MajorVitaman
Superstar
Trust crackers & bytch made c00ns to be honest about world history bruhs
Why do Afrocentrists keep perpetuating the myth that blacks were in the Americas before Columbus
- Thread starter Mess World
- Start date
Entrapta310
:umad?:
To answer the question in the thread title:
“Things that may not be true can be made if you repeat them long and often enough, therefore, always repeat statements that will give your race a status and an advantage. That is how the White man has built up his system of superiority. He is always telling you he is superior and he has written history and literature to prove it. You must do the same.”
– Marcus Garvey
So basically it's all
so you dont agree the continents were once closer than they are now?
GetInTheTruck
Member
so you dont agree the continents were once closer than they are now?
I do but as has already been mentioned I think it's irrelevant to what this thread is about, given the time-frame in question.
People need to stop hopping on and off the scientific bandwagon depending on their own biases. For example, accepting pangaea as a geological fact, but then turning around and conveniently dismissing genetic evidence (ie; "cac science") that contradicts a particular narrative.
Entrapta310
:umad?:
i dont think its irrelevant at all. even during sohh days i fought about pangea.
some think the earth is flat others think ROUND... all that has to do with pangea.
evolution should include pangea. it explains so much about skin tone and how we all popped off in what area.
i dont agree with us all coming out of africa
GetInTheTruck
Member
It's irrelevant because there is no quantitative evidence to demonstrate that human beings were around 200+ million years ago. Also, because continents don't need to be "connected" for different sets of humans to look alike. For example, Ethiopia and South India occupy a similar position relative to the tropic of cancer, so they may have similar skin tones and other physical features, but they are different people through and through. Third, just taking Africa itself into consideration, physical appearance can vary quite greatly. So called "Afrocentrics" love to point this out when touting the great phenotypical diversity of Africa, but they conveniently disregard it when citing "Africoid features" of Olmec heads. When the agenda changes, so does their logic. This is academically dishonest and why none of these stupid theories should be taken seriously.
Entrapta310
:umad?:
so basically you're telling me there is proof that pangea took 200 million years to completey break apart
You say that like you know it to be fact, which you don't. Grab random quotes(that doesn't answer or solve the OP's question) from great black men of the past to justify your point. You ain't even Black but you going around telling people their history is ducktales.To answer the question in the thread title:
“Things that may not be true can be made if you repeat them long and often enough, therefore, always repeat statements that will give your race a status and an advantage. That is how the White man has built up his system of superiority. He is always telling you he is superior and he has written history and literature to prove it. You must do the same.”
– Marcus Garvey
So basically it's all
GetInTheTruck
Member
Actually what's going on is you ain't even Mexican but you wanna tell them their history is ducktales.
Nope. I never brought up the Olmecs in this thread or Van Sertima. What I did provide was actual documented reports of african remains from before 1492, in the new world. I don't need to bring down/claim another culture or people's accomplishments to big up mine. Now can you show some unbias or non eurocentric links explaining how it's Mexican culture?
GetInTheTruck
Member
If I'm not mistaken it was van sertima who re-introduced the hullbay skeletons to a wider audience in his book to help prop up his theories. While interesting, they do nothing to support the broader claims made in this thread or elsewhere regarding African expeditions to the americas, and that's why no one else made them before he did.
I don't care to discuss Van Sertima or his book. That's not what the OP asked or at least I did not read it that way. The Hull bay skeleton is not Van Sertima's work. I have tons of articles from others stating the same. If your asking if Africans have traveled to the "new world" before Columbus, doesn't that answer it?
PoPimp84
All Star
you and the OP dont even know what you are arguing against. Van Sertima is NOT the first to make the claim of an African presence in Precolumbian America. He had much skepticism when the theory was presented to him until he studied and researched, then came to his own conclusion. The bullshyt you and the OP kicking about "Afrocentricts" pushing pseudo-science says more about yall than actual objections to the theory.For the record, this white German born Mr. Burns looking dude is the one who came up with the "Afrocentric pseudo-scientific" theory of africans in pre Columbian America. Let that sink in.
To those who enjoy subjects like these, in addition to "They Came Before Columbus" check out Von Wuthenau's book.
its expensive, i was able to borrow it from my professor in college. Ill add it to my book collection one day.
Last edited:
Mess World
☭☥☤☮☯ψ
For the record, this white German born Mr. Burns looking dude is the one who came up with the "Afrocentric pseudo-scientific" theory of africans in pre Columbian America
To those who enjoy subjects like these, in addition to "They Came Before Columbus" check out Von Wuthenau's book.
Pseudo history the books called unexpected faces with stone heads of faces that look native
PoPimp84
All Star
let me get this straight, you erroneously make the claim that Afrocentricts perpuate an idea that scientist from multiple ethnic backgrounds believe. Not only that i post the white man who 1st theorized your thread topic, and you in turn LITERALLY judge a book by its cover ight im done. Merry Christmas tho to you and yours
Entrapta310
:umad?:
i still dont know how ANY scientist could TRULY know the distance between the continents and how long it went from point A to point B to point C where the continents are now..
200 million years ago one can say there were no humans....but no human can tell us honestly how the continents looked like 50,000 years ago. they can only assume.
we've been flying around for over a hundred years now. taking measurements and distance. and doing it at a much more intellectual level than when were trying to do it by boats.
how do we not know that in 2000 years from now, it will take longer to fly from distance a to distance b and vice versa because the continents moved some more??
noone knows.
if the scientists want to say that fossils of the same kind were found on different clusters of continents that are NOT attached right now,
who are they to say that man only came from one small area in africa?
why did man only evolve from one thing in one area if everywhere else things were evolving?
scientists wanna talk shyt about there being a GOD but then go right bakk to the adam and eve theory of the garden of eden and man coming from ONE area....
it cant be possible that each area had their own evolution of man?
even in the true hebrew translation of the first 4 books of the old testament it talks about adam and eve and there being OTHERS out there.... not where the garden of eden was.
200 million years ago one can say there were no humans....but no human can tell us honestly how the continents looked like 50,000 years ago. they can only assume.
we've been flying around for over a hundred years now. taking measurements and distance. and doing it at a much more intellectual level than when were trying to do it by boats.
how do we not know that in 2000 years from now, it will take longer to fly from distance a to distance b and vice versa because the continents moved some more??
noone knows.
if the scientists want to say that fossils of the same kind were found on different clusters of continents that are NOT attached right now,
who are they to say that man only came from one small area in africa?
why did man only evolve from one thing in one area if everywhere else things were evolving?
scientists wanna talk shyt about there being a GOD but then go right bakk to the adam and eve theory of the garden of eden and man coming from ONE area....
it cant be possible that each area had their own evolution of man?
even in the true hebrew translation of the first 4 books of the old testament it talks about adam and eve and there being OTHERS out there.... not where the garden of eden was.