So Europeans during slave trade knew Israel was in Africa

[Everythingg]

Because(assuming the pics even are legit), the artist interpretation of the people he's depicting is subjective and prone to much human error, especially given the technology at the time, and your interpretation of artist depiction is also highly subjective.

Clearly not something you can use to make and objective claim about a people's origins with. Just look at all of the completely different looking depictions of Saladin from around the world out there. There are some where he looks european, some where he looks middle eastern, some where he looks sub saharan africa, some where he looks (east)asian. Artist during the time had a habit of depicting people in their own image or the opposite depending on if they were friend or foe.

So when they came to the Americas and said there were negroes here and depicted them as such, what do you say was going on?

Yes you can. In fact he believed he had reached the the Indian Ocean when he landed in the Caribbean according to his writing.
http://www.bringinghistoryhome.org/assets/bringinghistoryhome/columbus annotation by cath.pdf

That’s because the names of land today are not the same as the past. India of today was not called India during his time. It was called Hindustan. So when he said he was going to India, he wasn’t talking of the India of today.

 

[SirReginald]

Black people who say the bible is the white mans book are so lost its not even funny.
Especially those who talk shyt about the bible then use the white mans science and history to disprove it,and treat white science like the bible smh.

The KJV is the white man's book. African Christianity and Ethiopian Orthodox is totally different.

 

[Indiglow Meta (R$G)]

Egyptians ruled over that entire area for a few thousand years. They took slaves from that area. Those slaves were Canaanites. Those same slaves escaped from Egypt BACK to Canaan and took over around 1400 BCE. They renamed it Israel.

Your entire thread is invalid no matter how far you try to move the goalpost.

​

No.
The Hyksos dynasty ruled Egypt and that is the only time that brand of "semite" had contact with Egypt. Jews were never enslaved.
The Biblical Exodus Story Is Fiction | HuffPost

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

No.
The Hyksos dynasty ruled Egypt and that is the only time that brand of "semite" had contact with Egypt. Jews were never enslaved.
The Biblical Exodus Story Is Fiction | HuffPost

No one said anything about 'Jews' being enslaved. That's yet another strawman. They weren't Hebrews until AFTER they left Egypt. Prior to that, they were a conglomerate of Canaanite, East/North African, and a few other Mesopotamian/European nationalities that Egypt had been in-contact with for centuries up until the 12th Century when the entire Fertile Crescent civilization collapsed......

That's why during (and after) the Exodus, they were CONSTANTLY returning to their 'old ways' and were 'punished' for it.
​

 

[Leasy]

The only non-native people who reached the Americas before columbus were the Inuit, the vikings(who never permanently settled), and there's also some evidence that suggest polynesians may have reached the west coast of south america or at least had some contact with the people there, though this one is also largely in contention with new evidence suggesting otherwise.

All other claims are fringe and have never been taken seriously among scholars and experts in the field of pre-columbian Americas as there little to no real evidence to support it, and for more popular ones have usually had experts in the field come out and explicitly debunk it, ie white/european soltreans, black olmecs/washytaws, ming-chinese, 1149 muslims etc etc And pretty much are only touted today by members who share some kind of ethnic, racial, or religious ties to the subjects of the claim.

The truth is that the western hemisphere has been largely isolated from the eastern hemisphere aside few cases listed above before large ocean going vessels were built capable of traversing large bodies of water and storing enough supplies for the crew to survive on. And even then there would need to be some kind of motivation to make such a journey. The only other option would be ot cross the bering strait(ie natives, Inuit) or island hop in the arctic(vikings) Most societies didn't fit all of those criteria. There's a reason it was the last continental mass that human beings settled on. Even australia is more accessible.

And even then the native inhabitants of the Americas were one of the most genetically homogenous populations in the world due to their pioneering population being so small, with some genetic studies suggesting that the original founding human population consisting of only about 250 members.
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-dna-sequences-people-native-american.html

False. The Chinese West African civilizations and Phonecians were all in America's before Europeans.

West Africans traded with South America and some of their Woven artifacts were found in Africa according to J.A Rogers. The Mayans had black gods and Bes is on the Mayan Calendar center.

The Ankh was found in the Incan land. The Chinese called America FuSang

 

[Supper]

So when they came to the Americas and said there were negroes here and depicted them as such, what do you say was going on

Again, you're interpretation of whatever of the images is subjective. Most legit images that I've come across of depictions of Native Americans don't look SSA black at all to me. And in the spanish racial caste depictions where people of SSA descent are clearly made to look different than people of native american ancestry. And the term negro used by early europeans typically meant people with dark skin of any kind brown or black and later became synonymous with lower and/or slave caste people in the Americas. Many descriptions went out of their way to make a distinction between negros da terre(native american "land negros") and negros da guinea(black africans "guinea negros").

The term was also frequently used for inhabitants of Asian and Pacific Islands who had dark brown or black skin.

That’s because the names of land today are not the same as the past. India of today was not called India during his time. It was called Hindustan. So when he said he was going to India, he wasn’t talking of the India of today.

Actually the term indian in the european language is older than the term hindu which comes from perisan.

inhabit of India or South Asia; pertaining to India," c. 1300 (noun and adjective), from Late Latin indianus, from India (see India). Applied to the aboriginal native inhabitants of the Americas from at least 1553 as a noun (1610s as an adjective), reflecting Spanish and Portuguese use, on the mistaken notion that America was the eastern end of Asia

indian | Origin and meaning of indian by Online Etymology Dictionary

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Go in?

The Egyptian 'Creation Narrative' stands in contradistinction to the Biblical narrative in the following manner: Ptah 'created' the Heavens and the Earth by using his mind and his voice. The Biblical narrative, on the other hand, has YHWH creating the same by use of his voice, alone. This showed that the Hebrew 'god' was even more powerful than the Egyptian. Another thing to consider is that Egyptian religion posited 2 sets of 'gods': Those that interacted with humanity, and, the 'creators' of THOSE 'gods' who didn't interact with humanity known as the 'Primeval Elements', aka, Earth, Wind, Fire & Water, that represented what everything else in the Universe was composed of. There are a LOT of other comparisons throughout Genesis, but in order for them to make any sense, you'd have to be somewhat familiar with the religions of the ANE and not susceptible to Panbabylonianism.​

 

[Supper]

False. The Chinese West African civilizations and Phonecians were all in America's before Europeans.

West Africans traded with South America and some of their Woven artifacts were found in Africa according to J.A Rogers. The Mayans had black gods and Bes is on the Mayan Calendar center.

The Ankh was found in the Incan land. The Chinese called America FuSang

Sub Saharan West African civilizations were not ocean traversing societies, especially the non-bantu ones(bantus managed to settle a few african islands off the coast). They relied on the Niger river system for everything from trade, to movement via canoes, to agriculture, to fresh drinking water etc etc. They had no need to traverse the oceans. Cape Verde & São Tomé and Príncipe were uninhabited when the Portuguese got there. Had they been traversing the atlantic ocean beyond the immediate coast they would've settled these islands in some capacity.

The phoenicians island hopped around the the mediterranean sea, and sailed the coast of the Atlantic and Indian oceans, and Red Sea. Never going out into the open ocean.

The Menzies chinese theory has long been debunked. Both mainstream sinologist and native american historians reject his claims wholesale.

And you might want to update your sources to someone more recent and credible than Rogers who died in '66 and wasn't a scholar in Pre-Columbian native american history.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

False. The Chinese West African civilizations and Phonecians were all in America's before Europeans.

No, they weren't and Phoenician civilization was extinct by the 12th Century BCE.
​

West Africans traded with South America and some of their Woven artifacts were found in Africa according to J.A Rogers. The Mayans had black gods and Bes is on the Mayan Calendar center.

This is false. West Africans didn't trade with any South American civilization and JA Rogers (and Ivan Van Sertima) was absolutely wrong to posit it since he based that theory on the following book........

​

The Ankh was found in the Incan land.

There was ONE Tau-shaped structure found in Incan lands, but that shape is ubiquitous throughout multiple civilizations so that connection is meaningless.
​

The Chinese called America FuSang

The translators of ancient Chinese writings did. Not the Chinese themselves.....

This hypothesis was refuted by 1941 by Joseph Needham. Here's the entire pdf.....

https://monoskop.org/images/7/70/Ne...1_Physics_and_Physical_Technology_Physics.pdf
​

 

[Everythingg]

Again, you're interpretation of whatever of the images is subjective. Most legit images that I've come across of depictions of Native Americans don't look SSA black at all to me. And in the spanish racial caste depictions where people of SSA descent are clearly made to look different than people of native american ancestry. And the term negro used by early europeans typically meant people with dark skin of any kind brown or black and later became synonymous with lower and/or slave caste people in the Americas. Many descriptions went out of their way to make a distinction between negros da terre(native american "land negros") and negros da guinea(black africans "guinea negros").

The term was also frequently used for inhabitants of Asian and Pacific Islands who had dark brown or black skin.

This is from Peru. Who does this closest resemble?

Actually the term indian in the european language is older than the term hindu which comes from perisan.

Irrelevant. The point was that the India of today wasn’t referred to as India during the time of Columbus


The term “Indians” comes from the word Indios in Columbus language. And that means “of God”

 

[Swahili P'Bitek]

White man science isn’t really isn’t true either.

Lots things we think were discovered by white men were discovered by black slaves In the Americas , Africans , chinese and Indians.

It was a black slave who figured orange and lemons cured scurvy.

Or how the Egyptian knew penicillin centuries before.

Onesimus( a black slave) introduced his master to innoculation as practised by some west African tribes which had been carried to the new world and helped prevent a smallpox outbreak in Boston.Not widely spoken of however.

 

[Ish Gibor]

I posted this in another thread. Pay very close attention to what is said at 5:40. Why would a black family be doing Hebrew prayers in 1920s??

Here is a somewhat different take on things?

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Sub Saharan West African civilizations were not ocean traversing societies, especially the non-bantu ones(bantus managed to settle a few african islands off the coast). They relied on the Niger river system for everything from trade, to movement via canoes, to agriculture, to fresh drinking water etc etc. They had no need to traverse the oceans. Cape Verde & São Tomé and Príncipe were uninhabited when the Portuguese got there. Had they been traversing the atlantic ocean beyond the immediate coast they would've settled these islands in some capacity.

The phoenicians island hopped around the the mediterranean sea, and sailed the coast of the Atlantic and Indian oceans, and Red Sea. Never going out into the open ocean.

The Menzies chinese theory has long been debunked. Both mainstream sinologist and native american historians reject his claims wholesale.

And you might want to update your sources to someone more recent and credible than Rogers who died in '66 and wasn't a scholar in Pre-Columbian native american history.

Um.... The Swahili civilizations were and they sailed as far as to China. Actually most muslim African societies were. And then we have Somalis who have a long history of it since antiquity.

 

[calixprynce]

Sub Saharan West African civilizations were not ocean traversing societies, especially the non-bantu ones(bantus managed to settle a few african islands off the coast). They relied on the Niger river system for everything from trade, to movement via canoes, to agriculture, to fresh drinking water etc etc. They had no need to traverse the oceans. Cape Verde & São Tomé and Príncipe were uninhabited when the Portuguese got there. Had they been traversing the atlantic ocean beyond the immediate coast they would've settled these islands in some capacity.

The phoenicians island hopped around the the mediterranean sea, and sailed the coast of the Atlantic and Indian oceans, and Red Sea. Never going out into the open ocean.

The Menzies chinese theory has long been debunked. Both mainstream sinologist and native american historians reject his claims wholesale.

And you might want to update your sources to someone more recent and credible than Rogers who died in '66 and wasn't a scholar in Pre-Columbian native american history.

its a fact Mali was traversing oceans , you're just misinformed

 

[ig88]

Um.... The Swahili civilizations were and they sailed as far as to China. Actually most muslim African societies were. And then we have Somalis who have a long history of it since antiquity.

He said WEST african sub suharan. Swahili nations and somalia are east african.

Mali did go there like 150 years before columbus but idk what the distinction between trans- and sub-saharan

I did find this tho. Columbus said indians told him africans traded with them with gold tipped spears and egypt sent out ships in 12/1300 bc under reamses the third. Plus the olmecs.

Before Columbus: How Africans Brought Civilization to America - Global Research

Its really not that hard to fathom given how seperated people were back then that this knowledge stayed hidden. America was prolly the flat earth of ancient times. People barely survived then so im sure not many had the capability to just take a multi month sail to the end of the world without its failure having DRASTIC consequences.