Historical Argument That Was In the Wrong Forum

[Thenewwwguy]

everyone else: please don’t continue this argument with him, it’s getting nowhere and it’s a waste of your energy

 

[Kupe Navigator]

All nations who born after Enlightment have some degree of Enlightment inlfuence.

Right so South Sudan has some enlightenment right? It us a paradise right?
...
...
...
You live in 4D world or something? You act like you came from different dimension
You are so interesting at how delusional you are.

 

[Henri Christophe]

everyone else: please don’t continue this argument with him, it’s getting nowhere and it’s a waste of your energy

THat I agree, let's just reply if have something new to say.

Right so South Sudan has some enlightenment right? It us a paradise right?
...
...
...
You live in 4D world or something? You act like you came from different dimension
You are so interesting at how delusional you are.

All modern states with a sit at ONU is enought modern to me.
As I said, my 4D world is just possible because I avoid European sources....
You are living in European world, look to your world map and figure out who is in your center.

Even a New Zealaender map isn't in center of their your own map....

I'm afraid you lost me here.


Unfortunately, I know very little about Mesoamerican religious beliefs, but I do have some questions.
1) Why do you associate the figure on the left with Yaqui from the Popol Vuh? The Popol Vuh was first written down in the 16th century, and per Wikipedia the Cacaxtla site was abandoned by 1000 AD. That is a long period of time for beliefs to evolve and change. What evidence is there that the inhabitants of Cacaxtla had the same beliefs as recorded in the Popol Vuh? That is, would the inhabitants of Cacaxtla have understood the figure on the left to be Yaqui?
2) Why do you associate the inhabitants of Cacaxtla with the Olmec head carvers? Again per Wikipedia, Cacaxtla was primarily inhabited from 650-900 AD, but the society of the Olmec head carvers head carvers seems to have fallen apart around 400 BC. That's an almost 1000 year gap between the Olmecs and Cacaxtla. The Wikipedia article notes that a Spaniard, Diego Camargo, said in the 16th century Cacaxtla was inhabited by the Olmec-Xicalanca people (unfortunately, the article on the Olmec-Xicalanca is in Spanish only and my Spanish is not good enough to read it). Like with the Popol Vuh, that is almost 500 years after Cacaxtla was generally considered abandoned. What sources did Camargo have to make that statement? Or, what archaeological evidence has emerged that links Cacaxtla with the Olmec head carvers?

Popol Vuh is made by 4 books, just the last one was write in 16 century, the date of the book is the date of it last line write down when Spanish-Tlaxcala-Mexico-Empire conquer the Quiché land (nowadays Guatemala).
In the 4th book I found ONCE the word YAQUI to refeer to white priests from TOLTEC empire... Yaqui was the one who indeed take the heart of others in Popol Vuh 4th book.
Toltec king was the Quetzalcoalt and the myth said about the White civilized empire, from a farway land who came to bring civilization and destruction to Mayapan.


Olmeca-Xicalanca is a mix race between Maya and Olmec, I made an amazing explanation about that and it was censured, I will not explain it again... (Try to find it in Britannica Enciclopedia).
I will just do a resume, they mix before movint to Teotihuacan and after the fall of Teotihuacan they found the city of Cacaxtla where I find some amazing paintings. It was discovered just 1975 and few people know about it.
Cacaxtla was conquer by Cholula and forgoten by time since I go there and can tell to you
I paid 200 pesos to have this knowledge, you can believe or not.
You can also go to Cacaxtla and see with your eyes.
I also put some paitings in resolution good enouth to everyone understand what happens there.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

THat I agree, let's just reply if have something new to say.


All modern states with a sit at ONU is enought modern to me.
As I said, my 4D world is just possible because I avoid European sources....
You are living in European world, look to your world map and figure out who is in your center.

Even a New Zealaender map isn't in center of their your own map....

?????
K you lost me. Might as well as speak Klingon.
Also what's with you avoiding European sources. It doesn't make you cool or hip. European history is still part of human history. And like it or not VERY important history. Avoiding it proves that you are VERY igroant and not worthy to speak anything about history. Don't speak what you know as history. It is not even mythology. It is pure pile of trash.

 

[Yeekim]

The ancient Caledonians reportedly painted themselves blue. Were they a Blue civilisation?

It would be entirely reasonable to depict a Caledonian civilizaton leader wearing blue warpaint though.
I'm not 100% sure I understand Henri Cristophe's point correctly, but I gather he just wishes Olmecs to be depicted as really dark-skinned, which is not necessarily wrong.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

to find it in Britannica Enciclopedia).

And you say you don’t trust European sources... yet ask us to find it on European sources. Hypercric much?

but I gather he just wishes Olmecs to be depicted as really dark-skinned, which is not necessarily wrong.

Yes but they are nort "blacks" as in same race as African people.

 

[Yeekim]

Yes but they are nort "blacks" as in same race as African people.

1) "Race" is more of social construct anyway. Afaik, genetic diversity in sub-Saharan Africa is larger than in rest of the world combined. But sure, they were not "African" in any sense of the word.
2) It is possible (not sure how probable; I only have very cursory knowledge of them) that they may have had a phenotype rather similar to some African people.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

1) "Race" is more of social construct anyway. Afaik, genetic diversity in sub-Saharan Africa is larger than in rest of the world combined. But sure, they were not "African" in any sense of the word.
2) It is possible (not sure how probable; I only have very cursory knowledge of them) that they may have had a phenotype rather similar to some African people.

Problem is Henri seems to imply that all "blacks" are the same race. Not to mention he seems to imply that they "praise blackness" whatever that means.
Sure Olmecs maybe really dark-skinned but they are nowhere dark as some of the African people

 

[Yeekim]

Problem is Henri seems to imply that all "blacks" are the same race. Not to mention he seems to imply that they "praise blackness" whatever that means.
Sure Olmecs maybe really dark-skinned but they are nowhere dark as some of the African people

That would be nonsense of course, but I did not get this impression; he said he just refers to "color", as in skin pigment. English is apparently not his first language, so I'm trying to read his posts in a way that would make sense.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

That would be nonsense of course, but I did not get this impression; he said he just refers to "color", as in skin pigment. English is apparently not his first language, so I'm trying to read his posts in a way that would make sense.

I don't say Olmecs are African, I said I think they are Black.
Olmec civilization is not just Black, they paint their body with Black to look like more Black.
They praise Blackness..
I would love to see an Olmec Civilization with this kind of Olmec Leader.

What dose that mean. I can understand that English is not his first language but what the heck am I supposed to get from this?
He uses "black" as a general term for any dark-skinned people.

 

[Yeekim]

Hopefully @Henri Christophe will clarify, but maybe just read "black" as in "very dark skinned", with no further racial/cultural affinity implied?

 

[AmazonQueen]

What dose that mean. I can understand that English is not his first language but what the heck am I supposed to get from this?
He uses "black" as a general term for any dark-skinned people.

That was a fairly common useage in English at one time. T.H. White referred to a Saracen character as black in The Once and Future King.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Hopefully @Henri Christophe will clarify, but maybe just read "black" as in "very dark skinned", with no further racial/cultural affinity implied?

actually his warped viewpoint on race can be seen from this chart:

This came from this post:https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...izations-thread.657838/page-190#post-15806445 ( which caused creation of this thread- this thread is basically subthread of that discussion) If that were the case he should have seen Indian as "blacks" but no he doesn't.

 

[Henri Christophe]

It would be entirely reasonable to depict a Caledonian civilizaton leader wearing blue warpaint though.
I'm not 100% sure I understand Henri Cristophe's point correctly, but I gather he just wishes Olmecs to be depicted as really dark-skinned, which is not necessarily wrong.

YES! That is my point.
Rama from Ayodhya kingdom also can just be blue, what is the problem on it?

Even now, when this game is jumping the boarder between real and ficction. THey are doing zombies, Aliens, why cannot have Blue Rama or Blue Greeks?

?????
K you lost me. Might as well as speak Klingon.
Also what's with you avoiding European sources. It doesn't make you cool or hip. European history is still part of human history. And like it or not VERY important history. Avoiding it proves that you are VERY igroant and not worthy to speak anything about history. Don't speak what you know as history. It is not even mythology. It is pure pile of trash.

If european is VERY important, I'm wonder who isn't Important?
Are Americans important? Are South Americans important? Am I important? Who is important?

For me Black people is important and I want to have fun with Black civs, if is needed some historical background, Olmec-Xicalanca give us.

What dose that mean. I can understand that English is not his first language but what the heck am I supposed to get from this?
He uses "black" as a general term for any dark-skinned people.

Black is a color, Olmec Xicalanca paint they self to look more BLACK, they praise Blackness, this image show very clear, try to look very well to it.:

In the left there is a guy I'm calling YAQUI because I found ONCE in 4th book of Popol Vuh. *It may be wrong, but don't have other name for it*
In the right there is a very black guy going to the right (to the kings room, 3Deer who is very black)

The 3 guys on the middle you need to look close, just one is side by the right, he is a bit more dark than others, but have the Black legs as the Black in far right.
THere is a history here, a Maya tell me this history for 200 pesos and I'm telling to you, it is the history of Olmec-Xicalanca praiseness for Blackness.... Just it, just a dark society who are proud to be darker than North invaders (Who I'm calling Yaqui).

We just have ONE book to read about Maya history, Popol Vuh, who start be write around 5thousand years ago and the last line was write in XVI century.
In the 3rd and 4th boook speak about the invasions of Toltecs and Spaniards, both with their Civilized ideas and both conquer the Mayapan.


Is just that, another history, important to me, not important to you.
European history can be important to you, fine, it isn't important to me.
I'm American, American history is important to me, European heritage is just 1/3 of my heritage.
1/3 of my heritage is Native America and the other Third is Black American.

Nice to meet you, I'm a full American. full mix -blood and very proud of it.

actually his warped viewpoint on race can be seen from this chart:

This came from this post:https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...izations-thread.657838/page-190#post-15806445 ( which caused creation of this thread- this thread is basically subthread of that discussion) If that were the case he should have seen Indian as "blacks" but no he doesn't.

If have some Olmec king called 3Deer I would put him in Black of this Graph

 

[Kupe Navigator]

For me Black people is important and I want to have fun with Black civs, if is needed some historical background, Olmec-Xicalanca give us.

Who are blacks? Are ethopean blacks? Are Indians blacks? Are Zulus blacks?

 

[Traitorfish]

2) It is possible (not sure how probable; I only have very cursory knowledge of them) that they may have had a phenotype rather similar to some African people.

If they did, they seem to have left virtually no genetic trace anywhere in the Western hemisphere.

The claim of an African origin for the Olmecs is really just pseudo-history; the only evidence presented on its behalf that merits any sort of consideration is the allegedly "black" features of Olmec statuary, which represents a naive assumption that, because those statues appear relatively lifelike compared to most Mesoamerican depictions of humans, those statues must have been intended as photo-realistic representations of their subjects.

Like the (slightly less tenuous) black Egyptians hypothesis, it's rooted in a very understandable concern that black Africans have been written out of the list of canonical "civilisations", but its proponents make the puzzling decision to neglect actually-existing black African civilisations and instead take a civilisation which white Europeans already hold some fascination with, and discover on its behalf a "black" identity, without much heed to the present-day descendants of those civilisations.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Who are blacks? Are ethopean blacks? Are Indians blacks? Are Zulus blacks?

India is a very mix society, in north they are more white and in the south they are more black.

I guess this mix race is linked with Aryian-Dradvian division of India society. (I'm not sure with that)

But for some reason this game put both Indian leaders as Black, Gandhi was Black,
Chandra GUpta was white. Just look to him:

India isn't just ONE nation, it have more diversity than all Europe together.

 

[Patine]

WTH is "black" anyway. I hate that term. Is Maori black? Are Mayans black? What about native Americans like Cree? Are they black?
Olmecs are basically Mayans. Their beliefs and culture impacted mesoamerican people like Mayans and Aztec people. Are Aztec black?

No, they're all "Mongolish," remember?

India is a very mix society, in north they are more white and in the south they are more black.

I guess this mix race is linked with Aryian-Dradvian division of India society. (I'm not sure with that)

But for some reason this game put both Indian leaders as Black, Gandhi was Black,
Chandra GUpta was white. Just look to him:

India isn't just ONE nation, it have more diversity than all Europe together.

Dravidians do NOT consider themselves, "Black," or "African," - and next to no one else does either. And if you've ever actually SEEN a Dravidian, it would really be hard to make that mistake.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

India is a very mix society, in north they are more white and in the south they are more black.

I guess this mix race is linked with Aryian-Dradvian division of India society. (I'm not sure with that)

But for some reason this game put both Indian leaders as Black, Gandhi was Black,

Then why did you put him as white/Caucasian on your chart?
Do you even believe what you are saying, because if not I don't see the point of this discussion?

 

[Kupe Navigator]

India is a very mix society, in north they are more white and in the south they are more black.

I guess this mix race is linked with Aryian-Dradvian division of India society. (I'm not sure with that)

But for some reason this game put both Indian leaders as Black, Gandhi was Black,
Chandra GUpta was white. Just look to him:

India isn't just ONE nation, it have more diversity than all Europe together.

Why you keep making excuses bro? Why not just say. "Sorry guys. My racial views are so baised and warped."