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

[Everythingg]

Threads like this are why Hotep blogs suck dikk. Threads like this are why I am weary of dudes like Umar who call themselves Doctors and make wild claims about black psychology/pathology. No one is denying Native peoples were dark skinned. They came in a variety of colors I am sure...from very pale in Alaska to deep brown in the Brazilian rainforest.

But at the end of the day, blackness is very specific. Blackness didn't exist 600 years ago! Hell, some places in the world today don't recognize America/The West idea of blackness.

Well first you'd have to define "black". Then we could get to your (possibly false) claim that "blackness didnt exist 600 years ago"

Most places in the world go by nationality/culture not color. Only the west identifies its main populations as a color (black/white). But even with that said, people have been calling themselves black (niger) since ancient Roman times.

 

[fairfax12]

Well first you'd have to define "black". Then we could get to your (possibly false) claim that "blackness didnt exist 600 years ago"

Most places in the world go by nationality/culture not color. Only the west identifies its main populations as a color (black/white). But even with that said, people have been calling themselves black (niger) since ancient Roman times.

I can only go by what I know. As far as I know, black people (me and the people in my immediate community) call themselves that to revere and pay homage to our African roots. I don't know of any Australian Aboriginals who call themselves black? Or Polynesians who often are mistaken for black here in LA. It's a very complicated issue that has spanned centuries. I am aware that our phenotype is the most widely spread in the world. I am aware that "black" people of areas like The Philippines have been displaced by lighter skinned Asians too. I define my blackness through the lense of being a descendant of enslaved people in The Americas. I am not sure Olmecs or modern day folk from Tahiti would feel the same way.

 

[Everythingg]

I can only go by what I know. As far as I know, black people (me and the people in my immediate community) call themselves that to revere and pay homage to our African roots. I don't know of any Australian Aboriginals who call themselves black? Or Polynesians who often are mistaken for black here in LA. It's a very complicated issue that has spanned centuries. I am aware that our phenotype is the most widely spread in the world. I am aware that "black" people of areas like The Philippines have been displaced by lighter skinned Asians too. I define my blackness through the lense of being a descendant of enslaved people in The Americas. I am not sure Olmecs or modern day folk from Tahiti would feel the same way.

Depending on how much you know, only going by what you "know" can make a person very limited. And yea you calling yourself "black" as a nationality, as well as defining yourself through a lens of slavery, is because of cacs in the Americas. As I said, even in Roman times people were calling themselves black (Niger), so thats not new. But they werent using "black" as an identifier of their culture or self. Thats what cacs got so called "blacks" in America doing. Black isnt a culture, nor is it a community. Its a color. So called "blacks" do not have a set uniform culture in America because they do not know their history or really any history beyond the slave narrative. So you shouldnt be defining your sense of self based on a color or based on the slave narrative. Theres so much more to history than that.

Ultimately, cacs didnt bring tens of millions of Africans from just the west coast of Africa and populate all of North and South America. Some "African looking" people were here before that happened. And the pictures in the thread show that. Along with blacks that were already here, there were some that came from Europe then lastly, those that came from the slave trade. Those that came from the slave trade are all blacks focus on when in reality they were in the least when compared with those already here and those from Europe..

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You run with narratives and false premises like...

Man, I already proved you were a liar, ain't gonna waste my time going through every damn claim and having to do the same.

Your big "proof" to me that Native Americans were from Africa was a KNOWN painting of Jamaican maroons. Didn't even take me five seconds on Google to figure that out.

When you get the intellectual honesty to factcheck your own claims before you post them and make informed arguments, I'll reply.

But as long as you're just copy-and-pasting easily disproved bullshyt from conspiracy sites on the internet, you ain't worth the time.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I can only go by what I know. As far as I know, black people (me and the people in my immediate community) call themselves that to revere and pay homage to our African roots. I don't know of any Australian Aboriginals who call themselves black?

Nah, the Aboriginal rappers I've heard definitely refer to themselves as Black the same way Black Americans do, even the light-skinned ones. In India dark-skinned people can refer to themselves as black too, though I haven't heard them use the term as a group indicator in quite the same way.

 

[Everythingg]

Man, I already proved you were a liar, ain't gonna waste my time going through every damn claim and having to do the same.

Your big "proof" to me that Native Americans were from Africa was a KNOWN painting of Jamaican maroons. Didn't even take me five seconds on Google to figure that out.

When you get the intellectual honesty to factcheck your own claims before you post them and make informed arguments, I'll reply.

But as long as you're just copy-and-pasting easily disproved bullshyt from conspiracy sites on the internet, you ain't worth the time.

Its a common tactic to call black people in areas they shouldnt be "African slaves". They do it in Europe and they do it in America. Then again Im talking to someone who pretty much pointed to Dr. Seuss pictures and called into question any other depiction in existence based on the "inaccuracy" of Dr Seuss. Obviously not someone trying to evaluate anything logically and truthfully

The pics dont lie and thats always what I'll say when people come around sayings "dont believe your eyes when they show dark skinned people with afro like hair in America" at times they shouldnt be. Aint nothing "conspiracy" about the pictures only your excuses as to why we shouldnt believe them...

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Its a common tactic to call black people in areas they shouldnt be "African slaves". They do it in Europe and they do it in America.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the Jamaican maroons weren't escaped slaves?

They know their own damn history, fool.

This is Higher Learning, you can't expect people to be THAT dense. You posting a painting of the British negotiating with Jamaican maroons during the war and tried to pass if off as if they had gotten there on their own from Africa. Brother, their OWN STORIES were that they claim from the European colonization, not their own fukking ships from Africa.

The pics dont lie and thats always what I'll say when people come around sayings "dont believe your eyes when they show dark skinned people with afro like hair in America" at times they shouldnt be.

Where do you still getting this "at times they shouldn't be" shyt from? Black people from Africa were in the Americas starting in 1502. How the hell are you still acting like the continent didn't have millions of Black people on it already by the 1700s?

I mean, this smart/dumb shyt has gone WAY too far. Brothers actually trying to claim that free blacks weren't already living all over the Americas by the 1700s and 1800s.

Aint nothing "conspiracy" about the pictures only your excuses as to why we shouldnt believe them...

YOU are the one who claims that we shouldn't believe the damn painter himself when he says that he was painting Jamaican maroons making a peace treaty with the British during the war.

Then you turns around and says that we have to believe that every damn European who drew a Native American could depict their facial features and skin color perfectly and knew exactly how to distinguish a Native American from an African even if he had never personally seen either.

That's why your argument is so useless. You only believe what you want to believe. Any shyt that doesn't fit your theory is a lie or a conspiracy, while anything that does fit your argument, even if it's an obvious error from a suspect as fukk European source, is suddenly irrefutable proof.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Those pictures are too close to the real thing to help your argument

Then again Im talking to someone who pretty much pointed to Dr. Seuss pictures and called into question any other depiction in existence based on the "inaccuracy" of Dr Seuss. Obviously not someone trying to evaluate anything logically and truthfully

This shows the logical bullshyt I'm dealing with.

One person claims the pictures are too close to the real thing therefore they don't help my argument

The other guy says they're basically Dr. Seuss pictures therefore they don't help my argument.




Here are the pictures being claimed to support the argument

Notice that the animals in those pictures are JUST as bad as the ones in the pictures I posted...but we're supposed to believe that even though they got the animal proportions and facial features all wrong, that they got the people facial features perfect. And not only that, but that they knew which ones were Native Americans and which ones were Africans.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Cut the shenanigans breh...

Again, that's a KNOWN painting by Augustin Brunios, titled, "A Cudgelling Match between English and French Negroes in the Island of Dominica"

From the late 1700s.

And you trying to pass that shyt off like it depicts native Africans who "weren't supposed to be there." You're basically lying by omission.

Another KNOWN painting by Brunios again, titled "Black Caribs of St. Vincent". You know who the Black Caribs were?

The original Caribs were the Native Americans that had occupied St. Vincent since the 1200s. There were Europeans there in the 1500s and 1600s who studied their culture.The first Africans showed up in 1675 when a slave ship carrying Ibibio people from Nigeria shipwrecked and the Carib took them in. They intermarried, and the Black Carib (Garifuna) culture resulted. "Black Caribs" didn't exist until 1675. They kept taking in escaped slaves until by the late 1700s, they were mostly mixed race.

This painting is from the 1770s, a good hundred years after the first escaped slaves got to St. Vincent and began intermarrying with Caribs.




Again, this is DOCUMENTED history. You posting these out-of-context paintings like they some big mystery, "Oh these Black people aren't supposed to be there", when everyone already knows exactly how they got there and that they'd already been there for damn over 100 years.

This is that intellectual dishonesty I'm talking about. Maybe you have some wack crazy theory, "Black people in the Caribbean aren't the descendants of slaves, there were Africans there all along." But your paintings you keep posting don't do shyt to prove it.

You posting known paintings of people descended from slaves, hundreds of years after African slaves were first taken to the islands, and expecting gullible people to think that those paintings prove anything. You need a hell of a lot more to build a conspiracy theory than that.

 

[Everythingg]

Are you seriously trying to argue that the Jamaican maroons weren't escaped slaves?

They know their own damn history, fool.

This is Higher Learning, you can't expect people to be THAT dense. You posting a painting of the British negotiating with Jamaican maroons during the war and tried to pass if off as if they had gotten there on their own from Africa. Brother, their OWN STORIES were that they claim from the European colonization, not their own fukking ships from Africa.






Where do you still getting this "at times they shouldn't be" shyt from? Black people from Africa were in the Americas starting in 1502. How the hell are you still acting like the continent didn't have millions of Black people on it already by the 1700s?

I mean, this smart/dumb shyt has gone WAY too far. Brothers actually trying to claim that free blacks weren't already living all over the Americas by the 1700s and 1800s.




YOU are the one who claims that we shouldn't believe the damn painter himself when he says that he was painting Jamaican maroons making a peace treaty with the British during the war.

Then you turns around and says that we have to believe that every damn European who drew a Native American could depict their facial features and skin color perfectly and knew exactly how to distinguish a Native American from an African even if he had never personally seen either.

That's why your argument is so useless. You only believe what you want to believe. Any shyt that doesn't fit your theory is a lie or a conspiracy, while anything that does fit your argument, even if it's an obvious error from a suspect as fukk European source, is suddenly irrefutable proof.

Thats all you doing. Its not a question of if they were slaves at one time or another but if they and every other "black" looking people here in the Americas came here on slave ships with cacs. The answer is NO, thats not how all so called black people got here. Cacs didnt plant every black person here in the Americas. Doesnt matter what people say they know about their own history. Because theres Europeans thinking they descend from the original Europeans. Theres Arabs, thinking they descend from the original Egyptians and really original Arabs. Moroccans same thing. Saying "they know their own history" can be true in one sense, and false in another. So saying that just on its own is irrelevant. But I even conceded that even IF you say that these were Africans who came on slave ships, theres other pictures as well. I conceded this and you still went and responded to every Agostino Brunias picture posted. Its not just about what I posted, other people posted things too, perhaps even better pieces of evidence. And your argument against those are "look at the animals, the depiction isnt reliable" which is a laughable argument when depictions are all we can go by since victors can write anything. And if you look up the Roman catacombs, you can see they even tried to edit depictions..

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You do realize that you don't have a single argument left though, right?

You posted random 18th-century paintings of the descendants of Black slaves in the Caribbean that everyone already knows about, like the Jamaican Maroons and the Black Caribs, and tried to claim, "Look, what are these Black people doing in the Americas when there weren't supposed to be any there!"



And then when I pointed out that of course everyone already knows about those Black people, who they were and exactly where they came from, and that there were tons of Black people in the Caribbean by the 18th century, you ran with, "But who are they really? Do they really know their own history?"




Before you were saying the pictures themselves were the proof, because pictures don't lie. Now your proof is....what?

 

[Everythingg]

This shows the logical bullshyt I'm dealing with.

One person claims the pictures are too close to the real thing therefore they don't help my argument

The other guy says they're basically Dr. Seuss pictures therefore they don't help my argument.

No I said your argument is like taking Dr. Seuss photos and saying because they arent good depictions, that NO depictions should be trusted.

Here are the pictures being claimed to support the argument

Notice that the animals in those pictures are JUST as bad as the ones in the pictures I posted...but we're supposed to believe that even though they got the animal proportions and facial features all wrong, that they got the people facial features perfect. And not only that, but that they knew which ones were Native Americans and which ones were Africans.

Well you can post all the smilies you want and ramble on for as long as you want, but at the end of the day we are told that the indigenous or first people here in America was those red skinned "native" Americans. When there are so many depictions showing a much darker skinned people. If there wasnt a cover up going on, these pictures would be in widespread use publically. As in taught in schools alongside the red asian mongloid native american. But of course they're not. No amount of smilies or "look at the animals" is going to cover that up. And theres more where that came from.

The first one obviously being Africa but the rest clearly show the same things as this thread details. Your ownly excuse is "look at the animals/no depiction is accurate" which again, isnt an argument. Its an excuse.

 

[Everythingg]

You do realize that you don't have a single argument left though, right?

My argument is put forth all thread. And again, not just by me but others who may have even better pieces of evidence put forth. Your only argument against what they brought is finding bad pictures and then casting every depiction of the natives in the trash because of it. Which again, is hardly a logical argument.

You posted random 18th-century paintings of the descendants of Black slaves in the Caribbean that everyone already knows about, like the Jamaican Maroons and the Black Caribs, and tried to claim, "Look, what are these Black people doing in the Americas when there weren't supposed to be any there!"



And then when I pointed out that of course everyone already knows about those Black people, who they were and exactly where they came from, and that there were tons of Black people in the Caribbean by the 18th century, you ran with, "But who are they really? Do they really know their own history?"

There are more pics in this thread than the Brunias ones. But thats what you want to keep it on because you only came in here to argue away the topic of the thread.

You didnt come in here to learn something. You didnt come in here to share something that you learned that showed the topic of the thread to be wrong All you came in here to do was to argue against the topic of the thread by any means necessary. Thats exactly why you're sticking with the maroon stuff and not the other pictures that litter the thread. And I've been clear on my stance. Cacs always call people that look "black" "African slaves" when they're in a place they shouldnt be (going by their tale of history). They do that in Europe, Asia, and the Americas. So I could even say its not about them being slaves, its not about them being African, its about the LIE that every black person that was here (before willfull immigration of the last 100 yrs)got here by slave ships. THATS what this is about and thats what you cant prove to be true with all these depictions in the way. Not just the Brunias ones you want to focus on, but the totality of everything. And theres even more

Before you were saying the pictures themselves were the proof, because pictures don't lie. Now your proof is....what?

I didnt just say the pictures I posted were proof. Theres pictures throughout the thread that are also proof. So even if the Brunias ones are showing slaves that came on slave ships, theres others that are unaccounted for. Oh but you're logical and unbiased way of looking at those is finding bad pictures of animals and saying that any depiction by a whole nationality of people are unreliable because of them. Yea wake me up when you have a stronger argument

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Damn @Everythingg, you gonna get your shyt owned right now:

Cant answer? Let me get specific:

What group of people are these two getting grouped with based off of their appearance? So called "blacks" or the "native americans" as we're usually taught?

]And 17th/18th century CAC artwork ain't really a strong go-to source for accurate depictions. Ya'all can't figure out subtle racial features or skin tone from a fukking old-school European artist - dem dudes were NOT balling with the accuracy like that.

This is what they thought sloths looked like:

No I said your argument is like taking Dr. Seuss photos and saying because they arent good depictions, that NO depictions should be trusted.

Guess what? Five minutes of research on Google shows that your picture, "A male savage of Terra del Fuego" engraving comes from THIS BOOK, Ebenezer Sibly's 1794-1795 "Universal System of Natural History." Which also has the following picture among plenty of other ridiculous ones:

So the shyt you're calling "Dr. Suess pictures" come from the SAME BOOK as your pictures.

Yeah, he thinks a South American looks like an African, but he also thinks a three-toed sloth looks like a sloth bear.


It turns out that your book was written by an English guy who had never been to South America.

The picture is an engraving made by an English artist who had never been to South America.

Which was copied off of a drawing by an amateur German astronomer who had never been to South America.

Which was copied off of....as far as I can tell, no one knows. He might have just made the shyt up for all we know, based on something he read.

THAT is the bullshyt you're trying to pass off as proof of what Native Americans looked like.



These are photographs of the actual people of Tierra del Fuego. They look just about as much like that engraving as the sloth picture looks like a real sloth:

Just like with the sloth, some amateur basing his painting off a description fukked up the shyt bad. He got told that they had dark skin and full heads of black hair, and he obviously had only known what Africans looked like, so he drew them like Africans.

Just like the SAME BOOK shows that the artist didn't know what sloths looked like, he just knew sloth bears, so he drew the sloths with a bear face and a bear body and sitting on their ass like a bear.

How you going to claim that I'm making a bullshyt "Dr. Suess" comparison now, when the pictures I'm using as an example come from the SAME book as yours?

 

[Everythingg]

Damn @Everythingg, you gonna get your shyt owned right now:

Not really because "these animals are drawn badly so every depiction is false" isnt an argument. You can keep repeating it, but it doesnt make it an argument.

Guess what? Five minutes of research on Google shows that your picture, "A male savage of Terra del Fuego" engraving comes from THIS BOOK, Ebenezer Sibly's 1794-1795 "Universal System of Natural History." Which also has the following picture among plenty of other ridiculous ones:




So the shyt you're calling "Dr. Suess pictures" come from the SAME BOOK as your pictures.


Yeah, he thinks a South American looks like an African, but he also thinks a three-toed sloth looks like a sloth bear.


It turns out that your book was written by an English guy who had never been to South America.

The picture is an engraving made by an English artist who had never been to South America.

Which was copied off of a drawing by an amateur German astronomer who had never been to South America.

Which was copied off of....as far as I can tell, no one knows. He might have just made the shyt up for all we know, based on something he read.

THAT is the bullshyt you're trying to pass off as proof of what Native Americans looked like.




These are photographs of the actual people of Tierra del Fuego. They look just about as much like that engraving as the sloth picture looks like a real sloth:





Just like with the sloth, some amateur basing his painting off a description fukked up the shyt bad. He got told that they had dark skin and full heads of black hair, and he obviously had only known what Africans looked like, so he drew them like Africans.

Just like the SAME BOOK shows that the artist didn't know what sloths looked like, he just knew sloth bears, so he drew the sloths with a bear face and a bear body and sitting on their ass like a bear.

How you going to claim that I'm making a bullshyt "Dr. Suess" comparison now, when the pictures I'm using as an example come from the SAME book as yours?

Blah blah blah blah. Mixing up rambling with smilies doesnt mean you're making a solid argument. The very first time you used that BS argument, I said the pictures arent that bad. The sloth isnt drawn that bad. Its just drawn with more humanistic qualities. But taking so called "bad" pictures and casting aspersions against depictions elsewhere, is LIKE seeing Dr. Seuss pictures in American history and casting aspersions against how America depicted certain things picture wise elsewhere. Its not something any unbiased historian would do. Without mentioning that the difference in skin color between what they drew and what you showed, is completely different. A difference they would know about being around arabs/asians. It was a nice try though...

Your "proof" of what the people looked like in the past, the ancient past, is a photo from the last 100 years lol. Akin to going to Egypt and taking a picture of the arabs there, and saying they were the original Egyptians. Which is probably a position you hold. But anyways, theres more where that comes from. Your position is going to be that ALL the pictures are false but photos of the last 100 years is what we go by... Yea okay

Spoiler

You're going to have a hard time saying every depiction in this thread (and theres more out there) is wrong.