Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is what I am talking about, establishment, foundation history and anthropology. Denial of empirical evidence. Both DNA evidence, and archaeological. It's so obtuse.Dude... no. Just no. I'm not disputing the African exploration of the new world, but that shit about the Olmec's is total bullshit.
Yes, the Olmecs are descended from Africans like all of human civilization, but not in the time frame you're talking about.
The Olmecs come from a people that spread throughout North and South America from the Russian land bridge(Bering Strait), giving us the natives that we know today. That was tens of thousands of years ago.
The architecture evident in South and Central America and that of Egyptian, is completely separate, and wasn't spawned from a sharing of cultures, or any cultural linkage at all. Any similarities are completely coincidental. The Negritic African peoples that came to the Americas predate ancient Africa by a great deal of time. Their arrival predates all known civilizations by a great deal of time.
Those original people became the Eskimos and all the North American tribes, and the Olmecs and the Mayans and Aztecs and Inca. Those heads have nothing to do with Africa in the past thousand plus years. Tons of natives in South America... ancient tribes, are as black as any African, just like the Aborigines of Australia, but not because they came over within the past 5000 years.
Olmec display up at LACMA
Black history does not start with slavery, but it begins with the conception of mankind and transcends all of the worlds history. Although popular teachings reject the great accomplishments of African and African American people, researchers and historians have confirmed Black people are the foundation of civilizations throughout the world, including the Americas.
The Olmecs, an ancient civilization, known for its colossal African featured, head monuments, established dwellings in Mesoamerica, specifically Mexico centuries before White settlers knew the world was round. Carbon dating places the African explorers in the area from around 1400 B.C. to 200 B.C.. The Olmecs are one of the first societies in the region and is claimed to have influenced the Aztecs and other American civilizations.
Their exact origins are unknown, but according to their artwork, they resembled people of African descent. Some theories say they came from Carthage off the coast of Africa.
Ivan Van Sertima, author of They Came Before Columbus writes that these gigantic monuments look like ancient African warriors. He also writes that without a doubt, these people were of African descent, but also possessed the characteristics of other populations.
The Olmecs were a people of three faces, that is, a people formed from three main sources or influences. One of these faces was Mongoloid. Elements of this Mongoloid strain may have come into America from Asia even after the famous glacial migrations across the Bering Straits, but they would have blended indistinguishably with the Ice Age Americans. The second face or influence was Negroid. The third suggests a trace of Mediterranean Caucasoids - some with Semitic noses (probably Phoenician) - but this will be shown to be related historically to the second. These faces became one face, to which the broad name Olmec was given.
The Olmecs are known to have dwelled between the Gulf of Mexico (north) to the slopes of the mountains (south), the Papaloapan River (west) and the basin of the Blasillo-Tonalá (east).
According to Ignacio Bernal, author of The Olmec World, the Olmec zone covered about 7,000 square miles.
Matthew Stirling Ph.D., an archaeologist, led an expedition from the Smithsonian Institution and National Geographic Society 1939 in the jungles of Vera Curz to uncover the first Olmec head.
Who said anything about a "conspiracy?"The Conspiracy Forum is thataway. Get goin' fruitcake.
You tell me why "Columbus" and "Columbia" is so ingrained into the culture and character of the American experience? Do you honestly ever think the myth of Columbus will ever go away even though it is an insult to the Native Peoples of the Americas? Hell, to all minorities?
Let's face it, the District of Columbia, the very name, should be changed, should it not? We should not honor this man with such great honors, and yet we do.
Why, when it is out there, right in the open, do you want to label something a "conspiracy." I have just shown you what the meaning is, that is all. I have just shown you why the educational elites continue to teach this "Columbus" day myth in elementary school. Yet you attack me with a personal attack. . . why?
I can give you parallels to their European counterparts and show that this was intentional if you like?
IOW, when facts and education are offered, and real discussion is at hand, you got nothing, but insults. Nice.Really, there's a whole forum just for fruitcakes like you. Go check it out, you'll feel comfortable there.
Dodd report
The final report was submitted by Norman Dodd, and because of its provocative nature, the committee became subject to attack. He began by listing criticisms of the Cox Committee, and then moved on to content.
In the Dodd report to the Reece Committee on Foundations, he gave a definition of the word "subversive", saying that the term referred to "Any action having as its purpose the alteration of either the principle or the form of the United States Government by other than constitutional means." He then proceeded to show that the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Carnegie Endowment were using funds excessively on projects at Columbia, Harvard, Chicago University and the University of California, in order to enable oligarchical collectivism.
The end of the report, following the Transcript of Dodd's address, contains the following message:
The effect of the Dodd Report was electric.
Moves were launched within a matter of hours to block an effective probe. On Capitol Hill, the Committee found itself confronted with obstacles at every turn. The Nation itself was deluged with stories which openly or by inference suggested that the investigation was futile, if not worse. The national board of Americans for Democratic Action (the A .D .A .) formally urged the House to disband the Committee, stating it was conducting "a frontal attack on learning itself."
Many citizens, on the other hand, believe that such a committee should be made a permanent Standing Committee of the House -"to gather and weigh the facts."
A prominent Ivy-League professor denounced Columbus Day and mocked those who celebrate it by releasing a list of individuals he deems are the “15 most overrated white people” on Monday.
What is? What is "THIS" You haven't answered any of my questions or told me exactly why you believe I am a "fruitcake."This is exactly why there is a 'special' place for fruitcakes like you. At least go take a look, you'll probably love it.
The arrival of europeans was the best thing that ever happened to the indians. They didn't even have a written language until white men came. They are a backward people and would still be living in caves but for whites.
You are a stupid, pathetic racist.
The board notes that all you have is namecalling. My claim stands uncontested. Like blacks, indians need the white man to provide them life in an advanced world.
Columbus may very well be the most overrated person in the history of the world. Not only was he not the first guy to discover the Americas, he wasn't even the first white guy to discover the Americas! It takes quite a twist of affirmative action to consider Columbus to have made a significant contribution towards anything except the subjugation of large groups of people.
The arrival of europeans was the best thing that ever happened to the indians.
According to who? The natives? I guess we can't ask the Taino if they are better off, because they do not even exist anymore. So you speak on their behalf then, is that how that works?
They didn't even have a written language until white men came. They are a backward people and would still be living in caves but for whites.
The Taino didn't live in caves your ignorant bigot.
Wow. What a complex Ad hominem attack. Howard Zinn is a well regarded and well respected scholar.
He uses primary sources of evidences to back up his claims.
What you have is the opinion of a professor of English?
Social Sciences and Political Science is not even her field, why should anyone even care what she thinks? I have however, skimmed over that report she has produced, and it seems that she has some valid points. Nice job. We should all be very alert and on guard in our nation against social engineering, I give you props where props are due.
The problem is, when you disagree with an argument, you need to counter with evidence, not an attack against the source of an argument. That is called a fallacy. It is a very weak point. I am very aware of it, so I likewise sourced the evidence with a primary source.
How astute of you to post what you thought was an excuse for Columbus' behavior, very good. He was just a product of his time. We could say the same thing about the Confederacy.
Does this mean we should have days commemorating the establishment of the confederacy, and have southern states fly the confederate flag? What about singing the praises of the institution of slavery and plantation life? After all, they were just people who were products of their time? Of course not, this is called "apologetics." When people do this with Hitler, or any number of despicable events that happened in the past they are ostracized from polite society.
We seek to understand events of the past this way,
but we do not excuse or venerate historical figures of the past any longer for their behavior.
Many of Columbus' contemporaries knew, instinctively, that what he was doing as they saw his orders being carried out, were immoral.
Just as Jefferson knew, as he grew rich off of every new slave birth, that it was immoral. That is why after his correspondence on the matter with George Washington, Washington reorganized is financial affairs in such a way as to free his slaves and employ them at a meager wage.
What is our primary source? How do we know of Columbus' vile behavior? Columbus' own journal entries. Any scholar, any American reading these entries, should then have enough intelligence to conclude that he should not be celebrated in the manner in which we do.
But there is much more going on to his celebration which the average American knows. Most, are truly ignorant of what it really means. It has to do with the Jesuits. It is a symbol of elite control.
Interesting to see that you speak for the whole board, where I speak for the American Indian.
If you do the research, you will find out that DNA evidence in meso-American Indians also bears out linkages in mitochondrial DNA from this same time period. But go on believing those same "Siberian" land bridge myths you learned on TV and in high school that defend Caucasoid-European cultural world dominance. As some one who studied Anthropology at University and makes a hobby of it, I can tell you, what you were taught in high school, and what they tell you on TV is not the whole story. It is a political story to give nations and people a sense of entitlement. The ancient world was not so "black and white."
The predominant haplogroup comes from Siberia.
The predominant haplogroup comes from Siberia.
Agreed. However, it is a consistent and lingering myth that this is the only group from which the natives people and cultures of the New World were derived.
Again, Ad hominem attack. Yes, I will agree, his avant-garde guard revisionist history is controversial, but so what? Do you have a point? Everyone is allowed their own point of view, do they not? I agree, that does tend to color his interpretation of the facts. Frankly, I don't give a shit. I was only using him as a source for Bartolomé de las Casas' interpretation of the events of Spanish colonization. So in that regard, I don't give a rats ass. You label him a "Marxist" as if that somehow sullies his qualifications or reliability. I have news for you, our current president was a Marxist for most of his University career, does that make his intellectual thoughts on the countries historical interpretation, or how the Constitution's interpretation any less meaningful.Zinn was a two bit hack who only made a splash due to the fact that he was a Marxist using shock techniques. Zinn stumbled along at a time at which simply espousing admiration for Mao and Stalin was sufficient to gain tenure at many major universities.
Some might say yes, some would argue with you there. . . False, Zinn fabricated the events in his books;
{Zinn writes well and is quite inspiring, but his book is bad history. In fact, I would not even call it history. A People's History of the United States is a political tract that uses the past to promote a presentist agenda. It is basically, to paraphrase the words of Bernard Bailyn, political indoctrination by historical example. Now I have no problem if Zinn wants to use the past to advance his leftist agenda. In fact, there is a lot I can agree with in Zinn's criticisms of his country. But please don't call this history and pass it off to students as a model of how to write history. Zinn's book violates virtually every rule of good historical thinking}
American Creation: Howard Zinn: Liar
http://gnosticliberationfront.com/occult_origins__of_the_american_revolutioni.htmAnother connection lies between the philosophic ideologies and symbols of the American Revolution and those of Freemasonry. For example, as Bailyn pointed out, the word constitution and the concept behind it was of central importance to the colonists political thought; their entire understanding of the crisis in Anglo-American relations rested upon it. [See Bernard Bailyn, Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, 1992.] What Bailyn did not discuss is how Masonic the focus on a constitution is. The Masonic constitution had been written by Reverend James Anderson under the guidance and direction of the newly formulated Grand Lodge of England in 1723, and updated and expanded in 1738. Consisting of more than merely the rules of the Fraternity it also compiled one of the first historical portrayals of the Craft. After the formation of the Grand Lodge of England in 1717, the role of constitutionality and distribution of legitimate Charters began to dominate the politics of Masonry. Brothers would naturally see a constitution as a necessary aspect of the revolutionary aims of the colonies. The Relationship Between Revolutionary Freemasonry and South Africa, Parts I, II & III, by SP Isaiah Kirk 32º AASR Valley of Albany NY, 2009.
Zinn was a Marxist, not a historian, not a scholar, just a Marxist. He had one goal, to further Marxism. He wrote blatant propaganda, with no regard for historical fact.
One need not deny that he might be a "Marxist, or a socialist. However one can be both, can they not? This does not detract from the credibility of one's research or facts. There is an old adage when it come to the writing of history.Zinn was nothing more than a communist agitator. Even his fellow leftists acknowledge that he wrote propaganda, not history. Zinn had no use for facts, his agenda was to promote Marxism.
This is the sort of tripe typical of foundation media. I read this article. While I agree with so much of it, it was clearly intended to steer the reader away from even reading the book, it wasn't an unbiased review. To really get an unbiased review, rather than a review of the "elites" that run the country, go to Amazon, and read the positive reviews, and the negative reviews. It is ironic, because the people that shaped opinion and mold the minds of society, are precisely the people that Zinn writes about in his book. What sort of review would you expect them to give him?{His failure is grounded in a premise better suited to a conspiracy-monger's Web site than to a work of scholarship. According to Zinn,"99 percent" of Americans share a" commonality" that is profoundly at odds with the interests of their rulers. And knowledge of that awesome fact is "exactly what the governments of the United States, and the wealthy elite allied to them--from the Founding Fathers to now--have tried their best to prevent."}
History News Network
Stop already. You are claiming that the man is a fraud. He is not a fraud. He has a certain political bias as all historians do. Unless you can cite a specific example, an error in his work that is untrustworthy, the whole of your post is becoming a tiresome attempt to discredit the man, instead of his work. That is basically all I am saying. I see your point though. Two people can look at the same glass of water. One person can see it as half full, the other as half empty. Facts are open to interpretation. Holy Mercury you belabor a point endlessly. He's is a Marxist, he's a fraud, he's a Marxist, he's a fraud. I agreed, he has socialist leanings, so what? No, he is not a fraud, prove how he is a fraud! Get on with it already, post something substantial other than this hit piece tit for tat of quoting my post.Zinn had no particular love for history, he distorted history without regard, for the purpose of furthering Marxism.
Zinn and his works are complete frauds. Further, American academia KNOWS it's fraud, and embraces both Zinn and his fiction precisely because they are a fraud.
What you term ad hom is in fact no such thing. I made no argument against the man, rather against the validity of your source. Zinn is not credible. What you offer is propaganda from a known fraud.
So what then? I guess these posts and this discussion is in vain. Perhaps we should just end it all right here and now. Do you not believe that Columbus butchered the native inhabitants looking for gold? Do you not believe that he rounded up and captured the natives for slaves? Do you not believe that he claimed the land for Spain? And if you believe all of these events transpired, should the nation not then stop celebrating all things associated with the man's name? What are we disagreeing about? Seems a pointless exercise, we are agreed then?Again, this was neither an excuse nor my words. I offered you the writing of a left leaning professor who takes pause at the redrafting of history.
Zinn is the model that most of the left has adopted, decide the conclusion you wish, and fabricate a "history" to match the desired outcome.
So it is with Columbus. The left vilifies Whites with a bigotry the KKK could only dream of. The left hates everything to do with Western Civilization, thus crafts a tale in which the civilized are villains abusing noble savages who are the epitome of all that is good and pure.
The pure black and white tales of the left, where the white man is simply evil by nature, killing and raping all of the peaceful people who love and give to all....
It's not "reversal" of history Uncensored, it's called revisiting history. And we still retain the old versions of history, as evidenced because we are having this discussion, you cling to the old mythologies. The reason we revisit history, is because, as Churchill observed, history is a political tool, written by the winners, so it is necessarily, not unbiased. History is used as a political tool to justify control and abuse. When the masses understand why things have transpired as they have, we are better able to avoid the mistakes of the past. For instance, educated people now know that nearly every war the United States has ever entered upon has been provoked by those that are controlling the Government. Why do you think so many people in the country do not believe (fall for, the Warren commission report, or the 911 commission report?) They know these events were necessary/staged/coincidental, whatever, before war could ensue. They were the ones that studied history. When a nation-state wins a war, it has usually been the one that has provoked, or been manipulated into starting a war. Only in the instances of world wars, where the initiators are utterly destroyed, are the cases where this is not true. For example, if there is a third world war, you can expect the United States to suffer the same fate as Nazi Germany, Wehrmacht Germany, or Imperial Japan.I see absolutely no difference between people reversing history to portray Hitler as a noble victim of evil Jews, and the reversal of facts used by the left to paint a portrait of everyone from Columbus to Washington as bloodthirsty fiends murdering poor innocents.
Unsubstantiated. It is comments like this that make me believe you are an uneducated troll. Put up or shut up. They would not have their positions or reputations if this were true. Post a fabrication please. Otherwise, you are a liar, and I am right.No we don't. What people like Zinn, Churchill, Dee Brown, et al, do is fabricate events from a past that never existed to promote political goals in the present.
Such is the nature of propaganda.
How do you see that? Just because we don't want to celebrate a butcher and a slaver you see that as vilification? What is the historical fact? That Columbus was greedy and vain, looking for glory and riches, so he bravely sought, looking for a new route to China or India? Whoope dee fucking do.No, you vilify them with utter disregard for historical fact.
An ad hominem fallacy is like saying that Howard Zinn is not a credible source because he is Jewish, or because he is a Marxist. It is not a fallacy to say that we are condemning Columbus based on his support of slavery.Columbus had many flaws, as all men do. What the left fabricates for him is not what was.
Columbus was a product of his time. You view slavery from the lens of modern times, as do I. Yet, I grasp that while I abhor it, Columbus did nothing different than any other man of his time would do. I condemn the institution, you condemn the man. Shall we again discuss the ad hominem fallacy?
I'm not using Columbus as a source for my dialog here. Screw ball. When we are looking at Columbus ethics and behavior through the lens of history, you are correct, we need to compare him to what others of his sort were doing, not what we would do today. This does not mean we need to venerate him. More on this in a bit.By the time of Jefferson's industry, the Slave trade, i.e. international shipping of slaves from Africa, had been made illegal. I was not remarking on Jefferson's ethics or morality in keeping families together, you are right, he neither bought, nor sold slaves. But he did deduce that the greatest fortune to his estate was the birth of his new slave children. And I don't know WHERE you read your history. Oh wait. . . do you read?? This last months issue of the Smithsonian had a terrific article on Jefferson. It is clear you really don't know what you are talking about. . .Jefferson indeed understood the immorality of slavery, but the claim he "grew rich off of every new slave birth," is the sort of demagoguery I so abhor from the left. Jefferson kept slave families together and paid his slaves. (Which despite Zinn type revisionism, was common.)
Call me paranoid, but like his friend Lafayette said, they are using partisans to tear all nations apart.Wait. . . . What?{This text is widely available on the Internet, but there is no statement of its printed origins. If you know, please send references to be included here. }
Internet History Sourcebooks Project
Yeah, good luck with that. What we do have is a pretty reliably copy in his book, though it can be said, he had a political agenda as well, but he was a first hand observer. Plus, there were others there, and the results are beyond dispute.
Were it not for the dangerous meddling of the Jesuits. 
I don't usually do tit-for-tat prattle with people who are very partisan and not up to my intellectual standards.
Interesting to see that you speak for the whole board, where I speak for the American Indian.
And you have that authority, because you once held an Indian head nickle! The love child of Ward Churchill and Elizabeth Warren...
You know, after a cursory investigation, I see you have been suspended indefinitely, or banned in at least one other forum, and who knows how many others? Where I sit, comments from the likes of you don't really have much weight with me. I don't see where you get off calling people, "fruitcake" and mocking people, when you yourself can't manage to stay a member in good standing of any forum that has strict rules of decorum, but instead need to come to a forum that has no rules what so ever. Mind divulging the details of your Historum - History Forums indefinite suspension? What is it with this sort of useless nonconstructive abuse?Your "intellectual standards"? LOLI don't usually do tit-for-tat prattle with people who are very partisan and not up to my intellectual standards.
