goggle@pacbell.net (Riverman) wrote in message news:<b4b2a645.0312310208.35561df0@posting.google.com>...

goggle@pacbell.net (Riverman) wrote in message news:<b4b2a645.0312292219.d032595@posting.google.com>...

"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message news:<6I6Ib.11310$lo3.3874@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

"Randy Jabsco" <RandyJabsco@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bsonmv$n51$0@pita.alt.net...

I keep reading all the history about how the Europeans spread all over the
earth, exploring all parts and spreading their influences. They taught
other cultures and other people their ways.

Can someone please post something that shows when the Negro boarded ships

to

explore the world and taught other cultures with their advanced ways?

Negroes did not need to go to Europe. Europe needed to go elsewhere.

Read Van Sertima's book, African Influence in Ancient Europe or his
most famous work,They Came Before Columbus.Very enlightening works.

Van Sertima didnt do research, the african olmec connection is
afrocentric *****. The african skeletons in south america could
just as well be chinese.
There were no remnants of a great african culture left by the
olmecs,the basalt heads do not resemble either nubians nor mande
speaking people, the only "linguist" who can read the mande linguistic
connection is clyde waters,, who is laughable among academics..along
with van sertima...

A lot has been proven and disproven since the 70s....van sertima is
gobbled up by the black people and the afrocentrists but his research
or lack of is flawed.


There just isnt any credible evidence that african influenced the
olmec culture or any other people in america.

I think when Clyde Waters got slapped down on the mande olmec
connection he then said that the chinese "shang" dynasty could have
made the trip, but he also claims the chinese the chinese shang
dynasty was black too.....though he has no evidence to back this up
and has pretty much been proven wrong.

A lot of this material on blacks in america and blacks in china is old
material that has pretty much been disproven. Even when disproven it
continues to be believed, the afrocentrist when backed into a corner
with facts just scream racism, the white man lied, etc...

Well,the Olmec Heads seemed pretty "Nubian"to me-large noses and
Negroid lips.But even if you don't believe the heads are Negroid what
about all the figurines the German anthropologist,Weiner I think his
name was,found in the excavation of Olmec sites in the 1920's?They are
no doubt Negro art or at the very least art influenced by the
prescence of Africans.
The Shang dynasty wasn't Black but it is interesting to see that
there were examples of obvious repicas of blacks found in their art
collections.fact is,there were large migrations of different peoples
from all parts of the world during ancient times.To not believe that
is incredibly naive.

I have never seen any shang or chinese art that had fiqures that
resemble "blacks" or africans. got any links ?
Only thing I have heard of is the red and black ware but this could
just be coincidence or the fact that china and africa had some contact
thru trading partners in the middle east.

The olmec heads resemble chinese more than they resemble nubians. Look
at other olmec artifacts, the statuettes, drawings etc...none look
like the basalt heads. Why is there no more evidence than the
heads.Look at the people today in the area, a lot of them also
resemble the basalt heads, look at nubians and you will see very
little in common. Big lips dont mean *****.

As for Wiercinskis study of skulls he was working with heavily
fragmented skull elements and even at the conclusion of his study
there was just as much evidence pointing to the skulls being mongoloid
or caucasoid as there was for them being africoid..... he did a poor
job and the afrocentrists have jumped on his data and ran with it
because though it is just as possible to say the skulls were asian or
other than black, they *could* be black according to his shoddy
methodology.

Aboriginal remains have been found in Australia of people who died

years ago and had no African DNA. They sure didn't arrive out of Africa.

Of course they did.

the niggest writes:

the> "wahitaw warrior" <washitaw_warrior@hotmail.com> wrote

Look....primitive man walked out of africa and populated the planet,
thats pretty much a given..

the> No it's not. There have ben several waves of emigration and

the> out of and back into Africa. Latterly, Caucasian immigrants from

the> Pakistan founded cities there, in Mesopotamia, and in Egypt.

the> Aboriginal remains have been found in Australia of people who died

the> years ago and had no African DNA. They sure didn't arrive out of

That is not true, the took the coastal route, most of the
traces are gone, as sea levels were a lot lower then. They
do have a unique genetic marker on their y-chromosome, and
there are some traces of that left on the route.

The next big wave out of Africa was 10-20k years later.

Educate yourself.


--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)

Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:42:59 GMT, a stranger
called by some "the niggest" <the_niggest@my-deja.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism

"wahitaw warrior" <washitaw_warrior@hotmail.com> wrote

Look....primitive man walked out of africa and populated the planet,
thats pretty much a given..

No it's not. There have ben several waves of emigration and

out of and back into Africa. Latterly, Caucasian immigrants from western
Pakistan founded cities there, in Mesopotamia, and in Egypt.

Aboriginal remains have been found in Australia of people who died 60,000
years ago and had no African DNA. They sure didn't arrive out of Africa.

Cite on this study?