Afro-American Origins and Narration of American Music

Nov 2018
112
Kentucky
#11
--We have debated fairly exhaustively claims of African migration to Europe prior to Columbus and as much as I'd like to believe it, proof is lacking.
It has been proven the World over by now. People with Eurocentric viewpoints tend to be blind to that which is upsetting to their narrative of World history. Not saying that you are. There were several different waves of migrants from Africa during different periods of time. The earliest seems to have come from Africa around 130,000 years ago according to Brazilian archaeologist.

Dr. Guidon remains defiant about her findings. At her home on the grounds of a museum she founded to focus on the discoveries in Serra da Capivara, she said she believed that humans had reached these plateaus even earlier, around 100,000 years ago, and might have come not overland from Asia but by boat from Africa."

link

Another wave apparently predate the migration from Asia with the discovery of the Africoid skull nick named "Luzia".


These are officially recognized migrants or migrations rooted from Africans into the Americas. The other more recent migrations including the Olmecs, Abu Bakr III, etc etc etc etc all have sufficient evidence to satisfy the claims (one African is recognized and recorded in the Muslim World). I think that the denial of this obvious fact is for political reasons and subsequent implications though. None the less that's another thread.


One painting of dark-skinned persons is not proof. I've been to Peru a couple of times and have seen zero evidence of African influence outside the region south of Lima.
If for whatever you have to pretend that you don't see that those individuals in that painting are clearly of an Africoid stock then do what you have to do. At this point I just want people to recongize the type of obtuseness they're up against when presenting the truth in these discussions.
 
Nov 2018
112
Kentucky
#12
I find the premise a bit idiotic, and it's probably tied to the even more idiotic idea of cultural appropriation. What exactly is wrong about Elvis being influenced by earlier artists and becoming a mainstream star?
The point that's being expounded on is the irony of this society! In this society in which the notions intelligence and race have been such a major force the people who are deemed lesser intelligent are the one's responsible for narrating the culture of the civilization. Like in the past the younger generations while still holding on to vetted notions of superiority in the larger society (of all races) are clinging to our culture to incorporate into their daily lives (slang, dialect, dress, swagger, etc etc etc). That's backwards though. Why would people who are often deemed superior in intelligence cling to the intelligence (things created from almost scratch like musical genre's blues, jazz, rock n roll etc) of a people that they believe are inferior?
Is it somehow wrong? Is it wrong because he was white? Or for example, are us Finns not allowed to make rap songs in Finnish?
The question is...why do you even need our platform for your cultures musical expression all the way over there....Rap, RnB, 80's soul music, disco, rock n roll, Jazz all came from one people. There is an effort by white society to downplay the intelligence of these people who narrate their culture. It's crazy! I don't know how the situation is over in Finnland, but here in America you have racist rednecks who make rap videos.....you have klansman in Charlottesville, VA WITH DREADLOCKS... Many of these people will steal our culture (with no real alternatives of their own) just weaponize it against us.

Then the worst part about the integration into our culture, is that it becomes unsavory to the people who it was initially created for. Think about the old show Soul Train. It was an black thing when it was really poppin. Then when they forced everybody into our culture it began to suck. Other people enjoyed it, but our culture was destroyed. `
Guess some people just can't stop segregating. Is it so hard to think that Chuck Berry and Elvis had more in common with each other than they had with people of matching skin color?
The thing is right now... In America right now we have extrajudicial police executions on film, and these same people who same we have alot in common with are actively cheering what are essentially lynchings of black people. I and many other black people (Charlamagne the God on the Breakfast club being one of them) have a major problem with that.

And just to poke holes: in the first linked video the people are singing in English. Did that language originate in Africa too?
All language originated in Africa if you didn't know.



That's what Rakim and the other early rappers who 5 percenters used to rap about.

Btw. "black american RAP" seems to be stuck in gangsta mode(or rather, in the 90s). There's a **** ton of underground **** of course.
"Black American rap" you mean rap period???? There no other rap! That ignorance coupled with arrogance is a common theme among those from the outside looking in. It is the reason why I say that we should never olive groups into our culture, to validate their cool, but they can never be considered cool unless we (or a handful of paid African American hip hop artist/industry plants) validate them and that 's the rule. That's what happened with Eminem (Dr. Dre) even the mixed race half Jewish rapper Drake (lil Wayne/J-Prince).

Back in the Day with Vanilla Ice the white media would take the fact that white people love seeing our culture on a white face (the Elvis affect) and say that because white people rallied around this white rapper that he was the king of hip hop at the time, because white people rallied and bought his music (notice it's ALWAYS a war like thing). They're the same thing with white rappers today like Post Malone. It's wild!
 
Nov 2018
112
Kentucky
#14
[QUOTE="Tulius, post: 3062855, member: 43111" You don’t need to invent or fabricate other connections.[/QUOTE]

If you're not willing to debate me on whatever you have discernment with then please don't throw shots :winktongue:
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,085
Portugal
#15
YoYoYoo,

I can discuss history and like to discuss it if sources and proofs are presented when we raise a theory or just an idea that goes out of the box against established historical knowledge.

You were the one, on your first post, to defy the forum members to post their thoughts. You wrote “Post your thoughts.”

Well, I posted mine. But in history we can’t be much serious with formulations like this one:

There are a lot of misconceptions about the origins of musical genres. I heard a pretty broad claim that…
That is not the way we discuss seriously history, it is a way that we can discuss history in a bar in a group of casual friends.

This kind of sentences are a goo example, you begin to tell that there re misconceptions and then you begin to dismantle it with a pretty broad claim as a source. This is also a way that today fake news work.

So I can quote and agree with what some members posted here, and I will quote two, jut to give you an idea:

European classical music has nothing to do with black musical styles or subcultures, whereas the other genres that you mentioned actually do originate from such styles.
The influence on contemporary popularworld music of the African diaspora is overwhelming.

But I believe that trying to claim more African influence than can be proven hurts rather than helps legitimate claims. To buy into your presentation, I'd like to see some proof of influence of African music on European classical music, pre-conquest South American music (such as Cusquenha), and oriental music.

Not musical theory, but musical practice.
 
Jan 2010
3,983
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#16
It has been proven the World over by now. People with Eurocentric viewpoints tend to be blind to that which is upsetting to their narrative of World history. Not saying that you are. There were several different waves of migrants from Africa during different periods of time. The earliest seems to have come from Africa around 130,000 years ago according to Brazilian archaeologist.

Dr. Guidon remains defiant about her findings. At her home on the grounds of a museum she founded to focus on the discoveries in Serra da Capivara, she said she believed that humans had reached these plateaus even earlier, around 100,000 years ago, and might have come not overland from Asia but by boat from Africa."

link

Another wave apparently predate the migration from Asia with the discovery of the Africoid skull nick named "Luzia".


These are officially recognized migrants or migrations rooted from Africans into the Americas. The other more recent migrations including the Olmecs, Abu Bakr III, etc etc etc etc all have sufficient evidence to satisfy the claims (one African is recognized and recorded in the Muslim World). I think that the denial of this obvious fact is for political reasons and subsequent implications though. None the less that's another thread.




If for whatever you have to pretend that you don't see that those individuals in that painting are clearly of an Africoid stock then do what you have to do. At this point I just want people to recongize the type of obtuseness they're up against when presenting the truth in these discussions.
A statement that people "might have come by boat from Africa" is not proof that people did come by boat from Africa. A very early African diaspora solves quite a few archaeological problems and is plausible on its face, and, as I said, I'd love to embrace it, but I have yet to see any real proof.

I am familiar with the Pre-Clovis discoveries but I know no "officially recognized migrants or migrations from Africa into the Americas."

And I still don't buy the theory that everyone with a dark skin came from Africa (except in the sense that the entire population of the world arose from African roots), even allowing for artistic license in that particular painting.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2010
3,983
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#17

"The Krar harp or one of its variations later developed into the guitarro, the direct ancestor of the guitar which was used widely in ancient Mauritania, later known as the Maghreb, the Sahel and Guinea.
Guitarro was introduced to Spain by African Moors in the 9th century AD. They used it for their music and soon the whole of Spain, southern Italy, southern France, became avid acolytes of guitarro culture."​



Well I'm not one to believe that humans have been sea surfing for 100,000 years, but it was only 500 years ago that someone sailed to America. I fully believe based on overwhelming evidence that various waves of Africoid populations ventures over into the continent over that course of time. Given the evidence for a large presence of Africans in America prior to Columbus, I do not look at these Africans in the picture as descendants of enslaved Africans recently brought over, but rather people with a long standing presence on the land.




Can you name any none satellite radio music stations in America or the West that caters to "Oriental" music other than K-pop which clearly came Jamaican/West Indies dance hall.
Something about the image you posted has bugged me for a while. Here's a description of who these people are and why this painting (and their presence in South America) does not support a pre-Columbian African presence in South America:

The mulatto gentlement of Esmeraldas - Andrés Sánchez Gallque - Google Arts & Culture

I'm not saying that a pre-Columbian presence is impossible, or even unlikely, given the proximity between Brazil and West Africa. Only that it is unproven at this point.
 
Nov 2018
112
Kentucky
#18
YoYoYoo,

I can discuss history and like to discuss it if sources and proofs are presented when we raise a theory or just an idea that goes out of the box against established historical knowledge.
That's cool. I only make a case if I have sufficient evidence support a claim.
 
Nov 2018
112
Kentucky
#19
A statement that people "might have come by boat from Africa" is not proof that people did come by boat from Africa.
AND

Something about the image you posted has bugged me for a while. Here's a description of who these people are and why this painting (and their presence in South America) does not support a pre-Columbian African presence in South America:

The mulatto gentlement of Esmeraldas - Andrés Sánchez Gallque - Google Arts & Culture

I'm not saying that a pre-Columbian presence is impossible, or even unlikely, given the proximity between Brazil and West Africa. Only that it is unproven at this point.
The both of you have that right to hold those reservations based on that finding alone.

A very early African diaspora solves quite a few archaeological problems and is plausible on its face, and, as I said, I'd love to embrace it, but I have yet to see any real proof.
There is even biological proof;

"Diehl and Coe (1995, 12) of Harvard University have made it clear that until a skeleton of an African is found on an Olmec site he will not accept the art evidence that there were Africans among the Olmecs."


"This is rather surprising because Constance Irwin and Dr. Wiercinski (1972) have both reported that skeletal
remains of Africans have been found in Mexico
."


Dr. Wiercinski (1972) supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the Negroid type black.


Wiercinski discovered that 13.5 percent of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were Africoid (Rensberger,1988; Wiercinski, 1972; Wiercinski & Jairazbhoy 1975).

As you can see above we have peer reviewed studies showing African skeletons in the America's first civilization. Western academia simply acts a fool when it comes to acnkwoledging these findings. A simple adna test on those "Negroid" remains will prove that.

We have genetic evidence proving that the Mayans had African ancestry;

Although this entity once was thought to be confined to the Negro race, cases have been reported in white families, most of whom were of Mediterranean stock.6' 7,11 X-ray findings of the skulls in Mayan Indians were suggestive of sickle cell disease.20 It has also been described in Mexicans. The sickle cell trait was found in 7.3 per cent of a series of over eight thousand Negroes, 9 with a higher percentage in South African natives.10. Sickle Cell is inherited from parent to child, and only comes from particular African population which is the Niger-Congo speakers.



The presence of this haplotype in other regions of the is simply the proof of our early colonization of the globe.


I am familiar with the Pre-Clovis discoveries but I know no "officially recognized migrants or migrations from Africa into the Americas."
So are you saying that you need for someone to connect the dots for you? Are you obvious to the political implications of such a finding? Do you think that acknowledging that the most subjugated groups in this hemisphere are the rightful owners of the land would be in the best interest of these European based governments?

And I still don't buy the theory that everyone with a dark skin came from Africa
All humans came from Africa and were originally melaninated. See the documentary clip below.

 
Jan 2010
3,983
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#20
AND



The both of you have that right to hold those reservations based on that finding alone.



There is even biological proof;

"Diehl and Coe (1995, 12) of Harvard University have made it clear that until a skeleton of an African is found on an Olmec site he will not accept the art evidence that there were Africans among the Olmecs."


"This is rather surprising because Constance Irwin and Dr. Wiercinski (1972) have both reported that skeletal
remains of Africans have been found in Mexico
."


Dr. Wiercinski (1972) supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the Negroid type black.


Wiercinski discovered that 13.5 percent of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were Africoid (Rensberger,1988; Wiercinski, 1972; Wiercinski & Jairazbhoy 1975).

As you can see above we have peer reviewed studies showing African skeletons in the America's first civilization. Western academia simply acts a fool when it comes to acnkwoledging these findings. A simple adna test on those "Negroid" remains will prove that.

We have genetic evidence proving that the Mayans had African ancestry;

Although this entity once was thought to be confined to the Negro race, cases have been reported in white families, most of whom were of Mediterranean stock.6' 7,11 X-ray findings of the skulls in Mayan Indians were suggestive of sickle cell disease.20 It has also been described in Mexicans. The sickle cell trait was found in 7.3 per cent of a series of over eight thousand Negroes, 9 with a higher percentage in South African natives.10. Sickle Cell is inherited from parent to child, and only comes from particular African population which is the Niger-Congo speakers.



The presence of this haplotype in other regions of the is simply the proof of our early colonization of the globe.




So are you saying that you need for someone to connect the dots for you? Are you obvious to the political implications of such a finding? Do you think that acknowledging that the most subjugated groups in this hemisphere are the rightful owners of the land would be in the best interest of these European based governments?



All humans came from Africa and were originally melaninated. See the documentary clip below.

Re the Olmec: Olmec alternative origin speculations - Wikipedia
 

Similar History Discussions