CanyonAg77 said:

---

1) I did not post the cartoon.

2) Being an @$$hole does not advance your argument

3) No one has yet figured out what your argument is

4) Not downloading any book, when you fail to articulate a reason I should, or a logical argument, or hell, even a hint of what you are ranting about.

It's like Spderman and Redstone had a baby

---

Forget it man, the dude fried his brain.

Just having fun.....and a little curious as to his point.

I've seen the Lone Ranger and The Searchers. I know what Native Americans looked like.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Just having fun.....and a little curious as to his point.

---

I'm sure there will be a post about Olmec heads shortly.

I don't usually post outside of F16, but someone sent me this link and this kind of stuff is a pet peeve of mine.

At first I thought it was someone who was bored, but now I see it is giant pile of Afrocentric pseudohistory. Kind of had that feeling after the first dozen posts.

Afrocentric pseudohistory makes a lot of bogus claims which legitimate scholars have refuted, but it just doesn't go away.

One of the claims by those who espouse Afrocentric pseudohistory is that the people living in the Americas prior to 1492 are "African." They say that Africans, which always means black even though most people in North Africa weren't and still aren't black, sailed across the Atlantic thousands of years ago and colonized the Americas. If anyone from Africa had crossed the Atlantic, it would not have been people from what is now called sub-Saharan Africa.

DNA tests have confirmed that the peoples living in the Americas prior to 1492 had come from northern Asia/modern Siberia, just as had been theorized long before DNA testing was even a pipe dream. There is also other evidence like the Llullaillaco Mummies, which sure as heck aren't "African".

Some of the other claims are things like all civilizations came from Africa.

Egyptians were black because in the minds of the people pushing this, everyone from Africa in ancient times was black, which was never true and still isn't. We know from the mummies and DNA tests on them what the ancient Egyptians looked like.

Supposedly there were numerous great, advanced civilizations in Africa throughout history. These civilizations are where all of the white societies got (stole) their knowledge and technology. We can't find any evidence these great civilizations existed because whites were so embarrassed by black superiority, they destroyed them and obliterated the evidence.

Even the most liberal historians dismiss this junk out of hand as nothing but fake history being pushed by grifters and people with an agenda.

Afrocentric pseudohistory is what I like to call Wakandaism.

Rapier 108 explained more in one post than "Jack Friday" has in two pages.

"Jack", if you believe that some artist sitting in Germany in the 1600s could paint an accurate picture of American Indians 1000s of miles away, I don't know what to tell you. Given the times, the artist would just be going by third and fourth hand reports.

Also, if you can't understand why Mayas would paint mythical figures in their ceramics, I can't help you.

So here's a question: if ancient native Americans were what we today would call "black", what happened to them by the 1700s to 1800s? Did they all get killed off first? Did they go into hiding? Do you not think that white Americans in the 1850s might have noticed that they were warring against people who looked a lot like slaves, as opposed to looking like "red men"?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Rapier 108 explained more in one post than "Jack Friday" has in two pages.

"Jack", if you believe that some artist sitting in Germany in the 1600s could paint an accurate picture of American Indians 1000s of miles away, I don't know what to tell you. Given the times, the artist would just be going by third and fourth hand reports.

Also, if you can't understand why Mayas would paint mythical figures in their ceramics, I can't help you.

So here's a question: if ancient native Americans were what we today would call "black", what happened to them by the 1700s to 1800s? Did they all get killed off first? Did they go into hiding? Do you not think that white Americans in the 1850s might have noticed that they were warring against people who looked a lot like slaves, as opposed to looking like "red men"?

---

They left for Japan to become Samurais. And every other people, place, and accomplishment.

Henry Ford was black so they had to hide that fact because he invented the automobile. Not that other guy in Germany. Well he was black as well, probably.

And what about the thousands of other contemporaneous depictions that show Native Americans as non-African? Jack, you can't cherry pick data that supports your conclusion and ignore the data that contradicts it.

This is like the pumpkin plant in my front yard, it went from nothing to a patch overnight.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Apparently, he can cherry pick data, has been doing it for two pages

---

Yep, and should realize his error since everyone knows that the original Native Americans were actually the 10 lost tribes of Israel.

I don't really know what your point is, and it's probably not a bad point, but you introduced it through a 40 minute video with a rambling guy speaking in a nearly incomprehensible accent. Your more recent comment seems to suggest a summary of points, which probably should have been your first comment, with the video as background information for people interested.

It seems your claims are that Mayans or Mediterranean people or something had immigrated to North America. I'm not sure which. And it seems some documents from the 1700s in Germany are your source.

I'll just put this here: I have a masters in history and studied at a German University. I'm fluent in German and know the German intellectual period from the middle ages through the renaissance fairly well for an American. I will simply say this: No German not named Alexander Humbolt knew **** about North America before 1840. Europeans in general were abysmally ignorant about North America. I'll point first to the french naturalist Georges-Louis de Buffon, who famously argued that American species of animals like bison were smaller than their European counterparts, and used really alchemy-like quasi-science to justify their nonsense. Germans were particularly isolated, since Germany wasn't a unified country and almost no one outside of Humbolt (in the 1790s-1810s) had visited the continent. All the sources Germans had were basically third or fourth hand.

What do we know about early settlement? Did people arrive before Columubs? Certainly. We know that the Norse did, and it's very likely some others did as well. The Phoenecians did a lot of traveling and in the ancient era, people kept things secret if they gave you a trading advantage. But there is no evidence that they did so frequently or contributed to the gene pool in a significant way. This being said, there is definitely evidence of contact somehow with other cultures. The Olmec heads have very African-like features. This is a mystery, since no DNA evidence confirms this. But it is intriguing. We do know there are some tribal folks in the Amazonian area that have a DNA sequence similar to some Polynesians, which suggests some of them made it there. This is not surprising as we know they made it to Easter Island, so South America is not unlikely.

As to the Maya being in North America, well, there's no evidence of that at all. The evidence strongly suggests that there was movement from North Ameirca southwards, but not much going back the other way. This makes sense, as settled tribes don't wander, but nomads do, and once someone gets into a valley where they can grow great crops, they tend to stop moving. Hunters keep moving as long as the animals move.

Kaa98 said:

---

Did I stumble into a Spyderman/Leonard Stringfellow thread?

---

Feels like it but angrier. Also the "legal and corporate fiction" line reeks of "sovereign citizen" types