₦airaland Forum

Ugosample:
Tell me something

Please, dont mind that comment:

Amujale:
...

You have be found definitely to be a knowledgeable and with a well balanced view on world history and i truly commend you for your efforts toward learning African history.

For me, to truly get understanding African history, certain conditions are to hold; one is to disregard foreign rhetoric, foreign hear say and all other anti-African discourse with regards to history.

Furthermore, to regard African history as genuine, If not written, deliberated-upon or judged beyond reasonable doubt to being correct and accurate by Africans, such writings that fit into these category, must for now, simply be deemed inadmissible.

Ugosample:
The existence of blacks in continental Europe especially Even before the 10th century
tho they were not of west African stock, they were still black nonetheless.

I agree with you here, you are definitely a knowledgeable and with a well balanced view on world history and i truly commend you.

...

Ugosample:
black move on

how hard can that be black?

calling me ignorant when you got things mixed up yourself

face front black

Just go to show your ignorance.

Go and research and get back to us with your findings and we can continue discussion.

If falsly claim the incorrect notion of who actually own the "abolition" process then you need to realise your compounding ignorance.

Stop and Think!

All the information is available in the public domain. And cease these nonsensical claims on history.

And i am not refereing to the fabricated history that supports false claims that Britain abolished slavery.

That is a false claim.

Blacks and their well connected friends fought to abolish slavery in their given regions.

Ultimately, Britain abolished slavery only in its jurisdiction by making use of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, other nation that took part in the evil of those days followed suit in the later years. i.e France abolished slavery in 1848 and the U.S.A in 1865, all have in common a hard fought campaign by African individuals and groups with the well appreciated help from friendly white folks.

Furthermore, to support the above, African academics have found enough evidence to suggest that black communities exist in Britain and other parts of Europe prior to 1400 B.C.E. These communities are said to have been part of the pioneering force behind the "Abolition" process. Yet the discourse is later high-jacked by much of Europe's "political class"

That is the truth. All the falsity you peddle you need to drop and consider these truths

Question: Who are the Aboliionist?

Questiom: Who are "Black Lives Matter" ?

If you cannot answer correctly to either of these then you are devoid of the truth surrounding these matters.

According to African studies, the overwheming force behind either of these related campaignes are Africans. Any other effort can really only be seen as part of what professional athletes would call "supporters club".

But due to the fact that the post- modern world of today is currently dominated by the so called "Western World", its easy for them to sell to you those LIES.

Ugosample:


nigger we done...

Please dont compound your ignorance by making use of the N- word.

I know the music industry makes you want to love that word.

I hate that word with a unique kind of passion.

Call me black in the stead.

Ugosample:
do you know what you are saying at all

What did Africans in Africa know about the abolitionist project in America in the 18th century? ?

Is it the African slaves that were already mentally broken (most of them) that would have been the major driver of the abolitionist project?

Orit is the black.folks that caused the serious divide in viees on slavery between the north and the south in the U.S.?

All you pseudo pan africanist black power goons are just jokers

Just go to show your ignorance.

Go and research and get back to us with your findings and we can continue discussion.

If falsly claim the incorrect notion of who actually own the "abolition" process then you need to realise your compounding ignorance.

Stop and Think!

All the information is available in the public domain. And cease these nonsensical claims on history.

And i am not refereing to the fabricated history that supports false claims that Britain abolished slavery.

That is a false claim.

Blacks(sic) and their well connected friends fought to abolish slavery in their given regions.

Ultimately, Britain abolished slavery only in its jurisdiction by making use of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, other nation that took part in the evil of those days followed suit in the later years. i.e France abolished slavery in 1848 and the U.S.A in 1865, all have in common a hard fought campaign by African individuals and groups with the well appreciated help from friendly white folks.

Furthermore, to support the above, African academics have found enough evidence to suggest that black(sic) communities exist in Britain and other parts of Europe prior to 1400 B.C.E. These communities are said to have been part of the pioneering force behind the "Abolition" process. Yet the discourse is later high-jacked by much of Europe's "political class"

That is the truth. All the falsity you peddle you need to drop and consider these truths

Question: Who are the Aboliionist?

Questiom: Who are "Black(sic) Lives Matter" ?

If you cannot answer correctly to either of these then you are devoid of the truth surrounding these matters.

According to African studies, the overwheming force behind either of these related campaignes are Africans. Any other effort can really only be seen as part of what professional athletes would call "supporters club".

But due to the fact that the post- modern world of today is currently dominated by the so called "Western World", its easy for them to sell to you those LIES.

proxillin:
A worst dictator like idi amin...

Idi amin is one of the most decorated military commanders the world has ever seen ; an African hero and hall of fame candidate.

Idi Amin is in the top 10 of anyone's revolutionary African.

I put it to you that you are mistaken.


Or maybe you are talking about a different person bearing a similar name.

I refer to the greatest miltary mind to have come out of Uganda, Idi Amin, the self proclaimed "last king of Scotland".

No, Idin Amin is not up for your slander, think of a different name, maybe you want to say Ghengis Khan or something but Idi Amin is deemed an African hero. Remember that.

I concede that Idi Amin has nothing on Sankara and other Africanist e.g Dr Nnamdi Azikwe, Obafemi Awolowo, Kwame Nkrumah, Saraki, Leopold Senghor, Jomo Kenyatta e.t.c; yet he was the right leader for those times whilst Sankara's Africanist concepts stand outstanding even today.

Idi Ami's plight is no more different to that of Colonel Ghadaffi's, i am right in thinking you dont determine him to be one of those derogatory names you use.

I assume you have been fed so much falsity that you confuse an African hero with a fabricated tyrant.

Ugosample:
this guy sef

who is talking of Zim /S.A.?

I'm talking of the USA here.

you really think America would have got rid of slavery without pressure from the abolitionists and other white folks who saw slavery as inhumane


Even after Britain outlawed slavery, monkey Africans (Madam tinubu dem) were still eagar to sell more of there pple

anyways I don't exchange much witt pseudo "Pan Africanists"

make una continue

Thats just a good piece of nonsense.

The abolition project was always an "African & friends" project that was eventually high-jacked by the "friends" and they ran way with the credit as per usual.

Futhermore, the only people that truly deserve credit for the inacting of "abolition" are Africans from all around the globe & their well connected friends.

Eurocentrics will have you believe that they deserve credit for abolition. That is false, incorrect; untrue.

There is little or no further credit for a muderous assasin that later retires from killing people. The credit is woven into acknowledgement of evil actions and inacting a change for the mere reason thar its the correct action to take. No further creditis can be given to Eurocentrics with regards to "abolition"

For example, lets assume i am a hired assasin that is paid to shoot and kill, now throughout my "career" i have killed 1,200 people by shooting them with a sniper rifle in the heas. Now, lets say, after a certain while i choose to reitire.

Question: Do i deserve to be praised since i have now retired from killing people?

Answer: No

Conclusion: No European, Arab nor Jew deserves an iota of credit with regards "abolition", as their credit is already woven into the fact that by retiring from assasin, they are deemed clean, and as a result, are now out of range from the full weight of the law.

The African abolitionist however, deserve all of the credit available. Yet they are not even mentioned in todays history, instead you and those similiarly to you peddle the false notion that Europeans are responsible for that project.

If turkeys could vote, they would never vote for the continuation of Xmas. Fact

That is to say, Europeans, Arabs and Jews at the time have zero amount to gain from starting the "abolition" process. They started the evil in the first place, therefore, there is no way they deserve any credit whatsoever.

More importantly, abolition is bound to have occur anyways, with or without the well appreciated help and supporting roles played by friendly white folk.

All the huge and significant leading roles regards abolition are played by Africans from all around the world. Africa and Africa's diaspora including both their friends are the real people responsible for the abolition of the evils of those days.

Green - White - Green obviously yes.

Although a very good concept, however, one could say its a good futuristic concept, that in my opinion can best be of service to people in a multilateral sense. That is to say lets assume majority of the African nations of today decide to re-construct their region in a territorial manner, then what you share with us today would instantly become a reality.

Going solo is NO.

BI-Lateral is NO.

Multilateral and pertaining to multiple nations, YES.

Yet, it doesn't stop us having a cool flag like that, very good concept.

fieryy:
What people fail to realize is, being of a darker skin tone doesn't mean you are African, jeeeez

Nowadays, you are probably correct in today's world, however, in olden days, almost all black(sic) people are indeed African, the exceptions are a very few; those 1% that some how miraculously are able to have maintain their colour outside of the continent during major geological phenomena; its a good assumption that every nation on our planet have these 1%.

1%: Its a strong consideration of African studies that one percent of the phenom that took part in the " Out of Africa" experience are said to have maintain their African features. In addition, Africans had various other manoeuvres in antiquity, the famous ones are known to us as scientific or knowledge-based expeditions.

morpheus24:
You have posted this gibberish again from an outdated scholar who is popular in Afrocentric circles. Where is the genetic evidence to corroborate this theory. This is 2019 you know. The oldest human fossil found in the Americas date 11000 years clusters with Native American ancestry from Asia and Siberia.

There lies no truth or relevance in the above post except more waffling.

Assuming you take the time to check my previous post, you will find it makes reference of African academics and their material with relevance to these discussions.

Amujale:
Have you heard of the "Wahetaw of Louisiana" ,

the Darienite Indians of Panama,

the Choco Regional Indians of Colombia,

the Chuarras of Brazil,

the black(sic) Califonians of California

or the Jamassee Indians whom in antiquity occupies modern day Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and North Florida.

There are also the Guanin who are also said to be indigenous to the Caribbean.

Barton discusses black(sic) civilisations of the Americas from pre-historic to the present day times. The Washetaw of Louisiana are said to be master shipbuilders, in addition to sailing to and fro the coast of Africa, they are said to voyage the Atlantic and Caribbean Sea as well as the Pacific.

https://www.amazon.com/History-African-Olmecs-Civilizations-America-Prehistoric/dp/0759644691

Yes and your correct about it being 2019, the year when all foreign and anti-African rhetoric around history are to be thrown into the intellectual bin in favour of the findings from African and Pan - African research and institutes of academia.

Africans will continue to educate ourselves more on African academics and scholars than ever before; these guys make use of cutting edge technological and scientific techniques.

Without a shadow of doubt, there are distinct and undeniable found connection between the indigenous Americans with much of mainland African culture. Anyone with common sense on Indigenous Americans culture cannot disagree with these truths. But you can sit on your armchair and claim to know better than .

morpheus24:
There is no genetic evidence that relates Mande to Olmecs. You can dance around sertima's theories all you want, you will not find any information that proves it.

Again if you take the time to check material from previous post you will find that you are mistaken and cease making these false claims.

Amujale:
An indigenous American culture enthusiast and have great interest in its research; about five years research makes me come up with these findings.

Without a shadow of doubt, there are distinct and undeniable found connection between the indigenous Americans with much of mainland African culture.

There are various theories to explain this, one of the leading theories is an African viewpoint, indigenous Americans are said to have come from the line of the Olmecs.

According to Jose Melar, the Olmecs are supposed to have migrated from Africa (is comprehensively addressed in the “Olmec alternative origin...” documents).

Again, modern day African scholars identify Olmecs with the Mandé people.

morpheus24:
Prehistoric peoples in the Americas would most likely tie genetically to Polynesian or Melanisian peoples if they do not tie to Native Americans from Siberia.

Says who?

morpheus24:
Stop passing on Afro centrism as real science. You sound like those Hebrew Israelite crazies who keep claiming Hebrew ancestry yet once we bring up genetics and ask they to prove it, they begin to dance around rubbish historical theories.

if you want me to point you to the genetic study on 11,000 year old fossil DNA findings simply ask or search for it yourself. Google is your friend.

Most Africans already know the truth, What Africans call African your type ill-judgingly call Afrocentric. Its exactly because of your type that God creates people like me.

There are various theories to explain that, one of the leading theories is an African viewpoint; indigenous Americans are said to have descend from the Olmecs.

According to Jose Melar, the Olmecs are supposed to have migrated from Africa (is comprehensively addressed in the “Olmec alternative origin...” documents).

Modern day African historians identify Olmecs with the Mandé people.

Without a shadow of doubt, there are distinct and undeniable found connection between the indigenous Americans with much of mainland African culture.

There are various theories to explain that, one of the leading theories is an African viewpoint; indigenous Americans are said to have descend from the Olmecs.

According to Jose Melar, the Olmecs are supposed to have migrated from Africa (is comprehensively addressed in the “Olmec alternative origin...” documents).

Modern day African historians identify Olmecs with the Mandé people.

Have you heard of the "Wahetaw of Louisiana" ,

the Darienite Indians of Panama,

the Choco Regional Indians of Colombia,

the Chuarras of Brazil,

the black(sic) Califonians of California

or the Jamassee Indians whom in antiquity occupies modern day Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and North Florida.

There are also the Guanin who are also said to be indigenous to the Caribbean.

Barton discusses black(sic) civilisations of the Americas from pre-historic to the present day times. The Washetaw of Louisiana are said to be master shipbuilders, in addition to sailing to and fro the coast of Africa, they are said to voyage the Atlantic and Caribbean Sea as well as the Pacific.

For me, to truly get understanding African history, certain conditions are to hold; one is to disregard foreign rhetoric, foreign hear say and all other anti-African discourse with regards to history.

Furthermore, to regard African history as genuine, If not written, deliberated-upon or judged by Africans, such writings that fit into these category must simply be deemed inadmissable.

Spazolas:
They’re all fabrications for all I care , and your claims about Mecca being most dependable is disputable , why did I say so?

Arabs were the first people to write after the phoenicians , they started writing earlier than any other people on earth , except for the phoenicians who invented writing.

Arabs are knows to keep records of migrations in and out of their lands and if the Quresh narrative were true it would be documented in their archives.

The East was known as Mecca amongst the Yorubas just as the East was known as Arabia in ancient times. We just have options of so many versions and lies to chose from.

Exactly, Arabs have always possessed one of the highest level of literacy, and their outstanding contribution to science & technology is also never in doubt here.

African scholarship are often not given due credit in the Arabic context as well. i.e Chadian, Ethopian, Egyptian, Sudanese e.t.c

Its also important to note the fact that Africa owns the first known literate communities on the planet; outside of ancient Egypt.

Presently, African historians and academics have discovered in all sorts of locations, ancient written text belonging to various African communities. U.N.E.S.C.O is aware of these discoveries.

Contrary to what most Eurocentric and Arab scholars assume, most mainland Africans are infact pre-literate. According to African linguistics, more scripts have been discovered in Africa than America , Asia & Europe combined.

Totaly nine major African scripts are presently discovered not includng Arabic e.g Akan, Meroitic e.t.c . More than anywhere else. Therefore, Africans are probably born with a unique sense of literacy.

morpheus24:
DNA evidence does not corroborate this theory. If they were related to present day Mande, you would find genetic material that was still existent in the indigenous Americans today that would tie the two peoples together. Unless you believe the Mande sailed to the new world more than 5000 years ago?


The only proof presented in regards to this theory has been the statues that resemble Phenotypical representations of Africans. if that is the best then you have to convince me that these particular guys below are genetically related to a "cotemporary African" today.

Here you go again making false claims.

Can you kindly provide me with your evidence to refute Jose Melar's theory.

Have you even read Jose Melars theory on Indigenous Americans?

Have you read the Olmec theory documents? or

"A history of the African-Olmecs:" by Paul Barton or

"They came before Columbus" by Ivan Sertima

Obviously you havent and are just making empty assumptions.

Without a shadow of doubt, there are distinct and undeniable found connection between the indigenous Americans with much of mainland African culture.

There are various theories to explain that, one of the leading theories is an African viewpoint; indigenous Americans are said to have descend from the Olmecs.

According to Jose Melar, the Olmecs are supposed to have migrated from Africa (is comprehensively addressed in the “Olmec alternative origin...” documents).

Modern day African historians identify Olmecs with the Mandé people.

Oduduwa is the Legendary father of Yoruba. A war machine force of nature in his own right; and a remarkable ruler.

According to African history, the people Oduduwa met at Ife are themselves 100% relevant to Yoruba; and are known as the earliest settlements.

Most people agree with me that the suggestion of relationship isnt based soley on biology, although is one of the leading scientific arguments available to us.

Hence, is a fair assumption to suggest that most present day people (from all around the world, but most especially West Africa) are descendants of that particular Empire.

Dartilo:
Let us be sincere with our self,oduduwa can't be the Father's of the yoruba people because he actually met people at Ife...

Oduduwa is the Legendary father of Yoruba. A war machine force of nature in his own right; and a remarkable ruler.

According to African history, the people Oduduwa met at Ife are themselves 100% relevant to Yoruba; and are known as the earliest settlements.

Most people agree with me that the suggestion of relationship isnt based soley on biology, although is one of the leading scientific arguments available to us.

Hence, is a fair assumption to suggest that most present day people (from all around the world, but most especially West Africa) are descendants of that particular Empire.

Ndipe:
Who told you that people were not living in Asia at the aforementioned time?

African history suggest the era of the Emperor depicts time that predate the "warm-interstadio". Before these times, all humans in the world are residence in Africa. The migration to other parts of the world occurs during the 'warm-interstadio'.

African Americans are the most successful Africans in the world today, lets support them to greater heights.

There is a massive misunderstanding in a vacuum, Africans dont have the time to argue amongst each other about trivial stuff, lets keep up with the here and now.

Lets appreciate the global struggle as one picture; resolve differences, improve on common understanding and improve our lives for our betterment and that of the coming generations.

Oduduwa is the Legendary father of Yoruba. A war machine force of nature in his own right; and a remarkable ruler.

Oduduwa is Yoruba hailing from within Nigeria. However, he couldn’t have come from Saudi Arabia because there was no people living in Asia at the time.

Furthermore, the Mecca story is probably the work of earlier extremist scholars forced under duress to help try wipe out all competing culture; with the help of scientific techniques available to us today enables us to determine the story to be false.

According to African historians and academics, West African communities predates their North and North East African peers. The only people that think or claim otherwise are the present North Africans, Europeans and Asians; majority of Africans agree with me and their academia.

Olu317:
Well, you are the one that have no knowledge of your history because you are fed with lies and you cant even question certain glaring information before you,yet you boast of being an historian. As far as I know,you're an Afrocentric person who failed to even neglect the fact that Africa has 1500+ languages. In fact, West Africa has about 400+ languages.So being in a discipline of Earth science, History and anthropology can't even unravel who is who in Africa except through knowledge acquision on linguistic, Archeology, Hieroglyphs, pictographs etc before you can be boastful through journal or papers you present. Mind you, history has it that migration that took place toward the new world begun from Africa and there were migration back and forth to Africa.

You said,‘Even though you seem quite intelligent, you display the same warped understanding of African history that anti-African individuals possess'.


Kindly be mindful of what you say because genealogy had been part of ancestral lineage ever since they arrived in West Africa around 9BC-100AD. Therefore, I chose to deviate from self egocentrism o'er my ability with cogent reason because like I had carefully stated in my previous post,that Africa wasn't the name of this foundational continent of the world from the beginning. So ,if you love this continent,expose us to the actual name of this continent to begin with.

Seriously 1400BC is a child's play to what we know. Infact, 5000BC is a child's play as well. But before you run,kindly ponder over these Questions:

1. Have you ever considered over unintelligible 1500+ ethnic groups languages between each one of them that make up this continent?

2.Do consider archeological evidence before you churn out your condemnation at all ?

3.Do you not consider it correct as a researcher to narrow down your research with a case study before lumping up Africa as if it's one ethnic group?

4.Is Greek god; Atlas in Greek mythology stolen from which ethnic group in Africa ?

5. Do you realise that this same continent, precisely in Morocco was dubbed by Western World researchers as the Oldest place with fossil humas and followed up by, middle East; Israel ?

6. Why do you now accuse people who wrote according to their verified researches?

7. Do you even know the reason for multiplicity of diverged languages in this Continent?

8. Do you even know Egypt -Kmt(Meroe) was conquered six times?

9. Were the conquests perpetuated by your so called Nubian, Cushites,Ethiopians only ?

10. Do you even known some so called Africans of royalty were excavated to being buried upright in ancient Egypt?

11.Do you know Yoruba use ram as sacrifice to portray strength and authority unlike Kmt that worship Ram( Ra)

12 .Do you even know in present day Nigeria, there is a known royalty in Eastern-Ibo(Igbo) Nigeria whose deceased kings are buried upright?

13. Why was it impossible to remember all the deceased kings before Èlùfín(Olofin) Oshin(Odua)?


Note:#Advice#
*There are so many things people like you need to learn through humility so as to be knowledgeable on things that are in darkness to you*. So ponder

Much of the above text doesn't refer to me, let me however help you to understand what is being said here:

Amujale:
West African communities predates both the Khemet and Mesopotamia ones, contrary to what Eurocentrics falsely claim.

In the correct chronology of the ages, Yoruba predates Khemet and Mesopotamia.

Olu317:
1. Since you and I know Yoruba's calendar is 10,60 years, how do you conclude on your information of Yoruba being the oldest peopke on planet earth?

2. Do you know about four- oldest bones that their ages range from over 100 years - 300 years are not in West Africa?

3. Do you know the oldest bone found in Yoruba land at Iwo Eleri isnt Yoruba ancestor?

4. Do you know this bone found in Iwo Eleru is about 11,000+ years?

5. Do you know the oldest temple in the world is in Göbekli Tepee in Turkey?


Dear brother, if you don't like Caucasians, because one reason or the other doesn't mean,fossils account need be neglected by you. In fact, researchers are spread across the globe,irrespective of colour or ethnicity.


Cheers

Amujale:
Although much of what you state here are official lines.

And are the ones that needs refuting. These arent based on scientific conclusions, rather are loosely based on out dated Eurocentric and Asian bias.

There’s need to understand that the way Africans operate in the ancient times cannot be crosschecked by making use of Eurocentric and or Asian bias text or viewpoints.

The Yoruba calendar is meant to determine the day, month & years not meant to determine the age of the planet, there that argument doesnt have any weight.

Furthermore, the greatest significance of "Gobekli Tepe" is shroud in the myth that it supposedly the birth place of civilisation, however untrue that may seem, it's sacred significance however, is in the fact that the people who built "Gobekli Tepe" are rightfully deemed the first religious gathering to come out of Europe.

African historians have been proven to be more trustworthy than their Eurocentric and Asian peers.

Amujale:
African historians are the most qualified and capable to write African history. Most of the facts that you state have been found to be based on questionable ideologies.

Now, there’s need for me to make clear the fact that West African communities predates all and a every community outside of Africa and is highly considered amongst the oldest in Africa.

Olu317:
Which ethnic group are you inferring a the oldest group in the world?

2. Are you referring to the land in West Africa as the oldest being inhabited by people of West Africa?

My last take on this is that, West Africa did not predate East Africa-Northern Africa Inhabitants

Amujale:
According to most of our reputable historians,
West African communities predates all and a every community outside of Africa and is highly considered amongst the oldest in Africa.

Olu317:
Sorry I can't tolerate such juxtaposition anymore because I have studied with reliable information without biases more than such knowledge.

Cheers

Amujale:
I study with keen fascination everything about pre-colonial Africa for most of my adult life, history is intentional choice for me, because if you intend to study on sometime it’s normal to want to know their history.

I’ve studied world history with the aid of the writings and seminars of great African academics.


In part of my findings, it becomes crystal clear that Europeans and Arabic scholars spent the best part of their times trying to down-play, make false claims and or silence the discourse around African history.

Instead the evidence suggests that the version of history taught to us and peddled by western philosophy is both incorrect and counter-intuitive.

Amujale:
The history that I present to you here, speaks of today, would pass all well-balanced scientific and logical scrutiny more than can be said for the present versions peddled by Eurocentric and Arab scholars.

Amujale:
African spirituality is HUGE, is larger than the organisation you refer to as the United Nations. The reasons they are acceptable is precisely because it will further contradict the lies and falsities been peddled to us by Christianity and Islam. And the United Nations is also part of the furniture in the office of a Eurocentric. African spirituality is the standard that everyone eventually ends up judging themselves with; however, what the Eurocentrics and Arabs forgot to tell us is that everyone in the Europe and large parts of Asia worship God through the African spirituality (some will argue they still unknowingly does today) during the time of the Romans.

Amujale:
African history is my study plus Earth sciences/Anthropology




Prior to 1400 B.C.E all of Europe and much of Asia worship African God(s). Consequently, they assimilate their well known divinities into their culture and philosophy.



Stop already!

Obviously you don’t understand we’ll enough to know that it’s uncool to keep bringing chi into conversation.

Even though you seem quite intelligent and I sense great potential.

For me, to truly get understanding African history, certain conditions are to hold; one is to disregard rhetoric, hear say and all other anti-African discourse with regards to history. Furthermore, to regard African history as genuine, If it isn’t written, deliberated-upon or judged by Africans, such writings that fit into these category must simply be deemed inadmissible. That is to say, in a sense, most of the present Eurocentric and Asian discourse on African history will be deemed to be false and invalid.

The only true African history is that which is derived by an African(s), by default all other versions are false.

The discourse on European history is primarily exclusive to European writers.

The discourse on Asia’s history is primarily exclusive to Asian writers.

The discourse on Africa’s history is primarily badly concocted by European and Asian writers. This is where all of us (you and I) come in and repair the damage for the benefit of the next generations and our own overstanding.

Majority of ‘Classical’ European deities and divinities came directly from an African divinity, in some ways, they (the foreigners) would snatch an entire concept of ‘divine’ and transplant the same concept into their communities i.e Andromeda, Hermes, Zeus e.t.c

Greeks Zeus and many other mainland African divinity that the Greeks and Romans implanted into their philosophy; even though their total disregard for intellectual property is something that will haunt them forever. Roman Apollo same type of activity occurs; same thing with the Persians.

Olu317:
Well, you are the one that have no knowledge of your history because you are fed with lies and you cant even question certain glaring information before you,yet you boast of being an historian. As far as I know,you're an Afrocentric person who failed to even neglect the fact that Africa has 1500+ languages. In fact, West Africa has about 400+ languages.So being in a discipline of Earth science, History and anthropology can't even unravel who is who in Africa except through knowledge acquision on linguistic, Archeology, Hieroglyphs, pictographs etc before you can be boastful through journal or papers you present. Mind you, history has it that migration that took place toward the new world begun from Africa and there were migration back and forth to Africa.

You said,‘Even though you seem quite intelligent, you display the same warped understanding of African history that anti-African individuals possess'.


If I display warped understanding of African; doesnt mean I displays warped understanding about Yoruba's history. Kindly be mindful of what you say because genealogy had been part of ancestral lineage ever since they arrived in West Africa around 9BC-100AD. Therefore, I chose to deviate from self egocentrism o'er my ability with cogent reason because like I had carefully stated in my previous post,that Africa wasn't the name of this foundational continent of the world from the beginning. So ,if you love this continent,expose us to the actual name of this continent to begin with.

Seriously 1400BC is a child's play to what we know. Infact, 5000BC is a child's play as well. But before you run,kindly ponder over these Questions:

1. Have you ever considered over unintelligible 1500+ ethnic groups languages between each one of them that make up this continent?

2.Do consider archeological evidence before you churn out your condemnation at all ?

3.Do you not consider it correct as a researcher to narrow down your research with a case study before lumping up Africa as if it's one ethnic group?

4.Is Greek god; Atlas in Greek mythology stolen from which ethnic group in Africa ?

5. Do you realise that this same continent, precisely in Morocco was dubbed by Western World researchers as the Oldest place with fossil humas and followed up by, middle East; Israel ?

6. Why do you now accuse people who wrote according to their verified researches?

7. Do you even know the reason for multiplicity of diverged languages in this Continent?

8. Do you even know Egypt -Kmt(Meroe) was conquered six times?

9. Were the conquests perpetuated by your so called Nubian, Cushites,Ethiopians only ?

10. Do you even known some so called Africans of royalty were excavated to being buried upright in ancient Egypt?

11.Do you know Yoruba use ram as sacrifice to portray strength and authority unlike Kmt that worship Ram( Ra)

12 .Do you even know in present day Nigeria, there is a known royalty in Eastern-Ibo(Igbo) Nigeria whose deceased kings are buried upright?

13. Why was it impossible to remember all the deceased kings before Èlùfín(Olofin) Oshin(Odua)?


Note:#Advice#
*There are so many things people like you need to learn through humility so as to be knowledgeable on things that are in darkness to you*. So ponder

You claim that West Africa doesnt predate Mesopotamia, and i say provide with the proof instead of calling me Afrocentric. Before you go any further, kindly answer to your initial claims.


(1.) Believing Mesopotamia or Khemet predates West African history in total contradiction to the evidence.

The bases of the presumption lies on floored intelligence.

(2.) Suggesting that Yoruba & Hebrew are one and the same.

Assuming all your assertions on the connections are fact, then, as previously stated, would go further to prove that the Hebrew language might have derived from the Yoruba language, since its universally accepted that West African history predates that of Western Asia.

Where do you think humans originate?

morpheus24:
spoken like a true Afrocentrist

I am really an Africanist, an advocate for a forever successfull Africa, yet i agree with you nevertheless on your Afrocentrist qualification.

jantavanta:
The concept of race is just a few hundreds of years old. It was created to justify the economic disenfranchisation of people who are not in a position of relative military strength.

The infamous one-drop rule that defines any American having a Black ancestor as Black, no matter how White they look is an example.

Many Black Native American Nations were classified as Negroes in order to deny them of Indigenous Peoples' privileges.

The link between Africa and the Americas has never been broken. The Ancient Egyptians visited there. Kanka Musa of Mali's brother travelled there.

Indeed i agree with much of what you say here, and would go further to say, the term 'race' is a social scientific contruct that has no meaning outside of its maiden use (social science).

The term 'race' is an allegory that has double the effect of similar terminologies of its type.

Some socio-scientific constructs come with special abilities, as is with the term 'race'.

For instance, let's assume these three distinct sociological complexes:

Superior complex
Well- Balanced
Inferior complex

Whoever calls or thinks someone a racist, activates the terms special ability:

1. Making the initial complainant knowingly or unknowingly experience inferiority complex.

2. Making the person they complained about knowingly or unknowingly experience superiority complex.

These are unmitigated facts.

Those that choose not to use terms like 'race' are not particularly exposed to the same socio-scientific conditions.


Stop making use of derogatory terminology like 'race', instead state exactly what has occured.

For instance, If i waived down a cab, and the driver chose to pick a different passenger (one that arrived later) and if it seems like the cab driver decisions has been clouded by discrimination, that is what i will think or say.

I would say to myself ( hyperthetical, have never experience such personally) that cab driver had his mind clouded with discrimination because he had clearly seen me flag his cab but instead chose to pick the next guy.

I would never say, the driver was a racist, because not only does it not have any legal weight, technically theres only one race on planet Earth; human race.

...

Its nothing short of an abomination to attempt the use of anti-African ideology or Rhetoric in the determination of African history, it just will not work that way in the 21st century.

In the 21st century, African academics will and already are determining for themselves the TRUE African history. All the old and ill-judged Eurocentric and Arab assertions are bound to eventually be put out of official (African) use.

Lets recap:

morpheus24:
Dr Cheikh Anta Diop's works are a little old and some of it has been debunked and and updated.

Amujale:
Debunked by whom? And what part of his work are you referring to here?

morpheus24:
Dr Anta Diop challenged a lot of the Eurocentric view points on race that characterized the study of Anthropology, race in ancient Egypt and racial categories in Africa as a whole during much of the 19th century.

Though most of his studies were a welcome rebuttal to many a Eurocentric pseudo science that flew around at that time, such as the concept of the "True Negro theory" advanced by Carltoon coon and the likes, Diop died in 1986 and was not privileged to see the advancements and contributions of human genetics into the field of Anthropology. This new data debunks a good number of his ascertions about the relevance of how genetics plays into the origins of "Black African peoples" and so called "black peoples" that populate or populated the rest of the world at one time.

He was very much an anthropologist and historian at heart and discarded the genotypical contributions to the idea of the human identity for the more arbitrary social classification of humans as they interact in physical spaces.

Amujale:
In a way, Diop’s findings did not talk only about the genetics of Africans, but the genetic derivatives of the early humans and that has a huge significance.

What year is this new findings suppose to have been published? Who are the authors? What is the subject of debate specifically?

morpheus24:
I don't understand what you mean in the bolded part. Please elaborate.



You are going to make me dig through my journals now to find this for you but I will. A note to you, Anta Diop was not a very conventional scholar so in other words he did not publish his works for peer review as he was suspect of the methodologies of those who were supposed to review and critic his works but there are critics on his writings.

Amujale:
I think it’s self explanatory if you read into Diop’s works. He derives from his scientific conclusions the fact that the early humans (Africans) has all the building blocks of the genes present in the world today.



And? What is the precise point you are trying to make here. All historians are deemed by there peers to be unconventional, most African academics take it as a compliment.

Name me one African historian that your type considers conventional? Socrates was unconventional during his time, yet he makes better sense in 2019.

Furthermore, Africans don’t need to proof our theories and hypothesis to anyone, because Africans academics in most cases are THE authority on their given course of study, e.g Dr Anta Diop

Before the likes of Anta Diop one of a team of academics that are still considered today the most qualified team ever to have been assembled to look into pre-colonial Africa.

The only other studies been done into pre - colonial Africa was that of some mediocre scholars that had little or no background in archeology, anthropology or any of the earth sciences.

Even though Anta Diop and his team are considered unconventional, that is because they explored concepts and made use of genuine scientific aparatuses other academia refuse to , in time, you will find that they are rightfully considered the leading authorities.

morpheus24:
1.Most scientists are in agreement with the fact that modern humans aka Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and contributed to the genes inherited by their modern counter parts. Diop is neither the originator nor only source of this knowledge or scientific conclusion.

2. These Anatomically Modern humans that evolved in Africa possessed the building blocks that made "Modern AfricanS" and "NON African" peoples alike

3. All African people today do not have the same genetic material but have the most diverse. In other words those early Modern Humans that remained in Africa are closer to proximity to us than to NON Africans.

4. Africans today are not the same people as early or Modern Humans both phenotypically and Genotypical. We also evolved into different looking types of people as our NON African cousins. There are some African who are much closer in proximity in terms of genetics to the early humans that that older mutations and there are some that carry younger versions much like people outside of the continent.

5. The oldest recorded MTDNA_Mitrochondial DNA_ L0 passed on from daughter to daughter is found in Africa and present in the oldest known peoples in Africa, the Khoisan. The divergence continues throughout Africa with L1, L2, L3, M, N etc.

6. West and Central Africans carry the L2 frequency at the highest level which means an ancestor of Mdtna L or L0 diverged and produced the females that inhabit West and Central Africa today producing genetic variation between the two groups which sometimes can correlate to Physical attributes.

7. This phenomena is what happened as Humans migrated out of Africa. L2 to L3 then all the subclades of L to M in the middle east back to Africa againthen to N and so on.

8. These changes correlate with certain physical traits in Humans but is not necessarily the cause of the differences in the differing physical traits.

Conclusion the earliest Humans in Africa gave rise to all of us today Africans and NON Africans. The first humans very likely are more similar in appearance to what you refer to as "Black people" today but that does not mean they looked exactly like we do today. I don't know if you understand what that points to.

Amujale:
Kindly stop trying to convey your warped interpretation of African academia to us. Instead provide us with the evidence of your initial claims.

morpheus24:
1.Most scientists are in agreement with the fact that modern humans aka Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and contributed to the genes inherited by their modern counter parts. Diop is neither the originator nor only source of this knowledge or scientific conclusion.

Most modern day scientist agree with Diop on that point.

morpheus24:
2. These Anatomically Modern humans that evolved in Africa possessed the building blocks that made "Modern AfricanS" and "NON African" peoples alike

That is just a nonsensical statement.

morpheus24:
3. All African people today do not have the same genetic material but have the most diverse. In other words those early Modern Humans that remained in Africa are closer to proximity to us than to NON Africans.

In my opinion that is one of greatest allegorical statements ever to make it to the publishers. The statement is true but insignificant compared to the TRUTH, which is that early humans are closer to proximity to us Africans.

morpheus24:
4. Africans today are not the same people as early or Modern Humans both phenotypically and Genotypical. We also evolved into different looking types of people as our NON African cousins. There are some African who are much closer in proximity in terms of genetics to the early humans that that older mutations and there are some that carry younger versions much like people outside of the continent.

According to African studies, that statement is completely and utterly false. Untrue.

morpheus24:
7. This phenomena is what happened as Humans migrated out of Africa. L2 to L3 then all the subclades of L to M in the middle east back to Africa again then to N and so on.

Again, according to African studies, that statement is completely and utterly false. Untrue.

morpheus24:
Conclusion the earliest Humans in Africa gave rise to all of us today Africans and NON Africans. The first humans very likely are more similar in appearance to what you refer to as "Black people" today but that does not mean they looked exactly like we do today. I don't know if you understand what that points to.

Amujale:
Another one of greatest allegorical statements ever to make it to the publishers. Try reading that back to yourself a few times and maybe you will understand my point.

Since much of the body of contents are based on floored assertions, the conclusion is deemed false. Your arguments are based on floored intelligence and anti-African rhetoric.

morpheus24:


What part of genetic evidence did they toss in the bin??


I will stop here because it seems you do not understand the genetic implications of anything I have posted and are babbling about some Anti African conspiracy theory

The analyses below is based on a flawed premise.

morpheus24:
Here is genetic studies today that supercedes some of his assertions

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707631826:
"mtDNA Analysis of Nile River Valley Populations: A Genetic Corridor or a Barrier to Migration?"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707624173:
"A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa"

Furthermore, like i have specified earlier, The Nile civilisation' represents 5% of African civilisation. Therefore the significance of their analysis cannot represent the entire continent.

morpheus24:
What part of genetic evidence did they toss in the bin??

The mtDNA analysis is tunnel-vision and more importantly, is based on a flawed premise.

morpheus24:
Dr Cheikh Anta Diop's works are a little old and some of it has been debunked and and updated.

The above statement is false because you have failed to provide such evidence to back your claims, what you present here today is not a rebuttal of Diop's conclusions, rather a mere argument that is privy to the North of Africa.

morpheus24:
2. These Anatomically Modern humans that evolved in Africa possessed the building blocks that made "Modern AfricanS" and "NON African" peoples alike

Amujale:
That is just a nonsensical statement.

morpheus24:
What specifically is nonsensical and why?

The author goes out of his/her way in a hopeless attempt to try an differentiate early Africans from their modern peers.

Why not "These people that evolved in Africa possessed the building blocks that is in the people of today" ?

Let me make it clear the fact that the early Africans are as human as humans in the world today, to think otherwise is totally missing the point, the misconception of the Real human against the earlier semi-human is based on false and mis-conceptions, however, i digress.

morpheus24:
4. Africans today are not the same people as early or Modern Humans both phenotypically and Genotypical. We also evolved into different looking types of people as our NON African cousins. There are some African who are much closer in proximity in terms of genetics to the early humans that that older mutations and there are some that carry younger versions much like people outside of the continent.

Amujale:
According to African studies, that statement is completely and utterly false. Untrue.

morpheus24:
What do you mean by according to African studies., Does the only information that you deem true come from African studies?

African studies is the study of African history or culture by African academics and or scholars.

morpheus24:
What is floored intelligence, there are floored points, floored information, floored conclusions but not floored intelligence.

Facts are verifiable and tested, if the conclusions are the same after repetition again and again there are factual so I don't know what you mean here.

morpheus24:
Here is genetic studies today that supercedes some of his assertions

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707631826:
"mtDNA Analysis of Nile River Valley Populations: A Genetic Corridor or a Barrier to Migration?"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707624173:
"A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa"

The Nile civilisation' represents 5% of African civilisation.

The mtDNA analysis is tunnel-vision and more importantly, is based on a floored premise. Therefore, what you present here today is not a rebuttal of Diop's conclusion, rather a counter argument. One that most African academics have already tossed into the bin.

morpheus24:
Maybe you are trying to explain what is know as "Confirmation bias" is science where before the experiment is conducted the person performing the test already has an intrinsic bias and taints the data with his own bias.

Yes, some Eurocentrics and Arab academics and scholars are known to have these type of practises in their repertoire.

Most African academics nowadays rely on all their senses and scientific prowess instead of some out-dated well concocted anti-African theorems. E.g if you read anywhere what the height of the Atum's obelisk are suppose to be, you are taught not to use that in any of your calculations; go and measure for yourselves. These are the ways of the African academics of today, thorough, precise, a perfectionist; that's how they are able to come up with their conclusions.

morpheus24:
Here are summaries of Cheik Anta diops findings on Ancient Egyptian DNA that tie them Anthropologically, linguistically and genetically.


http://worldhistoryandanthropology..com/2014/02/10-arguments-from-cheik-anta-diop-that.html.

Kindly stop trying to convey your warped interpretation of African academia to us.

morpheus24:
Here is genetic studies today that supercedes some of his assertions

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707631826:
"mtDNA Analysis of Nile River Valley Populations: A Genetic Corridor or a Barrier to Migration?"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707624173:
"A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa"


You are a big boy, read through them but so you don't get confused basically what the articles refer to in relation to Anta diops analysis is that on a genetic level the origins of Egyptians and Africans by extension are far more complex that simply blood group tests and thus the designation of "Egyptians as black people"

I was reading through with great expectations but just like all other anti-African writings that claims to be scientific yet is based loosely on a tunnel-vision, it tethered out onto a tangent. That is to say, the initial premise is false.

Firstly, 'The Nile civilisation' represents 5% of African civilisation.

Since, if the premise of theory is false, then, the conclusion is deemed equally to be false.

The mtDNA analysis is tunnel-vision and more importantly, is based on a floored premise. Therefore, what you present here today is not a rebuttal of Diop's conclusion, rather a counter argument. One that most African academics have already tossed into the bin.

Secondly, Diop like most African academics already recognise that the civilisation went up the Nile not down and chose correctly to start in the mainland; whilst your guys stay in Egypt and claim they are studying African history. And, here again the premise for their analysis is found also to be false. Civilisation in African move up the Nile, fact.

morpheus24:
1.Most scientists are in agreement with the fact that modern humans aka Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and contributed to the genes inherited by their modern counter parts. Diop is neither the originator nor only source of this knowledge or scientific conclusion.

Most modern day scientist agree with Diop on that point.

morpheus24:
2. These Anatomically Modern humans that evolved in Africa possessed the building blocks that made "Modern AfricanS" and "NON African" peoples alike

That is just a nonsensical statement.

morpheus24:
3. All African people today do not have the same genetic material but have the most diverse. In other words those early Modern Humans that remained in Africa are closer to proximity to us than to NON Africans.

In my opinion that is one of greatest allegorical statements ever to make it to the publishers. The statement is true but insignificant compared to the TRUTH, which is that early humans are closer to proximity to us Africans.

morpheus24:
4. Africans today are not the same people as early or Modern Humans both phenotypically and Genotypical. We also evolved into different looking types of people as our NON African cousins. There are some African who are much closer in proximity in terms of genetics to the early humans that that older mutations and there are some that carry younger versions much like people outside of the continent.

According to African studies, that statement is completely and utterly false. Untrue.

morpheus24:
7. This phenomena is what happened as Humans migrated out of Africa. L2 to L3 then all the subclades of L to M in the middle east back to Africa again then to N and so on.

Again, according to African studies, that statement is completely and utterly false. Untrue.

morpheus24:
Conclusion the earliest Humans in Africa gave rise to all of us today Africans and NON Africans. The first humans very likely are more similar in appearance to what you refer to as "Black people" today but that does not mean they looked exactly like we do today. I don't know if you understand what that points to.

Another one of greatest allegorical statements ever to make it to the publishers. Try reading that back to yourself a few times and maybe you will understand my point.

Since much of the body of contents are based on floored assertions, the conclusion is deemed false. Your arguments are based on floored intelligence and anti-African rhetoric.