[QUOTE="Blackbird, post: 872265, member: 3986" For me, blackenize means attributing to Black people things that can not be comprehensively proven to be of African or Black origin and that may be infringing on the cultural domain of other non white indigenous peoples.
Not that it matters much but many nonwhite indigenous people view some of the claims by Black scholars to be in the same category of Eurocentrism. They feel that we have become the cultural thieves like whites.
Either way we are focusing so intently on places out of Africa at the expense of undiscovered information in Africa. While we were trying to prove that the Olmecs were Black, discoveries were being made in Africa that would make the Olmecs look like johnny come latelies.
It was white archaeologists who made those discoveries and only after more information was known about the sophistication of those discoveries did a few Black scholars even jump onboard. The information is still relatively lacking in the Black community. We should have been first or at least the charge instead of getting the information like we usually do - second hand (given to us by the white archaeologists and then we take it and run with it or sift through the biases to add context).
There are a series of places in Western Africa that may rewrite the history known to both white and African historians and scholars alike. Things are coming out that are tentatively proving that narrative of our scholars may be out of date because they are still working on history given to them by white researchers and when the information was not known.
So far, like in the case of the Olmecs, there is no proof that they were involved in the production of iron. According to the archeological record, iron is distinctively lacking in terms of widespread materials of iron found in situ or the presence of places for iron production.
In contrast, iron production was an indigenous development in Africa, known at the time of the Olmecs and occupied a prominent place in African society throughout the continent. Africans mastered the production of iron at such a high competency that they were the first people to make steel. The material that sparked the industrial revolution. [/QUOTE] Though the African steel making technique needs to be updated/industrialized, especially as it is very efficient with regard to the resources required for production, what is your problem with the facts as verified by the 17 Olmec Heads unearthed to date, that Africans formed the minority ruling elite of the first technical culture [ceremonial platform and pyramid builders] in Mexico/the Americas?
Additionally, what is your explanation of the photograph and video I have of the explanatory text on the wall of the Mexican Gallery of the British Museum here in London, which states "These settlements featured public plazas, impressive earthen platform architecture and COLOSSAL STONE SCULPTURE OF OLMEC RULERS."
How would YOU explain the fact that there isn't and never has been a single photograph or model of any of the 17 Olmec Heads unearthed to date, included in the British Museum's Mexican Gallery exhibit?
Isn’t it also a fact that if massively superb sculptures of comparable antiquity were unearthed anywhere on this planet highlighting a European as opposed to African presence, that fact would be in ALL of their history books and rammed down our throats 24/7, as opposed to the far from subtle manner in which the Olmec Heads are STILL being ignored TODAY?
[QUOTE="Blackbird, post: 872265, member: 3986" I have no problem with the Olmec heads. They are heads and that's fine but to develop a complete narrative based on this... I don't know. Not saying its not true, I don't think anyone can conclusively say it is. Why do YOU think the British Museum have made the assertion underlined above, and can YOU [answer the other questions] provide any historical examples of ethnic clans/nations producing comparably massive monolithic sculptures of anyone other than their ruling elite/RULERS or GODS?
Not that it matters much but many nonwhite indigenous people view some of the claims by Black scholars to be in the same category of Eurocentrism. They feel that we have become the cultural thieves like whites.
Either way we are focusing so intently on places out of Africa at the expense of undiscovered information in Africa. While we were trying to prove that the Olmecs were Black, discoveries were being made in Africa that would make the Olmecs look like johnny come latelies.
It was white archaeologists who made those discoveries and only after more information was known about the sophistication of those discoveries did a few Black scholars even jump onboard. The information is still relatively lacking in the Black community. We should have been first or at least the charge instead of getting the information like we usually do - second hand (given to us by the white archaeologists and then we take it and run with it or sift through the biases to add context).
There are a series of places in Western Africa that may rewrite the history known to both white and African historians and scholars alike. Things are coming out that are tentatively proving that narrative of our scholars may be out of date because they are still working on history given to them by white researchers and when the information was not known.
So far, like in the case of the Olmecs, there is no proof that they were involved in the production of iron. According to the archeological record, iron is distinctively lacking in terms of widespread materials of iron found in situ or the presence of places for iron production.
In contrast, iron production was an indigenous development in Africa, known at the time of the Olmecs and occupied a prominent place in African society throughout the continent. Africans mastered the production of iron at such a high competency that they were the first people to make steel. The material that sparked the industrial revolution. [/QUOTE] Though the African steel making technique needs to be updated/industrialized, especially as it is very efficient with regard to the resources required for production, what is your problem with the facts as verified by the 17 Olmec Heads unearthed to date, that Africans formed the minority ruling elite of the first technical culture [ceremonial platform and pyramid builders] in Mexico/the Americas?
Additionally, what is your explanation of the photograph and video I have of the explanatory text on the wall of the Mexican Gallery of the British Museum here in London, which states "These settlements featured public plazas, impressive earthen platform architecture and COLOSSAL STONE SCULPTURE OF OLMEC RULERS."
How would YOU explain the fact that there isn't and never has been a single photograph or model of any of the 17 Olmec Heads unearthed to date, included in the British Museum's Mexican Gallery exhibit?
[QUOTE="Blackbird, post: 872265, member: 3986" I have no problem with the Olmec heads. They are heads and that's fine but to develop a complete narrative based on this... I don't know. Not saying its not true, I don't think anyone can conclusively say it is. Why do YOU think the British Museum have made the assertion underlined above, and can YOU [answer the other questions] provide any historical examples of ethnic clans/nations producing comparably massive monolithic sculptures of anyone other than their ruling elite/RULERS or GODS?
Isn’t ANYONE who genuinely believes they are not programmed
graphically illustrating that their programming is COMPLETE?
graphically illustrating that their programming is COMPLETE?