Excerpts concerning the Aryan Invasions of India

Listen Siblings, I come in peace,

“The problem with Europeans and Asians is Europeans and Asians; the solution for Africans is Africans!” — Onitaset Kumat

I can not pretend to know all of our story.  I am constantly learning.  But here I transcribe three quotations for our people, concerning how anciently Occidentals and Orientals hunted we Originals.  This should show, that the problems of the Original human did not begin with any social system of the last hundred or five-hundred years; but has been waged against us from times immemorial.  This is why I supply the succinct booklet “Maroon and Build For Self.”  Our people only need a simple equipment to retake our selves.  We also need to build African Blood Siblings Community Centers to seriously cultivate love, knowledge and wisdom.  Write to help.  Subscribe, share, love.

Excerpts concerning the Aryan Invasions of India
Collected by Onitaset Kumat

Mr. [Wilford] . . . informs us that many very ancient statues of the God Buddha in India have crisp, curly hair, with flat noses and thick lips; and adds, “nor can it be reasonably doubted, that a race of Negroes formerly had power and pre-eminence in India.”  This is confirmed by Mr. Maurice, who says, “The figures in the Hindoo [sic] caverns are of a very different character from the present race of Hindoos: their countenances are broad and full, the nose flat, and the lips, particularly the under lip, remarkably thick . . .” [The] testimony of the Rev. Mr. Maurice is fully confirmed by Sir W. Jones, who says, “The remains of architecture and sculpture in India . . . seem to prove an early connexion between this country and Africa . . . the ancient Hindus, according to Strabo, differed in nothing from the Africans but in the straightness and smoothness of their hair, while that of the others were crisp and woolly; a difference proceeding chiefly, if not entirely, from the respective humidity or dryness of their atmospheres.

— Godfrey Higgens in “Anacalypsis, Volume I

The Aryan invasions [of India] which led tot he collapse of the Semito-Negroid Indus Valley civilization plunged India into 2500 years of darkness lasting from 1500 BC to 1000 AD.  It may sound cruel but the Vedic religion does prescribe that the Aryan race is superior to other races and is hence justified in massacring, looting and ruling over all others.  These Brahmanic Dark Ages were the darkest ever experienced in the history of mankind.  The initial 1000 years, comprising the Vedic Dark Ages (1500 BC – 500 BC) of this episode were the darkest of all.  The Early Vedic Dark Ages were marked by two major devastating Aryan invasions.

–Uthaya Naidu in “The Bible of Aryan Invasions, Volume II

Although the land originally belonged to Sudroid [cf. Sudra] Negroes, these people were exterminated by blood-thirsty Aryan invaders in the cataclysmic Sudra [in Hindusim this means low caste] Holocaust.  The glorious Indus Valley Civilization was completely wiped out by the Vedic Aryans.  Moreover, the Buddhists and Jains were subsequently annihilated by the Brahminists [i.e. Aryans], and it is to free the oppressed peoples of South Asia, who were enslaved to the most tyranny of Brahminism, that Mahmud-e-Ghazni and the Islamic heroes decided to liberate South Asia.  Mughalstan thus meant liberation for millions of South Asians, who welcomed the establishment of Mughalstan in the regions depopulated by Brahminist Genocides.

Statements of Aims and Objectives [Mughalstan Nation]

Should you similarly be inspired to transcribe any literature for our people and want said literature posted here, “Submit an Article” by following the link above.

Related Posts:

GrievancesOur Grievances
A fire awoke a town such as this Masterful Sonnet ;-)
“The West Indian Solution of the Negro Problem” Shadeism’s Origin
Dark Girls: Official PreviewShadeism Film
Of Dismissing the “Willie Lynch Letter”Dispelling Myths

Note: This post was prompted by the discussion here: Dark Girls: Official Preview

19 thoughts on “Excerpts concerning the Aryan Invasions of India

  1. Not to be an apologist but I have never heard of any ‘Oriental’ group from the so-called Far East hunting Africans. Would it not be better to sub-label your ‘Oriental’ group as Levantine?

    1. I’ll try to queue references to the East Asian Predation on African people, but three facts can quickly be established here.

      First, the first two dynasties of China were African dynasties. This we can read from the Chinese’s own ancient lore. And of course they record how the “Mongolian-type” or Asian conquered the African type.

      Second, the Great Wall of China was constructed to its North, as a resistance to Asian predation. All Great Walls, to my knowledge, are built in the North, to resist Asian and European predation. The South being where Africans are.

      Third, in 1923, Dr. Joseph Rock of the United States Department of Agriculture ‘discovered’ a hitherto unknown “Negro” race (Africans,) the Nakhis, then numbering 200,000, in Southern China. These same ancient Africans in China were slaughtered by Mao Tse-tung in his cultural revolutions.

      I could go further, of course, but I am only demonstrating the universality of the Asian declamation.

  2. I think you have read too many Afrocentric books which are long on assertions but short on science. That said, it would be interesting to see your evidence when you publish on East Asians.

    1. I just reconsidered seeing how I hastily wrote the above attempt and now I am noting the uselessness of a greater explanation, seeing how I do not see what sort of evidence you are seeking.

      Do you doubt the above assertions? For instance, do you doubt the African presence in Ancient China as per being the first two dynasties? An exemplary resource there is Dr. Clyde Winters. His scholastic style is very standard, referencing affirming sources, conducting primary research and extrapolating by the data. Two resources on his works can be read here:

      http://clyde.winters.tripod.com/junezine/id1.html

      http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-black-african-foundation-of-china-the-first-chinese/

      If it’s ‘short on science’ then so be it. Truly, as evinced by your commentary, the Oriental experience is hardly understood in the Occidental world. By and by, however, it’s incredibly reasonable to presume China’s first dynasties were African, simply because the pattern of society was African with all the markers of African civilization to boot. A decent representation thereon, from an Asian no less, can be seen here:

      http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/ancient-black-chinese-from-east-africa-by-prof-jin-li-2/

      On the second assertion of the Great Wall to the North of China. What do you doubt? Beijing, China’s capital and a city in Northern China, for instance, is 39 degrees North and the Great Wall is more North of that. The wall was built for a reason. The other notable Great Wall is the Great Wall of Zimbabwe. There’s also a wall built by Rome, to its North.

      Finally, I gave you Joseph Rock’s name. Admittedly, it’d be difficult to find the reference seeing how you’d need to acquire a November 26th, 1933 New York Times, but the reference is there. In fact, here it is: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50613F8385B137A93C4AB178AD95F478385F9

      You’ll notice that, unlike other old (and older) articles, this one is not free . . ..

      This I just found out but it is informative, no less. Why isn’t this article available? What about it? Questions you should ask yourself. Especially understanding that it promises to be a first-hand account of African people in modern China. If you notice the title: “Says Nakhis Now Have Cultare [sic] 2,000 Years Old.” More it’s written that ” The first paragraph is not available for this article.” It may be ‘short on science’ but when you understand what’s ago, you understand ‘why.’

      Or maybe you do not doubt the Nakhis but Mao Tse-tung’s cultural revolution. But I can not see why. Innumerable people know that Mao Tse-tung’s cultural revolution was a violent affair that targeted specific groups. It’s little known that one population was Black, but it’s not anything radical to assert.

      While you are privileged to think on another man’s mental diet, I prefer rather than making assumptions that you make it explicit as to how I may please you. You had asserted that the East Asian should be exempt from the Oriental categorization as I used it, but I find that I more than supplied enough information. I can accept that I didn’t give particular resources, but I do not know why you would need those resources if you only wish to know of East Asian predations on African people and you are a capable researcher.

      Personally, I think that the simple fact of China being anciently populated by African people, and not only this history being denied, but China hardly has an African face within it is a testament to the fact of an African genocide.

      I’m even reminded of the modern Chinese state’s economic predation on Africa, and the conditions therein (if you read them.)

      I say, what is it that you require of me? I aim to please.

  3. I doubt the above assertions because they are in ancient history which is open to all sorts of interpretation and makes more for racial superiority theses than for fact. I take issue with Winters because if he has a PhD, he should have at least published his thesis in one peer-reviewed article and to my knowledge, no anthropologist believes that the first two Chinese dynasties were African (or Negrito) in origin. All that I ask is for the standard scholarly method of anthropology and genetics. Frankly, even if I were to believe you, it would be a mountain to prove scientifically. The data is too scarce or non-existent for anthropology and cladistics makes racial genetics somewhat of an arbitrary art.

    1. You have it the other way around. “Anthropology” and “Cladistics” are and have historically been used for racial superiority theses. However, depending on the “Anthropology” of your choice, you can find that by simply looking into the Ancient Chinese records and extrapolating honestly based on what’s known historically, one can find the African origins of Ancient China.

      To do this, one needs read a researcher on China. For our sake, we’ll look for a “more-or-less” honest European who researched China and luckily we find one here:

      http://archive.org/stream/chineseclassics07legggoog#page/n206/mode/2up

      The author of page 207/516 of the document has researched China diligently from its own historical records, then decided to share his research with a European audience. I can show you with select quotations that the Ancient Chinese were not indigenous, they migrated from the West, they were overrun by the Mongolians, they were physically different from the Mongolians, they practiced African cultural traits like “Astronomy” and “Agriculture” and “Spiritual Worship” despite that the Mongolians didn’t and little more needs to be said on the matter.

      Here are my notes:

      From page 207 of 516, (or page 189 of the actual document) Chapter V begins. Chapter V is a document called “The Ancient Empire of China” which resorts to researching Ancient Chinese documents to determine how the Ancient Chinese posed their lifestyles. Naturally, the author, a European, puts in his Christain background, but certain things that he mentions needs to be highlighted.

      You do not believe that the Chinese were ever non-Mongoloid, I conceive? However, according to the Chinese record, the Chinese themselves suddenly came into China. I.e. the first sentence of this man’s interpretation of China’s history is that they were not indigenous to China: “About two thousand years before our Christain era, the Chinese tribe first appeared in the country.”

      It’s seen in these Ancient Chinese not only African culture but the truth of a Mongolian element lurking in the distance. For example, the author continues on the next page: “and then gradually forced its way, east, west, and south, conflicting with the physical difficulties of the country, and prevailing over the opposition of ruder and less numerous neighbors.” The ‘ruder and less numerous neighbors’ are the Asians. We can tell by the African culture exhibited later, but also by the fact that these Ancient Chinese were visitors to China and the Mongolians were within.

      Later on this same page (190 of the document) it is spoken that the second dynasty of China, the Shang, are overrun by the indigenous people. Onward, China is Mongolian. However, this here alone is sufficient evidence to the theme in question. Still, to continue.

      On page 191 [ibid] the author points out that the Chinese distinguished the earliest settlers as “Black-haired people.” Clyde Winters asserts that another translation as “Black-headed people” but when you look further at the cultural indications, you can tell that it’s just “Black people” or Africans. The author however struggles with this translation, seeing how all Chinese people are “Black-haired” today. He does say something important however, “The wild tribes of which we read in the Shoo and Chinese history, were, no doubt, black-haired, as all the remnants of them are at the present day.” So to speak, the “wild tribes” mentioned are the Mongolian type. Whereas the “Black-haired” were distinguished from the Mongolian type. He concedes later, despite his Christian reasoning, that the Ancient Chinese entered from the West; he writes “I should say that its origin was anterior to their entrance into China, and that it was employed to distinguish them from other descendants of Noah, from whom they separated, and who, while they journeyed to the east, moved in an opposite and western direction.” What he’s saying in laymen terms is that the Chinese nomination of “black-haired” distinguishes the children of Noah one from the other. But it’s worth noting that he mentioned the presumed origins of these “black-haired” dynasties as without China from the West. The land to the West of China was known to the Ancient world as Ethiopia.

      He continues on this page, “It was to their greater civilization, and the various elements of strength flowing from it, that the Chinese owed their superiority over other early settlers in the country. . . . The black-haired people brought with them habit of settled labour [Note that this is an African trait] They did not consist, like that of nomads, in their herds and flocks [Note that nomadicism is non-African] . . . They displayed, immediately on their settlement, an acquaintance with the arts of agriculture and weaving. The cultivation of grain to obtain the staff of life, and of flax to supply clothing, at once received their attention. . . .

      “In addition to the above endowments, the early Chinese possessed the clements of intellectual culture. They had some acquaintance with astronomy [Note the similarities with Egypt and Kush, “astro-agricultural societies”], knew approximately the length of the year, and recognized the necessity of the practice of intercalation, to prevent the seasons, on a regard tow hich the processes of agriculture depended, from getting into disorder. They possessed also the elements of their present written characters [Note that it’s widely accepted that Egypt invented writing,] . . . the original immigrants, I believe, brought with them the art of ideographic writing or engraving. It was rude and imperfect, but it was sufficient for the recording of simple observations of the stars in their courses, and the surface of the earth, and for the orders by the government of the time. . . .

      “The habits of the other settlers were probably more warlike than those of the Chinese, but their fury would exhaust itself in predatory raids.” [This direct quotation borrows from my earlier language and our original dispute.]

      This is page 192 [Ibid.] if you are following. This however is the definitive proof of the African culture–to those who understand African culture. “The reader will understand that what I say in this paragraph on the religion and superstitions of the early Chinese will be based almost entirely on the documents of the Shoo; and that Book ahs to do with the sayings and doings of the emperors. . . .

      “The chiefs and rulers of the ancient Chinese were not without some considerable knowledge of God; but they were accustomed, on their first appearance in the country, if the earliest portions of the Shoo can be relied on at all, to worship other Spiritual Beings as well.” [Notice “spiritual”] There was no sacerdotal or priestly class among them; the were no revelations from Heaven to be studied and expounded [An Asian characteristic]. The chieftain was the priest for the tribe [Reminds you of Africa?]; the emperor, for the empire; the prince for a State, for his people; the father, for his family. [Africa . . .]

      “Shun had no sooner been designated by Yaou to the active duties of the government as co-emperor with him, than ‘he offered a special sacrifice, but with the ordinary forms, to God; sacrificed purely to the six Honoured ones; offered their appropriate sacrifices to the rivers and hills; and extended his worship to the host of spirits.'” [This is QED. This is an exact libation from the African tradition practiced in Africa today! In fact, I wrote about this in the Akan Libation I wrote earlier. One doesn’t need to go further, but you’re invited to.]

  4. How do you know if the researcher was honest? No group in Asia is indigenous per evolution but that does not mean that the Chinese hunted Africans in Asia. Your so-called African cultural traits assume that said traits could not have been shared temporally by other groups. All groups have traits like agriculture and spiritual worship and the Chinese were star gazers like everyone else, these are not sole African traits. The phrasing of the author may simply be a way of stating that 2000 BC was the only time for which there was recorded history, not that they weren’t there all the time.

    Gradual border increase does not mean that a group was not indigenous, just that they displaced other perhaps indigenous peoples. The ‘black-haired people’ would require more than simple linguistic correlation. You would need to find out how the language was used at that time and in what context which is interpretative at best given that we don’t have time machines. Thus for you to claim that this means black people or Negritos is to read modern cladistics into a very different context. You don’t know if the black-haired (or black-face) people were indigenous Asiatics with little or no African heritage and are presently extinct. You don’t know if they saw some brown people group and called them black since the Chinese saw themselves as ‘white’ before this word was hijacked by Europeans. You don’t know if the word ‘black’ is being used metaphorically, say because they saw a group who liked to paint their faces with black dye. How do you know the history was recorded accurately and not embellished in some form?

    “The land to the West of China was known to the Ancient world as Ethiopia.” – what is the source for this claim?

    Settled labour is a universal trait, Egypt was not an African society but one of African, Semitic, Aryan and European input. Your definite proof means you are a definite Afrocentrist race realist and not learned in the ways of scholarship. Correlation does not equal causation. No amount of cultural similarity warrants a definitive claim that the Chinese were African. If sacerdotalism is Asiatic, why are there African shamans or priests in some African tribal cultures? Did they get these from Asia? As for traditional African libation, where does it state that libation was performed? Does traditional African religion have “God”, “six Honoured ones” and “host of spirits” as well? And what would be your defense if the Chinese claimed that African took their traditions from them? In other words, how do you know the direction of tradition transfer assuming they occurred in the first place? And where is the genetic evidence?

    1. ChazIng, you must see in yourself that you’re only denying; worse you’re whole angle is to insult. As if you alone understand scholastics or you alone understand history. Oh please.

      For example:

      How do you know if the researcher was honest?

      This question can only come from someone without an argument. Why ask me this question? How do I know if you are honest? Isn’t that a dumb and irrelevant question?

      No group in Asia is indigenous per evolution but that does not mean that the Chinese hunted Africans in Asia.

      You hear display an unreasonable ignorance of ‘indigenous.’ Nevertheless, the claim is that the Chinese civilzation was a recent immigrant population. You can not dispute this using any record keeping.

      Your so-called African cultural traits assume that said traits could not have been shared temporally by other groups. All groups have traits like agriculture and spiritual worship and the Chinese were star gazers like everyone else, these are not sole African traits.

      Actually, all groups didn’t have agriculture and spiritual worship. For instance, the other groups in China, and Europe for that matter, were nomadic hunters. “Spiritual Worship” is not a doctrine of, for instance, Europe. And “Astronomy,” especially to the level of Ancient China wasn’t simply star gazing. More, it’s not a gradual growth but a sudden development after a population immigrated into China from the West. So to speak, even if you supposed that the Chinese were agriculturalist, spiritualist, astronomers, you could not explain why this was suddenly so after an immigration from the West.

      The phrasing of the author may simply be a way of stating that 2000 BC was the only time for which there was recorded history, not that they weren’t there all the time.

      No, I showed you what the author wrote. The author is writing that according to Chinese tradition, the first two dynasties were an immigrant population which brought the civilization from the West who were physically distinct from the Chinese of the third dynasty onward.

      Gradual border increase does not mean that a group was not indigenous, just that they displaced other perhaps indigenous peoples. The ‘black-haired people’ would require more than simple linguistic correlation. You would need to find out how the language was used at that time and in what context which is interpretative at best given that we don’t have time machines. Thus for you to claim that this means black people or Negritos is to read modern cladistics into a very different context. You don’t know if the black-haired (or black-face) people were indigenous Asiatics with little or no African heritage and are presently extinct. You don’t know if they saw some brown people group and called them black since the Chinese saw themselves as ‘white’ before this word was hijacked by Europeans. You don’t know if the word ‘black’ is being used metaphorically, say because they saw a group who liked to paint their faces with black dye. How do you know the history was recorded accurately and not embellished in some form?

      These are reasonable objections if you focus on the smallest picture. If this were the sole piece of evidence then sure you could be confused. But the cultural traits are too parallel to Africa’s and the designation of an immigration from the West is too evident of what’s ago, considering that African people have historically been a migratory people.

      “The land to the West of China was known to the Ancient world as Ethiopia.” – what is the source for this claim?

      The term Ethiopia applied to parts of Asia. Certain facts are conventional knowledge in historical circles. I actually first heard it from a White person attempting to prove that “Ethiopian” doesn’t mean “Black.”

      Settled labour is a universal trait,

      Then how do you explain that the non-“black-haired” didn’t do settled labour? What does universal mean to you?

      Egypt was not an African society but one of African, Semitic, Aryan and European input.

      The traits in question were African and relevant to Ethiopia, Africa south of the Sahara.

      Your definite proof means you are a definite Afrocentrist race realist and not learned in the ways of scholarship.

      What sort of ill-breeding do you manifest from? Is this how you rebut reason? First you accuse the European translator of dishonesty. Then you accuse the Ancient Chinese records as unclear. And now you accuse me of an ignorance despite my clear advantage and transparent methodology.

      Why not admit that you are not curious or seeking the truth but tribal and base? You’re a European, no? I’ll have you know that there is nothing non-scholastic about citing scholarly works and attaching it to one’s historical knowledge. And it’s hardly Afrocentric when one uses a work from a European or Asian, let alone a European whose research is on Asia’s own works.

      Correlation does not equal causation. No amount of cultural similarity warrants a definitive claim that the Chinese were African.

      This is where you distinguish yourself as someone inept. The pottery, portraits, sculptures, social organiation, religious structure, writing system, economic habits are each distinctly foreign to the Far East Asian, but identical to the African; more the modern Chinese admit that the first two civilizations were immigrants from the West. It’s unreasonable to not connect the dots. Just as we say that everyone on the Earth came from Africa because of the historical remnants, the case of these cultural remnants make these Ancient Chinese African. No other explanation exists. “Coincidence?” Only a fool would suppose so many coincidences happen in concert.

      If sacerdotalism is Asiatic, why are there African shamans or priests in some African tribal cultures? Did they get these from Asia?

      Learn to rebut with relevance, instead of this nonsense or your usual ad hominem.

      As for traditional African libation, where does it state that libation was performed?

      What was described was a traditional libation. In that exact same order is how Africans to this day perform libations. Your issue is one of ignorance. You do not understand what libations are, yet you argue where when one can find it after just reading it.

      Does traditional African religion have “God”, “six Honoured ones” and “host of spirits” as well?

      Yes. And they are honored in that identical pattern. Though the “Six” varies. In Ancient Egypt, there was a “Great Ennead,” sometimes of eight deities, when one recognizes the Creator separately. With the Dogon, there are six twins. With other groups there may be another number, but the “honored ones” are an African cultural trait to this day. The Akan call them Abosom. The Yoruba Orisha. But I do not care if you understand this, nor do I expect you to. You make me write good material for the truly curious.

      And what would be your defense if the Chinese claimed that African took their traditions from them?

      You pose another ignorant question. The Chinese claim that their first two civilizations were not of the wild ones who make up the third dynasty (Mongolian) and were immigrants from the West. It’s utterly ignorant to pose this rebuttal. Do you have no more reasoning that you resort to these petty questions? Seriously, what does your oh-so scholastic question of fancy have to do with the thesis?

      In other words, how do you know the direction of tradition transfer assuming they occurred in the first place? And where is the genetic evidence?

      You see. You don’t really have a rebuttal. You read the document yourself, I hope, and you see that I didn’t make up anything; I showed you that the Chinese themselves admitted that their current population was unlike the population which brought their civilization. Now you’re posing the question of the direction as if the Chinese already didn’t admit that their origins are to the West.

      As to genetic evidence, what will it prove to you? It’s known through genetic research that the Chinese are very related to the East Africans. Just search “genetics east African Chinese.”

      One such page shows you, http://www.pnas.org/content/95/20/11763.long

      Not Afro-centric.

      These following statements don’t really mean much:

      It is now probably safe to conclude that modern humans originating in Africa constitute the majority of the current gene pool in East Asia.

      The current analysis suggests that the southern populations in East Asia may be derived from the populations in Southeast Asia that originally migrated from Africa, possibly via mid-Asia, and the northern populations were under strong genetic influences from Altaic populations from the north. But it is unclear how Altaic populations migrated to Northeast Asia. It is possible that ancestral Altaic populations arrived there from middle Asia, or alternatively they may have originated from East Asia.

      But what good is this data to you? Everyone knows that the two are genetically tied and that genetics need not tell a story. You expose your misunderstanding of the science of genetics. You disregard ancient records of China to further your agenda of non-African pasts. You acknowledge that you do not know the cultural traits of ancient people. You endeavor to universalize very unique traits despite the counter-evidence. You pose stupid questions and defame ‘scholarship.’ Oh please.

      You’re a European, correct?

  5. Onitaset, I did not say that only I understood scholastics (sic), I said that you are not using the mainstream scientific method for anthropology and genetics. You made a non sequitur.

    Why ask me this question? – because you stated he was

    Isn’t that a dumb and irrelevant question? – only if you do not care about truth

    You can not dispute this using any record keeping. – As per evolution, ALL groups in Asia are immigrant including your fantasy Africans.

    … the other groups in China, and Europe for that matter, were nomadic hunters. – you don’t know this for certain, there could always be exceptions

    “Spiritual Worship” is not a doctrine of, for instance, Europe. – the European pagans would disagree with you

    And “Astronomy,” especially to the level of Ancient China wasn’t simply star gazing. – oh? So what astronomy (not astrology) did Africa produce which was replicated in ancient China?

    … you could not explain why this was suddenly so after an immigration from the West. – I don’t need to explain this, the burden of proof is on he who asserts i.e. you.

    No, I showed you what the author wrote. The author is writing that according to Chinese tradition, the first two dynasties were an immigrant population which brought the civilization from the West who were physically distinct from the Chinese of the third dynasty onward. – No, you showed that there were two ethnic groups, not two racial groups. Also, you did not show that the black-haired people had a civilization which was overtaken by the Chinese. Again, you are reading an Afrocentric interpretation into the narrative.

    These are reasonable objections if you focus on the smallest picture. If this were the sole piece of evidence then sure you could be confused. But the cultural traits are too parallel to Africa’s and the designation of an immigration from the West is too evident of what’s ago, considering that African people have historically been a migratory people. – Thus you don’t understand scholarship.

    The term Ethiopia applied to parts of Asia. Certain facts are conventional knowledge in historical circles. I actually first heard it from a White person attempting to prove that “Ethiopian” doesn’t mean “Black.” – no problem, but could you give a source for this?

    Then how do you explain that the non-”black-haired” didn’t do settled labour? What does universal mean to you? – Just because the non-black-haired did not do settled labour, this did not mean that they were not going to do this once settled (since they were migrants as you yourself claim). Claims of borrowing are hard to prove generally.

    What sort of ill-breeding do you manifest from? – It’s called the scientific method derived from years of engineering education

    Is this how you rebut reason? – That’s how science does it

    First you accuse the European translator of dishonesty. – did not, I asked how YOU knew he was honest. He could have even made an honest mistake.

    Then you accuse the Ancient Chinese records as unclear. – history even with records is interpretational

    And now you accuse me of an ignorance despite my clear advantage and transparent methodology. – transparent and sloppy

    You’re a European, no? – Only by hypodescent

    I’ll have you know that there is nothing non-scholastic about citing scholarly works and attaching it to one’s historical knowledge. – there isn’t, you didn’t do that however, you are quote mining and unquestioningly accepting sources with no critical thought to further Afrocentricism

    And it’s hardly Afrocentric when one uses a work from a European or Asian, let alone a European whose research is on Asia’s own works. – Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism is about the abuse of science not simply the use of science

    This is where you distinguish yourself as someone inept. The pottery, portraits, sculptures, social organiation, religious structure, writing system, economic habits are each distinctly foreign to the Far East Asian, but identical to the African – Really? Then I am in good company since thousands of anthropologists with PhDs are also too inept to see what is obvious to you

    more the modern Chinese admit that the first two civilizations were immigrants from the West. – geez, all groups in Asia immigrated there, no one is contesting that

    It’s unreasonable to not connect the dots. – It is unreasonable to connect dots where none exists

    Just as we say that everyone on the Earth came from Africa because of the historical remnants, the case of these cultural remnants make these Ancient Chinese African. No other explanation exists. “Coincidence?” Only a fool would suppose so many coincidences happen in concert. – As you wish, thousands of PhD anthropologists are fools.

    Learn to rebut with relevance, instead of this nonsense or your usual ad hominem. – you poor lost race realist, these are the questions that a thesis like this would arouse if it were to pass as science

    What was described was a traditional libation. In that exact same order is how Africans to this day perform libations. Your issue is one of ignorance. You do not understand what libations are, yet you argue where when one can find it after just reading it. – and of course, only Africans perform libations in this format right?

    Yes. And they are honored in that identical pattern. Though the “Six” varies. In Ancient Egypt, there was a “Great Ennead,” sometimes of eight deities, when one recognizes the Creator separately. With the Dogon, there are six twins. With other groups there may be another number, but the “honored ones” are an African cultural trait to this day. The Akan call them Abosom. The Yoruba Orisha. – and again, how do you know that the Africans did not get this from elsewhere? Why do you insist on a uni-directional cultural appropriation? And again, Egypt was not an African society but one of African, Semitic, Aryan and European input. The “Great Ennead” doesn’t count.

    But I do not care if you understand this, nor do I expect you to. You make me write good material for the truly curious. – good for me and the truly curious

    You pose another ignorant question. The Chinese claim that their first two civilizations were not of the wild ones who make up the third dynasty (Mongolian) and were immigrants from the West. – now why on earth would the ethnocentric Chinese claim that their first two civilizations were from non-Chinese? They even claimed that they evolved separately. So could you provide a source for this wild claim?

    It’s utterly ignorant to pose this rebuttal. – this is a question, not a rebuttal

    Do you have no more reasoning that you resort to these petty questions? Seriously, what does your oh-so scholastic question of fancy have to do with the thesis? – scholastic is not the same as scholarship, scholarship requires these questions, well non-Afrocentric scholarship anyhow

    You see. You don’t really have a rebuttal. You read the document yourself, I hope, and you see that I didn’t make up anything; I showed you that the Chinese themselves admitted that their current population was unlike the population which brought their civilization. Now you’re posing the question of the direction as if the Chinese already didn’t admit that their origins are to the West. – Even if this were true, it does NOT show by any means that their civilization was from the black-haired Africans just that some yet unknown people called black-haired were there before them, nothing else.

    As to genetic evidence, what will it prove to you? It’s known through genetic research that the Chinese are very related to the East Africans. – Very related? How much so? Even if you were correct, this does nothing for your Chinese killed the black-haired Africans claim.

    Just search “genetics east African Chinese.” …. One such page shows you, http://www.pnas.org/content/95/20/11763.long – This paper does not show that the Chinese hunted or miscegenated Africans in Asia. It shows that the Chinese like everyone else is from mitochondrial Eve. Not even European supremacists dispute this.

    But what good is this data to you? Everyone knows that the two are genetically tied and that genetics need not tell a story. You expose your misunderstanding of the science of genetics. You disregard ancient records of China to further your agenda of non-African pasts. – I never said that I believe or science shows that the Chinese have a non-African past. I said that YOU cannot show scientifically that they do have an African past.

    You acknowledge that you do not know the cultural traits of ancient people. You endeavor to universalize very unique traits despite the counter-evidence. You pose stupid questions and defame ‘scholarship.’ Oh please. – If this drivel is what you call scholarship, it needs to be defamed. You will make a laughing stock of your fellow Africans.

    You’re a European, correct? – ad hominem, you’re probably more European that I.

    Please list the PhD anthropologists (no linguists like Winters) who believe as you do that the first two Chinese civilizations were built by Africans who the Chinese referred to as black-haired and who were hunted by the Chinese.

    1. ChazIng, you are only disputing for the heck of it, and it’s not incredibly interesting. Claiming that one is not using ‘mainstream scientific methods’ is different from saying one is ‘not learned in the ways of scholarship.’ Therein is your non sequitur.

      I have been very observant in my Graduate and Research career therefore the scholastic methodology is familiar to me. How I conducted the research and presented them to you has been on par with research methodology; namely because I presented you with the authoritative text, cited it in a reasonable manner, showed you what claims I will interpret, and laid out the interpretation.

      For your information, this was not pre-meditated, i.e. I took an authoritative text that I was unfamiliar with and reprinted the above information on your behalf.

      As it were, I had pointed out very clearly that the “Black-haired people” of China were non-Mongolian and had African cultural traits. If you want to say ‘calling them African people’ is a stretch, that’s fine, but when you already know the answer, you give away the answer. I personally don’t want to conduct more research because you refuse to be open minded and demand from me more than I ought give.

      We are disputing because you do not wish to accept African scholarship and for no other reason. You seem to demand from me that I reprint a research thesis to you. For what? I already know that the Ancient Chinese were African. It’s written all over the few passages I posted. It’s written in their sculptures, their portraits, their pottery, their totemic social organization, their language, their writing and so forth.

      http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Q9ryY7NJfwMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA121&dq=&ots=GjQFysgkvO&sig=oFkEeYle-IRyqZzZGyIsc9IauDI#v=onepage&q&f=false

      These may not be good enough for you but they are good enough for me.

      To wit, you may not be familiar with scholarship, lest you wouldn’t demand it as you do. Here’s an example of Anthropology (I was searching for references to Black-haired people):

      http://www.jstor.org/stable/3014248?seq=3

      [By pure observation]

      “The Chinee do not appear to be in the least contaminated by Negro blood, and thus we find the population of the eastern division of Asia presents a different aspect from that of the western. Is this because China was too far away from the coast of Africa? or is it because the lazy unindustrious Negro could not be tolerated, and was worthless to the energetic laborious Chinese?”

      Or,

      http://www.jstor.org/stable/3014248?seq=8

      “and in the Shu Kings we find the Chinese mentioend as “the black haired people,” which evidently means that their black hair distinguished them from people whose hair was not black; so that it is possible in isolated districts, such as Shantung, must have been, at the earliest period of Chinese history, when it was separated from the remained of the country by a wide marshy uninhabited waste, there were tribes of aborigines whose hair was probably of a brown colour. In the history of the early progress of the Chinese, allusion is made to early contact with local tribes.”

      [All this from the Ethnological Society of London.]

      In other words, if you are truly familiar with research, you would understand how Africans were meticulously written out of history; more how research papers can be utterly wrong and just close-minded garble. However, separately, you would know that research amounts to researching. Certainly, you can say that I have not compiled enough sources, but I really do not need to, to post on this site. Did I personally prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Ancient Chinese were Africans? Actually yes, but given your historical knowledge, probably not. Have other Africans endeavored and succeeded? Yes. You dismiss Clyde Winters [and other Africans] because you do not understand history. That’s your problem, not mine. As to me, it’s pretty clear that the Africans created writing, calendars, and totemic culture. The Greeks concede that their writing and calendars came from Africa. When Ancient Chinese records explictly state that immigrants from the West brought writing, calendars and totemic culture, it’s clear to me who these people are.

      Please explore on your own, if the Greeks can admit to an African origin of their civilization and not be called “Afro-centric” then so should I be able to; but if you wish to be so base as to dismiss another’s research done on your behalf with worthless ad hominems then please go elsewhere to explore the question.

      As to me, I am quite convinced of the depravity of East Asians, you make no exception,

    2. You posted a response and it went into moderation all its own. It was more of the “I am your research adviser” dribble. It’s not fruitful to continue this dialogue. You do not understand it, but more intelligent readers will. As you were.

      It’s funny though, you mock the word “scholastics.” I intentionally wrote it to show the nature of your post. I have spell check too. ;-)

      You’re really not as bright as you think that you are. As to you making a comment on why doesn’t ‘mainstream’ showcase reality, you really do not understand the historical narrative of the academy. I’m not here to hold an Oriental’s hand. As it is said, “Find him a fool. Leave him a fool.”

      Take care,

  6. Great debate! What is really truly fantastic is that when truth is presented, by some it is not seen. Thanks for the diligent and meticulous research, your website is awesome.

    1. King,

      “What reveals itself to me ceases to be mysterious—for me alone: if I unveil it to anyone else, he hears mere words which betray the living sense: Profanation, but never revelation.”

      I contend, “It’s a basic fact of life that one’s society, environment and spirit influence one’s ideas.” In this interracial discussion, I was showing not only the effects of society and environment on a person’s ideas; but spirit. I.e. I wrote out an article detailing the Oriental’s spirit. And if you read the article, you’ll see how accurate it is: https://africanbloodsiblings.wordpress.com/directory/abs/lore/races/orientals/

      It’s the different spirit of the Hyena and the Lion which makes them competitors; it’s the different spirit of Orientals, Occidentals and Originals which make Organization a necessity.

    1. More Propaganda. That all of humanity has its origins in Africa has been fact for centuries on end. Homer and Herodotus, Greeks, have said “Ethiopians” (Africans) are the most ancient of men and the Ethiopians agreed explaining how they are the only people who were indigenous to their land. But this is Ancient Knowledge in the annals of all people’s history. The only interest this Knowledge today relates to the imposed Ignorance nations have on their citizens. It’s Propaganda as it gives us the impression that our enemies are coming around. No. Our enemies are paralyzing our Knowledge-base; telling us Ignorance intentionally then pretending that a favor is done when they show us Knowledge they always knew to be true.

      We need to discuss Power. What’s more, the video suggests 80,000 year genetic Ancestry, though what about the cultural ancestry? It’s only been 4,000 years since Africans ruled in China–then were destroyed. This they do not tell you.

    1. I researched the term: “Five dollar Indian”

      http://books.google.com/books?id=gNNJf97knpUC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=%22five+dollar+indians%22&source=bl&ots=6oHh6teNqZ&sig=fdviO6JqNfM1yVsv8nLQVvD63Tk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Xx0NUu3FNeyuyAHagoGYBg&ved=0CG4Q6AEwDQ#v=onepage&q=%22five%20dollar%20indians%22&f=false

      http://books.google.com/books?id=yZ_JHcgJ4qQC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=%22five+dollar+indians%22&source=bl&ots=beiWgvnqFL&sig=oeSNRyGulRZZYU-wooRa6tWi06c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dx0NUtaoNZHyyAG2sYC4AQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=%22five%20dollar%20indians%22&f=false

      http://www.indianz.com/News/archives/000873.asp

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NatNews/message/37820

      In essence:

      In the South, there is what many refer to as five-dollar Indians.
      Non-Indians who bought their way onto the rolls for five-dollars long ago in
      order to have access to Indian lands.

      And

      Issues of race and money have surfaced as the Eastern Band of Cherokees of North Carolina proceed with impeachment proceedings against top officials.

      According to The Asheville Citizen Times, some of the leaders who support the impeachment also support an “audit” of the tribal enrollment list. Some believe there are non-Indians who got their names on a 1924 roll by fraudulent means. Members, at that time, benefited from timber rights.

      “Some individuals got their names included,” John Finger, a professor at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, told the paper. “They were called five-dollar Indians because supposedly they paid the people preparing the roll five bucks a name to be added to it.”

      And

      Please circulate this note and tell all our Harvest Institute supporters that now is the time to raise financial support for the Institute. The 1886 Indian Treaty lawsuits are the only real chance that Black America has ever had for receiving real economic justice. They are not emotional appeals to White America’s conscious. Instead they are demands that this nation equally enforce its mandated laws for the descendants of Black Freedmen/Black Indians, just as they have consistently enforced the very same law for “White Five Dollar Indians” for 140 years.

      Basically, when Natives were getting Reparations, some Europeans claimed Native Ancestry and lied to their children since.

Please ask any questions that come to mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s