>
>>good point. i'm trying to back up the theory that all
>>civilization, and it's tenets including architechture,
>>astrology, astronomy, religion, government, science and
>>mathematics come from africa and not from sumer's patron
>giant
>>aliens.
>
>Well, let me ask you, do you believe the civilizations in the
>New World, most notably the Inca, Aztec, Maya, Chavin, Chimu,
>Moche, Toltec, Olmec, Zapotec, etc are derived from Africa as
>well? These places evolved independently from the Old World,
>but they had all of those features you mentioned above.
>Basically what I'm trying to say that proving where the
>origins are civilization comes from is problematic because how
>exactly would you prove that? How can you show which came
>first and that there was direct contact and influence? Better
>yet, why can't there be multiple origins of civilization?
>There were major developments in Afria, the Middle East, and
>East Asia that have their own origins.
>But like I mentioned before, agriculture in the Old World is
>first evident in the Fertile Crescent, not the continent of
>Africa and agriculture is what lead to sedintary villages,
>accumalation of access food, which then lead to unequal social
>positions.
>

ok, i had heard that the shang dynasty of china was started by africans and that 80% of chinese people have african dna. what of the african connection through abubakari to the olmecs and evidence of previous african contact with those civilizations, such as cocaine in the pharoe's tomb? i'm not trying to discredit anyone elses achievement. personally i believe we're all african, except for those of us in denial who believe in aliens. i'm more inclined to believe that before we all were discovered we were in constant contact through inter continental trade. so we all came from africa originally and were in commerce and contact with each other while we developed separate racial characteristics over time. i don't want to over compensate in my theories, so i appreciate this discussion.

would you consider the fertile crescent a part of africa? and when did things get started in western and southern africa?

>
>>it seems like there were several main ones. west africa's
>mali
>>empire, when did that start? kemet and nubia, i don't
>offhand
>>know the names of some of the apparently very complex south
>>and central african civilizations, and there is rumor that
>>nubia, which begat khemet was inspired by the twa(?) people
>>who are supposedly the ancestors of modern bushmen.
>
>I can't think of the dates off hand to the places you
>mentioned. I'm sure someone else can fill you in.
>
>>europe's claim to a non african (or rather not looking like
>an
>>african civilization) is the babylonians, the akkadians, the
>>summerians and the assyrians from what i can tell. i'm not
>>even writing my sources as much as looking for sources to
>>defeat that argument or frame it in the desperate attempts
>by
>>europe to reframe and revise history to suit their imperial
>>ideals and validate thier accomplishments outside of the
>role
>>of theft, the out right robbery of africas people land
>>resources and knowledge which backed their exploits.
>
>Which civilization are you talking about now that you say
>Europe claims is non African?

greece. there is a book out called black athena by martin bernal that speaks of greece as the father of modern civilization. now it seems to me that there is a push for a replacement greece, like babylon or sumer.

>Europe has done much over the year to discredit African
>influence, I'm just not sure that by negating Mesopotamian
>influence rights the situation.

again, this is the nature of this post. i'm trying to find the limits to where the revision of history ends. because of misinformation and prejudice it's hard to tell where to begin and who to trust. for the most part i take it all with a grain of salt. but this is what is beginning to form in my head as a picture of the past and africa's place in it all as being a serious motivator and having primacy in the whole thing. not aliens.



>
>
>>ok so how is this for a theory. once upon a time there was
>one
>>people born in the fertile lands of africa. as they began to
>>spread out and migrate, a group got caught behind an ice age
>>that changed their appearance and demeanor from one in
>>relation to abundance to one in relation to an over all lack
>>of resources. survival tactics neccessary to exist in such
>>inhospitable climates became enculturated behaviors.
>>eventually this group was reunited with the main body of
>human
>>kind, but found as they had spent so much time and effort on
>>their survival that they were technologically and
>>civilizationally (not a real word...) behind the rest of
>human
>>kind. they were taught by proximity and direct intervention
>>the tools of existance in this realm, but thier prevailing
>>attitudes in reference to limited resources made them harsh
>>and war like, troublesome and selfish, putting them in
>instant
>>conflict with their african counterpart. flash forward
>2-5000
>>years and now you have the current social and geo political
>>climate in which europeans push their advantage almost like
>>they've got some type of long time grudge against africans
>>doing their own thing, or for that matter anyone else.
>>
>>could this be accurate? could this be why any lighter
>skinned
>>race, like the arabs of old are so historically vicious to
>>africans? these are all byast blanket statements, and i
>would
>>like to either be able to back them up or put them to rest.
>
>I think you may be over generalizing in the sense that you
>make it seem that all Europeans are the aggressors and all
>Africans are the victims and I can't cosign on that. Things
>are much more complex than that. Also, be careful when you
>align environmental conditions and physical appearance to
>personality. Europeans did this same thing to Africans,
>especially African slaves. They justified their dominance over
>Africans by saying Africans were lazy due to their
>environmental conditions. They even went as far as to name
>bogus medical conditions to explain the behavior of Africans
>(I can't remember the names of these bogus medical conditions
>but it was a so called doctor from the U.S. South that had
>done this and his beliefs were widely accepted).
>

again, this is the nature of this post. i'm trying to find the limits to where the revision of history ends. because of misinformation and prejudice it's hard to tell where to begin and who to trust. for the most part i take it all with a grain of salt. but this is what is beginning to form in my head as a picture of the past and africa's place in it all as being a serious motivator and having primacy in the whole thing. not aliens.