Moorish sailors discoved the New World?
David Banner
kalonj1006 <kalon...@aol.com> wrote:
>Just what history books have you been reading? I've read of slavery in
>various forms in many of the histories of various ethnic/racial groups
>over this planet... but NON compare to the barbaric, inhumane,
>devilish practices that were put in place by the European Nations
>against Africa!!!
>We African Americans need not thank you for bringing us to America! We
>had already come to America long before Columbus with the aid of
>Moorish maps, and black seaman!
Is there any substantiation for this? It seems to me that this is carrying
Afrocentric education a bit to far.
Lilith
i have read that the phoenicians, who had many african galley slaves, made
it to the new world, long before the europeans, and that there were
various statues and figurines of the galley slaves found in central
america, but i'll have to do some researching to find the name of the book
if anyone is interested?
Lilith
QUEEN OF DEMONS
Atheist #328
Mycroft
David Banner wrote:
.>
.> kalonj1006 <kalon...@aol.com> wrote:
.>
.> >Just what history books have you been reading? I've read of slavery
in
.> >various forms in many of the histories of various ethnic/racial
groups
.> >over this planet... but NON compare to the barbaric, inhumane,
.> >devilish practices that were put in place by the European Nations
.> >against Africa!!!
.>
.> >We African Americans need not thank you for bringing us to America!
We
.> >had already come to America long before Columbus with the aid of
.> >Moorish maps, and black seaman!
.>
.> Is there any substantiation for this? It seems to me that this is
carrying
.> Afrocentric education a bit to far.
If you truly want to know read the book "They came before Columbus" by
Prof. I. Van Certima. You should be able to find it at your local
library,
and there are many references to it on the internet. He gives more than
enough evidence to substantiate the claim.
Douglas Weller
On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 13:04:36 -0500, in sci.archaeology, Mycroft wrote:
>David Banner wrote:
[SNIP]>.>
>.> >We African Americans need not thank you for bringing us to America!
>We
>.> >had already come to America long before Columbus with the aid of
>.> >Moorish maps, and black seaman!
>.>
>.> Is there any substantiation for this? It seems to me that this is
>carrying
>.> Afrocentric education a bit to far.
>
>If you truly want to know read the book "They came before Columbus" by
>Prof. I. Van Certima.
Do a dejanews search for the last month on <bor...@cms.cc.wayne.edu> -- he's
written a couple of articles showing that van Sertima (correct spelling) is
wrong.
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Requests To: arch-mo...@ucl.ac.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email do...@ramtops.demon.co.uk for details
Sandy Charlez
In article <5ostad$en1$2...@brokaw.wa.com>, bu...@marvelnet.org says...
>
>kalonj1006 <kalon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Just what history books have you been reading? I've read of slavery in
>
>>We African Americans need not thank you for bringing us to America! We
Brazil/Central America, but the real problem isn't who discovered America, but
who did something about it. After all, the chinese invented gunpowder and
apparently used the first "fire rockets" but it was the Europeans who made it
into the basis of their military system.
Marc Line
Someone wrote:
>>We
>>had already come to America long before Columbus with the aid of
>>Moorish maps, and black seaman!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I gather that one who would seek membership of the more exclusive
gentlemens' clubs may come up against the problem of black balls but
this is a new one on me!
Tom & Arlene Adkins
Lilith wrote:
> > >We African Americans need not thank you for bringing us to America! We
> > >had already come to America long before Columbus with the aid of
> > >Moorish maps, and black seaman!
> if anyone is interested?
>
> Lilith
>
> QUEEN OF DEMONS
OK, I'll bite.
1) Yes, I'm interested.
2)RE: MOORISH SAILORS: let me see, in my readings concerning
the "discovery of the New World" I have seen claims re:
Egyptians
Phoenicians
Africans
Romans
Welsh (monks)
Irish
Polynesians
Japanese
Chinese
Norse (Vikings)
Basque
Cornish
Hebrews
Not to mention the fight as to whether Italy or Spain gets credit
for Columbus!
This is all very interesting and fun, but I am reminded of the
funny adage: "Facts, while interesting, are irrelevant."
What matters is what they DID with that information! That Moors
actually discovered America, if ever proved, is really nothing more
than novelty. Not until Columbus was the Old World prepared to act on
the knowledge. All other interaction was (apparently) insignificant.
Very interesting, but insignificant nonetheless. Columbus is rightly
given 'credit'.
Tom
remove nospam defense when replying via email
--
"The race is not always to the swift, and the
battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."
Damon Runyan
T.E.
I read up on I. Van Sertimas work on the net, and my opinions are now
quite different. Although I believe some of his findings are untrue,
such as the Olmec stone heads being "negroid", I do believe it's possible
that west Africans got to the new world before Columbus.
In my opinion, the Africans never intended to leave home and find new
land, but were instead helplessly caught in the neverending current that
took them to the new world. Just think, they load up their fishing boats
with food and water for the outing, which may last a day or a week. The
rudder or sail breaks, they ration their water, pray to their gods, and
then poof....Brazil!
It could have happened several times..
Tom
trio...@acsu.buffalo.edu
<sigh> sadly people forget that the first ttrue blue water
boats were designed out of neccisity, to cross the english
channel... hence the deep bottem blue water navies of england,
france, and spain..
Did the Moors make it here b4 colom. I dont know Im not that
old, I do know that their navy was incappable of making
such a passage often or with a high rate of success...
*******************************************************************
* Timothy N. Riordan _________ *
* Consultant Capen CIT SUNY@Buffalo |___ ___|\*
* Programmer OmegaTech Software \__| |\__\|*
* http://www.servtech.com/public/brasser/OmegaTech/ | || *
* Personal Homepage: www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~triordan | || *
* My opinions in no way represent either of my employers |_|| *
* \_\| *
*******************************************************************
bor...@cms.cc.wayne.edu
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970629110202.23053A-100000@comp>,
There are still some problems. Everyone talks gibly about the currents
taking drifters to the New World from Africa. Getting to the current from
Sub-Saharan Africa is quite difficult as I point out below.
....as we pointed out above, islands [Sao Tomé (150 miles), Amnobán, and
Cape Verde] a couple of hundred miles off the coast of Africa were
uninhabited until the arrival of the Portuguese. This is in accord with
Mauny's (1969) statement that the Portuguese circumnavigating Africa did
not find a single sail, only dugout canoes. Mauny further points out that
the farthest that a canoe can be paddled out to sea is 100 kilometers and
back without dying of exhaustion, hunger, and thirst. Sub-Saharan
Africans were also denied the opportunity to go north and embark in Arab
vessels with sails in Morocco. Along the coast of the Sahara the trade
winds blow constantly from north to south and with such force that it is
impossible for vessels with oars to go north. Even ships with sails
before the improvements in ships and navigation in the Middle Ages found
it very hard to go north below a certain point, which explain why the
limit of exploration in antiquity was 37oN latitude. According to Van
Sertima the postulated voyage by Abubakari II of Mali in 1311 departed
from the mouth of the Senegal River (16.5oN lat., 7oW long.). This voyage
is an interesting myth, but highly improbable. As pointed out above,
these boats would not be able to go hug the coast and go north because of
the prevailing opposing currents and winds. In order for such an
expedition to reach a current that would transport them in a drift voyage
to the New World they would have to reach the Canary Current northwest of
the Cape Verde Islands at approximately 20oN latitude, 10oW longitude.
This would require that the expedition row some 1500 km straight out into
an unknown sea before they even encountered a favorable current. The Cape
Verde Islands lie directly in this path, and we know that they were still
uninhabited when the Portuguese arrived in the 15th century.
Mauny,A. 1969. "Documents à verser au dossier de l'hypothèse de
l'origene négro-africaine de la civilization olmèque du Mexique,"
Bulletin de l'Institut Fondamental Afrique Noire, Ser B. 31: 574-587.
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
stillstillunununinhabited at the time of their discovery by the
Portuguese.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
bul...@pacbell.net
David and Mary Cannon wrote:
> There is strong evidence that Columbus himself was partly of African, as
> well as Jewish, descent. I believe that nothing can take away from the
> fact that many kinds of people, including Africans, discovered the
> Americas, and made a significant contribution to both the cultures and the
> bloodlines of the American Indian peoples.
My, my, what a conveniently multicultural conclusion. Can you cite the
sources as to your info. about Columbus's heritage? I wonder if the author who
came up with this is reputable and if his speculations are based on sound evidence?
Are you black?
aquino
T.E. wrote:
>
> I read up on I. Van Sertimas work on the net, and my opinions are now
> quite different. Although I believe some of his findings are untrue,
> such as the Olmec stone heads being "negroid", I do believe it's
> possible
> that west Africans got to the new world before Columbus.
>
> In my opinion, the Africans never intended to leave home and find new
> land, but were instead helplessly caught in the neverending current
> that
> took them to the new world. Just think, they load up their fishing
> boats
> with food and water for the outing, which may last a day or a week.
> The
> rudder or sail breaks, they ration their water, pray to their gods,
> and
> then poof....Brazil!
>
> It could have happened several times..
>
> Tom
Phoenicians (Phoenician inscriptions were found on rocks at what was
apparently a port in South America), Chinese (a monk may have made this
voyage), Vikings (well documented settlement in Greenland, or was it New
Foundland?), possibly even Romans (Roman coins were found inexplicably
in Alabama). I have also read of two negro skeletons found in the
carribean that pre-date Columbus by centuries. I seem to recall reading
of an Irish monk making the trip as well. I'm sure there were others who
beat Columbus to the New World (aside from those who migrated across the
bearing strait, of course). Columbus just got the most press.
David and Mary Cannon
Tom and Arlene Atkins wrote :
> 2)RE: MOORISH SAILORS: let me see, in my readings concerning
> the "discovery of the New World" I have seen claims re:
> Egyptians
> Phoenicians
> Africans
> Romans
> Welsh (monks)
> Irish
> Polynesians
> Japanese
> Chinese
> Norse (Vikings)
> Basque
> Cornish
> Hebrews
> Not to mention the fight as to whether Italy or Spain gets credit
> for Columbus!
> What matters is what they DID with that information! That Moors
> actually discovered America, if ever proved, is really nothing more
> than novelty. Not until Columbus was the Old World prepared to act on
> the knowledge. All other interaction was (apparently) insignificant.
> Very interesting, but insignificant nonetheless. Columbus is rightly
> given 'credit'.
I think your reasoning is faulty. There were some American Indian tribes
that had oral traditions of travellers from the other side of the
Atlantic. The Mayan legend of Quetzelcoatl is a case in point. I am aware
that Quetzelcoatl was white, but other legends speak of Black visitors.
Charles Berlitz writes that some South American peoples had both legends -
and paintings - of Black, White, and Yellow people all living together.
This tells me that European AND African discoverers reached the New World
in millennia past. Their discovery may have been lost on the Old World,
but it was not lost on the American Indians. Some Indian tribes actually
looked black, while one (the Mandan) were blue-eyed blondes.
There is strong evidence that Columbus himself was partly of African, as
well as Jewish, descent. I believe that nothing can take away from the
fact that many kinds of people, including Africans, discovered the
Americas, and made a significant contribution to both the cultures and the
bloodlines of the American Indian peoples.
--
David Cannon
<dca...@bigfoot.com>
Please visit my *recently updated* HOMEPAGE at
<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DJ_Cannon/homepage.htm>
David and Mary Cannon
T.E. wrote :
> In my opinion, the Africans never intended to leave home and find new
> land, but were instead helplessly caught in the neverending current that
> took them to the new world. Just think, they load up their fishing boats
> with food and water for the outing, which may last a day or a week. The
> rudder or sail breaks, they ration their water, pray to their gods, and
> then poof....Brazil!
>
> It could have happened several times..
Yeah, if you can't deny it, minimize it. This may have been insignificant
to the countries the African explorers came from, but it was of great
significance to the lands they came TO. That is where the emphasis should
be.
The "traditional" account of Columbus discovery, by the way, states that
HIS discovery of the New World was also accidental. Although there is
strong evidence that it may not have been, that is the traditional story.
If this story lacks credibility, as I believe it does, your story that the
African discoveries of the New World were purely accidental also lacks
credibility.
I will have to look for the book, but I'm sure I read somewhere that
Carthage (an African nation that had colonies in Europe) also had a colony
and trading base in South America. If I find the book, I'll post the
info. up here.
Douglas Weller
On 30 Jun 1997 01:33:17 GMT, in sci.archaeology, David and Mary Cannon
wrote:
>
>The "traditional" account of Columbus discovery, by the way, states that
>HIS discovery of the New World was also accidental. Although there is
>strong evidence that it may not have been, that is the traditional story.
>If this story lacks credibility, as I believe it does, your story that the
>African discoveries of the New World were purely accidental also lacks
>credibility.
Why? Can't see any logic to that. IF you have evidence for A, fine, but
that doesn't prove B.
>I will have to look for the book, but I'm sure I read somewhere that
>Carthage (an African nation that had colonies in Europe) also had a colony
>and trading base in South America. If I find the book, I'll post the
>info. up here.
Great. It's a wilder claim than most. There is NO evidence for a
colony/trading base in South America.
Doug
Kaiju
> African, as
> > well as Jewish, descent. I believe that nothing can take away from
> the
> > fact that many kinds of people, including Africans, discovered the
> > Americas, and made a significant contribution to both the cultures
> and the
> > bloodlines of the American Indian peoples.
>
> the
> sources as to your info. about Columbus's heritage? I wonder if the
> author who
> came up with this is reputable and if his speculations are based on
> sound evidence?
Check the PBS site at http://www.pbs.org. Their site about the
heritages of various famous people throughout history may still be up.
Columbus' heritage was mentioned there.
I recall seeing it somewhere else on the web, also. The source was from
a major university, and provided a short biography of Columbus. It
mentioned the possibility that Columbus' family could have had other
cultures mixed in somewhere further back in the line. I stumbled across
it earlier this year when doing research for one of my children's class
projects. Unfortunately, my bookmark file is trashed so I can't provide
a URL for that one. I'm sure if you do a search you can find several
references to Columbus' heritage. I found these quite easily within a
matter of minutes. (It is amazing what a simple process that is, and
even more amazing how few people actually do it.)
> Are you black?
If you notice, David's email addresss is in New Zealand, where people
apparently aren't so utterly stupid as to even ask such a question.
Further, would his post somehow have less credibility if he were Black?
If so, why? It appears you have a problem in this area. Why?
Kaiju <this bulgar person is a good example of what the dismal education
system in the United States produces...incredible...>
David and Mary Cannon
I wrote :
> > There is strong evidence that Columbus himself was partly of African,
as
> > well as Jewish, descent. I believe that nothing can take away from
the
> > fact that many kinds of people, including Africans, discovered the
> > Americas, and made a significant contribution to both the cultures and
the
> > bloodlines of the American Indian peoples.
bul...@pacbell.net replied :
> My, my, what a conveniently multicultural conclusion. Can you cite
the
> sources as to your info. about Columbus's heritage? I wonder if the
author who
> came up with this is reputable and if his speculations are based on
sound evidence?
Several years ago I saw a newspaper article, written by an Australian
historian, on his African ancestry. Unfortunately I've lost the article,
but common sense should tell you that it is plausible : Moors , an African
people, ruled Spain and Portugal for 700 years (and there is convincing
evidence that Columbus was Portuguese, not Italian, as is generally
believed). Now, in any population of limited size, the genes of a
dominant ethnic minority tend to get diffused throughout the entire
population - so one should be VERY surprised if Columbus was found NOT to
have Moorish, and therefore African, ancestry. With regard to his Jewish
ancestry, I have an article in my possession, written by British
professor, that is very convincing. When I have time, I'll upload the
article onto my website.
>
> Are you black?
Why do you ask? What has that got to do with the topic?
Bill Kambic
<Heavily Snipped>
Columbus was a descent captain but a so-so navigator and lousy
mathemetician. He seriously underestimated the diameter the Earth. If
he had made the correct calculations, he probably would not have started
out because there is no way ships of that time could have made such a
long voyage without replenishing food and fresh water.
The types of vessels used in the Med before the Age of Steam generally
relied heavily on sweeps (big oars) for propulsion at least part of the
time (hence the term "galleon"). Sweeps mean a big crew (mostly slaves)
and this would further reduce the chances of a sucessful voyage because
even slaves have to eat and drink if they are to remain useful. By the
way, Viking longships also used sweeps, but did not generally use
slaves, as the rowers were also the warriors that fought ashore. Wind,
for Viking or African seaman, was a welcom adjuct to the oars.
Based upon the naval technology available, it is unlikely that early
civilizations (African or any other) were able to maintain a profitable
presence in the New World.
Interesting Question: What if there WAS a place to reprovision and
obtain fresh water for galley-type in the Mid-Atlantic (other than the
Azores or Canaries)? Plato (if memory serves) put Atlatis beyond the
Pillars of Hercules. Of course, to accept this as an answer requires
that you believe in the existance of Atlantis, and that it was in the
right place to serve trans-lant galley traffic.
Bottom Line: These pre-columbian explorers have added some interesting
footnotes to history, but it was Spain and the Northern European
maritime states (mostly England and Holland) that possessed the will and
naval technology to take advantage of CC's mistake!
Bill Kambic, Bright Star Farm, Kingston, TN
http://www.geocities.com/heartland/hills/1816
Believer in the Great Ambiguous Blessing:
"Dear Lord, for what we are about to receive, may we be truly thankful."
Duncan Craig
This is valid as far as it goes. Velho explored the coast in 1426, in
1434 Gil Eanes made it to Cape Bojador (26 degrees N.), Tristao got to
the mouth of the Senegal (16 degrees N.) in 1444, Fernandes- the Guinea
coast (12 degrees N.) and Santarem made Ashanti by 1471 (5 degrees N).
Yet, if one can shed euro-centrism to observe what was happening on
the east coast of Africa, a different perspective emerges. Long before
the appearance of European ships in the Indian Ocean, China had trading
outposts as far south as Mozambique and Natal. Chinese coins dating to
620ad were found in Zanzibar, T'ang and Sung coins have been unearthed
at Mogadishu and Somalia (11th century). Thirteenth century celadon
shards have been found at thirty sites in Kenya (2 degrees S.)
Descriptions of Sofala and Mozambique can be found in Chinese literature
as early as 860 ad (Yu-Yang Tsa Tsu). An elaborate description of the
Somali coast can be found in the Chu Fan Chih (Records of Foreign
Peoples) in 1225. The treasure fleets of Cheng Ho, with sixty-two ships
and 37,000 men, made it at least as far as 20 degrees south by 1405,
perhaps farther. The Chinese may have rounded the Cape long before the
Portuguese, we may never know because the logs were burned in 1454.
So Mauny's statement that "the Portuguese circumnavigating Africa did
not find a single sail, only dugout canoes.", is valid only because the
four hundred foot 'Celestial rafts' with their nine masts and silk sails
abruptly ceased their expeditions in 1434. The ships also had offset
masts, latteen and matt-batten sails, thus much better equipped to deal
with the currents that you refer to.
Aloha, Duncan
Eric Stevens
On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 16:19:31 +1000, Lilith
<c960...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au> wrote:
--- snip -----
> i'll have to do some researching to find the name of the book
>if anyone is interested?
Hell yes !
Eric Stevens
There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
HEXX
David and Mary Cannon <dca...@voyager.co.nz> wrote in article
<01bc84f5$ebb394c0$1a1815cb@cannon-jung>...
> I will have to look for the book, but I'm sure I read somewhere that
> Carthage (an African nation that had colonies in Europe) also had a
colony
> and trading base in South America. If I find the book, I'll post the
> info. up here.
>
CARTHAGE WAS THE PLACE HANNIBAL CAME FROM.
HE ALSO HAD ONE OF THE FIRST EFFECTIVE MULTI CULTURAL
ARMIES.
"H"
LONDON MASSIVE.
Paul J. Gans
David and Mary Cannon (dca...@voyager.co.nz) wrote:
: Tom and Arlene Atkins wrote :
:
: > 2)RE: MOORISH SAILORS: let me see, in my readings concerning
: > Egyptians
: > Phoenicians
: > Africans
: > Romans
: > Welsh (monks)
: > Irish
: > Polynesians
: > Japanese
: > Chinese
: > Norse (Vikings)
: > Basque
: > Cornish
: > Hebrews
: > Not to mention the fight as to whether Italy or Spain gets credit
: > for Columbus!
:
: > What matters is what they DID with that information! That Moors
: > actually discovered America, if ever proved, is really nothing more
: > than novelty. Not until Columbus was the Old World prepared to act on
: > the knowledge. All other interaction was (apparently) insignificant.
: > Very interesting, but insignificant nonetheless. Columbus is rightly
: > given 'credit'.
:
: I think your reasoning is faulty. There were some American Indian tribes
: that had oral traditions of travellers from the other side of the
: Atlantic. The Mayan legend of Quetzelcoatl is a case in point.
The legend of Quetzelcoatl does not specify a continent of origin.
: I am aware
: that Quetzelcoatl was white, but other legends speak of Black visitors.
: Charles Berlitz writes that some South American peoples had both legends -
: and paintings - of Black, White, and Yellow people all living together.
: This tells me that European AND African discoverers reached the New World
Oh, Berlitz. The Bermuda Triangle guy. He's an *excellent*
source.
: in millennia past. Their discovery may have been lost on the Old World,
: but it was not lost on the American Indians. Some Indian tribes actually
: looked black, while one (the Mandan) were blue-eyed blondes.
Absolutely. That is exactly the kind of information that European
societies loved to surpress. I mean, who in Europe could write,
or even read for that matter.
And it is *exactly* the kind of information that would be preserved
in the New World. Being largely free of the problems of reading
and writing, they had the time to learn all of these stories.
By the way, have you heard the one about what the eagle had to
say to the crow?
: There is strong evidence that Columbus himself was partly of African, as
: well as Jewish, descent.
He was also Italian and Spanish with a trace of Portuguese. His
Christianity was only a front. He was really a Wiccan using secret
knowledge to gain his goals.
: I believe that nothing can take away from the
: fact that many kinds of people, including Africans, discovered the
: Americas, and made a significant contribution to both the cultures and the
: bloodlines of the American Indian peoples.
Yes. Exactly. And to keep from being robbed of those contributions
they hid the cultural contributions so well that nobody has been
able to find them. Which, of course, proves that they must exist.
And as far as bloodlines are concerned, well, the genetic testing
that pretends to show that New World folks are genetically
differentiable from Old World folks is just a cover-up by
deluded academics.
Now just hold still for a while. This injection won't hurt and
the guys in the padded wagon will be very gentle.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Paul J. Gans
aquino (ard...@fln.net) wrote:
: T.E. wrote:
: >
: > I read up on I. Van Sertimas work on the net, and my opinions are now
: > quite different. Although I believe some of his findings are untrue,
: > such as the Olmec stone heads being "negroid", I do believe it's
: > possible
: > that west Africans got to the new world before Columbus.
: > In my opinion, the Africans never intended to leave home and find new
: > land, but were instead helplessly caught in the neverending current
: > that
: > took them to the new world. Just think, they load up their fishing
: > boats
: > with food and water for the outing, which may last a day or a week.
: > The
: > rudder or sail breaks, they ration their water, pray to their gods,
: > and
: > then poof....Brazil!
: >
: > It could have happened several times..
: > Tom
: It's not just West Africans who got there before Columbus, but
: Phoenicians (Phoenician inscriptions were found on rocks at what was
: apparently a port in South America), Chinese (a monk may have made this
: voyage), Vikings (well documented settlement in Greenland, or was it New
: Foundland?), possibly even Romans (Roman coins were found inexplicably
: in Alabama). I have also read of two negro skeletons found in the
: carribean that pre-date Columbus by centuries. I seem to recall reading
: of an Irish monk making the trip as well. I'm sure there were others who
: beat Columbus to the New World (aside from those who migrated across the
: bearing strait, of course). Columbus just got the most press.
Yes indeed. Traffic to and from the New World was so large that
the natives had to set up the world's first immigration and travel
authorities. Health standards had to be maintained because we
*know* that no European, African, Chinese, etc. diseases were
allowed into the New World.
Which is why 90% of them died when the Spanish *refused* to obey
the health code and spread disease around.
---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
T.E.
Sinse the Moors had invaded and influenced the Iberian peninsula heavily,
wouldn't they have brough the knowledge of the new world, and some
newfound cartography with them? Why did Columbus set sail blindfolded,
not knowing where he was going or where he ended up? The Europeans
created their maps through trial and error, and obviously the Africans did
not help them. Why is this, if the Moors did in fact have contact with
the new world?
Tom
bul...@pacbell.net
Kaiju wrote:
> > Are you black?
>
> If you notice, David's email addresss is in New Zealand, where people
> apparently aren't so utterly stupid as to even ask such a question.
> Further, would his post somehow have less credibility if he were Black?
> If so, why? It appears you have a problem in this area. Why?
>
> Kaiju <this bulgar person is a good example of what the dismal education
> system in the United States produces...incredible...>
It has never ceased to amaze how quick people are to hurl insults at each
other over the internet for the slightest perceived offense. Utterly Stupid? The
person's post, I thought, had somewhat of an Afro-centric tinge to it. My query
was simply a direct and honest one. If somebody is going to assert that there was
a good chance columbus was part black and jewish and that europeans and africans
had contributed to pre- Columbian American civilization, the scientific method would
demand that firm evidence be provided to support such claims. Speculations about
there was a "good chance" or "probably" don't cut the mustard.
In conclusion, if you had half a brain, you would realize that claims about
transatlantic crossings by european and now Afro-centric scholars often, but not always,
have a racist undertone to them. It would be intellectually dishonest for anyone to
deny this. Do you?
Kaiju
bul...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
> Kaiju wrote:
>
> > > Are you black?
> >
> > If you notice, David's email addresss is in New Zealand, where
> people
> > apparently aren't so utterly stupid as to even ask such a question.
> > Further, would his post somehow have less credibility if he were
> Black?
> > If so, why? It appears you have a problem in this area. Why?
> >
> > Kaiju <this bulgar person is a good example of what the dismal
> education
> > system in the United States produces...incredible...>
>
> It has never ceased to amaze how quick people are to hurl insults
> at each
> other over the internet for the slightest perceived offense.
Slight to you, perhaps. But then, you're the one who asked that
question, eh?
> Utterly
> Stupid?
Yes. You get an "A" for the ability to read.
> The
> person's post, I thought, had somewhat of an Afro-centric tinge to
> it. My query
> was simply a direct and honest one.
Direct, perhaps. Honest only if someone was looking for something in
particular that has nothing to do with honesty. By the way, you didn't
answer the questions previously stated.
> If somebody is going to assert
> that there was
> a good chance columbus was part black and jewish and that europeans
> and africans
> had contributed to pre- Columbian American civilization, the
> scientific method would
> demand that firm evidence be provided to support such claims.
> Speculations about
> there was a "good chance" or "probably" don't cut the mustard.
Most research begins with the speculation. Then it develops from
there. So, if there is even the speculation, it must be emanting from
Afrocentrists, and therefore is suspect or less credible? Evidently
there are archeologists besides Afrocentrists who are looking into this
possibility. The difference is that they aren't held captive by
preconceived ideas of the possibility as you are.
> In conclusion, if you had half a brain, you would realize that
> claims about
> transatlantic crossings by european and now Afro-centric scholars
> often, but not always,
> have a racist undertone to them.
Gee. And all this time there have been white scholars who have
considered the possibility as well. They must be hiding something in
the woodpile, eh?
> It would be intellectually dishonest
> for anyone to
> deny this. Do you?
Yes. Because it is intellectually dishonest to not only ask the
question, but to insist that it is somehow normal or acceptable. It is
neither.
Kaiju
Cam Mayor
In article <01bc84f4$c6b0e660$1a1815cb@cannon-jung>,
David and Mary Cannon <dca...@voyager.co.nz> wrote:
>
>I think your reasoning is faulty. There were some American Indian tribes
>that had oral traditions of travellers from the other side of the
>that Quetzelcoatl was white, but other legends speak of Black visitors.
Errr, the plumed serpent was white? I think you've had too much peyote.
cam
Andy Fear
David Banner (bu...@marvelnet.org) wrote:
: kalonj1006 <kalon...@aol.com> wrote:
:
: >Just what history books have you been reading? I've read of slavery in
: >various forms in many of the histories of various ethnic/racial groups
: >over this planet... but NON compare to the barbaric, inhumane,
: >devilish practices that were put in place by the European Nations
: >against Africa!!!
: >We African Americans need not thank you for bringing us to America! We
: >Moorish maps, and black seaman!
: Is there any substantiation for this? It seems to me that this is carrying
: Afrocentric education a bit to far.
No doubt there's a plethora of psuedo scholarship there normally is on this
material. Think about the idiotic attempts to make Socrates black etc. I
should simply ignore this sort of drivel, it's the only scholarly approach
to it. Reality tends to be more interesting and productive than fantasy.
Andy
David and Mary Cannon
Tom (T.E.) wrote :
I don't believe Columbus set sail blindfolded. There is evidence that he
had access to Jewish, Moorish, and Turkish sources of information, and
that he knew where he was going. I subscribe to the theory that he had to
trick the king of Spain into financing the voyage by claiming to be
looking for a westward passage to India - it is unlikely that the Spanish
king would have agreed to finance an expedition to a land that Columbus
said was there, but which the king had no evidence for. Look, when I'm
less busy I'll find the books where I read it and upload the information
onto my website. I may also publish on SCAA any info. related to African
discoveries, or to any African/Moorish influences on Columbus.
David and Mary Cannon
bul...@pacbell.net wrote to Kaiju about what I had written previously
about African and other discoverers of the New World :
> It has never ceased to amaze how quick people are to hurl insults at
each
> other over the internet for the slightest perceived offense.
Well, your asking me about my race *was* an implied insult. I try to look
at history as honestly and fairly as possible, and I resent any
implication that whatever race I may or may not belong to is relevant to
the topic. Your implication that anything written by someone Black must
be suspect. That IS insulting.
> Utterly Stupid? The
> person's post, I thought, had somewhat of an Afro-centric tinge to it.
I am not Black, and I do not in any way consider myself "Afrocentric". I
try to look at history as objectively as possible, and if my conclusions
at some points mirror the Afrocentric perspective, or any other
perspective, so be it.
> My query
> was simply a direct and honest one. If somebody is going to assert that
there was
> a good chance columbus was part black and jewish and that europeans and
africans
> had contributed to pre- Columbian American civilization, the scientific
method would
> demand that firm evidence be provided to support such claims.
Speculations about
> there was a "good chance" or "probably" don't cut the mustard.
I've read it in books by reputable historians. I'll find the books and
put the sources up here, and on my website, when I have time. What you
don't seem to realize, Bulgar, is that I and other people on this
newsgroup have other things to do.
> In conclusion, if you had half a brain, you would realize that
claims about
> transatlantic crossings by european and now Afro-centric scholars often,
but not >always,
> have a racist undertone to them. It would be intellectually dishonest
for anyone to
> deny this. Do you?
And if *you* had half a brain, you would realize that *denials* of
pre-Columbus transatlantic crossings, especially by Africans, may also
have a racist undertone to them. I think it is MORE racist to deny the
possibility, without any conclusive negative evidence, that Africans or
others visited the New World before Columbus, than to admit the
possibility.
Yuri Kuchinsky
Paul J. Gans (ga...@scholar.nyu.edu) wrote:
: aquino (ard...@fln.net) wrote:
: : It's not just West Africans who got there before Columbus, but : :
Phoenicians (Phoenician inscriptions were found on rocks at what was : :
apparently a port in South America), Chinese (a monk may have made this :
: voyage), Vikings (well documented settlement in Greenland, or was it New
: : Foundland?), possibly even Romans (Roman coins were found inexplicably
: : in Alabama). I have also read of two negro skeletons found in the : :
carribean that pre-date Columbus by centuries. I seem to recall reading :
: of an Irish monk making the trip as well. I'm sure there were others who
: : beat Columbus to the New World (aside from those who migrated across
the : : bearing strait, of course). Columbus just got the most press.
: Yes indeed. Traffic to and from the New World was so large that
: the natives had to set up the world's first immigration and travel
: authorities. Health standards had to be maintained because we
: *know* that no European, African, Chinese, etc. diseases were
: allowed into the New World.
:
: Which is why 90% of them died when the Spanish *refused* to obey
: the health code and spread disease around.
This is very lame, Paul. If we follow your logic then the Vikings never
made it to America.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there
-=- | is always Paradise: so say the most ancient
in Toronto | and the most modern serpents." F. Nietzsche
----- my webpage is for now at: http://www.io.org/~yuku -----
C Lamb
HEXX (he...@btinternet.com) wrote:
: David and Mary Cannon <dca...@voyager.co.nz> wrote in article
: <01bc84f5$ebb394c0$1a1815cb@cannon-jung>...
: > I will have to look for the book, but I'm sure I read somewhere that
: > Carthage (an African nation that had colonies in Europe) also had a
: colony
: > and trading base in South America. If I find the book, I'll post the
: > info. up here.
: >
: CARTHAGE WAS THE PLACE HANNIBAL CAME FROM.
BT Internet is the place where CapsLock came from
: HE ALSO HAD ONE OF THE FIRST EFFECTIVE MULTI CULTURAL
: ARMIES.
They also have the least effective luser education.
: "H"
: LONDON MASSIVE.
I suppose so. It must weigh in at a few million tonnes.
CJ
bankcot
C Lamb
David and Mary Cannon (dca...@voyager.co.nz) wrote:
[stuff snipped]
: And if *you* had half a brain, you would realize that *denials* of
: pre-Columbus transatlantic crossings, especially by Africans, may also
: have a racist undertone to them. I think it is MORE racist to deny the
: possibility, without any conclusive negative evidence, that Africans or
: others visited the New World before Columbus, than to admit the
: possibility.
ack... I agreed with all you (the gestalt entity of David & Mary) said
up until here. This last paragraph smacks of the PC that denies
query of accepted or proposed ideas a la Bell Curve etc. The last line
seems to imply that I shouldn't be criticized for saying "The first
people to visit America were from Sheffield in 30,000BC"
I agree with you original statement that to ask the question `are you
black?' in response to a proposed idea is crass at best and racist at
worst.
regards
Chris
: --
trio...@acsu.buffalo.edu
On 1 Jul 1997, David and Mary Cannon wrote:
> I don't believe Columbus set sail blindfolded. There is evidence that he
> had access to Jewish, Moorish, and Turkish sources of information, and
> that he knew where he was going.
What evidance, dont just say "there is evidance"
Douglas Weller
On 1 Jul 1997 07:10:39 GMT, in sci.archaeology, David and Mary Cannon
wrote:
[SNIP]
>
>I've read it in books by reputable historians. I'll find the books and
>put the sources up here, and on my website, when I have time. What you
>don't seem to realize, Bulgar, is that I and other people on this
>newsgroup have other things to do.
'This newsgroup'? Not sure what you meant. This is in:
rec.org.mensa,soc.culture.african.american,alt.archaeology,
sci.archaeology,soc.history,alt.folklore.science
Which is typical. It's offtopic for at least two of these
(rec.org.mensa, alt.folklore.science). Why rec.org.mensa is in there at
all I don't know, except that perhaps someone is playing games to get an
argument started between newsgroups).
If they are historians, then by all means soc.history -- but not the
archaeology newsgroups, please, archaeology is about material culture --
things made or manipulated by people.
[SNIP]
>
>And if *you* had half a brain, you would realize that *denials* of
>pre-Columbus transatlantic crossings, especially by Africans, may also
>have a racist undertone to them. I think it is MORE racist to deny the
>possibility, without any conclusive negative evidence, that Africans or
>others visited the New World before Columbus, than to admit the
>possibility.
Lots of things are possible, but without evidence (and you really can't
expect negative evidence) all one is doing is speculating. I wouldn't
deny the possibility that aliens transported people all sorts of places,
for instance.
Doug -- I've cut out the 2 newsgroups I mentioned, and hope that
whatever evidence there is only goes to appropriate newsgroups.
Paul J. Gans
Duncan Craig ("dunkers"@king.cts.com) wrote:
Did you post this entire thing to simply observe that the
Portuguese did not run into the Chinese while exploring the
coast of Africa?
Sheesh!
The original claim was that the inhabitants of AFRICA were sailing
to the New World. Oritz simply pointed out that the Portuguese
did not find any native sailing ships. Nobody here has doubted
the sailing abilities of the Chinese in the 1400's.
HEXX
Douglas Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<33ba6b6c...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> On 1 Jul 1997 06:52:36 GMT, in sci.archaeology, David and Mary Cannon
> wrote:
> Tom
> >
> >I don't believe Columbus set sail blindfolded. There is evidence that
he
> >had access to Jewish, Moorish, and Turkish sources of information, and
> >that he knew where he was going.
>
> As I remember it, almost up until the last, or maybe until the last, he
> thought he had found the east Indies.
>
> Doug
> --
YEP, THAT'S RIGHT!
THATS WHY WE STILL CALL NATIVE AMERICANS "INDIANS",
AND THE CARRIBEAN ISLANDS THE "WEST INDIES".
COLOMBUS THOUGHT HE HAD BUMPED INTO INDIA.
THE FOOL.
"H"
LONDON MASSIVE.
Douglas Weller
On 1 Jul 1997 06:52:36 GMT, in sci.archaeology, David and Mary Cannon
wrote:
Tom
>
>I don't believe Columbus set sail blindfolded. There is evidence that he
>had access to Jewish, Moorish, and Turkish sources of information, and
>that he knew where he was going.
As I remember it, almost up until the last, or maybe until the last, he
thought he had found the east Indies.
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Requests To: arch-mo...@ucl.ac.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email do...@ramtops.demon.co.uk for details
bul...@pacbell.net
David and Mary Cannon wrote:
>
> > In conclusion, if you had half a brain, you would realize that
> claims about
> > transatlantic crossings by european and now Afro-centric scholars often,
> but not >always,
> > have a racist undertone to them. It would be intellectually dishonest
> for anyone to
> > deny this. Do you?
>
> And if *you* had half a brain, you would realize that *denials* of
> pre-Columbus transatlantic crossings, especially by Africans, may also
> have a racist undertone to them. I think it is MORE racist to deny the
> possibility, without any conclusive negative evidence, that Africans or
> others visited the New World before Columbus, than to admit the
> possibility.
>
You're jumping to an emotional conclusion based on a faulty interpretation
of what I've written. Read above. I wrote "transatlantic crossings by european
and now Afro-centric scholars." Both sides have been guilty of bias, and lately
Afro-centrics, such as the one who wrote "They Came Before Columbus" (forgot author's
name), have taken up the mantle of proving indians were culturally hopelessly backward
until gifted African negroes sailed in and taught the poor benighted indians the
elements of civilization. You brought up Africans, so I called you on it. Are you
really that thin-skinned and touchy? Tell you what, if you're going to resort to
emotionalism and name-calling, don't bother writing back. This internet experience is
starting to shape up as a massive waste of time.
Paul J. Gans
Yuri Kuchinsky (yu...@mail.trends.ca) wrote:
: Paul J. Gans (ga...@scholar.nyu.edu) wrote:
: : aquino (ard...@fln.net) wrote:
:
: : : It's not just West Africans who got there before Columbus, but : :
: Phoenicians (Phoenician inscriptions were found on rocks at what was : :
: apparently a port in South America), Chinese (a monk may have made this :
: : voyage), Vikings (well documented settlement in Greenland, or was it New
: : : Foundland?), possibly even Romans (Roman coins were found inexplicably
: : : in Alabama). I have also read of two negro skeletons found in the : :
: carribean that pre-date Columbus by centuries. I seem to recall reading :
: : of an Irish monk making the trip as well. I'm sure there were others who
: : : beat Columbus to the New World (aside from those who migrated across
: the : : bearing strait, of course). Columbus just got the most press.
:
: : Yes indeed. Traffic to and from the New World was so large that
: : the natives had to set up the world's first immigration and travel
: : authorities. Health standards had to be maintained because we
: : *know* that no European, African, Chinese, etc. diseases were
: : allowed into the New World.
: :
: : Which is why 90% of them died when the Spanish *refused* to obey
: : the health code and spread disease around.
:
: This is very lame, Paul. If we follow your logic then the Vikings never
: made it to America.
No, not at all lame. What it does show is that either
Viking contact with the natives was limited, or that the
Vikings sailed from Greenland or Iceland and, being an
isolated population, were essentially disease free [*],
or that there was great sickness among the native population
around the Viking settlement but that those natives were
isolated from *their* natives.
In other words, the disease factor cuts the number of
possibilities greatly.
[*] This has been observed in populations at stations in
Antarctica. After the last of the "summer" visitors leaves
and after the last person with a cold gets better, there is
essentially no more sickness until the arrival of the first
folks the next summer.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
PS: I've limited the cross-posts to sci.archaeology alone.
Duncan Craig
Paul J. Gans wrote:
>
> Did you post this entire thing to simply observe that the
> Portuguese did not run into the Chinese while exploring the
> coast of Africa?
>
> Sheesh!
No...and you must have seen some value in it. You wouldn't have
re-posted it all simply to chastise me. I was responding to several
preceding posts which implied that the Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish and
Italians were the alpha and omega of exploration and nautical
technology. Posting the dates and latitudes of Portuguese and Chinese
forays down opposite sides of the same continent seemed a valid
illustration. I apologize to Mr. Ortiz...I didn't mean to call him
"Euro-centric"(what an epithet that is, nowadays). Being a newcomer to
the study of Chinese civilization, I'm afraid that I get a bit carried
away. I was lamenting the woeful lack of Eastern history in public
schools and in my own education (but whose fault is that, eh?)
>
> The original claim was that the inhabitants of AFRICA were sailing
> to the New World. Oritz simply pointed out that the Portuguese
> did not find any native sailing ships. Nobody here has doubted
> the sailing abilities of the Chinese in the 1400's.
>
>
I know,...I got off topic. I'd be a happy camper if there was a
soc.history.far east NG. As for your last statement, it just doesn't
ring true. Maybe the Treasure voyages are old hat to you guys, but it
just blows me away when I see scale drawings of Cheng Ho's flagship
compared to the Santa Maria.
Aloha, Duncan
"People today think naively that politicians have always run things.
They never have, and never will. Politicians were only the pirates
visible stooges." R.Buckminster Fuller
Yuri Kuchinsky
: : This is very lame, Paul. If we follow your logic then the Vikings never
: : made it to America.
:
: No, not at all lame. What it does show is that either
: Viking contact with the natives was limited, or that the
: Vikings sailed from Greenland or Iceland and, being an
: isolated population, were essentially disease free [*],
: or that there was great sickness among the native population
: around the Viking settlement but that those natives were
: isolated from *their* natives.
Thanks, Paul.
Now use all these arguments that you've so helpfully given us now against
your previous statement.
Paul J. Gans
Douglas Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On 1 Jul 1997 06:52:36 GMT, in sci.archaeology, David and Mary Cannon
: wrote:
: Tom
: >
: >I don't believe Columbus set sail blindfolded. There is evidence that he
: >had access to Jewish, Moorish, and Turkish sources of information, and
: >that he knew where he was going.
:
: As I remember it, almost up until the last, or maybe until the last, he
: thought he had found the east Indies.
Columbus (according to all the sources I've ever read) never
accepted the idea that he had found "new" land. He always
maintained that he had found the east coast of Asia.
It is also quite clear that *IF* Columbus had any other source
of information, such as Turkish or Moorish, he would have used
it in order to get the funding he needed for his trip. The
problem he faced was in trying to convince skeptical scholars
in the various courts that the trip could be made at all.
As for Jewish sources, I strongly suspect that the Jews, the
renouned sailors of ancient and classical times, hid all their
nautical information. It is clear that their famous Whale
Boats far outdistanced anything anybody else had in terms of
technology. Besides, did you know that their Whale Boats
often ate the reed ships of the Egyptians?
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Paul J. Gans
: > The original claim was that the inhabitants of AFRICA were sailing
: > to the New World. Oritz simply pointed out that the Portuguese
: > did not find any native sailing ships. Nobody here has doubted
: > the sailing abilities of the Chinese in the 1400's.
: >
: >
:
: I know,...I got off topic. I'd be a happy camper if there was a
: soc.history.far east NG. As for your last statement, it just doesn't
: ring true. Maybe the Treasure voyages are old hat to you guys, but it
: just blows me away when I see scale drawings of Cheng Ho's flagship
: compared to the Santa Maria.
But then, check out their deep-sea capabilities. Most of the
evidence for Cheng Ho's trip indicates that he mostly sailed
along the coast and not directly point to point.
This is not a knock at Cheng Ho. His mission seems to have
been to reach as many other nations as possible. And visiting
them one by one was the logical way to go.
One must remember that there is a limit to the length a
wooden ship may have. About 300 feet or so, if I remember
correctly. It is based on the natural strength of wood and
the fact that (until this century) a joint was never as strong
as unbroken wood. The limit is caused by the need to have the
hull stand up under extreme situations such as having the bow
and stern each lifted by separate wave crests with nothing
holding up the midsection.
Experience in the North Atlantic, one of the roughest and
stormiest stretches of water in the world, taught the Europeans
the value of the "round ships". This design was the basis
of the ships used by Columbus.
It would have been interesting to see how the Chinese
ships would have fared in the North Atlantic. It is
again no knock on the Chinese if I venture that they
would not have fared well. After all, they weren't
designed for that sort of weather.
Siro Trevisanato
On 1 Jul 1997, David and Mary Cannon wrote:
[...]
> I don't believe Columbus set sail blindfolded. There is evidence that he
> had access to Jewish, Moorish, and Turkish sources of information, and
That's why when he reached America he found it inhabited by Jews,
Moors and Turks, dotted with mosques and synagogues.
When Cabot reached Newfoundland he saw harems, Turkish baths, mosques,
veiled ladies, Janissaries etc.
When Cortez conquered Mexico he obliterated uncountable proofs of
Moorish, Jewish and Turkish presence in loco, leaving only a few
Aztec ruins.
> that he knew where he was going. I subscribe to the theory that he had to
> trick the king of Spain into financing the voyage by claiming to be
> looking for a westward passage to India - it is unlikely that the Spanish
In other words : half of the workd knew where America was except for
the king of Spain and a few other guys.
What doesn't make sense is : if Turks and friends knew about America,
_why_ did Columbus have to lie to the Spanish royal family?
> king would have agreed to finance an expedition to a land that Columbus
> said was there, but which the king had no evidence for. Look, when I'm
Columbus could have just shown him Moorish, Jewish and Turkish atlases.
> less busy I'll find the books where I read it and upload the information
> onto my website. I may also publish on SCAA any info. related to African
> discoveries, or to any African/Moorish influences on Columbus.
Please.
And don't forget to include some data regarding the islamization of America
prior to Columbus' landing.
Siro
Paul J. Gans
Yuri Kuchinsky (yu...@mail.trends.ca) wrote:
: Paul J. Gans (ga...@scholar.nyu.edu) wrote:
: : Yuri Kuchinsky (yu...@mail.trends.ca) wrote:
:
: : : This is very lame, Paul. If we follow your logic then the Vikings never
: : : made it to America.
: :
: : No, not at all lame. What it does show is that either
: : Viking contact with the natives was limited, or that the
: : Vikings sailed from Greenland or Iceland and, being an
: : isolated population, were essentially disease free [*],
: : or that there was great sickness among the native population
: : around the Viking settlement but that those natives were
: : isolated from *their* natives.
:
: Thanks, Paul.
:
: Now use all these arguments that you've so helpfully given us now against
: your previous statement.
Forgot the basic point, did you? Let me repeat it. If there
was all of that coming and going between Asia and the New
World for all of those years, WHY didn't Asiatic disease
wipe out the New World natives? Or, put another way, why
weren't the natives immune to the diseases the Spaniards
brought.
You asked why the Vikings didn't cause disease. I answered
that. The basic idea was lack of contact. You have postulated
fairly strong contact between east and west, thus you have to
deal with the disease question.
You see Yuri, hypotheses have consequences. And the way
you have to test a hypothesis is to check out the consequences.
That's what we are doing now. If one could just sit back
and theorize in a vacuum, everybody would be doing it.
trio...@acsu.buffalo.edu
Question: what boats did the morrs use to
get there???
*******************************************************************
* Timothy N. Riordan _________ *
* Consultant Capen CIT SUNY@Buffalo |___ ___|\*
* Programmer OmegaTech Software \__| |\__\|*
* http://www.servtech.com/public/brasser/OmegaTech/ | || *
* Personal Homepage: www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~triordan | || *
* My opinions in no way represent either of my employers |_|| *
* \_\| *
*******************************************************************
Matt Giwer
On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 18:56:20 -0700, bul...@pacbell.net wrote:
>Kaiju wrote:
>> > Are you black?
>> If you notice, David's email addresss is in New Zealand, where people
>> apparently aren't so utterly stupid as to even ask such a question.
>> Further, would his post somehow have less credibility if he were Black?
>> If so, why? It appears you have a problem in this area. Why?
>>
>> Kaiju <this bulgar person is a good example of what the dismal education
>> system in the United States produces...incredible...>
> It has never ceased to amaze how quick people are to hurl insults at each
>other over the internet for the slightest perceived offense.
Suddenly being asked if one is black is an insult. Amazing, is it
not? If the person had been saying Columbus was part Irish, asking if
the person was Irish would have exactly the same meaning. It is
interesting that racial pride is either good or bad depending upon who
expresses it.
>Utterly Stupid? The
>person's post, I thought, had somewhat of an Afro-centric tinge to it. My query
>was simply a direct and honest one.
Caught in a politically correct Catch-22.
===
Dedicated to the 104 dead victims of the Qana massacre.
http://www.flinet.com/~politics/action/ch-beat.htm
Duncan Craig
>
> But then, check out their deep-sea capabilities. Most of the
> evidence for Cheng Ho's trip indicates that he mostly sailed
> along the coast and not directly point to point.
>
> This is not a knock at Cheng Ho. His mission seems to have
> been to reach as many other nations as possible. And visiting
> them one by one was the logical way to go.
Well, this was no mere island hopping. Java,Sumatra, Ceylon,
India...thousands of miles of open ocean sailing.
>
> One must remember that there is a limit to the length a
> wooden ship may have. About 300 feet or so, if I remember
> correctly. It is based on the natural strength of wood and
> the fact that (until this century) a joint was never as strong
> as unbroken wood. The limit is caused by the need to have the
> hull stand up under extreme situations such as having the bow
> and stern each lifted by separate wave crests with nothing
> holding up the midsection.
The 'Starry Raft' of Cheng Ho was 440 feet in length and 186 feet in
beam. A ship of this magnitude was the product of several inovations
that the Chinese developed in the eleventh century. The limitations of
which you speak were transcended by the use of double super-imposed
timbers nailed to several transverse compartments. Water tight
bulkheads provided the structural strength, an advance in nautical
technology that Europe wouldn't utilize for a couple of centuries.
There is textual evidence from several sources, i.e. the Chiao-chou
Chi by Liu Hsin-Cchi, and the Shih Chi by Wang Chia dating from the
third century ad that cite the use of copper and bronze plating on the
hulls of ocean-going ships to add strength.
Tests were conducted comparing Chinese and European rigging cable by
Fugl-Meyer, with interesting results. Chinese plaited bamboo cable used
for tacking increased in strength 25%, whereas hemp cable decreased 20%,
when both were wetted.
>
> Experience in the North Atlantic, one of the roughest and
> stormiest stretches of water in the world, taught the Europeans
> the value of the "round ships". This design was the basis
> of the ships used by Columbus.
>
> It would have been interesting to see how the Chinese
> ships would have fared in the North Atlantic. It is
> again no knock on the Chinese if I venture that they
> would not have fared well. After all, they weren't
> designed for that sort of weather.
>
> Perhaps not, but it is ironic that the 16th century Spanish 'naos de China' the Manila galleons that weighed 1500 tons, (compared to the two hundred ton ships of Columbus and Magellan,) were patterned after the ocean-going junks, designed and built by Chinese craftsmen in Manila, and the crews were mostly Chinese.
Aloha, Duncan
People today think naively that politicians have always run things.
They never have, and never will. Politicians were only the pirates
visible local stooges. R. Buckminster Fuller
Matt Giwer
On 30 Jun 1997 01:25:06 GMT, "David and Mary Cannon"
<dca...@voyager.co.nz> wrote:
>Tom and Arlene Atkins wrote :
>
>> 2)RE: MOORISH SAILORS: let me see, in my readings concerning
>> the "discovery of the New World" I have seen claims re:
>> Egyptians
>> Phoenicians
>> Africans
>> Romans
>> Welsh (monks)
>> Irish
>> Polynesians
>> Japanese
>> Chinese
>> Norse (Vikings)
>> Basque
>> Cornish
>> Hebrews
>> Not to mention the fight as to whether Italy or Spain gets credit
>> for Columbus!
>> What matters is what they DID with that information! That Moors
>> actually discovered America, if ever proved, is really nothing more
>> than novelty. Not until Columbus was the Old World prepared to act on
>> the knowledge. All other interaction was (apparently) insignificant.
>> Very interesting, but insignificant nonetheless. Columbus is rightly
>> given 'credit'.
>I think your reasoning is faulty. There were some American Indian tribes
>that had oral traditions of travellers from the other side of the
>Atlantic. The Mayan legend of Quetzelcoatl is a case in point. I am aware
>that Quetzelcoatl was white, but other legends speak of Black visitors.
>Charles Berlitz writes that some South American peoples had both legends -
>and paintings - of Black, White, and Yellow people all living together.
>This tells me that European AND African discoverers reached the New World
>in millennia past. Their discovery may have been lost on the Old World,
>but it was not lost on the American Indians. Some Indian tribes actually
>looked black, while one (the Mandan) were blue-eyed blondes.
It is also clear that many alchemists stumbled upon some things
before they were commonly known, possibly even nitroglycerine, it is
but a curiosity and a speculation. We know clearly that the first
concept of the atom was from Greece and we also know had it never been
conceived at all the only difference would be one less curiosity.
The problem with stories (Berlitz is a story teller) about native
Americans such as you tell is that while they appear to exist in
abundance if you listen to the story tellers, such material is nearly
completely absent in the more advanced cultures that are supposed to
have made the discoveries. They are absent in the sense that only the
Viking story can be considered less than ambiguous.
YET they presented as clear when from Amerind sources.
One grants that one way trips are possible but they would clearly
be by accident as the ship contruction technology clearly did not
exist. Yes, knowing exactly what is going to be faced and needed, old
techniques can be used to built the kind of boat needed and with
foresight stock it with enough provisions and head out with the
knowledge of the destination. That has nothing to do with Egyptians
heading off into the unknown.
Speaking of genetic composition, blue-eyed blonds? Blond is only
common the the children of some northern European peoples. If there is
a tribe of blond adults your guess is good as anyone's as to where it
came from. Blue eyes? All of them? That is not from any European
source.
Clearly whatever that tribe was like, if the source of the
characteristics was European, it is not as described.
Then of course there is the assumption that such stories are
true. The fact of life is that tribes interbreed. For any tribe to
have maintained such characteristics for even a century would indicate
a massive infusion of European genetic material such that it is
impossible to explain the lack of European records.
Next I point out that the exploration of the new world was not
carried out in a scientific manner. There was no effort to prevent the
infusion of "alien" genetic material. For the reported characteristics
to exist in even some members of a tribe it would have to have
occurred within a generation of the discovery.
And along the lines of the unscientific nature of the
exploration, if one takes these stories (STORIES) by the explorers on
face value, it is unclear upon what grounds we can reject the other
stories told by the same explorers. Without arbitrary rejection many
things even more fabulous than a little genetic mixing were discovered
in the new world and even more fantastic stories are true.
Then we get into the wishful thinking of the modern story
tellers. A mention of light skin in some obscure account becomes
caucasion while dark skin becomes negroid. Yet at the same time these
are the only signs of European influence, no words, no numbers, no
technology, not even types of knots only found in Europe. Not one
prized artifact such as a metal knife or a mysterious piece of glass.
All these storytellers report is genetic mixing which from all we
know of genetic mixing is short-lived due to the genetic mixing in the
tribes themselves.
Now we know many of the tribes, particularly the more advanced
prized light skin. Thus they did in fact breed for it. But the
storytellers write of it as though it was prized because of advanced
European visitors. IF there were advanced European visitors they were
trading their advanced technology and we know from experience metal
knives are the hottest item. No metal knives found any place. And no
reciprocal trade goods found in the old world.
The alternative is the accidental visit by sailors blown off
course. If that were the case, half starved, nearly dead sailors show
up and have to be nursed back to health. That is not the sort of
people one would come to admire and wish to emulate.
What we are left with the simple fact that there is no basis for
any of this other than extractions from dubious sources.
>There is strong evidence that Columbus himself was partly of African, as
>well as Jewish, descent.
And this recent claim brings up another aspect of wishful
thinking. When I first ran across this jewish claim it included words
extolling Columbus the great explorer. It might not have jumped out at
me had I not recently come across a diatribe against Columbus the
Christian slaver and murderer. It was amazing how easily his
reputation flip-flopped based upon who was taking credit.
Similarly the dispute between Spain and Italy as to who gets the
credit. Who wants the credit for Columbus the bad guy?
>I believe that nothing can take away from the
>fact that many kinds of people, including Africans, discovered the
>Americas, and made a significant contribution to both the cultures and the
>bloodlines of the American Indian peoples.
As noted the claims of bloodline while meaningless save to
racists (whether considered good or bad, considering it is racist) are
ambiguous at best, cultural influence is non-existant as noted.
Thus, as others have noted, if it happened it is no more than a
curiosity.
Matt Giwer
On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:39:03 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@NOSPAMecn.com> wrote:
>bul...@pacbell.net wrote:
>> If somebody is going to assert that there was
>> a good chance columbus was part black and jewish and that europeans
>> and africans had contributed to pre- Columbian American civilization, the
>> scientific method would
>> demand that firm evidence be provided to support such claims.
>> Speculations about
>> there was a "good chance" or "probably" don't cut the mustard.
>Most research begins with the speculation.
No, it begins with unexplained facts.
>Then it develops from
>there. So, if there is even the speculation, it must be emanting from
>Afrocentrists, and therefore is suspect or less credible?
When college level afrocentrists are teaching about Blacks with
wings flying around the pyrmaids and teaching the Greeks all they knew
and crap like that, the field has already degenerated into a National
Enquirer level gutter, dragging down all academia with it.
Thus it is less credible and bears the burden of establishing
respectability first.
>Evidently
>there are archeologists besides Afrocentrists who are looking into this
>possibility. The difference is that they aren't held captive by
>preconceived ideas of the possibility as you are.
Would you care to name them and their publications and findings
so far?
>> In conclusion, if you had half a brain, you would realize that
>> claims about
>> transatlantic crossings by european and now Afro-centric scholars
>> often, but not always,
>> have a racist undertone to them.
>Gee. And all this time there have been white scholars who have
>considered the possibility as well. They must be hiding something in
>the woodpile, eh?
Names and papers?
>> It would be intellectually dishonest for anyone to deny this. Do you?
>Yes. Because it is intellectually dishonest to not only ask the
>question, but to insist that it is somehow normal or acceptable. It is
>neither.
It is intellectually and academically dishonest to do research
towards a particular conclusion. Working towards a speculation rather
than to explain facts is very dishonest.
Matt Giwer
On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 00:57:38 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@NOSPAMecn.com> wrote:
>bul...@pacbell.net wrote:
>>
>> David and Mary Cannon wrote:
>> > There is strong evidence that Columbus himself was partly of
>> African, as
>> > well as Jewish, descent. I believe that nothing can take away from
>> the
>> > fact that many kinds of people, including Africans, discovered the
>> > Americas, and made a significant contribution to both the cultures
>> and the
>> > bloodlines of the American Indian peoples.
>>
>> My, my, what a conveniently multicultural conclusion. Can you cite
>> the
>> sources as to your info. about Columbus's heritage? I wonder if the
>> author who
>> came up with this is reputable and if his speculations are based on
>> sound evidence?
>
>Check the PBS site at http://www.pbs.org. Their site about the
>heritages of various famous people throughout history may still be up.
>Columbus' heritage was mentioned there.
Does that explain why Columbus murdered and enslaved the natives?
Or does that explain why he was a great explorer?
>I recall seeing it somewhere else on the web, also. The source was from
>a major university, and provided a short biography of Columbus. It
>mentioned the possibility that Columbus' family could have had other
>cultures mixed in somewhere further back in the line.
You do realize you sound like you could have had a job judging
racial mixing in the Third Reich do you not?
OK, it isn't you. It your sources that deserve the job.
Eric Stevens
On 1 Jul 1997 06:52:36 GMT, "David and Mary Cannon"
<dca...@voyager.co.nz> wrote:
>
>I don't believe Columbus set sail blindfolded. There is evidence that he
>had access to Jewish, Moorish, and Turkish sources of information, and
>that he knew where he was going.
Also that he had knowledge of the voyaging to the Grand Banks by the
merchant's of Bristol.
>I subscribe to the theory that he had to
>trick the king of Spain into financing the voyage by claiming to be
>looking for a westward passage to India -
The evidence appears to be that he fudged his calculation based on a
deliberately incorrect figure for the diameter of the world.
> ... it is unlikely that the Spanish
>king would have agreed to finance an expedition to a land that Columbus
>said was there, but which the king had no evidence for.
---- snip ----
Eric Stevens
There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
JohnAcadInt
David and Mary Cannon wrote:
.> Tom and Arlene Atkins wrote :
.>
.> > 2)RE: MOORISH SAILORS: let me see, in my readings concerning
.> > the "discovery of the New World" I have seen claims re:
.> > Egyptians 'Holy Seth, look at this stuff! How did they
.> > get the aerial up top?'
.> > Phoenicians 'They seem to use tin, anyway'
.> > Africans 'Neat jazz clubs!'
.> > Romans 'It's an offer we can't refuse!'
.> > Welsh (monks)'The old home cell looks the same'
.> > Irish 'Ich bin ein doughnut' [ Shurely shome mishtakes
.> > here? Ed.]
.> > Polynesians 'If only you could row faster, chaps.'
.> > Japanese 'Lolly, the cars - let's copy them back home!'
.> > Chinese 'We'll eat again'.
.> > Norse (Vikings) 'Something wrong with the radar, Captain.'
.> > Basque 'Something wrong with the radar, Captain.'
.> > Cornish 'Something wrong with the reflector, Captain.'
.> > Hebrews 'You can switch off that thing now, Nathan.'-
.> > Captain.
.> > Not to mention the fight as to whether Italy or Spain gets
.> > credit for Columbus!
.>
.> > What matters is what they DID with that information!
.> > That Moors actually discovered America, if ever proved,
.> > is really nothing more than novelty. Not until Columbus was
.> > the Old World prepared to act on the knowledge. All other
.> > interaction was (apparently) insignificant.
.> > Very interesting, but insignificant nonetheless.
.> > Columbus is rightly given 'credit'.
.> I think your reasoning is faulty. There were some American Indian tribes
.> that had oral traditions of travellers from the other side of the
.> Atlantic. The Mayan legend of Quetzelcoatl is a case in point. I am aware
.> that Quetzelcoatl was white, but other legends speak of Black visitors.
.> Charles Berlitz writes that some South American peoples had both legends -
.> and paintings - of Black, White, and Yellow people all living together.
.> This tells me that European AND African discoverers reached the New World
.> in millennia past. Their discovery may have been lost on the Old World,
.> but it was not lost on the American Indians. Some Indian tribes actually
.> looked black, while one (the Mandan) were blue-eyed blondes.
.>
.> There is strong evidence that Columbus himself was partly of African, as
.> well as Jewish, descent. I believe that nothing can take away from the
.> fact that many kinds of people, including Africans, discovered the
.> Americas, and made a significant contribution to both the cultures and the
.> bloodlines of the American Indian peoples.
.> --
Maybe one of these days you will see that you are ALL racists.
I am sure as God made little apples that you don't mean to
be. What matters about America is the merging of the cultures
it represents. Alas, old habits die hard, and as soon as a
man has a house and a few dollars in his pocket, he looks
around for someone to blame. Yet, it matters not a hoot how you
got there: what matters is what you want for the people with
whom you share your home NOW.
Work for them, and, in doing so, work for yourself! Believe
me, this nonsense as to who invented the candle is not a good
start!
.> David Cannon
.> <dca...@bigfoot.com>
.>
.> Please visit my *recently updated* HOMEPAGE at
.> <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DJ_Cannon/homepage.htm>
Yours evr,
JohnM
& The Trollenberg Terror
And so it seems that we have met before
and laughed before and loved before -
but who knows where or when?
It shouldn't matter, should it?
Peter Ceresole
In article <33BB70...@dial.pipex.com>,
JohnAcadInt <ah...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Maybe one of these days you will see that you are ALL racists.
This is new? Of course everybody is racist. Every society in every place on
earth, throughout recorded history, has discriminated against significant
recognisable minorities. Quite often to the point of exterminating them.
This isn't good or bad as such; it's a product of evolution. Chimps do it
too.
What makes us human is the ability to go against our evolutionary heritage
when we think it's wrong. Human racism simply shows that in all societies
some people are more human than others.
--
Peter
Matt Giwer
On 30 Jun 1997 11:15:16 GMT, "David and Mary Cannon"
<dca...@voyager.co.nz> wrote:
>Several years ago I saw a newspaper article, written by an Australian
>historian, on his African ancestry. Unfortunately I've lost the article,
>but common sense should tell you that it is plausible : Moors , an African
>people, ruled Spain and Portugal for 700 years
Most of Spain for about two hundred years not both for 700. And
then only AFTER the infusion of Arab and resurrected Greek culture and
never with a unified, stable society. And the invasion only gained a
foothold because Spain was not united and could not respond to kick
them out. It expanded by alliance and intrigue, not by direct
conquest.
>(and there is convincing
>evidence that Columbus was Portuguese, not Italian, as is generally
>believed).
Amazing how everyone wants to consider Columbus a liar regarding
his own statements of origin.
>Now, in any population of limited size, the genes of a
>dominant ethnic minority tend to get diffused throughout the entire
>population - so one should be VERY surprised if Columbus was found NOT to
>have Moorish, and therefore African, ancestry.
An octaroon perhaps? Guess what, all humans have African
ancestry. So what does this mean to you racists?
>With regard to his Jewish
>ancestry, I have an article in my possession, written by British
>professor, that is very convincing. When I have time, I'll upload the
>article onto my website.
Does that explain why Columbus is being vilified as a slaver and
a murderer?
Martin Fox
David and Mary Cannon wrote:
>
>
> > Sinse the Moors had invaded and influenced the Iberian peninsula
> heavily,
> > wouldn't they have brough the knowledge of the new world, and some
> > newfound cartography with them? Why did Columbus set sail blindfolded,
> > not knowing where he was going or where he ended up? The Europeans
> > created their maps through trial and error, and obviously the Africans
> did
> > not help them. Why is this, if the Moors did in fact have contact with
> > the new world?
> > Tom
>
> I don't believe Columbus set sail blindfolded. There is evidence that he
> had access to Jewish, Moorish, and Turkish sources of information, and
> trick the king of Spain into financing the voyage by claiming to be
> king would have agreed to finance an expedition to a land that Columbus
> less busy I'll find the books where I read it and upload the information
> onto my website. I may also publish on SCAA any info. related to African
> discoveries, or to any African/Moorish influences on Columbus.
>
> David Cannon
> <dca...@bigfoot.com>
>
> Please visit my *recently updated* HOMEPAGE at
>
> >
Except that all the literature that I've read says that Columbus thought
to his dying day that he had sailed to Asia.
The Viking trips are confirmed.
Columbus' trips are confirmed.
These other trips may or may not have occured. They remain unconfirmed.
Martin Fox
Matt Giwer
On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:48:12 -0400, Bill Kambic
<wka...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Based upon the naval technology available, it is unlikely that early
>civilizations (African or any other) were able to maintain a profitable
>presence in the New World.
Based upon the naval technology available, it is impossible for
them to have maintained any kind of presence in the New World. If it
had not been for gold, the Spanish may not have maintained a presence
in the New World. The loss rate was something like one in three ships.
That is not something one can maintain for furs and tobacco.
It was the gold jewelry Columbus found that kept them coming back
until they found the source.
It took another hundred years of shipbuilding technology directed
towards travel in the Atlantic and quicker routes across the Indian
ocean to avoid coastal navies of their trade enemies before it would
become reliable enough for lower pofit trading.
In fact one could question the degree of Spain's continuing
interest in the New World if it had to trade in competition with other
nations rather than plunder. Given the amount of gold the Aztecs and
Incas had they could have bought Europe. It is estimated that gold
deflated some 60% in value due to the amount Spain introduced into
Europe.
At the least all of this sparked improvements in ship building
technology but it was done seriously by the British and the rest is
history.
Matt Giwer
On 1 Jul 1997 07:10:39 GMT, "David and Mary Cannon"
<dca...@voyager.co.nz> wrote:
>And if *you* had half a brain, you would realize that *denials* of
>pre-Columbus transatlantic crossings, especially by Africans, may also
>have a racist undertone to them. I think it is MORE racist to deny the
>possibility, without any conclusive negative evidence, that Africans or
>others visited the New World before Columbus, than to admit the
>possibility.
However ever, pointing out that only the Egyptian Africans
demonstrated any kind of even rudimentary ocean going capability is
not a denial but a fact.
Pointing out that there is not the slightest evidence of even
coastal trade by boat in black Africa is not denial but a fact.
Therefore, pointing out that speculation of deliberate Atlantic
crossings by black Africans is wishful thinking bordering upon
delusion is not denial but a fact.
There is no need to deny the existance of fairies to disregard
their tales.
Kaiju
Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 00:57:38 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@NOSPAMecn.com> wrote:
>
> >bul...@pacbell.net wrote:
> >>
> >> African, as
> from
> >> the
> the
> cultures
> >> and the
> >>
> cite
> >> the
> >> sources as to your info. about Columbus's heritage? I wonder if the
> >> author who
> >> came up with this is reputable and if his speculations are based on
> >> sound evidence?
> >
> >Check the PBS site at http://www.pbs.org. Their site about the
> >heritages of various famous people throughout history may still be
> up.
> >Columbus' heritage was mentioned there.
>
> Does that explain why Columbus murdered and enslaved the
> natives?
> Or does that explain why he was a great explorer?
What does this have to do with the response given to the question made?
Was this too difficult for you to understand? Perhaps you can find
someone who will read it to you very slowly.
> >I recall seeing it somewhere else on the web, also. The source was
> from
> >a major university, and provided a short biography of Columbus. It
> >mentioned the possibility that Columbus' family could have had other
> >cultures mixed in somewhere further back in the line.
>
> You do realize you sound like you could have had a job judging
> racial mixing in the Third Reich do you not?
What does this have to do with the response given to the question made?
Discussing someone's heritage does not equate to Third Reich race
mixing theories. But given your apparent frame of mind, it would seem
you will go to any lengths to draw some negative stereotypes.
> OK, it isn't you. It your sources that deserve the job.
Do those little men in the white coats and big butterfly nets know that
you're out?
Kaiju
Kaiju
Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:39:03 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@NOSPAMecn.com> wrote:
>
> >bul...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
> >> a good chance columbus was part black and jewish and that europeans
> >> and africans had contributed to pre- Columbian American
> civilization, the
> >> scientific method would
> >> demand that firm evidence be provided to support such claims.
> >> Speculations about
> >> there was a "good chance" or "probably" don't cut the mustard.
>
> >Most research begins with the speculation.
>
> No, it begins with unexplained facts.
Even if that were so, there are facts in evidence that are unexplained
in this case. If it were left to you, it would remain unexplained.
Then it would fit within your personal comfort level.
> >Then it develops from
> >there. So, if there is even the speculation, it must be emanting
> from
> >Afrocentrists, and therefore is suspect or less credible?
>
> When college level afrocentrists are teaching about Blacks
> with
> wings flying around the pyrmaids and teaching the Greeks all they knew
> and crap like that, the field has already degenerated into a National
> Enquirer level gutter, dragging down all academia with it.
Yes, and which college level Afrocentrists have done this? Names and
universities, please. Was it at the Afro-American Studies School at
Harvard? Perhaps it was at U. Texas? Maybe it was at the one at
Columbia? Which one? I want to know precisely which school and which
"Afrocentrist" should be discredited and why. You see, I don't play the
game that all are found suspect until otherwise proven innocent. I want
specifics. If that were the way to judge anything, I would have
foregone attending UC Berkeley because of a well-known racist scientist
who was in residence on the faculty. By your logic, Cal would be a
suspect school not worth attending.
> Thus it is less credible and bears the burden of establishing
> respectability first.
For people like you, one who is willing to trash all African American
Studies departments because of some supposed (and unproven) curriculum,
this standard of credibility is par for the course. In other words, you
will always assume there is no credibility. After all, you are willing
to claim anyone who makes the claims that David did, obviously is an
Afrocentrist. Yarite. I don't know about Afrocentrists being
automatically suspect, but you certainly are.
> >Evidently
> >there are archeologists besides Afrocentrists who are looking into
> this
> >possibility. The difference is that they aren't held captive by
> >preconceived ideas of the possibility as you are.
>
> Would you care to name them and their publications and
> findings
> so far?
It's not my argument. Ask those who are promoting the issue. I'm
questioning why one would ask the question that bulgar did just because
the argument presented appeared to be promoting a positive African
image.
[.....]
> >> It would be intellectually dishonest for anyone to deny this. Do
> you?
>
> >Yes. Because it is intellectually dishonest to not only ask the
> >question, but to insist that it is somehow normal or acceptable. It
> is
> >neither.
>
> It is intellectually and academically dishonest to do research
> towards a particular conclusion. Working towards a speculation rather
> than to explain facts is very dishonest.
It is your assumption that this is the case. Doesn't make you any more
honest, now does it? To explain away or excuse bigotry is even more
dishonest and lacking in credibility.
Kaiju
Gabriel Ataya
David Banner wrote:
>
> kalonj1006 <kalon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Just what history books have you been reading? I've read of slavery in
> >various forms in many of the histories of various ethnic/racial groups
> >over this planet... but NON compare to the barbaric, inhumane,
> >devilish practices that were put in place by the European Nations
> >against Africa!!!
>
> >We African Americans need not thank you for bringing us to America! We
> >had already come to America long before Columbus with the aid of
> >Moorish maps, and black seaman!
>
> Is there any substantiation for this? It seems to me that this is carrying
> Afrocentric education a bit to far.
I read that the Phoenician sailors made it there sometime B.C.
G
Gabriel Ataya
David and Mary Cannon wrote:
>
> I will have to look for the book, but I'm sure I read somewhere that
> Carthage (an African nation that had colonies in Europe) also had a colony
> and trading base in South America. If I find the book, I'll post the
> info. up here.
>
CRAP - Carthage was Phoenician, it wasnt African at all, it was just a
city the Phoenicians had established on the african mainland. At that
time 'black' africans were still quite rare in those parts, it was more
Greek and Roman and Egyptians living there.
Daniel Chenault
It is highly relevant to point out that the poster who asked "Are you
black" was not, on the face of it, being racist at all.
The original message was about African sailors discovering the New
World first. AFAIK, all indigenous persons to that continent are
genetically negroid. It is pertinent and relevant to ascertain if the
original poster is negroid himself in order to ascertain whether or
not he might have a slanted view.
If I see a post about how blind people should be given greater access
to facilities, positing various needs and solutions, it would be
appropriate to ask if the poster were blind in order to ascertain any
vested interest or particular experience/skills.
IOW, the question, "Are you black?" in this context was nothing more
than a question meant to ascertain if the original poster was posting
from a position of unique scholarly ability, experience and learning
or had "an axe to grind." Discovering such is essential in any
discussion, really.
If I told you that Microsoft wrote the greatest software in the world,
you would look at my return address and say, "Well, of COURSE he would
say that." Validating the source of a message or comment is not
necessarily an insult to the source or poster.
David and Mary Cannon
A few days ago I wrote :
> > I don't believe Columbus set sail blindfolded. There is evidence that
he
> > had access to Jewish, Moorish, and Turkish sources of information, and
> > that he knew where he was going. I subscribe to the theory that he
had to
> > trick the king of Spain into financing the voyage by claiming to be
> > looking for a westward passage to India - it is unlikely that the
Spanish
> > king would have agreed to finance an expedition to a land that
Columbus
> > said was there, but which the king had no evidence for. Look, when
I'm
> > less busy I'll find the books where I read it and upload the
information
> > onto my website. I may also publish on SCAA any info. related to
African
> > discoveries, or to any African/Moorish influences on Columbus.
Martin Fox replied :
> Except that all the literature that I've read says that Columbus thought
> to his dying day that he had sailed to Asia.
Please give me time. I'm busy, but I promise I *will* post the evidence
that I've read that his "belief" that he had found Asia was a ruse. Of
course he had to maintain the ruse to the end of his life - if you were
the king of Spain, would you be pleased if you found out that you had been
tricked into coughing up millions of dollars (in today's currency,
allowing for inflation) for an expedition? Would your life be safe?
>
> The Viking trips are confirmed.
>
> Columbus' trips are confirmed.
>
> These other trips may or may not have occured. They remain unconfirmed.
They remain unconfirmed, but they deserve to be investigated. I have
*NOT* said that the evidence for African and other voyages is conclusive.
What I have said is that the possibility is plausible, there is evidence
to support that possibility, and that such evidence deserves to be
investigated - not rejected out of hand, as is so often the case.
I've studied history, Martin, and I can tell you that in most
universities, historians don't always try to be objective. There is the
unwritten and unspoken rule that "truth" as handed down by tradition
should not be challenged. The traditional "truth" is that Columbus was
the discoverer of the New World, and that Vikings may have got there
before him. All other claims are rejected out of hand, without even being
considered.
I have first hand evidence of this. Here in New Zealand, there is a
wealth of evidence that the Maori people had contact with the Incas of
South America. That evidence is in their legends, as well as in the
vocabulary of their language. But guess what? The history and
archaeology departments of our universities won't investigate it, or even
consider it. They dismiss it as rubbish without giving it a second
thought - or even a first fleeting thought. I see the same thing
happening with claims about who found the Americas. Many academics (many,
not all) treat any claims - and *especially* African claims - with
suspicion and come up with all sorts of "reasons" why "it couldn't be" -
without addressing any of the evidence. I can only wonder whether racism
is a factor in all of this.
Douglas Weller
On 4 Jul 1997 02:12:51 GMT, in sci.archaeology, David and Mary Cannon
wrote:
[SNIP]
>
>I have first hand evidence of this. Here in New Zealand, there is a
>wealth of evidence that the Maori people had contact with the Incas of
>South America. That evidence is in their legends, as well as in the
>vocabulary of their language. But guess what? The history and
>archaeology departments of our universities won't investigate it, or even
>consider it.
Are you saying that your linguistic departments have confirmed a
relationship between the languages? Because they are the ones who should
be looking at this, from the sound of it. What do you expect
archaeologists to do, let alone historians?
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Requests To: arch-mo...@ucl.ac.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email do...@ramtops.demon.co.uk for details
Matt Giwer
On Thu, 03 Jul 1997 16:39:31 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@NOSPAMecn.com> wrote:
>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 00:57:38 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@NOSPAMecn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >bul...@pacbell.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> David and Mary Cannon wrote:
How slowly does one have to read to read the damnable racism in
taking "racial heritage" seriously when there is no race involved? If
you want to mutter about national origin, fine with me. But I would
suggest you talk about the political entities that existed at the time
like city states and clans.
>> >I recall seeing it somewhere else on the web, also. The source was
>> from
>> >a major university, and provided a short biography of Columbus. It
>> >mentioned the possibility that Columbus' family could have had other
>> >cultures mixed in somewhere further back in the line.
>> You do realize you sound like you could have had a job judging
>> racial mixing in the Third Reich do you not?
>What does this have to do with the response given to the question made?
>Discussing someone's heritage does not equate to Third Reich race
>mixing theories. But given your apparent frame of mind, it would seem
>you will go to any lengths to draw some negative stereotypes.
The entire issue is being discussed as though it mattered in the
least. Positive stereotypes are RACIST also.
>> OK, it isn't you. It your sources that deserve the job.
>Do those little men in the white coats and big butterfly nets know that
>you're out?
Does the Gestapo know you are loose?
Matt Giwer
On 1 Jul 1997 06:52:36 GMT, "David and Mary Cannon"
<dca...@voyager.co.nz> wrote:
>I don't believe Columbus set sail blindfolded. There is evidence that he
>had access to Jewish, Moorish, and Turkish sources of information, and
>that he knew where he was going. I subscribe to the theory that he had to
>trick the king of Spain into financing the voyage by claiming to be
>looking for a westward passage to India - it is unlikely that the Spanish
>king would have agreed to finance an expedition to a land that Columbus
>said was there, but which the king had no evidence for. Look, when I'm
>less busy I'll find the books where I read it and upload the information
>onto my website. I may also publish on SCAA any info. related to African
>discoveries, or to any African/Moorish influences on Columbus.
The only reasonable source he might have had was a copy of the
Piri Reis map. (Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, Hapgood)
There is no other discovered map of the period that is of
interest after the work of Aristotle for navigation and his is only a
matter of how to do it right not of content.
However, the maps of the far east destination were barely worth
noting for their accuracy. Yes, there is a sort of good one that makes
the textbooks but that is hindsight. From the 15th century time frame
there was no way to tell which was the "good" one. Thus the Piri Reis
maps were as good as any as to what the Far East looked like.
As for the trickery aspect, I doubt it. If it was trickery to an
undiscovered country, it would have been an easier sell to be the
first to trade with entirely new civilizations as the assumption would
be the new one would be like those known. As it was he was proposing a
new route to compete with existing nations in trade, a second best
opportunity.
Kaiju
This seems to be a difficult concept for you to absorb, but someone
asked the question. I answered it. So there it is.
> >> >I recall seeing it somewhere else on the web, also. The source
> was
> >> from
> >> >a major university, and provided a short biography of Columbus.
> It
> >> >mentioned the possibility that Columbus' family could have had
> other
> >> >cultures mixed in somewhere further back in the line.
>
> >> You do realize you sound like you could have had a job
> judging
> >> racial mixing in the Third Reich do you not?
>
> >What does this have to do with the response given to the question
> made?
> >Discussing someone's heritage does not equate to Third Reich race
> >mixing theories. But given your apparent frame of mind, it would
> seem
> >you will go to any lengths to draw some negative stereotypes.
>
> The entire issue is being discussed as though it mattered in
> the
> least. Positive stereotypes are RACIST also.
You are stereotyping, period. Therefore you are racist, according to
your logic. Someone asked the question. I answered it. Period.
Frankly, I don't care one way or another. It is nonessential
information in my existence. It is apparently very important to someone
else here.
> >> OK, it isn't you. It your sources that deserve the job.
>
> >Do those little men in the white coats and big butterfly nets know
> that
> >you're out?
>
> Does the Gestapo know you are loose?
It would appear that you would know more about that than me. After all,
you are the one trying to control the types of questions and answers
that will appear in public.
Get a life.
Kaiju <and some intelligence while you're at it>
David and Mary Cannon
Matt Giwer wrote :
> The only reasonable source he might have had was a copy of the
> Piri Reis map. (Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, Hapgood)
That is one of the sources I'm referring to. Thanks for mentioning it.
<SNIP>
> As for the trickery aspect, I doubt it. If it was trickery to an
> undiscovered country, it would have been an easier sell to be the
> first to trade with entirely new civilizations as the assumption would
> be the new one would be like those known. As it was he was proposing a
> new route to compete with existing nations in trade, a second best
> opportunity.
You need to remember that the Muslims had conquered Constantinople less
than 40 years before Columbus. This threatened European trade with East
Asia, and made the finding of an alternative route a matter of urgency. I
disagree with your conclusion that it was "a second best opportunity".
Yuri Kuchinsky
David and Mary Cannon (dca...@voyager.co.nz) wrote:
[Someone else:]
: > These other trips may or may not have occured. They remain unconfirmed.
: They remain unconfirmed, but they deserve to be investigated. I have
: *NOT* said that the evidence for African and other voyages is conclusive.
: What I have said is that the possibility is plausible, there is evidence
: to support that possibility, and that such evidence deserves to be
: investigated - not rejected out of hand, as is so often the case.
Yes... evidence... See below.
: I've studied history, Martin, and I can tell you that in most
: universities, historians don't always try to be objective. There is the
: unwritten and unspoken rule that "truth" as handed down by tradition
: should not be challenged. The traditional "truth" is that Columbus was
: the discoverer of the New World, and that Vikings may have got there
: before him. All other claims are rejected out of hand, without even being
: considered.
How true...
: I have first hand evidence of this. Here in New Zealand, there is a
: wealth of evidence that the Maori people had contact with the Incas of
: South America. That evidence is in their legends, as well as in the
: vocabulary of their language. But guess what? The history and
: archaeology departments of our universities won't investigate it, or even
: consider it. They dismiss it as rubbish without giving it a second
: thought - or even a first fleeting thought. I see the same thing
: happening with claims about who found the Americas. Many academics (many,
: not all) treat any claims - and *especially* African claims - with
: suspicion and come up with all sorts of "reasons" why "it couldn't be" -
: without addressing any of the evidence. I can only wonder whether racism
: is a factor in all of this.
There's no doubt in my mind that Eurocentrism is to blame in large measure
for the unwillingness of our mainstream scholarship to accomodate or even
to acknowledge the growing and very persuasive evidence of trans-Pacific
contacts and co-operation of Native tribal cultures in ancient times.
Now, in the hope of introducing some substance into this rather heated but
so far quite aimless discussion, how about the following bits of
evidence?
Arabs in America before Columbus?
In 1787, Thaddeus Harris, while travelling along Cambridge-Malden road
(now Rt. 16) was able to observe a site where a trove of hundreds of
bronse coins were found by some roadworkers. The coins were unknown at the
time, and nobody was able to read the script on them. They were considered
worthless, and everybody was welcome to take a few. Harris reported the
find in a letter to John Quincy Adams. Later his account, and
illustrations of coins were published by American Academy of Arts and
Science, in Boston.
Barry Fell, who wrote about this in SAGA AMERICA, p. 26, says the coins
are Arabic and the inscriptions on the coins are in medieval Kufic script.
The coins are square-shaped and 2 of them are shown on p. 31.
What's the story with this find? Has someone "refuted" it yet?
Best,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there
-=- | is always Paradise: so say the most ancient
in Toronto | and the most modern serpents." F. Nietzsche
----- my webpage is for now at: http://www.io.org/~yuku -----
Bill Kambic
<Snipped by Cutlass>
Who Got Here First?
"History is a fable generally agreed upon." This quote has been
attributed to Napoleon, but probably predated him.
The latest "fable" to come down the pike is "Afrocentrism." Suddenly,
everybody from Aristotle to Columbus was of "African" heritage. The
latest discussion on who to the Americas first is just the most recent
chapter in that long saga.
CC was a good captain, so-so navigator, and lousy mathematician. He
seriously underestimated the circumference of the earth. It he had been
better at math, he probably would not have started out as he would have
seen very quickly that he could not carry sufficient provisions
(particularly fresh water) for the proposed journey. Luckily for him
(and his crew), the Americas were in his way!<g> He surely would have
used all the information available to him at the time, including the
experience of Moorish sailors.
CC made another discovery of paramount interest to navigators (ship or
aircraft): magnetic variation. As you all probably know, the magnetic
and geographic poles are not co-located. The magnetic pole lies in the
Hudson=92s Bay area, it I am not mistaken. On a chart, draw a line from
the geographic to the magnetic pole, and continue the line to the
Equator. You could go farther, but this will suffice for the moment. =
As you proceed east or west from that line the angular variation will
increase. As you can see, the navigator must now make a correction to
his compass heading to achieve the desired true heading. He must also
account for deviations in magnetic compass reading for errors induced by
metal near the compass. We used to have a saying to help us make these
corrections. To determine the true course we are making from a compass
(or magnetic) heading, we said "Can Dead Men Vote Twice At Election." =
Compass heading plus/minus Deviation plus/minus Variation equals True
Course, adding the value of variation, if east (and subtracting if
west). To go the other way, we said "True Virgins Make Dull Companions
At Weddings."
The dominant naval technology in the Med prior to the Age of Steam was
the galley. Sail was used as an adjunct to oars. While such vessels
might have been capable of translant voyages, they would not have been
suitable as trading ships. Galleys require rowers (usually slaves;
remember "Ben Hur" and Charleton Heston in a loincloth!<g>). Even
slaves need food and water if they are to continue to work. Such ships
could probably not have carried sufficient provisions for the crew and
enough hold space to be a profitable vessel. In the Med navigation was
often done by "coasting" from headland to headland, and putting in at
night. It should also be remembered that two devices essential to open
ocean navigation, the compass and the chronometer, were not developed
until rather late in the game. A ship caught in the open ocean during a
storm or on a night with no stars (and no compass) was in serious
difficulty. While latitudes depicted on early charts were quite
accurate, longitude was frequently very wrong until accurate time pieces
became available. To this day (in spite of the availability of LORAN,
GPS, etc.) on U.S. Navy ships old fashioned celestial navigation is
taught and winding the clock is the province of a very few
Quartermasters.
Viking long ships, like the Med galleys, also relied upon oars with sail
as adjunct power. The difference was that the warriors were also the
oarsmen (if slaves were used, I am unaware of it). The primary purpose
for these vessels was raiding. They should probably be classified was
warships, not merchantmen. They also sailed by day or clear night
(remember what happened to Ragnar and his "Great Snake" in "The
Vikings"?).
It is likely that "accidental" voyages to the Americas were made prior
to CC, and even prior to the Eriksons. But until the development of
genuine long distance sailing technology, there was no way to profitably
trade with the Americas.
Asians trading on the West Coast of North and South America: Myth or
Reality? Difficult to say, but not likely on a regular and profitable
basis. The Pacific is a VERY large pond and the technology to cross it
successfully and reliably would be fairly advanced. Geography is the
enemy. The distance from San Francisco to the Hawaiian Islands is about
2400 nautical miles. I do not know what the maximum speed of a
junk-type vessel would be, but assuming a 6 knot speed of advance it
would take a minimum of 16 days to make the trip. Of course, I am
assuming straight line navigation and steady winds, and those are not
always avialable to a sailing ship. Now, from HI to China there is a
bunch more ocean. Even if a navigator knew just where islands with
fresh water and provender lay (and the first probably did not) the junk
captain faced the same problems as the galley captain in open ocean
navigation. Again, "accidental" voyages probably occurred, but not
routine trading.
I do not wish to downplay the contributions of Eastern cultures to our
base of knowledge. Arab scholars (I am using this term generically to
include all of the Moslem efforts to preserve and advance knowledge)
were vital to the preservation of Classical learning, and the
development of science as we know it. The library at Seville made that
city one of the great centers of learning in the late middle ages. =
There is not enough credit given to the Spanish Moors in particular for
keeping the flame of knowledge burning. But while these peoples
preserved knowledge, it was the questing (greedy, rapacious, etc.)
Europeans who took this knowledge and DID something with it. Was what
they did a good (or bad) thing? The answer to that question requires
making a value judgment. I, for one, am glad they did it.
Bill Kambic, Bright Star Farm, Kingston, TN
http://www.geocities.com/heartland/hills/1816
Believer in the Great Ambiguous Blessing:
"Dear Lord, for what we are about to receive, may we be truly thankful."
Yuri Kuchinsky
Bill Kambic (wka...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
...
: Asians trading on the West Coast of North and South America: Myth or
: Reality? Difficult to say,
Not so difficult, Bill. Plenty of evidence exists.
: but not likely on a regular and profitable
: basis.
Profitable enough to introduce great many American plants into Asia many
centuries before Columbus. On my webpage, I have photos of medieval
carvings of ears of corn in India. They sure look very much like corn...
: The Pacific is a VERY large pond and the technology to cross it
: successfully and reliably would be fairly advanced. Geography is the
: enemy. The distance from San Francisco to the Hawaiian Islands is about
: 2400 nautical miles. I do not know what the maximum speed of a
: junk-type vessel would be, but assuming a 6 knot speed of advance it
: would take a minimum of 16 days to make the trip. Of course, I am
: assuming straight line navigation and steady winds, and those are not
: always avialable to a sailing ship. Now, from HI to China there is a
: bunch more ocean. Even if a navigator knew just where islands with
: fresh water and provender lay (and the first probably did not) the junk
: captain faced the same problems as the galley captain in open ocean
: navigation. Again, "accidental" voyages probably occurred, but not
: routine trading.
Well, you can be proven wrong here. I have posted before recent research
from SCIENCE indicating otherwise. We _know_ that the Polynesians already
had well established 3500 km trading routes about 6000 years ago! This
comes as the result of analysis of pieces of flint on one of the islands.
Very distant sources of this flint, 3500 km away, have been identified
recently. I can repost this article if you wish.
AND the Polynesians had ships SUPERIOR to what Columbus had many centuries
before Columbus, because they could sail upwind, and Columbus couldn't.
Best regards,
Douglas Weller
On 4 Jul 1997 02:18:00 -0700, in sci.archaeology, Matt Giwer wrote:
[SNIP]
>
> The only reasonable source he might have had was a copy of the
>Piri Reis map. (Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, Hapgood)
Er, Pire R'eis himself gives credit to Columbus for bits of his map.
Fred Smith
yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>Bill Kambic (wka...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: Asians trading on the West Coast of North and South America: Myth or
>: Reality? Difficult to say,
>Not so difficult, Bill. Plenty of evidence exists.
>: but not likely on a regular and profitable
>: basis.
>Profitable enough to introduce great many American plants into Asia many
>centuries before Columbus. On my webpage, I have photos of medieval
>carvings of ears of corn in India. They sure look very much like corn...
>: The Pacific is a VERY large pond and the technology to cross it
>: successfully and reliably would be fairly advanced. Geography is the
>: enemy. The distance from San Francisco to the Hawaiian Islands is about
>: 2400 nautical miles. I do not know what the maximum speed of a
>: junk-type vessel would be, but assuming a 6 knot speed of advance it
>: would take a minimum of 16 days to make the trip. Of course, I am
>: assuming straight line navigation and steady winds, and those are not
>: always avialable to a sailing ship. Now, from HI to China there is a
>: bunch more ocean. Even if a navigator knew just where islands with
>: fresh water and provender lay (and the first probably did not) the junk
>: captain faced the same problems as the galley captain in open ocean
>: navigation. Again, "accidental" voyages probably occurred, but not
>: routine trading.
>Well, you can be proven wrong here. I have posted before recent research
>from SCIENCE indicating otherwise. We _know_ that the Polynesians already
>had well established 3500 km trading routes about 6000 years ago! This
>comes as the result of analysis of pieces of flint on one of the islands.
>Very distant sources of this flint, 3500 km away, have been identified
>recently. I can repost this article if you wish.
>AND the Polynesians had ships SUPERIOR to what Columbus had many centuries
>before Columbus, because they could sail upwind, and Columbus couldn't.
What I'd like to know is: How in the hell did the Polynesians accurately
navigate across the incredibly vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean to small,
pissant islands in the middle of nowhere without becoming lost at sea!
Fred Smith
Duncan Craig
Fred Smith wrote:
>
> What I'd like to know is: How in the hell did the Polynesians accurately
> navigate across the incredibly vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean to small,
> pissant islands in the middle of nowhere without becoming lost at sea!
>
> Fred Smith
In 1985, a reconstructed Hawaiian double hulled canoe set out to New
Zealand using only ancient navigational aids. The Hawaiian navigator,
Nainoa Thompson, used the stars, ocean swells, currents and wind
directions through twelve thousand miles and seven archipelagos. The
story is recounted in "Voyage of Rediscovery: a cultural odyssey through
Polynesia" by Ben Finney University of California Press ISBN
0-520-08002-5.
Duncan Craig
People naively believe the politicians run things. They never have and
never will. Politicians were only the pirates visible local stooges.
R. Buckminster Fuller
Mark Puertolas
I WANT TO SUCK YOUR COCK AND TOUNGE YOUR ASSHOLE...IF YOU WANT TO CYBER
THEN E-MAIL WITH ALL THE DIRTY LITTLE THINGS YOU WANT TO DO TO ME
Peter Metcalfe
On 4 Jul 1997, David and Mary Cannon wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote :
>
> > The only reasonable source he might have had was a copy of the
> > Piri Reis map. (Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, Hapgood)
>
> That is one of the sources I'm referring to. Thanks for mentioning it.
Perhaps you should take a look at when the map was made and who
it cites as a source?
--Peter Metcalfe
Unstoppable Boy
Welcome to the net Michael Jackson.
Yuri Kuchinsky
Fred Smith (fr...@ampatnet.com) wrote:
: yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
...
: >Well, you can be proven wrong here. I have posted before recent research
: >from SCIENCE indicating otherwise. We _know_ that the Polynesians already
: >had well established 3500 km trading routes about 6000 years ago! This
: >comes as the result of analysis of pieces of flint on one of the islands.
: >Very distant sources of this flint, 3500 km away, have been identified
: >recently. I can repost this article if you wish.
:
: >AND the Polynesians had ships SUPERIOR to what Columbus had many centuries
: >before Columbus, because they could sail upwind, and Columbus couldn't.
:
: What I'd like to know is: How in the hell did the Polynesians accurately
: navigate across the incredibly vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean to small,
: pissant islands in the middle of nowhere without becoming lost at sea!
Fred,
Why don't you read this article from SCIENCE? Can you find it in DejaNews?
I can repost it if you wish.
Matt Giwer
On 4 Jul 1997 11:51:11 GMT, "David and Mary Cannon"
<dca...@voyager.co.nz> wrote:
>Matt Giwer wrote :
>> As for the trickery aspect, I doubt it. If it was trickery to an
>> undiscovered country, it would have been an easier sell to be the
>> first to trade with entirely new civilizations as the assumption would
>> be the new one would be like those known. As it was he was proposing a
>> new route to compete with existing nations in trade, a second best
>> opportunity.
>You need to remember that the Muslims had conquered Constantinople less
>than 40 years before Columbus. This threatened European trade with East
>Asia, and made the finding of an alternative route a matter of urgency. I
>disagree with your conclusion that it was "a second best opportunity".
The Muslim "threat" was to profit, having another middle man in
the chain, not to shutting off the source. It is not as though even
the loss of trade would cut off or increase the price of anything
essential.
Thus profit being profit, I will hold with my original
contention.
Matt Giwer
Unless the origin and/or acquisition date of the map is false it
is unclear what problem there is with who.
Jesse Hughes
Hey ho.
I'm not about to get into the debate about who deserves credit for
discovering the already inhabited continent. I'm merely curious about
this one "artifact", which I visited a couple of years ago.
In Heavener, Oklahoma, there is a stone with carvings on it that
have been identified as Norse runes and dated as being carved prior to
800 A.D. The only information I find on these runes is at
http://admin.hps.osrhe.edu/hps/htmls/rune.htm
Well, there's also a book, which was written by the same source. But,
it costs more money than I'm willing to spend to satisfy my curiosity.
Since the author comes from the area, and since the book is devoted to
ancient discoveries of the new world, it could very well be biased. I
certainly don't know enough about archaeology to have an informed
opinion. However, she didn't come up with the conclusions herself,
but spoke to translators from Harvard and the University of Denmark.
So, I was simply wondering if there are good reasons to disbelieve the
claims about the Heavener (and other local) runestones? Anyone here
know?
The related book, by the way, is "In Plain Sight: Old World Records in
Ancient America" and the author, Gloria Farley.
--
Jesse Hughes
je...@cmu.edu
Peter Metcalfe
On 5 Jul 1997, Matt Giwer wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jul 1997 20:31:38 +1200, Peter Metcalfe
> <ph...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> >On 4 Jul 1997, David and Mary Cannon wrote:
>
> >> Matt Giwer wrote :
>
> >> > The only reasonable source he might have had was a copy of the
> >> > Piri Reis map. (Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, Hapgood)
>
> >> That is one of the sources I'm referring to. Thanks for mentioning it.
>
> >Perhaps you should take a look at when the map was made and who
> >it cites as a source?
>
> Unless the origin and/or acquisition date of the map is false it
> is unclear what problem there is with who.
Oh dear. If you had done what I suggested, then you would have found
that it was drawn in 1513 and cites the 'infidel colombus' as a source!
Thus Columbus can't have been using this map when he sailed across the
ocean blue in 1492!
--Peter Metcalfe
Eric Stevens
On Fri, 04 Jul 1997 19:40:34 -0700, Duncan Craig <"dunkers
"@king.cts.com> wrote:
>Fred Smith wrote:
>>
>> What I'd like to know is: How in the hell did the Polynesians accurately
>> navigate across the incredibly vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean to small,
>> pissant islands in the middle of nowhere without becoming lost at sea!
>>
>> Fred Smith
>
> In 1985, a reconstructed Hawaiian double hulled canoe set out to New
>Zealand using only ancient navigational aids. The Hawaiian navigator,
>Nainoa Thompson, used the stars, ocean swells, currents and wind
>directions through twelve thousand miles and seven archipelagos. The
>story is recounted in "Voyage of Rediscovery: a cultural odyssey through
>Polynesia" by Ben Finney University of California Press ISBN
>0-520-08002-5.
> Duncan Craig
More to the point, read Dr David Lewis's books about his
reconstruction of poly/melanesian naviigation.. In his various books
he recounts age-old navigational techniques which have been used for
centuries.
Eric Stevens
There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
Jesse Hughes
Oops, for the entry to this site, use:
http://admin.hps.osrhe.edu/hps/htmls/runtest.htm
--
Jesse Hughes
je...@cmu.edu
Mike Yates
In an article to sci.archaeology dated Sun, 6 Jul 1997 10:33:38, Peter Metcalfe
<ph...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> writes
>Oh dear. If you had done what I suggested, then you would have found
>that it was drawn in 1513 and cites the 'infidel colombus' as a source!
>Thus Columbus can't have been using this map when he sailed across the
>ocean blue in 1492!
Many newcomers to this thread (see how dreadfully crossposted it is!) have
no input other than JOURNALISTS such as Graham Hancock.
Isn't it the motto of journalism "Never let the facts get in the way of a good
story" ?
Facts omitted by Hancock, such as Piri's attributions, need spelling out time
and again, I'm afraid.
Have fun,
--
Mike Yates Frome Somerset England
trio...@acsu.buffalo.edu
On 4 Jul 1997, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> Bill Kambic (wka...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> ...
>
> : Asians trading on the West Coast of North and South America: Myth or
> : Reality? Difficult to say,
>
> Not so difficult, Bill. Plenty of evidence exists.
Like what??
> : but not likely on a regular and profitable
> : basis.
>
> Profitable enough to introduce great many American plants into Asia many
> centuries before Columbus. On my webpage, I have photos of medieval
> carvings of ears of corn in India. They sure look very much like corn...
<Sigh> you can get anything out of ancient carvings...
> AND the Polynesians had ships SUPERIOR to what Columbus had many centuries
> before Columbus, because they could sail upwind, and Columbus couldn't.
workable yes, superior to europian ships at the time
absolutly, superior to the nina pinta and the santa
maria no way
*******************************************************************
* Timothy N. Riordan _________ *
* Consultant Capen CIT SUNY@Buffalo |___ ___|\*
* Programmer OmegaTech Software \__| |\__\|*
* http://www.servtech.com/public/brasser/OmegaTech/ | || *
* Personal Homepage: www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~triordan | || *
* My opinions in no way represent either of my employers |_|| *
* \_\| *
*******************************************************************
Douglas Weller
On Thu, 03 Jul 1997 12:36:36 +1300, in sci.archaeology, Gabriel Ataya
wrote:
>
>I read that the Phoenician sailors made it there sometime B.C.
Where did you read this? There have been all sorts of claims made, of
course, but none that have been clearly verifiable.
Bart Torbert
In article <m2n2o04...@CREAMOFWHEAT-4.SLIP.ANDREW.CMU.EDU>,
jes...@cmu.edu says...
I was the editor of Gloria Farley's book "In Plain Sight". I have under
construction a web site with excerpts from the book. Don't have too many
of the accompanying illustrations integrated into the text I have put up,
but the text is there. Look at
http://www2.privatei.com/~bartjean/mainpage.htm.
I do not like your comment though about a local author being automatically
assumed to be biased on a topic. Nobody seems to care about the Ivy
League types researching their ancestors at Plymouth, Jamestown, etc. I
would think that would be more than enough basis for bias to disqualify
them from the field. If you want to set up strict criteria on who should
and should not deal with a topic, then everyone on all sides of the
arguement should be expected to live up to them.
Bart Torbert
Bart_T...@pidwights.com
SkupinM
What a weird post! First of all, Gloria Farley, her book and its theme
are not exactly unknown to the readers of this newsgroup, so presenting it
as if it were a big secret is strange; second, there is nothing in In
Plain Sight that could even remotely classify it as a visitors' bureau
come-on.
The weirdest thing, however, is the welter of preliminary demurers that
Hughes puts out: he's grasping at straws even before he gets into the
water!
Does he believe that if you get too far from the beaten track, you'll get
"cooties?"
vale
Mike Skupin
Bill Kambic
<The Big Snip>
One time accidental trips do not a profitable basis make. Just 'cause
it looks like corn don't make it corn.
The last time I looked (and it has been awhile) no sailing ship ever
built (Polynesian (sp) or otherwise) could sail into the wind, unless
the sweeps (oars, paddles, etc.) were manned. I do not know who
invented the art of tacking, or when it was invented. But that is the
only way (absent sweeps or towing with boats) that a non-powered vessel
sails into the wind.
Jesse Hughes
Bart Torbert writes:
[Snip]
> I do not like your comment though about a local author being automatically
> assumed to be biased on a topic. Nobody seems to care about the Ivy
> League types researching their ancestors at Plymouth, Jamestown, etc. I
> would think that would be more than enough basis for bias to disqualify
> them from the field. If you want to set up strict criteria on who should
> and should not deal with a topic, then everyone on all sides of the
> arguement should be expected to live up to them.
Hey ho.
I apologize if I didn't make myself clear. I did NOT assume that
Mrs. Farley's research was poor or biased. In fact, I pointed out
that she went to well trained researchers for the information I saw on
the site I posted.
I pointed out that she was from the area because, not only did the bio
I read stress it, but also because I do believe that emotional ties to
a subject may bias the work done there. That's all. Certainly, I
don't think that emotional ties discredit anyone. But if, for
instance, a Yukon, Oklahoman discovered (without any outside
consultation -- unlike Ms. Farley) that King Arthur's court had been
located in Yukon, then I would want to more closely examine his evidence
before believing his claim.
That's all I meant to say -- that, if a researcher probably has strong
emotional ties, these ties may bias and therefore, perhaps the
arguments/evidence ought to be closely examined rather than accepting
it blindly as expert testimony.
Now, in Ms. Farley's case, each of the claims that interested me were
given by outside experts. However, I was still curious to know if
there were any published criticisms of these claims, since all I know
are the claims of Ms. Farley, et al. It's not my field, so it's not
so easy to know where else to look.
Sorry if you took me as insulting Ms. Farley and disputing her work.
I just reread that post myself, and I agree that the part about bias
was poorly worded. My mistake.
--
Jesse Hughes
je...@cmu.edu
Yuri Kuchinsky
trio...@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote:
: On 4 Jul 1997, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
: > Bill Kambic (wka...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: > : Asians trading on the West Coast of North and South America: Myth or
: > : Reality? Difficult to say,
: >
: > Not so difficult, Bill. Plenty of evidence exists.
:
: Like what??
Check on my webpage, or in DejaNews.
: > : but not likely on a regular and profitable
: > : basis.
: >
: > Profitable enough to introduce great many American plants into Asia many
: > centuries before Columbus. On my webpage, I have photos of medieval
: > carvings of ears of corn in India. They sure look very much like corn...
:
: <Sigh> you can get anything out of ancient carvings...
And what exactly is this supposed to mean? What did you get out of ancient
carvings? Care to share your experiences?
: > AND the Polynesians had ships SUPERIOR to what Columbus had many centuries
: > before Columbus, because they could sail upwind, and Columbus couldn't.
:
: workable yes, superior to europian ships at the time
: absolutly, superior to the nina pinta and the santa
: maria no way
Yes, superior in so far as they could sail into the wind. Can you read
above?
Paul J. Gans
Kaiju (ka...@NOSPAMecn.com) wrote:
: Matt Giwer wrote:
: >
: > On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:39:03 -0700, Kaiju <ka...@NOSPAMecn.com> wrote:
: >
: > >bul...@pacbell.net wrote:
: >
: > >> If somebody is going to assert that there was
: > >> a good chance columbus was part black and jewish and that europeans
: > >> and africans had contributed to pre- Columbian American
: > civilization, the
: > >> scientific method would
: > >> demand that firm evidence be provided to support such claims.
: > >> Speculations about
: > >> there was a "good chance" or "probably" don't cut the mustard.
: >
: > >Most research begins with the speculation.
: >
: > No, it begins with unexplained facts.
:
: Even if that were so, there are facts in evidence that are unexplained
: in this case. If it were left to you, it would remain unexplained.
: Then it would fit within your personal comfort level.
:
: > >Then it develops from
: > >there. So, if there is even the speculation, it must be emanting
: > from
: > >Afrocentrists, and therefore is suspect or less credible?
: >
: > When college level afrocentrists are teaching about Blacks
: > with
: > wings flying around the pyrmaids and teaching the Greeks all they knew
: > and crap like that, the field has already degenerated into a National
: > Enquirer level gutter, dragging down all academia with it.
:
: Yes, and which college level Afrocentrists have done this? Names and
: universities, please. Was it at the Afro-American Studies School at
: Harvard? Perhaps it was at U. Texas? Maybe it was at the one at
: Columbia? Which one? I want to know precisely which school and which
: "Afrocentrist" should be discredited and why. You see, I don't play the
: game that all are found suspect until otherwise proven innocent. I want
: specifics. If that were the way to judge anything, I would have
: foregone attending UC Berkeley because of a well-known racist scientist
: who was in residence on the faculty. By your logic, Cal would be a
: suspect school not worth attending.
A recent major book pushing this point of view is _Black Athena_.
The author's name escapes me. Perhaps others will provide it.
The author is a respected academic. You know, one of those
folks totally unwilling to entertain anything but orthodox
ideas.
[rest deleted]
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Paul J. Gans
I have restricted newsgroups to sci.archaeology. There is
absolutely NO EXCUSE for crossposting this stuff to a dozen
groups.
David and Mary Cannon (dca...@voyager.co.nz) wrote:
: A few days ago I wrote :
:
: > > I don't believe Columbus set sail blindfolded. There is evidence that
: he
: > > had access to Jewish, Moorish, and Turkish sources of information, and
: > > that he knew where he was going. I subscribe to the theory that he
: had to
: > > trick the king of Spain into financing the voyage by claiming to be
: > > looking for a westward passage to India - it is unlikely that the
: Spanish
: > > king would have agreed to finance an expedition to a land that
: Columbus
: > > said was there, but which the king had no evidence for. Look, when
: I'm
: > > less busy I'll find the books where I read it and upload the
: information
: > > onto my website. I may also publish on SCAA any info. related to
: African
: > > discoveries, or to any African/Moorish influences on Columbus.
:
: Martin Fox replied :
:
: > Except that all the literature that I've read says that Columbus thought
: > to his dying day that he had sailed to Asia.
:
: Please give me time. I'm busy, but I promise I *will* post the evidence
: that I've read that his "belief" that he had found Asia was a ruse. Of
: course he had to maintain the ruse to the end of his life - if you were
: the king of Spain, would you be pleased if you found out that you had been
: tricked into coughing up millions of dollars (in today's currency,
: allowing for inflation) for an expedition? Would your life be safe?
While you are at it, read a biography of Columbus. *HE* maintained
that he had reached Asia to the end of his days. Everybody else
knew better. In fact, the King of Spain thought him a bit of
a nut because of his stubbornness.
In an era where the accidental discovery of new lands was not
all that uncommon, there was nothing wrong in having made such
a discovery. And with the promise of income to be generated from
the discovery, folks were just as happy to have it be a "new
world".
Don't forget, all of you wild-eyed theory types out there, folks
in Europe KNEW that China was a formidable military power. If
Columbus had really reached China, the best that could be hoped
for was trade. Of course, such trade would be very lucrative.
BUT, if it really was a new world, you could have it all, every
last bit of it.
Which is what happened.
: >
: > The Viking trips are confirmed.
: >
: > Columbus' trips are confirmed.
: >
: > These other trips may or may not have occured. They remain unconfirmed.
:
: They remain unconfirmed, but they deserve to be investigated. I have
: *NOT* said that the evidence for African and other voyages is conclusive.
: What I have said is that the possibility is plausible, there is evidence
: to support that possibility, and that such evidence deserves to be
: investigated - not rejected out of hand, as is so often the case.
Wow. I guess that professional historians are too stupid to
know a good thing when they see it. No wonder they don't
write books that sell like Berlitz and his "Bermuda Triangle"
nonsense.
: I've studied history, Martin, and I can tell you that in most
: universities, historians don't always try to be objective. There is the
: unwritten and unspoken rule that "truth" as handed down by tradition
: should not be challenged. The traditional "truth" is that Columbus was
: the discoverer of the New World, and that Vikings may have got there
: before him. All other claims are rejected out of hand, without even being
: considered.
This is dead wrong. Further, it shows that *you* have the
closed mind. You are fixated on your ideas and refuse to
consider any evidence against them.
There is no such "rule". Things have changed and changed
dramatically in our understanding of history. In my own
area, medieval history, the change in the last few years
has been absolutely astounding. Very few books on medieval
history written more that 30-40 years ago are even worth
reading now, so much has changed.
And you totally misunderstand the nature of academic
scholarship. I've posted on this before -- and won't
bore the closed minded folks with it again.
: I have first hand evidence of this. Here in New Zealand, there is a
: wealth of evidence that the Maori people had contact with the Incas of
: South America. That evidence is in their legends, as well as in the
: vocabulary of their language. But guess what? The history and
: archaeology departments of our universities won't investigate it, or even
: consider it. They dismiss it as rubbish without giving it a second
: thought - or even a first fleeting thought. I see the same thing
: happening with claims about who found the Americas. Many academics (many,
: not all) treat any claims - and *especially* African claims - with
: suspicion and come up with all sorts of "reasons" why "it couldn't be" -
: without addressing any of the evidence. I can only wonder whether racism
: is a factor in all of this.
Sure. It's a conspiracy. We're out to silence you.
Carl Fink
On 7 Jul 1997 00:04:39 GMT, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@mail.trends.ca> wrote:
>
>trio...@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote:
>: workable yes, superior to europian ships at the time
>: absolutly, superior to the nina pinta and the santa
>: maria no way
>
>Yes, superior in so far as they could sail into the wind. Can you read
>above?
European ships (or at least boats) had been sailing upwind for
centuries by Columbus' time.
Have you maybe considered *research* before spouting this stuff? If
you do, look up "longship". Leif Erikson, who *did* reach the New
World before Columbus, sailed a fleet of them, and they could go
upwind.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
Manager, Dueling Modems Computer Forum
<http://dm.net>
Gabriel Ataya
Douglas Weller wrote:
>
> On Thu, 03 Jul 1997 12:36:36 +1300, in sci.archaeology, Gabriel Ataya
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I read that the Phoenician sailors made it there sometime B.C.
>
> Where did you read this? There have been all sorts of claims made, of
> course, but none that have been clearly verifiable.
> Doug
This probably sounds real lame, but in the past 19 years I have read so
many history books and magazines and journals that it would be
impossible for me to remember that detail. I do remember my grandmother
saying something about it recently though. She is from Lebanon which is
Ancient Phoenecia.
Gabriel
Douglas Weller
On 6 Jul 1997 21:30:04 GMT, in sci.archaeology, SkupinM wrote:
>What a weird post! First of all, Gloria Farley, her book and its theme
>are not exactly unknown to the readers of this newsgroup, so presenting it
>as if it were a big secret is strange; second, there is nothing in In
>Plain Sight that could even remotely classify it as a visitors' bureau
>come-on.
>
>The weirdest thing, however, is the welter of preliminary demurers that
>Hughes puts out: he's grasping at straws even before he gets into the
>water!
>
I don't blame him. Anyway now that we're back on this, why couldn't it
simply be a local settlers name? G. Nomedal.