Is it too late to comment? I hope not. I had a dream in which I asked my
ancestors the name of my mother's tribe. It was a startling dream in
which the ancestors said, "Natchitoches. Washitaw." I didn't know what
it meant for a long time, until I started reading about the Olmecs and
the mounds. I had always accepted the idea that we're all "from''
Africa. Thank you for this post. I was wondering if you could recommend
some books on the subject. Thank you again.
Denmark Vesey said ...
Hello Anonymous. Welcome to the spot. Had a dream where you spoke to your ancestors, huh?Cool.
You've got so many ancestors. Were they all together in the dream? Or was it just a few of your ancestors? How did you know they were your ancestors in the dream? Did they speak English? And you are sure they said Washitaw? Um. Glad you recognized the pronunciation.
Interesting.
Anyway. Can I recommend any books on the subject?
No.
Books are the reason Negros don't know who they are today. Think white people brought them all here in boats.
33 comments:
DV~lol. You really are the blackest brother on the planet!!!!
I remember back in the day when everybody claimed to be "part-Indian". I always thought that was contrived. I couldn't understand how these folks could barely read, and scarcely conjugate their verbs but could trace their genealogy to an Indian tribe. Now I know there is something to be said for oral tradition, but I just thought it was curious how we all seem to be "part-indian". For there to be so much "black pride" we seem awfully eager to claim anything other than said blackness...just saying.
He's "just saying" that indigenous indians and many others aren't "other than black".
Believing in that is the problem.
If you belive in the oral tradition that tells us more than the BS we learned in school, then you wouldn't have made the last comment, right? Black pride doesn't have anything to do with Africa.
@Anonymous~I understand what he is "just saying" and I still maintain that the black folks of which I speak made "contrived" (as in false statements) about their genealogy because they lack black pride. I do believe that oral tradition tells us more than the BS we are taught in school but I don't believe that the folks of which I speak received any such oral tradition. They believed that Indians were something "other than black" and sought after that "otherness".
Sisssssta Conservative!!
"Part-Indian"?
Yes.
I remember that too.
I remember
1) Hearing some black people say they were part Indian
and
2) Hearing other black folks say: "You aint no part Indian! You bwak jus like e'rybody else! Black people from Afwika!!
Back then I was one of the "AFRICA ONLY" brothas shooting cats down for acknowledging any part of their heritage that wasn't 100% Kunta Kinte.
Back then I was blind.
Now I can see.
I had been conditioned to think "Indian" was Tonto and Pocahontas.
Hollywood made Cowboy and "Indian" movies.
Not Cowboy and Mound Builder flicks.
Now ... today .. it's funny.
I find all these Negros in America .. couldn't count to "3" in any African language ... can't make 1 African dish ... Can't name 4 African capitals ... Can't name 5 African Presidents ... don't know a Gotdamn thing about Africa ... walk around calling themselves "African Americans".
If we were all brought here just a few generations back ... you would think 1 African word would survive within our subculture.
1 African food.
1 African fable.
1 African religious practice.
Yeah yeah slavery.
But come on.
30 million "African Americans" and not 1 African nursery rhyme survives as a cultural artifact?
Not possible.
So ... Sista Conservative.
Those black people who told you they were Indians, were telling you the truth.
They were black people telling you they were black Indians ... for lack of a better word.
If they told you they were part Olmec you would have thought they were crazy.
DV~I'm convinced that they were lying (even if they inadvertently told the truth) and had they known that Indians were Black they would have claimed to be something else.
Conservative Black Woman, I remember those days too. Actually, those days are today. Folks still find a need to distance themselves from their heritage. Today, its not just being Indians but being half of anything, "I'm Black and Cuban"...I'm Black and Dominican"...I'm Black and French (yes, I've heard that). Its apples and oranges...ethnicity with nationality. So I agree with you, I have concluded people so desperately don't want to be black or they feel by having a little something extra then it makes them feel better about themselves.
This is a belief system that needs healing. While it heals, we need to make room for those people...for them to identify as they please.
With that said, I believe there is room for "us"...those who may identify as African Americans (I like Afrikan). I have traveled through out African and Brasil. There may be a lot I know about both places but I can not say that I can name 5 African Presidents (had lunch with one dictator), I can barely cook a southern dish let alone an African dish (but I've eaten Camel), and been to several African capitals. And the one thing I have learned is that my knowledge of these places does not help to define me. The one thing that ties me ("us") to Africa with out question is the color of my/our skin. I can still hear and will never forget the calls of "my color, my color!!" as I walked through the streets of Nubia. The warm embrace of my Masia friends (the man who jumps the highest gets his pick of the women). There are people who don't know a "gotdamn" thing about America but they what to be and will kill to be American.
Oh yea, a couple of weeks ago I had some Jollof rice..boy was it good. I had some Suya (a friend was getting fancy at his cook out). And every time you look at or eat plantains and cassava (word up to my West Indiana friends) we eat African.
Before I sign off I want to share a book title with you, The Tale of The Two Brothers...and African fable my great grandfather use to read to me.
I may have written too much so I'll end with, Its the hard things we do that make us great.
Hello BriHead.
Welcome to the spot.
"BriHead said...
"Today, its not just being Indians but being half of anything, "I'm Black and Cuban"...I'm Black and Dominican"...I'm Black and French (yes, I've heard that)." Bri
But aren't some people part Cuban?
Aren't some people part Dominican?
Aren't some people part Black and part French?
Why do black people have to be "JUST" Black?
Why can all people around the world explore the range of their heritage ... but black people be limited to a monolithic singularity?
The only people I hear talk about others "denying" their heritage is black people.
As if Blackness is something to which one "admits".
Not claims ... but acquiesces.
I've always thought of Blackness as a privilege.
Something one has to demonstrate to claim.
Not a burden one is born into and reluctantly accepts.
"I have concluded people so desperately don't want to be black or they feel by having a little something extra then it makes them feel better about themselves." Bri
Again Bri ... that is a big jump to a conclusion.
A Black person from Louisiana or Oklahoma whose grandmother tells stories about her grandmother who was an Indian ... isn't "denying" their blackness ... they are establishing their nationality and affirming their indigenous nature. They are acknowledging the obvious.
When the Pilgrims arrived were there native peoples all over the eastern seaboard ... or was the eastern seaboard of North America abandoned and free of people?
Of course it was populated.
What happened to those people?
They ALL died?
They ALL walked the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma?
We were taught they all died off almost instantly forcing the Colonists to import labor all the way from Africa.
Bullshit.
The natives in America were enslaved by the colonists just as the natives all over the world were enslaved by colonists.
Some Africans were imported and mixed with the native black populations.
After Emancipation, the story was told that ALL the slaves were brought from Africa and had no natural claim to the land.
Teaching you to call yourselves "African-Americans" is the greatest Real Estate scam in the history of the world.
Thanks for the welcome.
Its my families oral tradition that a branch of my mother's family was owned by members of the Cherokee Nation. These early ancestors where freed and remained in the Florence, SC area. They even took up with General Howard as he marched through that part of the south during the Civil War. They even took the last name of Howard for a short period before abandoning that name for the name of Thomas, which my family carries today.
So, I grew up knowing this history.
My point, however, is this. I never used that history to distance myself from my African heritage. I did not need to use it to make myself feel better about me. I have an Aunt today, who can not understand why I travel to African when "we are not African...we are Indian" as she claims.
What I see in these claims of black Cubans (again ethnicity and nationality...apples and oranges) and others is an effort to distance themselves. Its apparent when they say things like, "I'm mixed"...lol. Now here are truly people who don't know a "damn thing" about Native American life or any of these other nationalities that they claim. Nor do they have a commitment to knowing anything. They simple use them to feel better about themselves.
But as I said, we/I should make room for these people. There is a need for healing the self imagine of our people but we can not facilitate that healing process if we isolate.
The litmus test is this: If the KKK was riding down the street looking for people to hang...would you be swing that day....lol. I don't think they, the KKK, could care less if I can trace my family to the Cherokee.
BUT, let me just say this. I do see what you are trying to point out and that is there was an African presence on this continent thousands of years before Europeans got here. Or I think that is what you are saying. And those people should not be denied. But unfortunately, most African American are not even ready for that news. I'm afraid most of "us" would not accept that heritage because it does not establish a connection to whiteness. Yes, I said it...being light still has value for "us".
So yes, my conclusion may be a "big jump" but it is based on experiences that I'm sure you either share or can relate to.
Just a side note or story. While hanging in Bahia, I was pleased to find so many people who celebrated their blackness. I met one guy, who for all intent and purpose looked white, who was offended by my reference to him as white. He shook his finger (as they do) and said, "I'm Black!"
So, I leave you with this...ANGOLA!!!
...and thanks to Conservative Black Woman for introducing me to you guys.
Someone in here help me understand how Native Americans are Black?!?!! Help me understand how they are not their own unique ethnicity?
Sure.
After you explain how Blacks are not Native Americans?!?!!
I'm not the one making that assertion so I guess its a case of "you first".
I believe that some blacks do have Native American in them. I do. My great grandfather was Iroquois. However, that does not mean that that situation falls true for every Black American.
Back then I was blind.-- DV
LMBAO!
Back when? You have eyes and you still can't see.
Not Cowboy and Mound Builder flicks.--DV
Do you know anything else about that glorious history you claim other than Mound Builders? How about Negro Fort? Andrew Jackson did refer to the First Seminole War as an "Indian and Negro War."
The Second Seminole War lasted six years, claiming the lives of at least 1,500 (probably more) American soldiers. This second war prompted General Jessup to forward these comments to the War Department: "This, you may be assured is a negro and not an Indian War."
Of course these "Negroes" were largely Gullah (Angola) people who had escaped from the slave plantations of South Carolina and Georgia. So, I'm sure you wouldn't claim them as part of your Black Pangaea heritage (lol).
A Black person from Louisiana or Oklahoma whose grandmother tells stories about her grandmother who was an Indian.-- DV
That grandmother from Oklahoma was probably a descendant of the 2,000 enslaved Afrikans owned by Cherokees who were force marched to Oklahoma on the Trail of Tears. So determined were many of these Cherokees to maintain Afrikan enslavement that they fought with the Confederates in the Civil War.
Check the Battle of Honey Springs, particularly the heroic efforts of the 1st Kansas Colored Infantry. Oops, I forgot, you don’t read any history books.
OBTW, DV you're slipping bad brother. You fell hard for that "book" set-up question, which no doubt came from a veteran "Anon." You may want to increase your intake of raw okra, and get some of that Pangaea off yo brain.
I see right now that there is a battle going on up in here. I have been reading throughout the site and things are hot up in here. So, forgive me fellaz, but I will reserve my troops for special op missions.
Big ups to Conservative Black Woman.
Peace and Love to everyone else.
And remember, its the hard things we do that make us great!
Frantz Fanon did an excellent job describing the patho-psychological effects European colonization and analyzed psychosis of black men and women who wear the white mask.
Since his emergence from the hillsides and caves of Europe where he ate, sleep and lived in his urination and defecation they've strove to make grave of this globe; blindly and in complete folly, amongst the conquered and otherwise colonized, a hierarchy has developed wherein those whose ancestry or features are more proximal to the European are looked upon more favorbly.
Then I suppose it is true - there are none so blind as those who will not see.
The inability of people to first grasp the idea that the Aboriginal (Ab=AB meaning first or primary, btw AB is an African language prefix now embeded in the English language) of the Americas arose from this land is rooted in their foundational belief.
The "Out of Africa" migration theory is the foundation upon which all arguments against the aboriginal people of the Americas containing heavy melenin/"Black people" stands in the belief all life began in Africa and migrated out of Africa.
There are other sources that prove the story of people coming into the Americas from a land bridge across Siberia into what is now the Americas is CONTRIVED. The story was created to maintain biblical continuity for the explaination of people in the Americas. Catholic preists fabricated this story to satisfy the Pontif who is "God" on Earth so that he would continue to fund their expeditions West.
The other issue with regards to whether Indian, "Black" and African people is rooted in the term Negro versus Indian. The word Negro has been used interchangably with its legal definition and it's social definition. The word Negro's legal definition is Chattel. Anyone that is legally a negro was legally someone's property no matter their skin color, nationality or continent of origin. Socially, Negro is understood as a "Black/African" based on the false science of "race." This psuedo science gives us terms like Negroid, Mongoloid and so on.
Belief in the "out of Africa" theory and the ignorance of the definition of Negro causes these misconceptions. Those that believe will always argue against "Black origins" in the Americas.
BTW, belief in the "Out of Africa" would have one believe all foods come from Africa and they do not.
Cassava(Yucca) is not native to Africa, neither are choclate, Peanuts, tomato, callaloo, chile or Lima beans...I could go on.
Peace!
"There are other sources that prove the story of people coming into the Americas from a land bridge across Siberia into what is now the Americas is CONTRIVED. The story was created to maintain biblical continuity for the explaination of people in the Americas. Catholic preists fabricated this story to satisfy the Pontif who is "God" on Earth so that he would continue to fund their expeditions West."
Typing this without presenting any evidence to the contrary makes your point invalid. Its no different than me saying "the white man would have you believe that the sun is actually a star when it isn't" and not saying anything else.
All archeological evidence points to that's how man came into the America's. Even if you would subscribe to the Gladwin Thesis which states that first inhabitants of the Americas were African and arrived over 100,000 years ago, you'd still have concede that they arrived via the Bering Strait.
However, this information still doesn't benefit us in this day and age. Its nice to know, but I'm sure white people aren't beating each other up about being descendants of neanderthals.
"The inability of people to first grasp the idea that the Aboriginal (Ab=AB meaning first or primary, btw AB is an African language prefix now embeded in the English language) of the Americas arose from this land is rooted in their foundational belief." Ensayn1
Get 'em E.
"Its no different than me saying "the white man would have you believe that the sun is actually a star when it isn't" and not saying anything else." Cash Rulz
The white man does that to you all the time.
The white man has you eating things he tells you is food ... which are not food at all.
But you eat it.
The white man tells you a virus is a "vaccine" and you inject it into your baby's veins.
Just because some white people tell you North, Central & South America was completely abandoned until Asians chased caribou across the Bering Straight ... does not make it so.
In fact, I think the "Bering Straight Only' THEORY is what is in need of proof.
Are you saying that the only archeologist are white? Because if the oldest possible life found in South America is 40k years old and West Africa didn't have the capability to sail across until around 15-13k ago, then I'd love to hear your theories.
And who said that the first ones in the Americas were Asiatic? I didn't. I can believe that Africans came up all the way into Asia, across the Middle East, across China, into Siberia and across the Strait without settling anywhere in between????. (does sound hard to believe) However, given that this took thousands of years to happen I can believe that it was possible.
Just saying....
Cash you are proving Ensayn1's point:
People have been conditioned to believe ALL human life began in Africa and migrated from Africa to populate the globe.
That is a DARWINIAN MYTH with no more scientific evidence to support it than the Christian myth that Adam and Eve were the first humans and populated the earth.
There are more pyramids in Central America than in all of Egypt.
Why do we assume the Egyptian pyramids are older?
The "Out of Africa Only" theory is an issue of FAITH.
Not archeology.
Not science.
The earth has been through millions of years of transformation.
Darwinism is a 19th Century apotheosis myth (religion) based in masonry and occult mystery religions.
The supposed transformation from monkeys to man to God is a Luciferian fantasy.
"Out of Africa" is necessary to perpetuate the Religion of Darwin.
Please stop mistaking this fable for science.
Where do you contend that homo sapiens began outside of Northern Africa/Southern Asia?
I believe that homo sapiens are as fundamentally different from neanderthals as gorillas are from spider monkeys. Also, I don't believe in Darwinism so you can take that out of the discussion.
We don't assume Egyptian pyramids are older, they're carbon dated (or are you about to tell me that's a "plantation science"???). That doesn't mean that I can't believe that the culture that built the ones in Egypt didn't travel to South Amer and have an effect on the Meso-American pyramids.
However, you're going to have to present proof toward your theories other than inapplicable analogies to food and vaccine. The evidence for where humans began is significantly overwhelming.
"Where do you contend that homo sapiens began outside of Northern Africa/Southern Asia?" Cash
huh?
I don't know what you mean.
"We don't assume Egyptian pyramids are older, they're carbon dated (or are you about to tell me that's a "plantation science"???)" Cash Rulz
No.
That's not right.
We do not "carbon date" the pyramids.
We do not "carbon date" stone.
If I built a house last year, with slabs of stone, that were 1 million years old ... it does not make my house 1 million years old.
My house is 1 year old.
The stones of the pyramid could date back to creation.
We carbon date organic material.
Orthodox (Plantation) archeologist (myth makers) essentially guess at the pyramids age by their position in the development of ancient Egyptian architecture.
FACT.
Dem muhfuggas have no idea how old the pyramids are in Egypt, Mexico, China, Bosnia or on the ocean floor off the coast of Japan.
The OFFICIAL Explanation of History is as bogus as the OFFICIAL explanation of 911.
I meant to say where do you believe that life started then if not in Southern Asia/Northern Africa?
And they do not carbon date the stone. They carbon date organic material found between the stone (e.g. wood, charcoal) in the mortar. Carbon dating on that maertial that binds that stone (just as relevant AS the stone) dates to around 4,000 BC.
Carbon dating for the South American pyramids are around 2,000 BC, around the time of the Olmec culture (oldest South American civilization, (not translated people)).
Could this be wrong? Sure. But considering the mounds of alternative evidence being presented....oh wait.... Ok, I'll stop. :P
"Carbon dating on that maertial that binds that stone (just as relevant AS the stone) dates to around 4,000 BC." Cash Rulz
Cash.
Bra.
My man.
I will PayPal you $100 if you can link us to "carbon dating" evidence that the Pyramids of Giza date to 4,000 BC.
...
...
...
I can save you some time.
You cannot.
"In 1983 and 1984, prehistorian Robert J. Wenke from the University of Washington, and president of the American Research Center in Egypt, was given permission to collect mortar samples from various ancient construction sites, including the Great Pyramid and the Sphinx Temple. The mortar contained particles of charcoal, insect matter, pollen, and other organic materials which could be subjected for carbon-14 dating analysis. Using two different radiocarbon dating laboratories�the Institute for the Study of Man at Southern Methodist University, and the Institute of Medium Energy Physics in Zurich�the samples revealed a number of curiosities. For the Great Pyramid samples, the tests performed at the two labs initially gave very different clusterings of dates, off by several thousands of years. When certain "adjustments" in the data were applied, the resulting time frame narrowed to 3100 B.C. to 2850 B.C.�which is still 400 years earlier than when most Egyptologists believe the Great Pyramid was built. Even more anomalous, the dates obtained from mortar used near the top of the Pyramid were a thousand years older than those obtained from mortar nearer the Pyramid base. The researchers, if they were to fully believe these findings, would have to propose that the Pyramid had somehow been built from the top down."
"I meant to say where do you believe that life started then if not in Southern Asia/Northern Africa?" Cash Rulz
Baltimore
lol.
Nah man.
I believe human beings have been on this planet a lot longer than the consensus view of human history suggests.
The earth has been through millions of years of transformations.
The land mass we call Antarctica today was once on the equator.
The Sahara was once a jungle.
We do not know where "human life started".
Evidence that human beings are simply an evolutionary extension of monkeys who one day walked out of the jungle and sailed around the world to populate the globe is non existent.
http://www.davidpbillington.net/sphinx5.html
Here's some publications. BTW, Wenke did an additional testing in 1999 from the wood samples.
Herbert Haas, James Devine, Robert Wenke, Mark Lehner, Willy Wolfli, and Georg Bonani, "Radiocarbon chronology and the historical calendar in Egypt," in Chronologies du Proche Orient/Chronologies in the Near East, eds. Olivier Aurenche, Jacques Evin, Francis Hours, BAR International Series, 379 (ii) (Oxford, 1987), pp. 585-606.
In 1984, a team of scholars gathered mortar samples from stone structures at Giza for a radiocarbon dating survey. The 1987 report of the survey found a significant discrepancy between the conventional dates of the Giza pyramids and the dates found by radiocarbon testing. On average, the structures at Giza were found to be about four centuries older than their conventional dates. Two samples taken from the mortar of the Sphinx Temple gave radiocarbon dates of 2746 BCE (+/- 171 years) and 2085 BCE (+/- 314 years). These dates were anomalous and received no publicity at the time. They prompted survey members to return in 1995 to gather samples for a second survey.
Robert Wenke, et. al., "Dating the Pyramids," Archaeology, Vol. 52, No. 5 (September-October 1999), pp. 26-33.
Georges Bonani, Herbert Haas, Zahi Hawass, Mark Lehner, Shawki Nakhla, John Nolan, Robert Wenke, and Willy Wolfli, "Radiocarbon Dates of Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments in Egypt," Radiocarbon, Vol. 43, No. 3 (2001), pp. 1297-1320.
Mark Lehner, "How Old are the Pyramids?" Ancient Egypt Research Associates, 2005.
The second survey, reported in 1999 and more fully in 2001, found on average that the Giza structures were only two centuries older than their conventional dates. The authors of the second survey attributed the older dates to the Egyptian use of "old wood" (or recycled wood) in the charcoal used to make the mortar for the structures. The younger sample dates were not explained. The 1995 survey took no new samples from the Sphinx Temple.
cashthepro2k@yahoo.com - Or, you can mail it to me. I want it in nickles and dimes. And that's not slang, I don't want it traceable. LOL
I agree with what you're saying about Pangea. We know that the land masses were once all together at one time. However, fossils for homo sapiens aka modern day humans only date to 200,000 years.
If there is the possibility for early modern type intelligent people existing before that, I am very open to seeing the proof.
Although he rails against Darwin, he supports, probably w/o knowing it, one of the basic tenets of the European utamawazo—the polygenetic theory of human beings. DV’s theory is that Pangaea broke apart, and humans were suddenly on every continent. Black people, modern human beings with no evidence of evolution, have been on the North American continent for 100 million years, building a few earthen mounds, just waiting for Europeans to arrive so that they could be reduced to slavery. This is the religion of His Royal Highness, Constantine DV-El Bey.
"However, fossils for homo sapiens aka modern day humans only date to 200,000 years.
If there is the possibility for early modern type intelligent people existing before that, I am very open to seeing the proof. " Cash Rulz
I hear ya Cash.
But did you notice how quickly you accepted the Plantation meme that "modern day humans only date to 200,000 years" ... without "proof".
But you immediately demand "proof" of any idea that contradicts the Plantation meme.
That's how they are able to control perception.
I'm not asking you to "believe" anything.
I am asking you to stop giving the Plantation a pass while playing the "proof game" with ideas outside the consensus.
"DV’s theory is that Pangaea broke apart," Makheru
lol. Come on Mak.
I know you've had a rough time here lately watching your Afro-Centric Negro paradigms collapse one after the other ... but you aint gotta project nonsense about Pangea onto DV.
I've never said anything about "Pangea".
Now I know you mad at white folks for slavery and you don't want anything to upset your little Kunta Kinte after-school-special historical world view that suggests black history didn't really start until slavery ... except for a brief moment in the sun with KMT hotep nut and neter.
But bra ... Black people are a bit deeper than that Kinte cloth version of history to which you cling.
The inability of people to first grasp the idea that the Aboriginal (Ab=AB meaning first or primary, btw AB is an African language prefix now embeded in the English language)
Interesting.
Ab is the Arabic/Hebrew word for father. Ab-original may then mean original father or something to that effect.
Pierre Sabak is a must read for everyone.
Dina
Asking for proof is not giving anything a pass.
However, I provided the links you asked for and my paypal hasn't seen anything. I'm tracing your IP as we speak playa. Pay up. LMAO
Memes are open to interpretation. Scientific proof isn't.
And I don't believe things that I know. And I don't endorse ideas that cannot be proven.
Haaa ...
Come on young grasshopper.
How you going to claim the C note with a weak link to two questionable attempts to "carbon-date" the pyramids?
Nahhhhh man.
2 inconclusive attempts to carbon-date the pyramids do not constitute evidence or proof that "the Giza pyramids date to 4,000 BC"
Nice Try.
[However, radiocarbon dating is subject to several possible sources of error [12]. In particular, the concentration of radiocarbon in the atmosphere is not constant, and samples can be contaminated with old or young carbon from their environment. There are numerous instances where radiocarbon dating has yielded false ages. For instance, there are living snails in artesian springs in southern Nevada which have such low radiocarbon contents in their shells that they have theoretically been dead for 27,000 years. A bone from beds at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, which, on the basis of other radiocarbon dates and geological considerations, are thought to be over 29,000 years old, yielded a radiocarbon age of only 3340 years. Tektites (glass-like bits of rock) which were dated at about 700,000 years on the basis of potassium-argon dating and stratigraphic studies, were found to be only 4830 to 5700 years old according to radiocarbon dating of accompanying charcoal.]
Post a Comment