Added: Nov 18, 2008
From: Salsassin
Duration: 6:14
A continuation of the debate of Africans claiming OlmecsRelated:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QciI4uU7i8ohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7hVJZN3MHYAny video responses to this video are giving explicit permission for me to sample video from them to prepare my responses to their video. Only posts with sources of claims will be allowed.Since the first migrations across the Beringian coastal regions, archaeological and anthropological evidence has spoken of a population that migrated from Asia and would be the founders, not only of modern Native Americans, but also of modern Asians. As Asia has shown diversity that spans from Australian Aborigines and Melanesians to South Asians to the Siberian Yupik. These same phenotypes have been reflected in Native American morphology. Since the first studies of ancient skulls like Peñon woman and Luzia we have seen a morphological continuity that spans many phenotypes and is still in existence today. Olmecs show this variety of phenotypes in their sculptures. Excavations in nearby Tlatilco have shown similarity in phenotype to modern Native Americans as well. In all excavations sundadont and sinodont populations have been found and neither of these dental patterns exist in African populations that means they developed in populations that had already migrated out of Africa, and could not exist in either Egyptian or Mande populations. Since Luzia and Peñon woman to the extinct Pericu, and the modern Huichol, Fuegians, Botocudos, Xingu, Moche and others, the thick lips and features seen in Olmec sculpture and modern Native populations have always been there. They are not an import from another continent but direct descendants of the earliest Paleolithic people on the Asian continent who migrated to the Americas. Olmecs were products of the Americas.
Channel: Education
Tags: africa american black indigenous native olmec
Rating: 4.02 (98 ratings) Views: 8394' favoriteCount='68 Comments: 25
Salsassin Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - You are welcome. I agree. A lot more research has to be done. Especially in West Africa. I know a lot of West Africans who recent the fact that many African Americans want to claim every civilisation in the world except the ones in West Africa, which are beautiful themselves. More money goes to tourism from AA to Egypt than to Ghana, Angola, Mali, Nigeria, etc combined.
AdrianLugo18 Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - ive never heard of the bulgarian calendar nor that it was the most accurate..i always here and read from reliable good sources (such as history channel natgeo, mesoamerican books, my very own world history teachers) that the mayan calenadr was the most accurate..about the babylonians and zero i understand they didnt fully grasp the concept of zero..again same reliable sources give credit to the maya for fully understanding and achieving the concept of zero before anyone else
Salsassin Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - I am sorry but the History Channel is not very reliable. National Geographic is more so. The point is mesoamericanists will claim their pet project is the most accurate and others will claim others. Both were solar based. And where did you get that Babylonians didn't understand zero? They just did not use it as a placeholder. Usually they used a blank notation. Still the concept of a null value existed. You could say the Maya are the earliest known for giving it a specific character.
MegaJaMs Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Good video. It's a bit fast, I can't read that fast, but it's still good. Presenting almost all the evidence in one video is nice. I also think you got a point about people neglecting West African history, which is a shame, instead they focus on make believe pseudo history.
Salsassin Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Yeah, I messed up the timing. I have thought of doing a new one with a lot more information and with a voiceover, but have been lazy. I screen posts because some Afrocentrics like posting the same garbage over and over again and throw in insults as well.
AdrianLugo18 Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - im not here to discuss if the mayan calandar was the most accurate or if they are credited by inventing zero before anyone else,but to point out the fact that civilizations that came after the olmecs have gotten credit for such things.building cities as big as any other in the world,built their calendars into pyramids,maya n aztecs even came up with aqueducts,n heres my point.if the olmecs were african why dont we see cvilizations in black africa that resemble those in mesoamerica
Salsassin Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Way before the Olmecs. Check out the Norte Chico culture in Peru. It predates the Olmecs by over a thousand years. I am well aware that Amerindians did their own thing and didn't need to learn anything from other cultures. Just making sure one inaccuracy isn't corrected with another. What do you consider "Black" Africa and what do you mean resemble? Obviously African civilizations where different and unrelated, but some were just as advanced.
Salsassin Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - khalif is so idiotic he thinks I have to be White to see through Afrocentric BS. LOL He obviously didn't pay attention to the video. The biggest detractors are African American, Puerto Rican and Mexican. Not White.
BatuSmoka808 Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - hey man if you ever see this guy named "TheSonsOfLight" tell him hes a retard!haha
jtbliss Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Stop trying to deny where everyone on earth comes from. Blacks (Muurs, Kushites, Khemites, Olmecs, Washitaw, etc.) are the mother and father of all civilization. Everyone else are the offspring. That doesn't make you inferior, but don't forget where you come from. I hate that every other race denys the truth and tries to make us feel less than human as if we have no ancestry beyond Africa. YOU STOP IT!! HOTEP(peace & Love).
Salsassin Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - I'm going to give you the chance to prove your claims with evidence. But don't make empty claims or they will be deleted. Don't argue strawmen either. These are strawmen as no one is debating these facts:Humanity originates from Africa.There where great civilizations in Africa.No one disputes that.But the rest of your claim is false.
Salsassin Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Original humans in Africa had features that do not exist today and thus do not fall in any racial category. They where plesiomorphic. All we have ins bone structure to go by and the robusticity and many cranial measurements where different than any modern African. Others where similar. The closest, but still quite different, are the Australian Aborigines. Either through retention or reaquisition of certain features.
Salsassin Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - The genetic evidence shows that Africans have had a wide spectrum of skin color varying from that of the San in South Africa and lighter Amazhig in the Magreb to the darkest populations like the Dinka in the Sudan. Even in equatorial Tanzania there where reports of medium toned populations of Bisa Sandawe that where lighter than the migrating Bantus. Studies have showed that both the Bantu have grown darker and the San lighter, so the Bisa would be a better indication of our ancestors skin color
Salsassin Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - So what do we have? An ancestor with a facial structure not fully existent in Africa today, with a skin tone most probably resembling Khoisanid populations not usually referred to as Black today, with unknown hair type. Some similarities to modern Africans? Sure. Also differences. And those similarities to modern Africans also where inherited by many other populations in tropical regions around the world from those first migrants out of Africa.
Salsassin Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - But ALL humans kept on evolving.Modern Africans lost some of those traits ancient Africans had. Some grew darker. Some lighter. All lost the robusticity of the ancients, etc. In the same vein, other descendants in other continents retained some features and lost others. These descendants where cousins, but no longer the same. Thus modern Africans, modern Eurasians, modern Native Americans, Modern Australians and modern Islanders ALL are just offspring.
Salsassin Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - So yes, I deny your claim that because all humanity descends from ANCIENT Africans we have to give credit to MODERN Africans for the accomplishments of MODERN Eurasians, MODERN Amerindians, etc. Modern meaning since the dawn of civilizations and way after humans had migrated out of Africa and way after human populations had acquired regional distinctions in features. Some shared features no longer make them African.
Salsassin Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - They also have features unique to the areas they are in, making them Eurasian, Amerindian, etc. Not African. And it is these populations that made the civilizations in their areas. Not some migration of MODERN Africans from any of the early civilizations of Africa like Egypt, Kush, etc. Sorry bub.
Salsassin Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Furthermore, civilization arose in multiple parts of the world independently, so no one place is the cradle of civilization. And the oldest remnants found are in the Middle East, not Africa. Civilization meaning establishment of permanent settlements, not just migratory nomadic cultures. So neither Africa, nor "Blacks" are the parents of all civilization. Just their own in Africa.
Salsassin Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Lastly, While Kushites where indeed African and dark skinned, There where no such thing as Muurs. The term is Moor a corruption of Moro, a corruption of Mauro or Mauritano. Amazhig people. Berbers. And the vast majority are not Black. Some populations are. No such thing as Khemites. That is an adulteration of Kmt and English Biblical terms like Semites. the Rmt Kmt or Kmtiw where both people of the Maghreb, the Sudan and the Levant. Some where dark skinned some where not.
Salsassin Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - The Olmecs weren't African or Black either. They were Indigenous Americans, Amerindians. As already shown. As where the Oachita (incorrectly pronounced Washitaw) which are an Algonquean people, not African. So quit trying to claim Native American peoples as African or Black, and for that matter, unless you can show your ancestors where from East Africa, not West or Central Africa, stop claiming the Kushites and Egyptians (Kmtiw) as well. Learn to appreciate civilizations relevant to AA ancestry.
Salsassin Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Learn about the West Saharan African empires. Mali, Ghana, etc. Learn about the Tropical West African empires like Ile-Ife and the Yoruba. Learn about the South East African civilization of Great Zimbabwe as some African Americans descend from people brought over from them as well. These civilizations are relevant, not the ones of North/East Africa as they had much lesser impact on the ancestry of African Americans. Your are an Eskimo trying to claim an Inka. A Finn trying to claim a Greek, etc
Salsassin Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Finally, stop being obsessed with claiming large urban civilizations. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Africans brought to the Americas come from rural populations, not urban ones. Smaller stasis villages who learned to live much closer to nature. We don't see the Inuit bragging about the Maya, we don't see Amazonian Shipibo or the Khoi-Khoi of the Kalahari ashamed of their way of life. They don't need to claim big cities to know they live well. Urban life is not everything.
Salsassin Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - You have bought in to the Eurocentric anachronistic anthropology of yesteryear where macrocivilizations with huge urban populations and constructions where deemed advanced and those cultures whether nomadic or civilizations in simpler more natural environments where deemed primitive. Just because they did not pursue conquest and expansionism.
Salsassin Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - The fact no one ever wants to admit is most people, Black, White, Brown, whatever, do not descend mostly from rulers, nobility or even city dwellers. The vast majority descend from rural folk living simpler lives in villages all around the world.Go read Guns, Germs and Steel and get back to me. Bring evidence of your claims or get ready to feel frustrated because your posts will just be deleted.
Salsassin Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Another pet peave of mine is people claiming a huge region as if they are related somehow. Eskimos had nothing to do with the Tahuantinsuyo (Quechua/Inca Empire), Finish people had nothing to do with Romans, People from Angola had nothing to do with Egypt. But unfortunaterly Racism and and continental biases have led people to try to in group and out group peoples without real examinations of kinship and interethnic cultural relativity.