In Defense of Afrikan-Centered Scholarship from Unprovoked attacks by Meso-American so-called Scholars
In Defense of Afrikan-Centered Scholarship from Unprovoked attacks by Meso-American so-called Scholars
We now have these ‘Negro Race Traitors’ out here, who are going along with the nasty, racist vitriol being spewed by Meso-American so-called scholars and their silly ass followers, against our Grand Master Afrikan-Centered Scholars such as Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop, Dr. Theophile Obenga, Dr. Chancellor Williams, Dr. John Henrik Clarke, Dr. Yosef ‘Ben’ Jochannan, Dr. John G. Jackson, George G. M. James, Dr. Frances Cress Welsing, Neely Fuller, Dr. Charles Finch, Dr. Ivan Van Sertima, Dr. Jacob Carruthers, Dr. Beatrice Lumpkin, Dr. Marimba Ani, Dr. Tdka Maat Kilimanjaro, Dr. Tony Martin, Dr. Amos Wilson, Runoko Rashidi, Ashra Kwesi, Dr. Molefi Asante, Mwalimu K. Bomani Baruti, The Irritated Genie of Soufeese, and many others, while disputing the findings of an Afrikan Presence among the Olmecs. This vicious attack against our brightest and most adept scholars is unwarranted and unjustified. Such unprovoked, vicious, and slanderous attacks against our Afrikan-Centered Scholars is very similar to those attacks launched by Caucasian Euro-Centric, so-called scholars going back two-three decades ago. These racists, Meso-American so-called scholars cannot produce any evidence that refutes what our own eyes see for themselves. So, anyone who is pushing that there was no evidence of an Afrikan Presence among the Olmecs when there is plenty of evidence that there was, please present your evidence. Don’t just try to dispel or dismiss the sources that Dr. Ivan Van Sertima has presented as being un-credible. That might be the easy part. Where is your own evidence proving another more credible hypothesis that you, yourself or others have come up with that makes any logical sense? Where is your evidence of any field research done by those whom you present as credible?
And, while you’re at it, when you do so, I’d to love to see some actual sources, quotes, by Afrikan-Centered scholars, who disagree with Dr. Ivan Van Sertima too. Don’t just present sources by Meso-American Scholars.
Now, just to give you one example of the confusion out here. One of these mindless idiots even tried to tell me the second photo I’ve presented at the bottom of the article was actually a Monkey, instead of what my eyes are seeing. Really? And the reason I am referring to these dudes as ‘Race Traitors’ is that they don’t know or understand the Politics of History. And those of our people who are now buying into this nonsense are doing the work of these Meso-American racists ‘dirty work’ for them. They don’t understand that this is intellectual warfare. This is a War for the minds, bodies, and souls of our people everywhere and by supporting what they themselves haven’t researched, these mindless Black idiots are helping our enemies win it.
The fact that these so-called Meso-American so-scholars start out by equating Afrocentrism and/or Afrikan-Centeredness with being prejudice and racist and then attacking it and the scholars who articulate it, without any evidence justifying such a vicious attack speaks volumes. It’s an ad hominem attack. That’s nothing more than ‘A Strawman’s Argument’. I’ve even seen where they and their cohorts have created ‘A Strawman’s Argument’, on topics postulated by those who ascribe to the philosophy of the Moorish Science Temple and others, who postulate ideas such as ‘Atlantis’ or ‘The Land of Mu’, etc. They have created this Strawman’s Argument’ by ascribing such ideas to Afrikan-Centered scholarship. These ideas are not postulated by Afrikan-Centered Scholars. Such a view is not Afrikan-Centered at all. So, why push an idea not articulated and asserted by Afrikan-Centered Scholars? Why not take that issue up with those who postulate such Mystical fantasies?
What is crystal clear is that they are pushing an ‘Agenda’ and have been actively pushing that Agenda on us without many of us realizing it. So, what is the correct definition of an Agenda?
agen· da | \ ə-ˈjen-də \
Definition of agenda
1: a list or outline of things to be considered or done.
i.e. agendas of faculty meetings
2: an underlying, often ideological plan or program, a political agenda.
If you can’t see that there is an Agenda at play here, that is very problematic. None of these so-called Meso-American scholars or these ‘Race Traitors’ who are parroting their Agenda can even shine Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop’s shoes. Unlike them, Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop possessed Doctorates in several Scientific disciplines. He held Doctorates in Archaeology, Anthropology, Linguistics, Etymology, was a Mathematician, Chemist, and a Nuclear Physicist. So, which one of these so-called scholars possesses any or all the skillset that Diop possessed? That’s a major issue that I know they cannot overcome. They are throwing ‘total disrespect’ at our brightest and best Afrikan-Centered scholars and those who agree with them are foolishly joining in and helping them.
They act as if this discussion is over and settled. It isn’t settled at all. All they have is a hypothesis about what they think and nothing more. More research must be done. Sadly, many of our own people are following them. They have an Agenda too. Their Agenda is hidden in their disdain for our Afrikan-Centered Elders and Afrikan-Centered Ancestors’ scholarship and the fact that those Elders and Ancestors should be honored throughout the coming generations, not summarily discarded like some piece of trash, the way they are doing Van Sertima and others. By our continually honoring our own Afrikan-Centered Scholars these dudes want the shine and adulation we give to them.
What these Blacks, who are pushing the Meso-American narrative want is to be celebrated the way we celebrate our Afrikan-Centered Scholars and Researchers who’ve put in a lifetime of dedicated work and research, such as Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop, Dr. Theophile Obenga, Dr. Chancellor Williams, Dr. John Henrik Clarke, Dr. Yosef ‘Ben’ Jochannan, Dr. John G. Jackson, George G. M. James, Dr. Frances Cress Welsing, Neely Fuller, Dr. Charles Finch, Dr. Ivan Van Sertima, Dr. Jacob Carruthers, Dr. Beatrice Lumpkin, Dr. Marimba Ani, Dr. Tdka Maat Kilimanjaro, Dr. Tony Martin, Dr. Amos Wilson, Runoko Rashidi, Ashra Kwesi, Dr. Molefi Asante, Mwalimu K. Bomani Baruti, The Irritated Genie of Soufeese, and others, without putting in the research and the work they did. And by denigrating our own Afrikan-Centered scholars and researchers as they are doing, they think in their silly minds, they can replace them as our scholars. They shouldn’t be trying to replace them. Get your egos out of the way. Just put in the work, write your own books, papers, and research journals. That is what will speak for you–the work.
As to those Meso-American scholars, they have such disdain for our Afrikan-Centered scholars and researchers for having the nerve and the un-mitigating gall to approach this topic. These Meso-Americans have a coined narrative and they don’t want anybody to do anything or follow any other narrative aside from the one they have presented. And their Scholars are serving as Gatekeepers, Protectors, and Defenders of that narrative. And anything or anyone who comes out with a different narrative than the one that they have advocated they’re going to attack it vehemently. Information can come out that is 100% correct and accurate, but if it is against their narrative, they will still attack it. They will do this because they don’t want anyone presenting anything different than what they have been advocating. Now, what I ask is that instead of trying to downgrade the sources by Dr. Ivan Van Sertima and others, they present their own actual field research based on Archaeology, Anthropology, Etymology, and Linguistics that refutes the work of our own Afrikan-Centered Scholars on this topic, as well as on other topics?
I’ve included just several photos of Olmec stone heads. The last photo below, these so-called scholars assert is actually Monkey? Yeah, a Monkey. Monkeys do not possess the phenotype represented in the statues of the Olmecs, featured in the photos I’ve supplied below. In addition, the Monkey is not represented within the Olmec religious Pantheon of Gods. The Olmecs had a Priesthood as a part of the Religion, as well. What other ancient people on this planet had a powerful, strong Priesthood in ancient times, prior to the time period and existence of the Olmecs anywhere on this planet? What other ancient people on this planet uses Anthropomorphic and Zootipical imagery in their Religious Pantheon and in their Art? And what ancient people did so, and did so much earlier than the Olmecs did?
Here are some critical questions that no one has asked and certainly hasn’t answered.
(1) When each of these 8ft 20 Ton statues was created, what was the timeline for them and were all of them created at the same time?
(2) And what did the people look like at the time each of these 8ft 20 Ton statues was created?
(3) Where did the people get the ingenuity and technology to build each of these 8ft 20 Ton Statues?
(4) Where did these people come from, since we know everyone in the Western Hemisphere came from elsewhere on this planet?
(5) Every other Race and Culture on this planet has gone out of their way to cut out and/or erase the ‘Afrikan Presence’ and ‘influence’ (emphasis on ‘Presence’ and ‘influence’) on their Culture. So, why are the Meso-Americans viewed by us any differently?
(6) What kind of Culture was prevalent prior to those 8ft 20-ton statues being built?
(7) What was the Religious Pantheon of the Olmecs?
(8) Were Monkeys a part of the Religious Pantheon of the Olmecs?
(9) Has the Olmec Language been deciphered yet?
(10) What kind of Culture was prevalent afterward?
Here is a list of the Religious Pantheon of Gods of the Olmecs:
(1) The Olmec Dragon
The Olmec Dragon is depicted as a crocodile-like being, occasionally having human, eagle or jaguar features. His mouth, sometimes open in ancient carved images, is seen as a cave: perhaps, for this reason, the Olmec were fond of cave painting. The Olmec Dragon represented the Earth or at least the plane upon which humans lived. As such, he represented agriculture, fertility, fire and otherworldly things. The dragon may have been associated with the Olmec ruling classes or elite. This ancient creature may be the forebear of Aztec gods such as Cipactli, a crocodile god, or Xiuhtecuhtli, a fire god.
(2) The Bird Monster
The Bird Monster represented the skies, sun, rulership, and agriculture. It is depicted as a fearsome bird, sometimes with reptilian features. The bird monster may have been the preferred god of the ruling class: carved likenesses of rulers sometimes are shown with bird monster symbols in their dress. The city once located at the La Venta archaeological site venerated the Bird Monster: its image appears there frequently, including on an important altar.
(3) The Fish Monster
Also called the Shark Monster, the Fish Monster is thought to represent the underworld and appears as a frightening shark or fish with shark’s teeth. Depictions of the Fish Monster have appeared in stone carvings, pottery, and small greenstone celts, but the most famous is on San Lorenzo Monument 58. On this massive stone carving, the Fish Monster appears with a fearsome mouth full of teeth, a large “X” on its back and a forked tail. Shark teeth excavated at San Lorenzo and La Venta suggest that the Fish Monster was honored in certain rituals.
(4) The Banded-eyed God
Little is known about the mysterious Banded-eye God. Its name is a reflection of its appearance. It always appears in profile, with an almond shaped eye. A band or stripe passes behind or through the eye. The Banded-eye God appears more human than many of the other Olmec gods. It is found occasionally on pottery, but a good image appears on a famous Olmec statue, Las Limas Monument 1.
(5) The Maize God
Because maize was such an important staple of life of the Olmec, it’s not surprising that they dedicated a god to its production. The Maize God appears as a human-ish figure with a stalk of corn growing out of his head. Like the Bird Monster, Maize God symbolism frequently appears on depictions of rulers. This could reflect the ruler’s responsibility to ensure bountiful crops for the people.
(6) The Water God
The Water God often formed a divine team of sorts with the Maize God: the two are often associated with one another. The Olmec Water God appears as a chubby dwarf or infant with a gruesome face reminiscent of the Were-Jaguar. The Water God’s domain was likely not only water in general but also rivers, lakes and other water sources. The Water God appears on different forms of Olmec art, including large sculptures and smaller figurines and celts. It is possible that he is a forebear of later Mesoamerican water gods such as Chac and Tlaloc.
(7) The Were-Jaguar
The Olmec were-jaguar is a most intriguing god. It appears as a human baby or infant with distinctly feline features, such as fangs, almond-shaped eyes and a cleft in his head. In some depictions, the were-jaguar baby is limp, as if it is dead or sleeping. Matthew W. Stirling proposed that the were-jaguar is the result of relations between a jaguar and a human female, but this theory is not universally accepted.
(8) The Feathered Serpent
The Feathered Serpent is shown as a rattlesnake, either coiled or slithering, with feathers on its head. One excellent example is Monument 19 from La Venta. The feathered serpent is not very common in surviving Olmec art. Later incarnations such as Quetzalcoatl among the Aztecs or Kukulkan among the Maya seemingly had a much more important place in religion and daily life. Nevertheless, this common ancestor of the significant feathered serpents to come in Mesoamerican religion is considered important by researchers.
What other people used ‘Hieroglyphics’ as their writing system? And did so, much earlier than the Olmecs did? These Meso-American scholars have spent their time condemning Van Sertima’s book, “They Came Before Columbus” and the sources contained in it. And yet, when asked, not one of them has honestly read “African Presence in Early America” by Dr. Ivan Van Sertima. Van Sertima’s book, “African Presence In Early America” was written to address the complaints and condemnation of the first book.
Here is the first paragraph from the introduction of “AFRICAN PRESENCE IN EARLY AMERICA”. By Dr. Ivan Van Sertima 15 yrs. later. Pg. 5.
“It is now 15 years since they came before Columbus the African presence in ancient America was first published. It appeared from Random House in January of 1977 and it’s now in its 11th printing. Like most controversial works, it has attracted the most extreme and vicious criticism as well as the most enthusiastic praise. Like most controversial works also, its most voluble commentators have either read it superficially or have misread it, for it is often praised and attacked for the wrong reasons, for saying things I did not say, for advancing positions I would neither entertain or defend. The time has come to present some of the new evidence that has emerged since then in this steadily expanding field. It has also become necessary to clarify the stands I took nearly a decade ago and to reexamine the case for a pre-Columbian contact between Africans and Native Americans with a greater scholarly precision and lucidity.”
Where does it say that in order to research Meso-America you must have a Doctorate in Meso-American Studies? If one is an Archaeologist, Anthropologist, Linguist, and Etymologist, etc., they’d be more than qualified to speak or write about any issues relative to World History, where those scientific disciplines I listed above are required, not just a particular geographical location. How many of you have had to do a research paper on topics you weren’t getting your major in or have knowledge of? Such silliness and arrogance by those who have an Agenda. The requirement is not that you are an expert or even taking that major for the topic. The requirement is that you apply the fundamentals and scientific methodology of research.
And these silly asses make the ridiculous argument that any Afrikan-Centered scholar must consult with Meso-American scholars before researching and/or publishing their work. Really? Generally, scholars do not consult other scholars before researching their subject? Who does that? How many of these so-called Meso-American scholars consult anyone before researching and/or publishing their works? How many of these so-called Meso-American scholars have conducted any field research of their own on the Olmecs themselves? Have they actually been to Southeastern Mexico, and conducted any field research in Tres Zapotes, La Venta, Vera Cruz, and Tabasco themselves, as Van Sertima has done? How many of these so-called Meso-American scholars consulted any Afrikan-Centered scholars listed above, that they so vehemently disrespected before publishing that nonsense paper entitled, “Robbing Native American Cultures”?
- 1.the study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of artifacts and other physical remains.
- Powered by Oxford Dictionaries
- 1.the study of human societies and cultures and their development.
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries
1The study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history.‘the decline of etymology as a linguistic discipline’Powered by Oxford Dictionaries
treated as singular The scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of grammar, syntax, and phonetics. Specific branches of linguistics include sociolinguistics, dialectology, psycholinguistics, computational linguistics, comparative linguistics, and structural linguistics.
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries
the determination of the age of objects of organic origin by measurement of the radioactivity of their carbon content.
A form of radiometric dating used to determine the age of organic remains in ancient objects,
- such as archaeological specimens, on the basis of the half-life of carbon-14 and a comparison between the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in a sample of the remains to the known ratio in living organisms. Also called carbon dating, carbon-14 dating. American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
- radiocarbon dating (Archaeology) a technique for determining the age of organic materials, such as wood, based on their content of the radioisotope 14C acquired from the atmosphere when they formed part of a living plant.
- The 14C decays to the nitrogen isotope 14N with a half-life of 5730 years. Measurement of the amount of radioactive carbon remaining in the material thus gives an estimate of its age. Also called: carbon-14 dating
- Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
- So, my question is this: Where do any of these Scientific disciplines denote the necessity and requirement of anyone consulting any other scholars before publishing their find
Now, I want you to read what they say about our Grand Master Afrikan-Centered Scholars in their so-called rebuttal, entitled, “Robbing Native American Cultures”. Read some of the nasty vitriol included in their ‘rebuttal’ in their ‘response’ entitled, “Robbing Native American Cultures”. Then I want you to watch the 30-minute youtube video I’ve included here, of Dr. Ivan Van Sertima below himself and you tell me. They are running this nonsense about what they refer to as ‘Lookership’. Damn fools. How many of these so-called Meso-American ‘scholars’ have done actual field work on the Olmecs, as Dr. Ivan Van Sertima has done? The first thing any Archaeologist or Anthropologist would do is analyze what he or she has discovered by looking at it and analyzing it. That is called Archaeology. So, I guess what we actually see with our own eyes is not worthy of consideration in what we find? If the sky is blue and I tell you it’s poker-dot, even though you can clearly see that the sky is blue, are you going to believe its poker-dot? What we see with our own eyes is called self-evident.
There are even some who claim that many of the artifacts found there are ‘fake’. The question I ask is this: Are you accusing Dr. Ivan Van Sertima of creating these ‘fake artifacts’? If not, we must conclude that these ‘fake artifacts’ must have been created by Caucasians or others. So, what would be the motive for Caucasians or others to create ‘fake artifacts’ that would establish an early Afrikan presence in America, prior to Christopher Columbus (Cristo Colon) coming to the Western Hemisphere in 1492? How would such a revelation positively help maintain the system of Racism white-Supremacy? In addition, this isn’t to say we shouldn’t consider other pieces of actual evidence. Quite the contrary. However, the first thing one must consider is the actual evidence, not sources. This is what is called ‘Prima Facie evidence’. Those 8ft 20-ton statues are actual evidence.
‘Prima Facie evidence’
[Latin, On the first appearance.] A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.
And to those who want to assert that there are Afrikan-Centered scholars who don’t agree with Dr. Ivan Van Sertima’s last findings on this subject in his book, “African Presence In Early America”, present these Afrikan-Centered scholars who disagree with him, present their quotes, and any research they, themselves have done on this topic or be quiet until you can do so. And those who want to make his sources an issue, you need to consider what ‘Prima Facie evidence’ actually is. You need to consider the fact that Dr. Ivan Van Sertima conducted his own field research, as well. So, unless you can provide ‘Prima Facie evidence’ that refutes what we can actually see with our own eyes, that must be our first position on this issue. What those of our people who support such attacks against our Afrikan-Centered scholars do not understand is ‘Intellectual Warfare’ and ‘the Politics of History’. Those who take the position of the ‘Meso-Americans’ accusation that we are ‘robbing them of their culture’ don’t even realize that what they are doing is pushing the ‘Meso-Americans’ Racist narrative and doing so, even stronger and better than they are. The Meso-Americans position is just as Racist as the Caucasians position is on everything that isn’t a part of their own Culture. They are trying to downgrade our contributions to Civilization just as Caucasians do.
Most of these ‘so-called’ Meso-American Scholars making these claims were not born in Mexico and are not related to the Mayans at all. Nor are any of these ‘so-called’ Meso-American scholars related to the Olmecs either. Most of them were born in the United States of America. So, making the accusation that Black people are ‘robbing them of the culture’ is ludicrous. In addition, there is no evidence that proves that the Mayans are related to the Olmecs, nor is there any evidence that proves that the Olmecs were related to the Mayans. Despite these ‘so-called’ Meso-Americans wanting this to be a fact, they cannot provide any conclusive DNA evidence proving this desire to be a fact either.
Here is another quote that those who are critics of Dr. Ivan Van Sertima need to contemplate on:
“There, a people now forgotten, discovered, while others were yet Barbarians, the elements of the arts and sciences. A race of men, now rejected from society for their sable skin and frizzled hair, founded on the study of laws of nature, those civil and religious systems which still govern the Universe”.- “The Ruins of Empires, pp.16-17, by Count F. Volney
In addition, here is Dr. Ivan Van Sertima’s ‘Reply to my critics’:
“An attack on my thesis that Africans made contact with America before Columbus in two major pre-Christian periods (circa 1200 b.c. and circa 800 b.c.) in addition to the Mandingo contact period (1310/1311 A.D.) has been circulated in advance to hundreds of subscribers to a journal, Current Anthropology. Copies of this attack by Bernard de Montellano, Warren Barbour, and Gabriel Haslip-Viera were also sent out to African-American scholars, some of whom were cited in the attack, dishonestly titled “Van Sertima’s Afrocentricity and the Olmecs.”
The title’s emphasis is meant to suggest that all revisions of African history by so-called “Blacks” belong to a common school, radiate from a common brain, and are cast in the same “racialist” hue and mode. This circular, which precedes my new book, REPLY TO MY CRITICS (scheduled to appear in Sept), seeks to highlight the brazen and malicious lies, slanders and misrepresentations that characterize this attack. Let it be noted that I was invited to respond to this attack but was forced to withdraw. The editor, after verbally agreeing that I could reprint my commentary, after the issue of the Journal appeared, did a dramatic about-turn when pressed to sign a written agreement to back up his word. He wrote that I could only reprint my “commentary” (15 pages) if I also reprinted the attack on me (50 pages) since “they form a unit.” To feel the full absurdity of this, just imagine the Jewish Defense League being forced to republish an extended Nazi-type attack on their positions in order to republish a brief response to such a slanderous attack.”
LIE ONE: – “Van Sertima’s expedition allegedly sailed or drifted westward to the Gulf of Mexico where it came in contact with inferior Olmecs. These individuals created Olmec civilization.” – De Montellano, Barbour and Haslip-Viera.
THE TRUTH: As far back as 1976, I made my position on this matter very clear. I never said that Africans created or founded American civilization. I said they made contact and all significant contact between two peoples lead to influences. “I think it is necessary to make it clear – since partisan and ethnocentric scholarship seems to be the order of the day – that the emergence of the Negroid face, which the archeological and cultural data overwhelmingly confirm, in no way presupposes the lack of a native originality, the absence of other influences or the automatic eclipse of other faces”-p. 147 of “They Came Before Columbus.” See also Journal of African Civilizations, Vol 8, No. 2, 1986 “I cannot subscribe to the notion that civilization suddenly dropped onto the American earth from the Egyptian heaven.”
LIE TWO: None of the early Egyptians and Nubians looked like Negroes. “They have long, narrow noses…” “Short, flat noses are confined to the West African ancestors of African-Americans.” Again, “there is no evidence that ancient Nubians ever braided their hair. This style comes from colonial and modern Ethiopia.”
THE TRUTH: Narrow noses have been found among millions of pure-blooded Africans. We can see this among the Elongated and Nilotic types. My critics know nothing about the variants of Africa, ancient or modern. All the six main variants of the African have been found in the Egyptian and Nubian graves. For examples of ancient braided Nubian hair, see Frank Snowden’s “Before Color Prejudice,” As for Egypto-Nubians only having narrow noses, see Egyptian pharaohs in Vol 10 and 12 of the JAC and major Nubian pharaohs in Peggy Bertram’s essay (JAC, Vol.12) -Ushanaru, Plate 8, p 173; Taharka as the god Amun from Kawa Temples, Plate 9, p. 173; Shabaka, Plate 12, p. 176. Tanwetamani, Plate 16, p. 180. To say that these are narrow noses is to exhibit a colossal ignorance of African types in ancient Egypt and Nubia. The agenda behind this is to bolster their case that they could not have been models for any of the Olmec stone heads.
LIE THREE: Modern Egyptians look exactly as they did thousands of years ago. The composition of the Egyptian has not changed over the last 5000 years. Invasions by the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Arabs and Romans left them looking the same today as in the dawn of history.
THE TRUTH: This is a hasty misreading of the work of scholars like A.C. Berry, R. J. Berry and Ucko who point out that there is a remarkable degree of homogeneity in this area for 5000 years. What a superficial reading of this fails to note is that the period ends with the close of the native dynasties BEFORE the invasions of the Assyrian, Persian, Greek, Roman and Arab foreigners
LIE FOUR: Faced with the startlingly Negroid features of some of the Olmec stone heads, my critics try 4 ways out: (a) They are “spitting images of the native;” (b) they appear dark because some of them were carved out of dark volcanic stone; (c) some were made of white basalt which turned dark over time; (d) ancient Egyptians and Nubians were remote in physiognomy from sub-Saharan Negroes and none of them could have been models for any of the “Negro-looking” heads. Having said all that, they then claim that “races are not linked to specific physiognomic traits.”
THE TRUTH: No need to shoot them down on this. They turned the gun on themselves.
LIE FIVE: Nothing African has been found in any archeological excavation in the New World.
THE TRUTH: In the drier centers of the Olmec world – at Tlatilco, Cerro de las Mesas and Monte Alban – the Polish craniologist, Andrez Wiercinski, found indisputable evidence of an African presence. The many traits analyzed in these Olmec sites indicated individuals with Negroid traits predominating but with an admixture of other racial traits. This is what I have said. The work of A. Vargas Guadarrama is an important reinforcement of Wiercinski’s study. He found that the skulls he examined at Tlatilco, which Wiercinski had classified as Negroid, were “radically different” from other skulls on the site, bearing indisputable similarities to skulls in West Africa and Egypt.”
Ivan Van Sertima and the Olmec World: A Photo Essay
by Runoko Rashidi, D.D.
Independent Scholar, Global African Presence http://drrunoko.com/
Los Angeles, California USA; Paris, French Republic
The following is an excerpt from Uncovering the African Past: The Ivan Van Sertima Papers by Runoko Rashidi (London: Books of Africa, 2015).
“Ivan Van Sertima and the Olmec World: A Photo Essay”
by Runoko Rashidi, D.D.
“What today we are calling the Olmec civilization flourished in the present Mexican states of Vera Cruz and Tabasco. The highpoint of Olmec civilization was the eight-hundred year period from about 1200 BCE to about 400 BCE. The great centers of the Olmec world were San Lorenzo, La Venta and Tres Zapotes. San Lorenzo was the first of the three, beginning about 900 BCE. It was the greatest city in the Americas. La Venta came next, beginning about 900 BCE and remaining the most powerful center in the Americas until about 400 BCE. In La Venta was erected a great pyramid— probably at the time the largest such structure in the Americas.
It is important to note that Dr. Van Sertima did not think of the Olmec as an African civilization. He thought of it as a Mesoamerican civilization in which Africans entered at a pivotal period and exerted an influence that can only be described as dramatic. And what stands out the most about Olmec civilization are a series of massive stone heads. There are at least seventeen of these heads and all of them have the features of Africans. We do not know who the people depicted in the form of these heads. Ten of these heads were unearthed at San Lorenzo and four more at La Venta. Two were found at Tres Zapotes—the last great Olmec center
Perhaps those portrayed in the form of these massive heads were rulers, perhaps they were priestkings. Maybe they were gods. Each of the heads were carved from single blocks of stone. But whoever they were and whatever they were, they were surely, in appearance at least, highly Africoid. And this was Ivan’s major thrust, his major assertion, what he called his “thesis”—that the African presence in the Olmec world demonstrated that the African first entered the Western Hemisphere not as chattels, not as property, not as merchandise, not as enslaved people, but as masters in control of their own destinies. He was certainly not the first to make the argument but he was clearly the most persuasive and the most articulate. And for this, Ivan Van Sertima, we can never thank you enough! Well done, my brother!”
So, to be crystal clear. I am not asserting that Black/Afrikan people are indigenous to America, any part of it. We are Afrikan people. I am proud of this fact. I am not claiming that the Olmec population was Afrikan people either. What I am asserting is this: There was indeed an Afrikan presence among them. So much so, that the Olmecs constructed several 8 ft 20-ton statues that resemble Afrikans from the continent of Afrika. And finally, no one is trying to rob Native Americans of their Culture. Black people don’t need to rob anyone of anything nor do we desire to do so. But we are not going to rob our own people or deny our own people of our own presence, contributions, and influence on Meso-American Civilization and other ancient Civilizations either.
This is a shot over the bow!!!
‘Either you are ‘Race First’ or you aren’t.
(1) “Robbing Native American Cultures”
(2) Dr. Ivan Van Sertima “They Came Before Columbus”
(3) Dr. Ivan Van Sertima: “Reply to My Critics”
(4) “The Journals of African Civilizations”
By Dr. Ivan Van Sertima
(5) “African Americans Are Not Native American Indians You Are African”
(6) “The Gods of the Olmec”
(7) “African Presence In Early America”, Dr. Ivan Van Sertima
(8) Dr. Yosef Ben-Jochannan & George Simmonds (1987) | “African Origins” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRFf6CYzm_g&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2TNMSrFVa01quLwO2rCtdUFfbyQMHGFLv7tsxmyuf101K2IQ3b7txYgI8
(9) “African Presence In The Americas” by Carlos Moore
(10) “The Art of Terracotta Pottery in Pre-Columbian Central and South America” (New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1970), p. 79. Alexander von Wuthnau
(11) “ African Glory: The Story of Vanished Negro Civilizations”, DeGraft-Johnson, J.C. New York: Walker and Company, 1966.
(12) “Intellectual Warfare” by Dr. Jacob Carruthers
(13) “The Art of Research” by Tdka Maat Kilimanjaro, Ph.D.
(14) “African Time: Universe to 1896 A.D., vol.#1”, by Tdka Maat Kilimanjaro, Ph.D. Ife Kilimanjaro, Ph.D., and Yahra Aaneb, Seba