The Black Greeks
To deny the African origin of Grecian civilization the Eurocentrists attack Martin Bernal’s book: Black Athena. This book has nothing to do with Afrocentrism. In the two volumes published thus far, Bernal maintains that Semites from Phoenicia and the Semitic Hyksos speaking rulers of Egypt, took civilization to Greece, not Black Africans.
J.A. Rogers in Sex and Race, Parker, Diop and DuBois on the other hand, are Afrocentric scholars. These scholars have reviewed the writings of the classical authors, the anthropological, linguistic and historical evidence to reach the conclusion that the ancient Greeks were blacks and that the European Greeks learned the liberal arts and sciences from their “black ancestors” who first settled Greece and the Egyptians.
According to the Olympian Creation Myth the earliest groups to appear on earth were the Libyco-Thracians .The Libyans were Proto-Saharans, as were the original Thracians. Some Thracians were descendants of the Kushite and Egyptian troops established at Trace, by Sesostris (Thutmose III or Ramses II), when he conquered Asia and Europe.(Diop 1991; Winters 1983a,1984b,1985a)
Many of the so-called Greek myths are in reality historical texts which show the ancient lifestyle of the pre-Aryans in Greece and the transition from Pelasgian matriarchy to Greek-Aryan patriarchy. The term Amazon was often used by the Aryans to denote matriarchal societies living on the Black Sea. The battle between Thesus and the Amazons, led by Queen Melanippe, records the conflicts between the ancient Aryan-Greeks and the Libyans settled around the Black Sea.
Dr. Lefkowitz (1992) and Snowden (1992,1976) perpetuate the myth that the only blacks in ancient Europe were slaves or mercenaries. This is false the Greek historical works make it clear that many ancient settlers of the Aegean came from Africa , especially the Garamantes and Pelasgians. G. W. Parker wrote that: “I need not go into details concerning the ethnical relations of the Romans, since they, too are Mediterranean and are closely related to the same African confederation of races …[situated in Greece]. Aeneas, their mythical founder of Troy. The Aenead, like the Illiad, and Odyssey and all other of the world’s great epics, is the poetic story dealing with African people”. The heroes of these tales used long shields, the characteristic shields of the Indo-European speaking Greeks were round.
The Eurocentrists attempt to prove there was “considerable cultural and linguistic continuity from the twelfth century to the eight century BC” ,in the Aegean . Yet there is no way it can be proven that Indo-European Greeks have always been in Greece. This view on the continuity between the Linear B Greeks and later Greeks held by Lefkowitz is disputed by Hopper who noted that ” after all, so much which characterizes Minoan Crete seems wholly alien to later Greece, despite the efforts of scholars to detect ‘continuity’ ” ……..
Read more @: The Black Greeks
How many of you people ever seen “White” dirt? Where is it written “To be African one must be born below the “Sahara”? It very that over the course of time “Man” has migrated al over the known world and along the way he has mixed,mixed,mixed and continues to mix. How do any of you think “America” became America. I belive that the “Europeans” left their native country to spread their oat to other places and mix with the people that was there before they came. This the nature of the beast.
my comment should said “it is really simple”. “man has migrated all over the known worlld for eons upon eons”
So-called “white” people today apparently are unable to recognize that a “black” foundation can be whitened in a relatively short time. Any smaller population can be absorbed by a substantially larger population in just a few generations. Thus a hypothetical smaller ORIGINAL population of black Africans could indeed be diluted (and/or killed) by the influx of a larger and LATER “white” population. So it is possible for the two following statements to seem contradictory, but to actually be complementary: 1) descendants of a smaller original black population absorbed by a larger later white population can millennia later be classified as “white”; 2) modern-day Greeks, though classified as “white,” have an original black foundation. In other words, an ancient black people can have “white” descendants. I think that the real unspoken issue is which group, original black or white newcomer, had the advanced civilization? Well, it had to be the original black inhabitants. Why? Because there is a well-documented trail of advanced architecture and other technological marvels that leads one back through time to black Africa. For instance, the pyramids of black Egypt were built approximately 2650 BC. Well, at that time there weren’t any Hellenic (Indo-European) Greeks even in Greece or Crete yet. But there was a “Minoan” civilization already in Crete by about 3000 BC (“white” scholars seem to have difficulty explaining who the “Minoans” were and where they came from). There is no trail of equally old “Hellenic” pyramids in leading from what we call Europe to Crete. How about megalithic structures that were designed to allow the sighting of particular stars and constellations that were built 6500 to 7000 years ago in what is now Nabta, in Egypt (see Nature 392:488-491 (1998)). Did Hellenic tribes even exist that long ago? Had “white” people even appeared? We do not know (it would be a good idea to find out), but even if “white” people had appeared, they were not building stone observatories to allow the marking of the seasons by the positions of specific stars. Clearly the trail of technology leads to Crete from the south – Africa. If this logic is insufficient, how about DNA analysis, from Arnaiz-Villena et al. (Tissue Antigens 53(3):213-226 (1999)), who looked at HLA antigens : “Our results indicate that the Indoeuropean Greeks may be considered as a Mediterranean population of a more recent origin (after 2000 B.C.), while all other studied Mediterraneans (including Cretans) belong to an older substratum which was present in the area since pre-Neolithic times.” That “older substratum” had to be black people. How can I say so? Well, if the logic of the trail of technology and the DNA evidence are not enough, we can look at the oldest skeletal remains of modern humans in what is called “Europe.” One can examine the skeletal remains of a human being and determine whether the skeleton belonged to a black person or not: certain features of the long bones (e.g., the femur) and the shape of the skull, particularly the structure and shape of the jaw and arrangement of teeth, are sufficient to declare that a skeleton was that of a black person. Fossilized skeletal remains were found in the Grimaldi caves in what is now southern France, and these remains are approximately 40,000 years old. These remains were examined about 100 years ago by European scientists and declared “Africoid.” The original inhabitants of what we call Europe would be categorized as black today. The sources of the trails of archaeology, molecular biology, technology, and basic human logic all converge in black Africa. No one denies that in the c. 3500 years since low-technology Hellenic tribes arrived in Crete and Greece and interbred with the existing higher-technology black population, that there could have been later additional admixtures of genetically distinct peoples to produce what people today call “white” people or, in the case of this discussion, “white” “Greek” people. Again, black people can have “white” descendants (for instance, there are plenty of “white” people in the US who have recent African ancestry; there are many reasons for this, but one common one is the phenomenon of “passing.”). The problem is that so-called “white” people want to deny the existence of an original black African foundation (let alone subsequent and recent admixtures of African blood into “white” populations) for which there is ample evidence. So-called “white” people need to acknowledge that while they may refer to ancient Greece as the cradle of “Western” civilization, that cradle did not appear, like Athena from the head of Zeus, fully formed out of nothing. It was built on a previously existing black African foundation. The cradle of ALL civilization was black Africa. Is it so difficult to say that it stands to reason that the first people would naturally produce the first advanced civilizations, and that all others were built on that foundation?
Greek dna related to ethiopian dna.
This guy (Winters) wrote a big long piece about how the real Chinese were black Africans.. Shows you his sanity level.
Richard; the Grimaldi boy was NOT negoird, They stuck adult teeth into an adoloescent crania and accidentally created the only two ‘negroid’ features- big teeth and apparent prognathism. And they were never called Africoid.
And; if black Africans founded everything why are all of the early crops and domesticated animals from Iran and Turkey? The crania from these sites look just like modern Asians, btw. All the early crops in Africa are Asian, not African.
There has never been any DNA evidence or cranial evidence to support an African origin for Greeks (that Villenas HLA study was proven wrong by later HLA studies). Southern Europe was building small cities and discovering metallurgy about 7k ago, just as farming was introduced to Africa from the near East.
SO culture and civillisation ddin’t come from black Africans.
General note on the page… coastal mahgrebians have been mainly white people for about 10,000 years. The black proto Saharans (roundheads) never got out of the central Sahara. DNA studies on 12,000 year old coastal North Africans have shown them to be basically Eurasian not black Africans.
I’d also like to point out to the ancients Africa was ONLY north Africa. The rest of Africa was called Ethiopia, and black Africans Ethiopians. There’s plenty of artwork from the Greco Romans, Byzantines and Egyptians showing North Africans as white, none shows them as black.
LMAO.
Jadhey, Europeans arrived about 20,000 years before farming was discovered. That skin colour mutation only makes the difference between Southern and Northern Europeans. Asians don’t have it, and they are very obviously not black.
You are a total numpty who knows nothing about history or genetics. Cro Magnon remains (26k old) have the same kind of mt DNA as modern Europeans. I can only assume you are doing this as a wind up.
BTW, Greeks have E3b1a, not E3b.That particular Y DNA has never been found in Africa. Sickle cell is not indicative of admixture.
Technically there is way more European ancestry in West Africans than African in Europe. Lets see, the Ouldeme have 95% R1b- a typically European Y chromosome. Cameroon has about 40% R1-which is Asian. So Europeasn and Asians founded all the West African kingdoms.
A taste of your own pseudo logic.
Mathilda aka Chacha the ignorant cat chats:
“Jadhey, Europeans arrived about 20,000 years before farming was discovered. That skin colour mutation only makes the difference between Southern and Northern Europeans. Asians don’t have it, and they are very obviously not black.”
Jahdey responds:
“Is not known to you that the Black Europeans were the first to arrived in Europe? Has it not been proven with tested scientific methods that the colour, crania and skeletal morphology of those 20,000 years old “Europeans” all indicated that they were more similar to the Africans of today than modern Europeans.?” Brown skinned Africans from today’s Nigeria, and Cameroon and Senegal were in Spain 20,000 years ago. Brown skinned Africans (Black is a cultural signification not a biological taxon) from the area around modern Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt settled today’s Palestine, Israel, Turkey, the Aegean Islands, Danube and the Balkans.”
Mathilda the cat rants:
“You are a total numpty who knows nothing about history or genetics. Cro Magnon remains (26k old) have the same kind of mt DNA as modern Europeans. I can only assume you are doing this as a wind up.”
Jahdey rsponds:
“The MTdna of Europeans of 20,000 years ago was African originated. The women of old Europe were not pink and pale like you Chacha, they were dark and brown like morden African-American and Latino women. Africans they were despite your vain and childish fantasies.” Go read the the works of Oppenheimer; and the book the seven daughters of Eve. My references are pale skinned Europeans and Americans with whom you identify.”
Mathilada alias chacha the ignorant cat continues:
“BTW, Greeks have E3b1a, not E3b.That particular Y DNA has never been found in Africa. Sickle cell is not indicative of admixture.”
Jahdey responds:
“Do you lack understanding or are you just too naive to known that E3b is the African father of E3b1a? You can not see the relationship or are you just playing dumb and dead?
You can go read my demolition of your racialist brother Dave on the sickle cell gene. You are simply in denial, plain silly or a complete ignoramus if you do not realize that all genes are hereditary i.e. passed on from father to child. The presence of Hbss Haplotype 19 in Greece, Sicily and the rest of southern Europe is conclusive proof of historic population settlement from Africa into those areas. Scientists have pin-pointed the pharaonic times for this immigration. Go to a proper school Mathilda you old cukold, rather than cutting, pasting ill-digested internet chat room ideologies.”
Mathilda aka Chacha shoots off:
“Technically there is way more European ancestry in West Africans than African in Europe. Lets see, the Ouldeme have 95% R1b- a typically European Y chromosome. Cameroon has about 40% R1-which is Asian. So Europeasn and Asians founded all the West African kingdoms.”
Jahdey responds:
“Yes I know of that. Y-Dna in African is older than YDna in Europe. In other words, Africans were here before Europeans were born.
Your so-called Black Africans walked this earth, a million years before the first pink and pale European appeared from whereever. By then Africans had established in India (via Andaman Islands), in South East Asia (via New Guinea and Fiji Islands), as far as China (if you understood that even the Chinese government admits that the first Chinese were Black people).
Cameroon has underived R* gene Y-Dna not R1. R* is older than R1 since it is the only underived member of the R-lineage. Again you are mistaken. Again you need to use proper logic. If R* is related to, yet older than R1, then what does that tell you Chat chat ye ignorant cat.
R originated in Africa. It is still in Africa. You need to understand that sex chromosomal Dna markers are not indicative of either colour or morphology or phenotype of the bearer. You can be brown as chocolate and still have R1a or R1b.
Your implict fallacy is to suppose that R1a or R1b indictaes a pink and pale girl like you. No. It is simply a sex maker used to determine population relationship and movement.
Africans have the most ancient and the most diverse genetic compositions. The origin of every lineage is in Africa. You will find all the lineages in their most underived forms in Africa. And the phenotype of the bearers are black Africans!
So those your fancy named Cro Magnon, or fantasy ancient European kingdom founders are your deep repressed wishful thinking. But the reality is the African is the mother and father of all life, and all the civilization, kingdoms and religions.
Your type came late. You must not be coveteous nor hateful.”
Love
Jahdey