All over the Internet, you may have seen ‘Beethoven is black’, with an accompanying picture. Or that Mozart was black, or Hannibal from Carthage or other historic figures from antiquity were African Negroids. We all know it’s not true. Afrocentrists just take things that agree with their viewpoint, and warp anything they can in an attempt to say that “they were African”. There are tons of these lies going around the internet, with enough people who believe in Afrocentrism religiously, convinced that the white man hid knowledge of past African greatness. This will be a series of posts on Refuting Afrocentrism, with each successive piece focusing on a different part of the Afrocentric narrative.
I’ve had an interest in Mesoamerican history since I was a kid. I was reading adult level books when I was 10 years old. I got this book, The Mayan Prophecies: Unlocking the Secrets of a Lost Civilization, which talked a lot about Maya history, as well as where they came from. It’s an extremely interesting book, which goes through the history of the Maya, their astrology, mathematics, agriculture, building methods and so on. It said nothing about the Maya being African. That’s because it’s just Afrocentric rubbish.
Recent new evidence has said that the Olmecs and the Maya were easy to differentiate in the Classic Period (250 to 900 AD, which was their Golden Age) because they had language and culture distinct from the Olmecs. It’s said that while the Olmecs were building La Venta in Mexico, the Maya were living in loosely associated nomadic groups to the east and southeast. That holds that the Maya developed from the Olmec, but Ceibal is 2 centuries older than La Venta. Though, the researcher says that there was a flow of ideas and culture between the two locations and that through those interactions, a new society developed. He says from 1000 to 700 BC that that La Venta and Ceibal were freely trading ideas, technology, culture, and maybe even people.
From this study on Maya genetics, you can see that it says the closest group to the Maya were the Arhuacs, the first recorded Caribbean inhabitants. They are not genetically close to the Mesoamerican Zapotec, Mixe and Mixtec, who generally cluster together. The Mixe are only related to the Maya on a linguistic basis. DRB1*0407 and DRB1*0802 alleles are found in 50% of Mayans, they’re also found in other Amerindians, but the Maya’s high frequencies may be because of a founder effect from the Mesoamerican-Caribbean population. They described Maya-specific HLA haplotypes (which are involved in inflammation as well as other immune system activities). Some HLA genes have many possible variations, allowing each person’s immune system different protections against certain diseases. Language and genes do not completely correlate in microgeographical studies.
“Significant genetic input from outside is not noticed in Meso and South American Amerindians according to the genetic analyses; while all world populations (including Africans, Europeans, Asians, Australians, Polynesians, North American Na-Dene Indians and Eskimos) are genetically related. Meso and South American Amerindians tend to remain isolated in the neighbour joining analyses.”
This further proves another point that I read. That Mesoamericans are the furthest genetically from Africans, because of no genetic mixing between any populations with Mesoamericans, allowing their DNA to go from distinct East Asian (because Native Americans are descended from Siberians who crossed the Bering Land Bridge 12,000 years ago, since they evolved completely separated from Africa, no gene flow from anywhere else in the world got to the Mesoamericans, and over thousands of years they developed to be a genetically distinct group), to their own distinct genetic clade.
This is attributed to isolation from the rest of the world, as well as faster evolution. That is another reason why I believe the once great Mesoamericans are how they are today, because 1) because the Spanish killed off all of the high-status people, who were more intelligent, as well as disease killing them off. The slave population they had would have been more immune to the diseases. 2) Faster evolution. With evolution in a hot climate for tens of thousands of years, in comparison to where they first evolved when they were still genetically similar to East Asians, it obviously changed their genetics to make them distinct from East Asians, but not enough to get rid of the intellect they had already due to the Ice Age evolution. Anyway, I’m digressing, that will be for a future post.
Now to see Olmec genetics (Mexican Mazatecan Indians), who are pretty similar to the Maya, as noted above.
Findings were indirect evidence of Olmec/Maya relatedness, further supporting the theory that the Olmecs were the precursor to the Maya. Again, language and genetics do not correlate in the microgeographic area, a significant genetic output is not noticed at all in Mesoamerican populations while all other world populations (Africans, Europeans, Asians, Australians, Polynesians, North American Na-Dene Indians and Eskimos) are genetically related. As I said above, Mesoamericans are so genetically distinct due to faster evolution as well as no gene mixing between regions, which, over time, caused their DNA to mutate to the clade they have today. Both Central and South American Indians are genetically distinct from the rest of the world.
So we can see that all Mesoamerican populations are mostly similar to each other, except the Maya who are pretty unique, most likely due to the founder effect from the Caribbean.
The name ‘Olmec’ is a Nahuatl word meaning ‘the Rubber People’ Nahuatl is an Aztec language. They extracted latex from rubber trees. The Olmecs were thought to have died out around 400 BC.
Now that we have a good background on the Olmec and Maya connection, as well as Maya and Olmec genetics, let’s see what this Afrocentric Olmec theory is about.
The theory of Olmecs being Africans was first developed by Ivan van Sertima in the 70s. He wrote a book called They Came Before Columbus: The African Presence in Ancient America (Journal of African Civilizations). He first developed the theory from seeing the giant stone heads the Olmecs made, which look distinctly Negroid in appearance, as seen in the picture below.
Sure, from direct outward appearance, I can see how people would believe how the head looks like that of a negroid, but genetics tells us a different story.
Van Sertima claims that Mali seafarers reached Mesoamerica, and had consistent contact with the Olmecs, trading ideas and culture with them.
As I said above, most Mesoamerican populations are related to each other, with having no admixture from other parts of the world that all other populations have. So, if the Malinese people did have contact with them, we would find some of their DNA in Mesoamerican peoples today. We obviously know how ‘Hispanics’ came to be today, Spaniards mixing with the ‘Natives’. So, if we have Spaniards mating with ‘Natives’, and Mali supposedly had contact with Mesoamerica, then logic would dictate that genetic testing would find African blood in Mesoamerican populations.
But, as I noted earlier in this article, Mesoamericans are genetically distinct from all populations. We can see here that neighbor-joining analyses were done by putting together many worldwide and American populations. Both analyses show that Meso and South Amerindians are not related to the Na-Dene, because they came in one of the 3 migrations out of Siberia into the Americas. They are also not related to the Eskimos. Mesoamericans also do not show any relatedness with Polynesians, Australoids (discarding a massive Pacific colonization), Caucasians or African blacks. Genetic evidence also suggests that people moved from South America to North America into Siberia.
So why are there clear negroid features on the Olmec heads? Because they were obviously modeled after the Olmecs themselves. We know that the shapes of people’s noses comes from the climate that their ancestors evolved in. It has to do with temperature and moisture in the air. In areas where it’s extremely dry and has a lot of heat, a larger mucous area is required to moisten inspired (breathe in; inhale) air, which is why a more flat and narrow nose is needed. Olmecs and West African-descended peoples have short, flat noses because they lived in wet and tropical areas, whereas Nubians and Egyptians have longer and thinner noses due to living in the desert.
Here are some peoples who are said to be descended from Olmecs. There are pictures of statues as well as modern day people who look like them.
The Olmec statue heads are clearly of the indigenous peoples in the area, and not of West African Negroids.
Because of that one man’s theory, you have all of these Afrocentrists, with absolutely no understanding of genetics or human migration, who write these articles saying that any and all peoples and old/ancient cultures were negroid based on shoddy evidence and only physical appearance as well as cockamamie theories.
I’m pretty sure I have given way more evidence than is needed that the Olemcs were NOT negroids, but alas, you still have people who parrot this clearly refuted and untrue things, because they have absolutely no grasp on humanity in antiquity and will take any type of ‘theory’ that fits their warped worldview.
My brother told me a few years ago “If you’re looking for something, you’re going to find it”. Well, this is a perfect example of that.
In conclusion, because of genetic testing, as well as evolutionary factors which explain the ‘negroid-looking statues’, as well as most Mesoamerican populations being similar with each other completely debunk any and all notions of the Olmecs, and all Mesoamericans for that matter, to be African negroids.
Being African doesn’t always equal being black since they are native indigenous people in North Africa that are not black and also the San people (Khoisan) that are the world’s most ancient race and unique are Africans too but not black. Theri skin colour when not exposed to the sun is very light yellowish. http://c8.alamy.com/comp/BNPBC9/bushmansan-people-young-girl-with-old-woman-embracing-BNPBC9.jpg http://www.namibian.org/travel/namibia/pictures/bushmen/fullsize/Child_fs.jpg The San are indigenous to South Africa while the Bantus immigrated from West Africa into South Africa and displaced them. Today the Bantus are the largest group in Africa due to their high birth rate.
Skin color is a good proxy for race, but doesn’t tell the whole story. They cluster with other Africans:
Skin color is a good proxy, but genetic testing is obviously superior, which shows that they cluster with other Africans, and don’t cluster in their own alone.
Regardless of all the words written about the Olmec the facts are there in your face. That is an African regardless of whether all your scientific tests say otherwise and lets be honest 99% of Caucasian scientific studies are just a bunch of lies to explain why the great ancient monuments of Africa are not in London or Rome…Now just to prove that what i say can be backed up with proper unbiased non racist facts as opposed to most of the racist biased drivel that has plagued the Olmec’s since Europe says they discovered them.
Just 2 tiny little facts..no lets make that three
The fact that man & civilization came out of Africa
The fact that Africa and South America were joined together
Them black features are African
That Arnaiz-Vallena study is garbage! This guy has a fascination with Africans and hyper diffusionist claims. He is also author of the study that said Greeks had high levels of Sub-Saharan African, and that Jews and Palestiinians were the same people.
Care to explain what’s wrong with the study on HLA genes?
correction. Greek is nearer Italy but Egypt created a lot of Greek Martyrs when they went back home after learning in Egypt. Greece even had the temerity to carry a tale that Greece was of significance as a emerging white enclave…that claim was dismissed to the detriment that befell Africa/Egypt allowing outsiders to hunt the south as they conquered the north by marrying into Egypt…what was the attraction
1.this person you used to make a comparison with the Olmec stone she is mestizo, the color of skin is already indicative of that, or it can not be, only that it looks very much, besides there were no mestizos of Spaniards and natives , since the natives had arrived first
Straight-eyed eyes are not just the mark of Asiatics https://nomadtours.co.za/discover/highlights/bushman-san-people/
Not all statues have pulled eyes.
Asian eyes *
Click to access Terminal-Pleistocene-Alaskan-genome-reveals-first-founding-population-of-Native-Americans-_-Nature.pdf
Click to access aav2621-Moreno-Mayar-SM.pdf
We have Ancient DNA samples from South Mexico (the source of not just Olmec but also Mesoamerican civilization) that show no connection to Africa (notable since Tobasco’s farming cultures that the Olmec Culture derived from date to about 5000 BCE while the South Mexican samples date from 7400 BCE to 9300 BCE). There were no great transoceanic civilization builders from Africa or Europe before the Iron Age.
Please keep me up to date with new postings
Skin Color is just a visual marker …Negroids are Negroids…No matter what shade. And they are the LOWEST IQ people among all the races. Indian peoples from India are dark skinned but you can plainly see they are NOT Negroid. Whites built South Africa…not Negroids.
Prove that Negroids has the LOWEST IQ. Prove it.
Ethnicity aka race has nothing to do with IQ.
The first Europeans were black, Cheddar man is an example.
Chinese DNA test proved the first Asians were black.
Genetics have proven white skin in Europe is the result of a genetic mutation approximately eight thousands years ago.
How would the Olmec create heads that look with Negroid facial features if they had never seen a negriod?
Anthropologists have proven the Clovis (Asians) people were not the first based on remains found in a cave that were not of Clovis people and dated over 12000 years.
Lastly, it is extremely stupid to post pictures of people after the European invasion and colonization aka rape of native people. If the natives people did not have dark skin today’s natives would not brown, or look like mixed white and black children,
Ur racism is despicable. Keep ur entitled disposition to urself and ur family at the dinner table
we got that from you. so you lying now or then? ill answer for you your lying now
Olmec stone statues have no DNA-for this simple reason, DNA have no basis to prove who the stone statues represent- What we can see on the statues, is Negroid/Negro features-no need for DNA. Olmecs are Negroid/Negro Americans and we know Africans are Negroid/Negro race. Negroid/Negro races/people are also found natively across the globe and we are not surprised to find them in Mesoamerica