want to cover up the idea of Egyptians visiting America?


Umm...evidence for white africans? What are you trying to say? Egyptians? Yea. Egypt is in Africa, right? Egyptians are/were Africans. The people of ancient egypt were primarily descended from (black) indigenous north african people.



[edit on 20-10-2006 by Shoktek]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
no there aren't
you just want to believe there are


Marduk, you haven't made one intelligent statement on this thread since your first post about this being "laughable". See the above "evidences" that Africans have been here. Have you ever seen pictures of the Olmec sculptures that are very similar to African people? If not, why bother posting. Many archeologists have seen the similarities and remarked on how they look truly "black African". Care to tell us all that Christopher Columbus was lying about the "black people"? You can interpret it either way, but for all of the reason I listed above, I think it is quite likely that they were here.

Please don't post anymore, it will only further prove your lack of knowledge on the subject and general ignorance.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   


ever heard of the piltdown man? Deliberate attempt by racist archeologists to "prove" early man came from eurasia and not Africa

Piltdown man was hoaxed and the culprit has never been identified
it was an attempt to verify the ideas of chrles darwin and was in fact a human skull mixed with a apes jawbone to indicate a missing link between humans and apes
at no point was there any racists sentiment involved. So where did you get the idea that there was


you know that "race", and the idea of different races being "less than human", savage, etc, was mainly used by europeans to keep Africans below them

and by tribal groups in Africa who also used the fact that the other group weren't the same as them so were less than animal
everyone used that ploy at some point
even politicians during elections


celts and native americans were described by english as savages, but never had the "race" thing come up until slavery with africans.

Native americans were described by colonial settlers as savages because they wanted the land that they lived on and because they didn't follow Jesus. once again it had nothing to do with race and everything to do with greed and religion
greed and religion is also what condemned the Indians of South America under the spanish


Widespread today? Don't think so...in what places

en.wikipedia.org...
www.infoplease.com...
Modern-day slaves can be found laboring as servants or concubines in Sudan, as child "carpet slaves" in India, or as cane-cutters in Haiti and southern Pakistan, to name but a few instances. According to Anti-Slavery International, the world's oldest human rights organization, there are currently over 20 million people in bondage.

there is even an international organisation called Anti-Slavery International
www.antislavery.org...



Umm...evidence for white africans? What are you trying to say? Egyptians? Yea. Egypt is in Africa, right? Egyptians are/were Africans. The people of ancient egypt were primarily descended from (black) indigenous north african people.

It was standard practice amongst Egyptian Pharoahs to marry a wife who had pale skin
this would ensure that the children had light skins as well because in Ancient Egypt having pale skin was regarded as being a God
this of course is not a racial thing either as race is not dependant on skin colour alone and if it was an act of racism then it was carried out by the Pharoah himself who you are saying was a Negro. A racist Negro king, how can that be true
en.wikipedia.org...
In the final analysis, it is important to keep in mind that all humans around the world today are biologically quite similar despite our superficial differences. In fact, we apparently are 99.9% genetically identical.

so there really is only one race
Its called the Human race
maybe you could let that chip off your shoulder long enough to join it





Have you ever seen pictures of the Olmec sculptures that are very similar to African people?

clearly you don't know anything about race at all
you seem to be claiming that the Olmec who didn't in fact carve those heads and who left plenty of normal sized statues of themselves around were Black
you also claimed they were in south america when in fact they are all in mexico which is Meso or central america.
the Tierra del fuegans who lived on the southern tip of south america had black skin but were descended from Australian Aborigines.
because of one statue made famous by pseudoarchaeology
you may like to know that there are currently around 20 or so heads like the one famous one that you know and which is your basis for rewriting history in view of your afrocentrism
and most of them don't look Negro at all
as for Chis Columbus
heres the extract from his log



Thursday, October 11, 1492,

All I saw were youths, none more than thirty years of age. They are very well made, with very handsome bodies, and very good countenances. Their hair is short and coarse, almost like the hairs of a horse's tail. They wear the hairs brought down to the eyebrows, except a few locks behind, which they wear long and never cut. They paint themselves black, and they are the color of the Canarians, neither black nor white. Some paint themselves white, others red, and others of what color they find

so If i go out and paint myself yellow will that make me chinese?
how about if I paint myself red, will i then become a native american ?
hey if i paint myself silver I can be a robot

laughable (still)



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...

Hey youre not good friends with Dr Clyde A Winters are you Shotek ?


Egypt was second rate compared to Mesopotamia anyway. By the approach that you are using this means that the modern Iraqis are in fact the master race.


[edit on 20-10-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
Piltdown man was hoaxed and the culprit has never been identified
it was an attempt to verify the ideas of chrles darwin and was in fact a human skull mixed with a apes jawbone to indicate a missing link between humans and apes
at no point was there any racists sentiment involved. So where did you get the idea that there was


Yea, it was a hoax, most likely by those who discovered it, or someone who was obviously in the field of archeology and had some knowledge and intent to put it together. The intent could easily be determined to satisfy european desires for having early humans originate outside of Africa, many have proposed this. We don't really know, but I was giving one example of a deliberate hoax by those in the field, exactly why, we can't be sure.




and by tribal groups in Africa who also used the fact that the other group weren't the same as them so were less than animal
everyone used that ploy at some point
even politicians during elections


I don't think "tribal groups" have ever deemed other Africans "less than animal". Many were mortal enemies, but usually still held at least respect or fear of the others, some occasionally would regard others as being below them, but not "less than animal". The idea of "race" was invented by European slave traders. Anyway, I'm not trying to say that europeans are the only ones that have ever used these false reasonings. Almost all peoples have tried to boast they are superior to others at times, or still are. Just giving it as a possible motivation for why they might want to cover up certain archeological finds.



Native americans were described by colonial settlers as savages because they wanted the land that they lived on and because they didn't follow Jesus. once again it had nothing to do with race and everything to do with greed and religion
greed and religion is also what condemned the Indians of South America under the spanish


Never said it did have anything to do with race with them...of course it was about land, as it was with the Dutch settling in South Africa and countless other times throughout history when peoples have been conquered. I was only using this example to show that with the African slaves, the idea of "race" was originally brought up.



en.wikipedia.org...
www.infoplease.com...
Modern-day slaves can be found laboring as servants or concubines in Sudan, as child "carpet slaves" in India, or as cane-cutters in Haiti and southern Pakistan, to name but a few instances. According to Anti-Slavery International, the world's oldest human rights organization, there are currently over 20 million people in bondage.


Yes, thank you for confirming what most of us knew. As you also confirmed, slavery is not "widespread" anymore, certainly not in "civilized cultures" of the western world, is no longer culturally accepted almost anywhere, and the number of slaves is nowhere near that which were used during the time of the transatlantic slave trade.



It was standard practice amongst Egyptian Pharoahs to marry a wife who had pale skin
this would ensure that the children had light skins as well because in Ancient Egypt having pale skin was regarded as being a God
this of course is not a racial thing either as race is not dependant on skin colour alone and if it was an act of racism then it was carried out by the Pharoah himself who you are saying was a Negro. A racist Negro king, how can that be true
en.wikipedia.org...
In the final analysis, it is important to keep in mind that all humans around the world today are biologically quite similar despite our superficial differences. In fact, we apparently are 99.9% genetically identical.


First of all, would you like to cite a reputable source about the claim of Pharoahs marrying pale skinned wives? It's the first time I've heard of it. Genetic studies were done on Egyptian dental remains I believe, and these showed ancient egyptians to be mostly of indigenous African descent. I know about the 99% similarity, as I just recently posted in another thread. I am not trying to say any races are superior, inferior, or better or worse people. We all have shortcomings. In the context of this thread, I was simply trying to bring up a possible motivation for why archeological evidence could be covered up about Africans being here before Europeans. That's all. I could care less about "race" otherwise, but we are talking about the early history of the New World, which was built up on slave labor. So of course there are automatically ideas of white being better than black when you have had black people working for you all these years.



so there really is only one race
Its called the Human race
maybe you could let that chip off your shoulder long enough to join it



Yea...maybe you should focus on the real purpose of this thread, instead of trying to blindly attack any idea or consideration that maybe Africans were here first. If all races are the same, then why do you care so much about the whole "race" issue as you have clearly shown on this thread?




clearly you don't know anything about race at all
you seem to be claiming that the Olmec who didn't in fact carve those heads and who left plenty of normal sized statues of themselves around were Black
you also claimed they were in south america when in fact they are all in mexico which is Meso or central america.
the Tierra del fuegans who lived on the southern tip of south america had black skin but were descended from Australian Aborigines.
because of one statue made famous by pseudoarchaeology
you may like to know that there are currently around 20 or so heads like the one famous one that you know and which is your basis for rewriting history in view of your afrocentrism
and most of them don't look Negro at all
as for Chis Columbus
heres the extract from his log


Yea, I know the Olmec are in mesoamerica, as I thought I said, if not it was a typo. Excuse me for the error, sir.
I have seen multiple sculptures and statues which resemble a people who look negroid. That is my own opinion, and the opinion of other archeologists if you'd take the time to read about it. There are others who differ in their opinion. It's called a "theory", get over it. I don't want to "rewrite history", I'm just interested in it, that's all. I'm not "afrocentric", I could care less who got to the new world first. What's wrong with looking at all the possible evidence of Africans being here before Columbus, thinking it's interesting, and coming up with a theory as to why we don't have the evidence? This is a "conspiracy" site you know, I don't have solid proof, I have speculation based on a lot of circumstancial evidence.



so If i go out and paint myself yellow will that make me chinese?
how about if I paint myself red, will i then become a native american ?
hey if i paint myself silver I can be a robot

laughable (still)




Columbus and his son both mentioned "black" people. You can look it up if you're capable of reading anything other than what satisfies your image of how you "want" history to be.




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

Hey youre not good friends with Dr Clyde A Winters are you Shotek ?

I wasn't even referring to this "head" that you mention specifically, although I've probably seen pictures of it. I never said it proves anything, just that it is interesting.

I never tried to suggest that Olmecs, or native americans are African. I was just saying it is possible that they had traded with each other, and seen each other, possibly exchanged ideas...what about the temples in the new world, and the temples/pyramids in Africa? What about African crops in the new world? What about the spears matching those of the Mali people, and the report of Mali people trading and fighting with those "in the west"? Are you not at least willing to consider these ideas?



Egypt was second rate compared to Mesopotamia anyway. By the approach that you are using this means that the modern Iraqis are in fact the master race.


Right. You are still hung up on the whole "race" thing, which I already said, I could care less about. I guess if you say that Egypt was second rate to Mesopotamia, then it must be right, because you already know everything. This thread is way off topic now, because instead of considering real possibilities that are interesting regarding the origins of people and the country, you just focus on race. Do you deny that vikings were here, or are they ok, because they weren't "colored"? I suggested one possibility for why african remains might be covered up, and you obviously took some personal offense to the idea as most racists would...



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Okay Shotek, I disagree with a few things (and I reckon there are more people in slavery today than at any time in history) lets' get back onto subject.

Could Africans have sailed to the Americans in pre-Colombian times?

Well, we can disclude the Egyptians because it's fairly well established that they were not themselves great sea farers. Great Zimbabwe is well inland suggesting that the culture responsible was not sea faring either. Is there evidence for any other African civilisation that had decent sea faring capabilities?

Perhaps the obvious possibility is the Carthinaginians. Although the city-state was established by Tyre (ie the Phoenicians), I believe that many Carthinagians were native Africans (ie black)? And they definitely had the capability to reach the New World



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   


I suggested one possibility for why african remains might be covered up, and you obviously took some personal offense to the idea as most racists would.

no
your entire post was about how white scholars had conspired to hide the truth about the history of Black civilisation and how racism was the guiding factor in world colonisation during the modern period
clearly
this being not true is a completely racist comment
if I'd said anything racist at all then I'd like you to point it out to me
I have a number of Black friends including DR C A Winters
www.geocities.com...
who I am on first name terms with and who is world famous for his afrocentric theories who would be most interested to know that I had taken such a downward spiral into bigotry
so whenever you feel up to it please reply
of course you could just admit that your evidence as posted in your previous post was the result of your own misconceptions about ancient history and your own particular problem with racism but I don't expect you will because you're not that intelligent. Labelling me something that I am not in an attempt to discredit would only work if it were true
It isn't
it shares this in common with most of your comments so far on this board


"Once you label me you negate me." (Soren Kierkegaard)



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
your entire post was about how white scholars had conspired to hide the truth about the history of Black civilisation and how racism was the guiding factor in world colonisation during the modern period
clearly
this being not true is a completely racist comment
if I'd said anything racist at all then I'd like you to point it out to me
I have a number of Black friends including DR C A Winters
www.geocities.com...
who I am on first name terms with and who is world famous for his afrocentric theories who would be most interested to know that I had taken such a downward spiral into bigotry
so whenever you feel up to it please reply
of course you could just admit that your evidence as posted in your previous post was the result of your own misconceptions about ancient history and your own particular problem with racism but I don't expect you will because you're not that intelligent. Labelling me something that I am not in an attempt to discredit would only work if it were true
It isn't
it shares this in common with most of your comments so far on this board


I'll respond to this last post before I hit that the "ignore" button under your name and block out any further nonsense you may wish to spew...first of all, learn to organize your thoughts into sentences, paragraphs...you know, things they would have taught you in 4th or 5th grade.

I got most of my ideas from numerous history and anthroplogy courses I have taken, books I have read, and independent research of internet sources. Where did you get yours? US History 101? Oh, sorry that your notion of our white scholars and founders being perfect, and our country being perfect is not the idea that I am trying to convey. The founders of this country, this country, was built on slave labor. This is where our system of capitalism comes from, using free labor for many years. I simply proposed a THEORY of why evidences could be covered up. Racism comes to the people of this country from many years of using black people for free labor, and being their "masters". I didn't make this up, it's written in any history book you could choose to read. Don't try to pretend racism doesn't exist or didn't exist, when we held Africans below us as people for many years, and lots of people still do. Half our country fought a war just a couple centuries ago to keep them below us. Black "rights" didn't come into play until less than half a century ago. We haven't had hardly any time so far to erase the inherent racism which is present in our system, and it is the way it is. Get over it. I personally don't give a damn if chinese, whites, blacks, yellows, greens, reptilians, what have you, discovered America. But I have seen some interesting evidence that Africans can, so I proposed my theory based on the history that I have learned. What's your problem? You can't accept it? Fine.

I never called you a racist, but I compared some of your ideas and defenses to someone who is racist. I don't think you are a racist, maybe just in need of a history lesson. And please, don't put down a list of black people you are friends with.
This clearly demonstrates your need to prove some point about race and what you think about race...I really don't care how many black friends you have, and neither does anyone else.

My "particular problems with racism"? No, I don't have a deep problem with racism on a "personal" level, as I am white in the United States and have never experienced its power of hate against me, personally. I have many white friends who are incredibly racist, which makes me sad and dissapointed. I know black people who have been subject to it throughout their whole life. I know native americans who have been subject to it throughout their whole life. I know asians who have been subject to it throughout their whole life. It is a part of our country whether you like it or not, and a part of our history.

I'm "not that intelligent"? This coming from the guy who can't even type up a legible sentence, and basis his defense of racial ideas on his afrocentric "black friends"? Please.
It seems like you never took any history courses past the public high school level, or cared to learn about history. So don't pretend to be an expert in the case where you clearly are not.

It is obvious you have no interest in the real subject of this thread, as you only showed up because you took some personal offense to the facts that I stated about our country's slave history. All of your posts seem to be similar on this board- lacking any structure in organizing your thoughts, brief, and, more or less, useless contribution to the thread. Please refrain from adding more of your uneducated drivel to this thread, and no need to prove yourself by listing the names of more of your minority "friends". We get it.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Okay Shotek, I disagree with a few things (and I reckon there are more people in slavery today than at any time in history) lets' get back onto subject.

Could Africans have sailed to the Americans in pre-Colombian times?

Well, we can disclude the Egyptians because it's fairly well established that they were not themselves great sea farers. Great Zimbabwe is well inland suggesting that the culture responsible was not sea faring either. Is there evidence for any other African civilisation that had decent sea faring capabilities?

Perhaps the obvious possibility is the Carthinaginians. Although the city-state was established by Tyre (ie the Phoenicians), I believe that many Carthinagians were native Africans (ie black)? And they definitely had the capability to reach the New World


Well about the slavery numbers, I highly doubt it, but no way to prove one way or another...

Judging from the information about the Malinke spears analyzed by spain, and the arab scholar's report of Mali people trading and/or fighting with those "in the west", I think the Mali empire would be the most likely ones to have made it there before Columbus. The Mali empire had its roots in the early 1200s, and came to it's greatest power in the middle 1300s. This would have predated Columbus by a couple centuries possibly...muslim people were well assimilated into north Africa by this time, and most of the Mali leaders were muslim. Most of the traders however, were people of African origin, and so they would have looked "black" for the most part, as some of the descriptions have said of the people in the New World. Mali was still far south and west enough to be mostly African people, and they practiced traditional African religions even with the Muslim leaders.

This empire wouldn't have been old enough to explain some of those "black" sculptures, if they even were of Africans at all. But they certainly would have absorbed knowledge of Egyptian culture and ideas by that time through the saharan traders, and if they had made it west they could have spread some of this, though doubtful. These people thrive on farming and trade, and there are stories of incredibly long ocean journeys made by similar people in the dug-out canoes that they had been using, but no real facts regarding their proficiency in navigating the seas...

Interesting to think about considering some of the clues given by Columbus and others.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Regarding a cover-up, I think this is possible. Most if not all the early archeological explorations in the 17-1800's were conducted by aristocrats of independent means. Nothing to do with governments. So the early work was founded by the old rich. The old rich (and the new) are often pretty barmy. It has been documented that the super-rich are quasi-religous (Bohemian Grove for example). After that, scientific self-interest would censor new discoveries and retain the old paradigms.

Where something is impossible to cover-up, the evidence would be roundly attacked by those protecting their own careers. The possible erosion by rain of the sphinx for example. And if you think scientists are objective and would not do this, read up about the resistance to the recent reclassification of Pluto as a mini-planet. It's laughable.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   


I simply proposed a THEORY of why evidences could be covered up

you proposed a theory on why evidence could be covered up in the absence of any actual evidence
there is no evidence that any african race reached america
there is no evidence that white scholars at any time attempted to cover up the out of africa theory by producing a hoax at piltdown

now having proved I am a non racist by providing evidence that I am friends with those members of the American black community who are even despised sometimes by scholars in their own fields because of their obvious support for afrocentric theory you claim that doesn't mean anything because according to your claim I am a racist

so the only way you can counter my information and links is by yet another personal attack
this is against the code of conduct at this forum and I have just reported you for it

also your claim that I cannot use english to a good degree in my posts is a personal attack
this is against the code of conduct at this forum and I have just reported you for it

your claim that things were hidden by racist white scholars is acxtually Libellous
this is against the code of conduct at this forum and I have just reported you for it

I would like to point out at this point that you are entitled to use the ignore button if you aren't capable of answering an enquiry in a civil manner but don't forget that just means that you won't be abel to see what I'm saying about you
Everyone else will

I find your level of intelligence about on a par with the 19 century view of neanderthal intelligence
your rhetoric on a par with that of Casper Hausar
and your ability to comprehend and accept actual facts on a par with the chencellor of Nazi germany in late April 1945
and your cutting remarks about as sharp as a piece of 19th century water pipe made of plombium
none of this is a personal attack
it imo is a fair comparison supported by all the evidence that you have posted above

could you try harder




new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join