33. "RE: depends upon your definition of civilization...." In response to In response to 30
>"In accordance with the oral traditions of China, the founders >of Chinese civilization were Huangdi and Fu Xi. These >legendary rulers like Dai Hao, were all buried in zhiu (burial >mounds). The presence of this mound culture in China supports >the traditions of burial of elects in mound tombs. > >The skeletal remains from southern China are predominately >negroid. (Chang 1964, p.370) The people practiced single >burials. > >In northern China the blacks founded many civilizations. The >three major empires of China were the Xia Dynasty (c.2205-1766 >B.C), Shang/ Yin Dynasty (c.1700-1050 B.C) and the Zhou >Dynasty.The Zhou dynasty was the first dynasty founded by the >Mongoloid people in China called Hua (Who-aa). > >The founders of Xia and Shang came from the Fertile African >Crescent by way of Iran. According to Chinese legends the >first man Pan Gu, used a hammer 18,000 years ago to make man. > >The Chinese legends designate various culture heroes as the >inventors of various aspects of Chinese civilization. The >Chinese term for emperor is Di. Huang Di (Yellow Emperor), is >the Chinese culture hero credited with introducing boats, >carts 'chariots, the bow and arrow, ceramics, wooded houses >and writing." > >there's more. it may be all complete reverse revisionist (ha!) >bollocks, but the traditional western anthropological stance >has been marred by racism and prejudice, making it equally >untrustworthy. maybe it's all feel good nonsense. or maybe, >it's true, whatever it is it's fun to speculate... > >again, i believe that we were previously intercontinental. all >peoples come from africa originally and then we traded with >each other. the first civilizations were african and thus >could be said to have inspired either directly or indirectly >the concept of civilization itself. and still do to this >date.
The first mistake of this website, "negroid" features on skeletal remains. And moreso, this is quoted from a 1964 source. I'm not sure if I have enough time, space, and energy to explain the history of biological anthropology and where it's at now. You should take some courses on the subject because I'll think you find it every interesting and it will aide you in understanding the biological evolution of the human race. But I will tell you that there are no biological races and modern day genetics has shown this. That whole Negroid, Caucosoid, Mongoloid business with started by outright racist white folks who wanted a hierarchy of sub-human races. And you can guess where they put so called Negroid people... at the bottom. Look up Carleton Coon who is the grandaddy of this racist, very eurocentric notion. Most modern day biological anthropologists have dismissed these absurd classifications and with the aide of genetics they are better able to tell which populations are more closely related to eachother. Despite what shows like CSI may tell you, you can't look at an ancient skull and then fit it into modern socially constructed races. You may be able to look at some features which can lead you in the right direction. So if you're purpose is out to dismiss racist, eurocentric notions of the world, quoting a 1964 source that uses the term negroid goes against your goal. The rest of this is very speculative. China like India is really a subcontinent with a very diverse people. Some of the dynasties have been outsiders, mostly Mongols and other central Asians. This website really makes no clear picture of how Africans founded Chinese civlizations. The author can't make up his mind whether or not he knows how old Chinese is pronounced. First he says that the old Chinese pronounciation of a name sounds like an African language (such compelling evidence!), but then he later says that he doesn't know how old Chinese is pronounced. Also the Harappan script no one has yet to figure out, but yet he uses it in his line of evidence. He also can't make up his mind if its African of Indian people who founded the Shang dynasty because his evidence leads him in both directions. The rest of his evidence is on oral tradition which he has interpreted to fit his African trajectory.
> >that's what i'm saying. but there has been a concerted effort >to erase and remove black history, confine it to slavery and >discredit any thing else we have done. i don't want to over >compensate. the big hole where we should have been leave the >game wide open to speculation. again, the first people were >african. we're all african... in a way or originally, unless >were created by shapeshifting giant aliens.
The painting I'm referring to is a well known one and was taught to me in an introductory Chinese art history class. I don't know why you keep going back to this alien thing. I can't think of any anthropologists who say we were created by aliens. They all mostly follow the Darwinian school of evolution by natural selection.
>i hadn't thought about that. coked out looters does seem a lot >more plausible. but check this out... > >http://www.plu.edu/~ryandp/RAX.html > >thor heyerdahl sailed a reed built boat across the atlantic >ocean based off of designs found in an egyptian tomb. so there >still exists the distinct possibility of intercontinental >trade amongst cultures. the maori of new zealand had a full >blown trading company, but that may have only come after >contact with europeans, but they were cruising around the >pacific trading fighting and cross breeding with each other >for hundreds of years if not more.
I know which reed boat you're talking about and the Egyptians had magnificent technology. But just because someone later was able to use an Egyptian boat to sail across the Atlantic doesn't mean the Egyptians did. That's really a stretch. Also, we have the benefit of a decipherable written language for the ancient Egyptians and they loved to talk about conquering foreign people and hyped up battles. If the Egyptians went to the Americas, why did they not write about it?
>did you read anything about abubakari's voyage? i don't know >if that discredits the olmec and the maya's achievements, but >it does hint to a distinct african influence on the world. >like i said in my intro post, i don't want to over estimate >this. i'll open with huge blanket statements and then strip it >back to what i hope is the truth based off of this discussion >and my reading/study through out my life and then some. >check out that site and some of the work of the african >centered anthropologists and scholars, if not just for balance >and a different view. i would say that the majority of known >and 'official' anthropologists and scholars are going to, by >default, subscribe to what i believe is a byassed, at least >prejudiced and at the most racist 'phrenology' creating system >of science that preceeds them.
Good luck and try to use as much scientific information as possible. Meaning recent genetics studies, analysis of botanical and microbotanical remains, etc.
>check out that book black athena. and thank you. > >lastly, i am still trying to discredit the creation of man >kind and or white people by aliens, and not africans. the >african eve theory is one that i like! > >ok.
Again, please take some courses on biological anthropology. I think you'll find them most usefull in understanding the evolution of hominids.