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

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Would the people in the pictures in this thread be mistaken for so called "black" people today breh?

Moot point, here's why......

 

[Everythingg]

Moot point, here's why......

​

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?

 

[Everythingg]

Double

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Cant answer?

I did. Your argument is invalid since 16th Century Europeans considered EVERYONE with darker skin than themselves 'Black'.

This ain't the 16th Century.

Your argument is further invalidated due to relying on 'Black features' which are a result of environmental factors and not at all unique to Africans.

Polar Bears have 'Black' skin........

 

[Everythingg]

I did. Your argument is invalid since 16th Century Europeans considered EVERYONE​

No you didnt. I asked about today not the 16th century. What would those people, just going by appearance, be categorized as TODAY? Black? OR "native american" in the modern sense of the word?

​

Your argument is further invalidated due to relying on 'Black features' which are a result of environmental factors and not at all unique to Africans.

​

Actually I've made it a point in this thread to point out how they're not "African" just because of their appearance. What is relevant is that they look like so called black people of today. When all black people in the Americas are told that they came here on slave ships from Africa. You wont address that and will keep skipping around it but it is entertaining to say the least to watch you squirm..

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

No you didnt.​

​

Yes, I did.
​

​

Actually I've made it a point in this thread to point out how they're not "African" just because of their appearance.

By pointing out that the pictures make them LOOK 'Black/African'............

Keep putting your foot in your mouth and backpedalling, breh.​

 

[Everythingg]

Yes, I did.
​

​

So whats the answer? Going by their appearance, what group in America are they getting grouped with today?

By pointing out that the pictures make them LOOK 'Black/African'............

Keep putting your foot in your mouth and backpedalling, breh.​

Semantics which is a sign that you're losing your argument.

Saying looks like /= being the same group

Afghans consider themselves different from Pakistani's though they both look similar. Nice try though...

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

So whats the answer?

The question is invalid as I told you, but Europeans called EVERYONE who had darker skin than themselves 'Black'.​

Going by their appearance, what group in America are they getting grouped with today?

What would those people, just going by appearance, be categorized as TODAY?​

​

....thanks for shooting your argument in the foot.....AGAIN.
​

 

[Everythingg]

The question is invalid as I told you, but Europeans called EVERYONE who had darker skin than themselves 'Black'.​

You're the only one referencing what Euros in the past did. I'm asking about today. What group would they be classified as TODAY? So called "blacks" in America, or the Native American mongloids that we're told are either indigenous to America or the first inhabitants? Telling me how cacs USED to identify people doesn't give me the answer to how society, based on their appearance, would classify them today. But keep dancing

​

....thanks for shooting your argument in the foot.....AGAIN.
​

Yea just because you post one liners with smilies doesn't mean you're getting anywhere with your argument. Unless you're saying that the 2 indigenous people in the picture would be classified as black TODAY.

 

[DaKidFromNoWhere]

We have a saying here about the Native Americans(Lumbees)
They will not shake their family tree because they know that black crow will fall out.

 

[Donny]

A DNA Search for the First Americans Links Amazon Groups to Indigenous Australians | Science | Smithsonian
Evidence of Australian Aboriginal having first involvement in pre-historic america is supported by physiology (skulls), genetically, artistically, and culturally as Native Americans and Aboriginal culture is nearly identical in nature it is likely that early America was an early mix of Aboriginals (Polynesians and Melanesians as well) and Eskimos of the arctic region resulting in modern day Native Americans it is important to remember that even though the Aboriginals are dark skin they genetically are far removed from Africa than any other group in the world and due to them (theoretically) being such an ancient group in America any descendants would probably have more African dna at this point.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Uh, hadn't Africans already been enslaved in the Americas for generations when these drawings were made? We're talking the late 1700s here - for all you know those are ACTUAL recent slave descendants from Africa in the pictures. Or mixed. Why just assume they were OG natives? How would some random European know the difference?



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:

Hyena

Walrus

Hippopotamus

Hoolock Gibbons

A bit older (1300s)....an elephant

Elephant seal

90% of the time when they were drawing shyt from the "New World" or Africa they didn't know what the fukk they were drawing. I'm sympathetic to some of the evidence that West Africans visited Central America/Caribbean...but this is NOT it.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

You're the only one referencing what Euros in the past did.

They painted those pictures you keep referring to so that's false.......​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

90% of the time when they were drawing shyt from the "New World" or Africa they didn't know what the fukk they were drawing. I'm sympathetic to some of the evidence that West Africans visited Central America/Caribbean...but this is NOT it.

What's really funny about this whole thing is that the people saying that they WERE 'Black' are relying on the same people to relay accurate information regarding the pre-colonial population that are supposedly hiding 'Black' history.

Is it 'Oochie-Wallie' or 'One Mic'????

​

 

[Everythingg]

Uh, hadn't Africans already been enslaved in the Americas for generations when these drawings were made? We're talking the late 1700s here - for all you know those are ACTUAL recent slave descendants from Africa in the pictures. Or mixed. Why just assume they were OG natives? How would some random European know the difference?



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:

Hyena

Walrus

Hippopotamus

Hoolock Gibbons

A bit older (1300s)....an elephant

Elephant seal

90% of the time when they were drawing shyt from the "New World" or Africa they didn't know what the fukk they were drawing. I'm sympathetic to some of the evidence that West Africans visited Central America/Caribbean...but this is NOT it.

So now the narrative is that they "misdrew" the natives

"Hey here are bad pictures (subjective btw) so the pictures you have are just also bad" is not a good argument as to why the aboriginals did NOT look as they were portrayed.