right on my brother!...I took a small quote from that page in my original post dealing with the Luzia find....
Brother OmowaleX, I’ve always found it interesting that when African (or "negroid") remains or images are found anywhere in the most ancient world outside of so-called sub-Saharan Africa, the scholarly community either quickly designs anthropologically some new sub-stratum of mankind to explain their finds, or bend the craniometric laws of anthropology to attach these finds with some non-Africoid (or non-negroid) group, or they immediately assume they were mere slaves, even way before the slave trade of Africans become so historically prolific. This is a pattern found throughout recent history, archeology, and anthropology.
These scholars can find the same skeletal remains, burial rites, pyramids, artifacts, symbology, similar script, linguistic similarities, and various other uncanny similarities in various important sites all over the world and say they all just a mere coincidence. They dismiss all reports and ancient text alluding to Africans or Black people given to them by way of the indigenous people found in these areas.
But it is obvious if you can dismiss the Olmec heads as being African than you can dismiss anything!
There is a book I’m going to order titled, Mother Wit from the Laughing Barrel: Readings in the Interpretation of Afro-American Folklore (Critical Studies on Black Life and Culture); compiled in this book is a paper titled African Tales Among the North American Indians, by Alan Dundes. Dundes emphatically lays forth the evidence that a significant portion of the folktales that were attributed to Native Americans tribes especially of the Southeastern states, such as the Cherokee and Creek were of African origin. Now this is not surprising to me since we know that before some of the Cherokees started to receive a dominant position over the Africans through treaties that allocated them property and cash settlements they along with other Southeastern tribes made up 25% of the slave population along side Africans.
This creolization, hybridization or acculturation is many times, when seen only through the eyes of racist European scholars, always explained by assuming that we (Africans) came with nothing or lost everything immediately upon landing on American soil, and more so absorbed any evidence of unique cultural practices displayed amongst ourselves, or any other group, ergo if you smell Creole food in New Orleans thank the French colonizers or the Cajuns more so than the Africans!
We are always made to believe by Europeans, our own conservative community of intellectuals, and even some continental Africans that we have become so Europeanized, when there is a wealth of scholarly evidence that speaks to the “other way around”. And this is concerning the Africanization of America and European-American culture. Even the African-centered community is guilty of an blatant disregard, or inability to discern the Africanism and the traditional African cultural morphologies of diasporic African culture, and will usually dismiss their own traditions in search of solely traditional African cultural constructs presently practiced in the continent.
We want to know more about ancient Kemetic knowledge than the African knowledge of our own immediate ancestors in Mississippi.
ya' dig!
