ACCORDING TO 17TH CENTURY CAC ARTWORK, INDIANS IN THE AMERICAS LOOKED LIKE THIS??

[Everythingg]

So he wont do it.

Fixed that for you breh. As soon as you brought an argument that since there are bad drawings of animals no depictions are trustworthy, you became entertainment. Thats what you're here for. And because of that Im not here to prove anything to you because when you come to conclusions based on excuses like that, it shows you're not to be taken seriously.

You and cacs like you can hold onto the slave narrative all you want, but more people are waking up to that BS. Just as they're waking up to the BS that "all blacks are African". You can post smiley after smiley, but it wont change a thing. Cacs didnt bring all or most blacks over here on slave ships.

Complete bullshyt. Literally every picture of yours that I've checked was either made by a European who had never even been there, or was identified by the European who made it as a picture of the descendants of AFRICANS who had been BROUGHT there.

Professor Constantine Rafinesque: The Primitive BLACK Nations of America(1832)

"The Native American Negroes or black Indians have been seen in Brazil, Guyana, Caraccas, Popayan, Choco, North California and etc:

The Aroras or Caroras of Cumana, were black, but with fine features and long hair, like the Jolofs and Gallas of Africa.

The Esteros latitude 32, are like the Hottentots and the Numuquas, Tambukis, and many other Nigritian tribes, not black, but dark brown, yet complete Negroes, with large thick lips, broad flat noses, and very ugly, with hair crisped or curly. All these tribes live in New California The Aroras or Caroras of Cumana, were black, but with fine features and long hair, like the Jolofs and Gallas of Africa.

The Esteros latitude 32, are like the Hottentots and the Numuquas, Tambukis, and many other Nigritian tribes, not black, but dark brown, yet complete Negroes, with large thick lips, broad flat noses, and very ugly, with hair crisped or curly. All these tribes live in New California

The American Negroes of Quarenqua, in Choco, (the great level plain 900 miles long, 90 wide, separating the Andes of South America from the mountains of Panama,) were black and with woolly heads in 1506. They are mentioned by Dangleria, and all the early accurate writers."

But the pictures dont matter. What explorers say dont matter. All that matters is a picture from the last 100 years or so and your handy dandy slave narrative to "keep those negroes in place". We're not buying it anymore breh. You have to have better reasons to ignore the depictions other than "bad animals/pics no good".

 

[fairfax12]

@Everythingg - Let's break it down and start with The Olmecs. What evidence exists to they're black.

 

[Everythingg]

@Everythingg - Let's break it down and start with The Olmecs. What evidence exists to they're black.

I dont know breh. Never really looked into it.

I do know that some of the Olmec heads had braids, which is definitely a black phenomena. But other than that, I'd have to research..I also dont think its a convo worth having with some of you who use tired excuses like "look at da animulz!!" to cast doubt on any European depiction...

 

[Everythingg]

The California Indians in general are of a middling or rather of a low stature of a dark brown color approaching to black, matted bushy hair, large projecting lips and broad flat negro-like noses. They bear a strong resemblance to negroes

Hubert Howe Bancroft: THE NATIVE RACES OF THE PACIFIC STATES OF NORTH AMERICA 1874

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Fixed that for you breh. As soon as you brought an argument that since there are bad drawings of animals no depictions are trustworthy, you became entertainment.

Social media has destroyed your brain. How old are you? You won't even have a logical discussion, you just keep posting low-grade pictures.


* You went with the accuracy of European paintings as your MAIN argument.

* I proved that THE EXACT BOOK YOU USED AS A SOURCE was made by a guy who had never been to America.

* I proved that THE EXACT BOOK YOU USED AS A SOURCE also drew hippos with crocodile teeth and three-toed sloths that were modeled after Asian bears.


You don't get why proving that your source has no credibility isn't a perfect argument against you, when your entire argument is built on the credibility of your painter?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The California Indians in general are of a middling or rather of a low stature of a dark brown color approaching to black, matted bushy hair, large projecting lips and broad flat negro-like noses. They bear a strong resemblance to negroes

Hubert Howe Bancroft: THE NATIVE RACES OF THE PACIFIC STATES OF NORTH AMERICA 1874

That quote killed your whole argument.


You quote some random racist White guy claiming that California Indians IN GENERAL "look like negroes" in 1874.

In 1874!!!!!

You realize that we know EXACTLY what California Indians in general looked like in 1874, right?


Some of the earliest photos of California Indians.

Paiute Indians from 1850

1859 picture of Arapaho women in the Yosemite region

1860 photo of California Indian girls:

Pomo basket weavers in the 1860s

Yosemite Indians in the 1860s

Shoshone leader from 1870

Yosemite people around 1870

Shoshone from 1870

Maiman, a Mojave in 1871

Paiutes in 1872

More Paiute in 1872

Paiutes in 1873

Indian soldiers during the Modok war of 1873

Paiutes from 1874

Pimos in 1875

Paiute boys in the 1870s

Indian woman at a California mission in 1880

Elderly Shasta women in 1887

A Mono Indian in 1890

Elderly Indian women at Mission San Luis Rey in the late 1800s

"low stature" - check

"dark brown color" - check

"matted bushy hair" - check

"large projecting lips" - well, from a white guy's perspective, check

"broad flat noses" - check


Look like Negroes? Oh HELL NO.


Your White man said that California Indians in 1874 IN GENERAL looked like Negroes.


Pictures prove that California Indians from all over did NOT look like Negroes.


They just look that way to a racist White guy who can't tell the difference.

And you still for the descriptions of random white racists who didn't know what the fukk they were talking about.

 

[Everythingg]

you just keep posting low-grade pictures.

Yea because it kills the slave narrative that you want to peddle.

Cacs was getting hit upside the head by blacks in Europe and you think they came out of that and then planted TWO continents full of black people?

But you'd probably argue against that as well which is why a real convo really aint worth it... At the end of the day "look at the animals" isnt an argument against anything. And stop with the pictures because they come with another laughable argument. That racists cant tell the difference between nationalities lol... These are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians too huh?

 

[Pit Bull]

nikkas in here talking about these people were runaway African slaves now

I find it hard to believe some African nikkas would be just parlayin around like these nikkas while white men drew them

Look at these body types. These are certainly not natives of Mongolian/Siberian extraction

So nikkas came over here and turned into cannibals nowthese muthafukkas was 100% native

 

[Pit Bull]

The argument is that they didn't know what the fukk they were drawing.

How does the average two-bit European artist in the 17th century know how to draw facial features and skin color of every ethnic group from across the world? It's not like the guy who made that map had personally traveled to Asia, Africa, South America, and North America. They were given some descriptions and drew some shyt. Probably saw someone showing off a black slave and said, "Okay, I haven't seen an American but I'll start with the African and then just shift it a little based on the description." The same way they did with the animals, drawing a sloth that looks like an altered monkey or a walrus that looks like an altered seal.

And even if they had traveled there, how did they tell the difference between legit natives and Black Africans who had already gotten there 100 years earlier, and mixes? By the 1700s Hispanola and some other Caribbean islands already had far more Africans on them than natives, as did parts of Belize and South America too.

If that's the case then how did they end up drawing a face that is undeniably Polynesian in the middle guy in the back row. The artists were obviously here.

 

[Crayola Coyote]

Absolute and utter nonsense.

Africans didn't get here until the 16th Century and you have NO evidence to support any other theory aside from pure conjecture based on BS conspiracy theories/pseudoscience created by this book.​

I think this book is more valid then your opinion. "African came here in the 16th century" riding on Viking ships.

 

[Crayola Coyote]

This thread got white people angry. Why don't you pale faces go back to stromfront and talk about your stupid I.Q.s and "We Wuz Viking shhheetttt" And leave us alone you lames

 

[Professor Emeritus]

That racists cant tell the difference between nationalities lol...

Yeah racists can't tell the difference between nationalities.


You didn't see that white guy who shot and killed the Indians in the bar because he thought they were Iranians?

Or the Alabama cop who paralyzed the Gujarati guy because he thought he was Black?

The marine who assaulted the Greek Orthodox priest because he thought he was a Muslim terrorist?


You tried to claim that California Indians "generally" looked like Negroes in 1874, when we have hundreds of pictures to show us exactly what they looked like.

These are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians too huh?

What are you even trying to argue?

Yeah, those girls obviously got all sorts of shyt mixed in. Point being???

My WIFE is pure Egyptian and she don't look nothing like that. Her family is Coptic, traces itself back to the 1st century. Lot of variation among real Coptic Egyptians, some lighter some darker, but genetically you can tell that the ones with Coptic genes have real Egyptian background, because Coptic DNA and Arab DNA is distinguishable. Since they Christian they generally didn't mix with the Arab and Turkish Muslim invaders. The Christian community got icons going back to the 6th/7th centuries, so it ain't hard to see that they haven't changed in skin tone since at least then (though those pictures, like the European pictures, are highly stylized and aren't particularly accurate....but at least they their OWN paintings and not some cac racist shyt). When I started going to their church people started comparing me to "Moses the Black", the famous, highly revered saint who escaped from servitude to a wealthy Egyptian and became a leader of monks. So at least by the 300s, Egyptians referred to Ethiopians as Black and quite different from themselves. All the evidence makes clear that it was the same community at least back to the 1st century, but I ain't making guesses before then, though at least the rulers (from the DNA in the mummies) appear to have been related to other North Africans and Arabs, not sub-Saharan Africans.

 

[Everythingg]

Yeah racists can't tell the difference between nationalities.

Your arguments get more and more pathetic/desperate as time goes on

You tried to claim that California Indians "generally" looked like Negroes in 1874, when we have hundreds of fukking pictures to show us exactly what they looked like.

I didnt claim that, some Euro guy did. And you paint him as "racist" because you find pictures that dont match what he said

Like everything that shows indigenous people as black is wrong, but when you pull up "hundreds of pictures" of mongloid/asian indians, that stands true. So because you can pull up so many pictures from 100 years ago, that means they were always there. The pictures from the 1500-1900's that litter this thread? Either false or africans according to you lol. Every single one of them this is the case but with the mongloids, their pictures on their own, even though they come at later dates, prove they were indigenous or the first people here.. How "convenient"

What the fukk are you even trying to argue?

What I knew you'd say:

though at least the rulers (from the DNA in the mummies) appear to have been related to other North Africans and Arabs, not sub-Saharan Africans.

Yea bruh, Egypt wasnt "black". Europe wasnt black. All these pictures in this thread arent showing "black" people. Cacs brought every/most blacks over to the Americas RIGHT AFTER getting beat up side the head in Europe by so called blacks for centuries. All false cac interpretations of history which I dont follow. I dont care who you say your wife is but once you make it a point to separate North Africans from the rest of Africa, that shows the BS you're on. Which I already knew once you started saying "look at da bearz" as a reason to cast away depictions as being true....

https://kushyteprince.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/egypt2.jpg

Thank God the Egyptians left depictions of themselves otherwise we'd have to listen to liars like you try to explain what they were and werent. This doesnt mean they were subsaharan, but it shows they DEFINITELY looked like Ethiopians/Kushytes that were around them and not them existing as their own "race" in the North amongst "black" Africa in the south... Nice try though, but just as in the other case the pics poke holes in your false narrative

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I think this book is more valid then your opinion. "African came here in the 16th century" riding on Viking ships.

LOL, no. Africans came here on Spanish ships and NOT as slaves at the end of the 15th Century.

Google 'Juan Garrido'.

Also, there were no vikings after the 11th Century so your attempt at humor fails.

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

While his argument is terrible, I do want to believe that Africans might have sailed across. There's two pieces of actual evidence for that:

#1: Accounts of the expedition of King Abubakari II of Mali in 1311. There were stories of two massive expeditions made to find the limits of the Atlantic Ocean. If they did make it to the Americas, they didn't make it back. King John of Portugal told Columbus about those stories as part of the impetus for exploring.

#2: Stories told to Columbus when he arrived in America. People there said they had been visited by a black-skinned people from the southeast who traded in spears that had some plating of precious metals on them.

Both of those accounts are sketchy, but there's a possibility there. Yet it is a possibility of VISITS, not an entire Black race that developed in America. There just ain't any real evidence that I've seen yet that any of the Native peoples were African or Black.

Can't really give too much credence to the first story as it's unverifiable. Same with the second. I can see the same possibility, but it's not very promising.

If anything, it'd be more accidental than planned.....like a fishing expedition got blown WAYYYYY off-course or something like that.

Also, consider that dark(er) skin was pretty-much 'normal' among hunter-gatherer communities due to their prolonged exposure to the elements.

The only concrete evidence pointing to the ethnicity of the first settlers of the Americas comes from a 12,000 year old skeleton........

DNA From 12,000-Year-Old Skeleton Helps Answer the Question: Who Were the First Americans? | Science | Smithsonian

The only other possibility would be Melanesians migrating to South America in the distant past, but they aren't Black, either.

Also, their migration would be relatively recent, like within the last 3,000 years.​