That's racist!

[hndog609]

I brought up Luzia woman as supporting evidence to the Olmecs beings black. It wasn't to change the subject as you allege. The reality is the Olmecs only left those heads behind. By themselves your argument that they weren’t black might be valid. But once you add onto that the fact the earliest human remains in the Americas are that of a Black woman then we have more evidence to support the contention the Olmecs were black. Because if there were other black populations in the Americas then it makes the Olmecs being black more likely.

I also like how you ignored this study: The new face of Luzia and the Lagoa Santa people

Here's how scientists believe the first humans in the Americas looked:

View attachment 552517

Whether they were from Africa or not is irrelevant. The key point is they LOOKED black. They had dark skin and "negroid" features. Just like how the people of Papau New Guinea have "negroid" features despite being genetically most closely related to East Asians.

One of your most consistent traits is trying to point out what others have "ignored" and absolving yourself of such scrutiny. You realize what you just posted is literally my last post's edit. I now invite you to actually read that article. Or if you're just feeling lazy peruse the blurb directly under the picture right at the top, especially the last sentence that ends in "wrong".

 

[StarRaider]

this guy maybe?

Civil rights attorney Ben Crump also released a statement, stating, "This is unacceptable! A white woman was caught on camera attempting to STEAL a Citi Bike from a young Black man in NYC. She grossly tried to weaponize her tears to paint this man as a threat. This is EXACTLY the type of behavior that has endangered so many Black men in the past!"

whoops never happened!
Ben Crump deletes viral tweet branding pregnant nurse racist after her lawyer steps in

 

[Carl Pickens]

The difference is I have the facts on my side. I'm not the one who told the Ancient Greeks to give black Africans credit for creating civilization. I'm not the one who dug up the Olmec heads and wrote about how they looked like they were Negroes. These were white scholars who did it. I'm also not the one who told the writers of the Bible to say Egypt was the son of Ham (father of the black race) and brother of Cush (biblical name for Nubia).

If you study ancient history all you see is the great accomplishments of the black race. And primarily the people writing this were white. Be mad at reality for being so African centric in ancient times not me.

Do you also believe that white people became white from living in the caves of the Caucus mountains ?

 

[KB5252]

The difference is I have the facts on my side. I'm not the one who told the Ancient Greeks to give black Africans credit for creating civilization. I'm not the one who dug up the Olmec heads and wrote about how they looked like they were Negroes. These were white scholars who did it. I'm also not the one who told the writers of the Bible to say Egypt was the son of Ham (father of the black race) and brother of Cush (biblical name for Nubia).

If you study ancient history all you see is the great accomplishments of the black race. And primarily the people writing this were white. Be mad at reality for being so African centric in ancient times not me.

There are no facts that state/show Africans were present in South or Central America during Olmec civilization. You are using anecdotal evidence and calling it truth. I've stated, and science seems to agree with me, that those Olmec statues depict South American or Asian people.

The only that seems to agree that what you are spewing are facts is you.....pat yourself on the back while you're at it.

 

[KB5252]

I brought up Luzia woman as supporting evidence to the Olmecs beings black. It wasn't to change the subject as you allege. The reality is the Olmecs only left those heads behind. By themselves your argument that they weren’t black might be valid. But once you add onto that the fact the earliest human remains in the Americas are that of a Black woman then we have more evidence to support the contention the Olmecs were black. Because if there were other black populations in the Americas then it makes the Olmecs being black more likely.

I also like how you ignored this study: The new face of Luzia and the Lagoa Santa people

Here's how scientists believe the first humans in the Americas looked:

View attachment 552517

Whether they were from Africa or not is irrelevant. The key point is they LOOKED black. They had dark skin and "negroid" features. Just like how the people of Papau New Guinea have "negroid" features despite being genetically most closely related to East Asians.

What are negroid features? Lighten the skin tone of the person above, slap an Alabama hat on them and they look like a few thousand rednecks you could see at any Wal-Mart in the south.

 

[SamRebel35]

Am I the only one that thinks it is tragic that D4H seems to have his entire identity and self worth wrapped up in the idea that people with skin similar to his might have been the first ones to organize a society? D4H, even if you're right, who tf cares? You didn't do any of that sh*t. That's not your accomplishment. You sound like a total black supremacist right now.

 

[KB5252]

Am I the only one that thinks it is tragic that D4H seems to have his entire identity and self worth wrapped up in the idea that people with skin similar to his might have been the first ones to organize a society? D4H, even if you're right, who tf cares? You didn't do any of that sh*t. That's not your accomplishment. You sound like a total black supremacist right now.

I'll say this in his defense, too many people attempt to minimize African contributions to history and culture. I can understand why he would be defensive. But he's gone way over the line with attempting to attribute everything as African or influenced by African "black" people.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

One of your most consistent traits is trying to point out what others have "ignored" and absolving yourself of such scrutiny. You realize what you just posted is literally my last post's edit. I now invite you to actually read that article. Or if you're just feeling lazy peruse the blurb directly under the picture right at the top, especially the last sentence that ends in "wrong".

You edited your post at 8:13pm. My post was up at 8:15pm. Obviously given the length of my post I started responding to your post before you edited it. That's not an ignore on my part. That's you not including all your thoughts in the initial post then doubling back.

And BTW I definitely read the article. I was hoping you would fall for my trap by thinking because the authors tried to distance themselves from terms like African ancestry that it meant the first Americans weren't black. I like to give my opponents rope to hang themselves with.

Here the president of Papua New Guinea (a country near Indonesia):



Looks like a black man right. In fact the island was originally named New Guinea because the British sailors that first landed there thought the natives looked like the Africans they encountered in the West African nation Guinea. So they named this new country Papua New Guinea.

Here's what we know about their genetic ancestry: Indigenous people of New Guinea - Wikipedia

Phylogenetic data suggests that an early Eastern Eurasian or "eastern non-African" (ENA) meta-population trifurcated, and gave rise to the Australo-Papuans, the Andamanese Onge / AASI, as well as East/Southeast Asians, although Papuans may have also received some gene flow from an earlier group (xOoA), around 2%,[12] next to additional archaic admixture in the Sahul region.[13][14]

According to one study, Australo-Papuans (such as the indigenous people of New Guinea and Aboriginal Australians) could have either formed from a mixture between an East Asian lineage and lineage basal to West and East Asians, or as a sister lineage of East Asians with or without a minor basal OoA or xOoA contribution.[15]

Genetically speaking the people of Papua New Guinea are more closely related to East Asians than they are to Sub-Saharan Africans despite their clearly "negroid" phenotype. So what does this mean? It means despite the studies conclusion that the earliest humans in the Americas had no African DNA, that doesn't mean they still weren't black. DNA isn't what determines your phenotype as we see with the peoples of the Pacific Islands. They have a black phenotype despite having Asian DNA.

The archeological remains are clear. Luzia woman and her people had a "negroid" phenotype. The scientists in that study admitted as much in their reconstruction. Just as the Pacific Islanders are "negroid" despite having no African DNA. Same is true for the first Americans.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Do you also believe that white people became white from living in the caves of the Caucus mountains ?

Nope. White skin originated as our ancestors keep moving north to areas which got less ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. As a result, our ancestors had to lose some of the melanin in their skin to get Vitamin D from the reduced sunlight. In tropical environments, we get too much ultraviolet radiation so we evolved darker skin to protect ourselves from the negative effects of too much sunlight.

It's the Sun that determined our differences in skin color. Nothing else.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

There are no facts that state/show Africans were present in South or Central America during Olmec civilization. You are using anecdotal evidence and calling it truth. I've stated, and science seems to agree with me, that those Olmec statues depict South American or Asian people.

The only that seems to agree that what you are spewing are facts is you.....pat yourself on the back while you're at it.

Never said the Olmecs were Africans. All I said is they were black.



These kids are from an island in the Pacific called Vanuatu. They are not Africans but are clearly black. Their ancestors colonized the Pacific Islands as well as Australia.

I'm simply saying a similar group of people with black features colonized the Americas. They were not directly from Africa. But they would have looked like Africans. Just as modern day Pacific Islanders look like Africans despite being more closely related genetically to Asians than Africans.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

What are negroid features? Lighten the skin tone of the person above, slap an Alabama hat on them and they look like a few thousand rednecks you could see at any Wal-Mart in the south.

So there's something called a subnasal prognathism. It's a feature where the lower jaw is farther from the rest of the face. A facial characteristic that is common in Sub-Saharan Africans and other "negroes" (i.e. Papua New Guinea) but is not commonly seen in Europeans or Asians. In the past racist scientists used this feature to argue Africans were less human. See here:





The Sphinx is commonly cited for having one of the most famous examples of this characteristic.




The remains of Luzia woman and other early Americans showed this characteristic hence why the archeologists when they first found the remains said she was "negroid". You can clearly see in the reconstruction he has a strong prognathism.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Am I the only one that thinks it is tragic that D4H seems to have his entire identity and self worth wrapped up in the idea that people with skin similar to his might have been the first ones to organize a society? D4H, even if you're right, who tf cares? You didn't do any of that sh*t. That's not your accomplishment. You sound like a total black supremacist right now.

It's amazing how simply trying to correct the record gets this type of response. If the history of black people was not systematically erased or hidden then there would be no need for me to make these arguments.

You have posters in here unashamedly posting pictures of mummies from the Greek and Roman era of Egyptian rule and trying to trick people into thinking that's how Ancient Egyptians looked. But here you are mad at me for simply calling them out on that deception and correcting the record by posting images of actual Pharoahs from the time native Egyptians ruled the country.

I shouldn't have to defend the blackness of Ancient Egypt. But these are the cards we've been dealt. So I'll take up anyone who thinks they have a better command of history on this topic. Cause I know a lot about Ancient Egypt. And the more you study it the blacker it gets.

 

[hndog609]

You edited your post at 8:13pm. My post was up at 8:15pm. Obviously given the length of my post I started responding to your post before you edited it. That's not an ignore on my part. That's you not including all your thoughts in the initial post then doubling back.

And BTW I definitely read the article. I was hoping you would fall for my trap by thinking because the authors tried to distance themselves from terms like African ancestry that it meant the first Americans weren't black. I like to give my opponents rope to hang themselves with.

Here the president of Papua New Guinea (a country near Indonesia):

View attachment 552558

Looks like a black man right. In fact the island was originally named New Guinea because the British sailors that first landed there thought the natives looked like the Africans they encountered in the West African nation Guinea. So they named this new country Papua New Guinea.

Here's what we know about their genetic ancestry: Indigenous people of New Guinea - Wikipedia



Genetically speaking the people of Papua New Guinea are more closely related to East Asians than they are to Sub-Saharan Africans despite their clearly "negroid" phenotype. So what does this mean? It means despite the studies conclusion that the earliest humans in the Americas had no African DNA, that doesn't mean they still weren't black. DNA isn't what determines your phenotype as we see with the peoples of the Pacific Islands. They have a black phenotype despite having Asian DNA.

The archeological remains are clear. Luzia woman and her people had a "negroid" phenotype. The scientists in that study admitted as much in their reconstruction. Just as the Pacific Islanders are "negroid" despite having no African DNA. Same is true for the first Americans.

WTH does Papua New Guinea have to do with the conversation? It's this run in circles thing for which you are so infamous. You are the embodiment of the bias discussed in that video I posted. There is not one jot of anything you've posted that makes ancient Americans "black". In fact what's been shown quite clearly is there is zero requirement for certain features that can be found to resemble some negroids need be pigmented as such. In truth given the very different path taken over many thousands of years it would actually seem a bit silly to assume any of the Amerindians would be.

 

[UT_VOLS13]

Ben Crump deletes viral tweet branding pregnant nurse racist after her lawyer steps in

 

[Majors]

whoops never happened!
Ben Crump deletes viral tweet branding pregnant nurse racist after her lawyer steps in

Is deleting it an acknowledgment of inciting division, violence or racism? Or all…my man makes a living off fear and death.

 

[creekdipper]

View attachment 552467

No more blintzes?

 

[creekdipper]

Do you also believe that white people became white from living in the caves of the Caucus mountains ?

Ah, the Morlocks.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

WTH does Papua New Guinea have to do with the conversation? It's this run in circles thing for which you are so infamous. You are the embodiment of the bias discussed in that video I posted. There is not one jot of anything you've posted that makes ancient Americans "black". In fact what's been shown quite clearly is there is zero requirement for certain features that can be found to resemble some negroids need be pigmented as such. In truth given the very different path taken over many thousands of years it would actually seem a bit silly to assume any of the Amerindians would be.

View attachment 552580

The people of Papua New Guinea were simply used as an example of a population with a "negroid" phenotype despite having non-African DNA. I'm saying the first Americans were similar. They were negroid in their phenotype despite not having a close genetic relationship with modern day Africans.

And that study confirmed the fact they had a negroid phenotype because this was how the represented the First Americans:



You don't have to be African to be black. The first Americans were not directly from Africa. They were descendants of the first humans to leave Africa and colonize the rest of the planet. Those first colonists of the planet earth just happened to be negroid. They had negroid facial characteristics despite having non-African DNA.

The world was first colonized by black men. That's an indisputable fact.

 

[hndog609]

The people of Papua New Guinea were simply used as an example of a population with a "negroid" phenotype despite having non-African DNA. I'm saying the first Americans were similar. They were negroid in their phenotype despite not having a close genetic relationship with modern day Africans.

And that study confirmed the fact they had a negroid phenotype because this was how the represented the First Americans:

View attachment 552634

You don't have to be African to be black. The first Americans were not directly from Africa. They were descendants of the first humans to leave Africa and colonize the rest of the planet. Those first colonists of the planet earth just happened to be negroid. They had negroid facial characteristics despite having non-African DNA.

The world was first colonized by black men. That's an indisputable fact.

This last sentence could not be further from the truth. When I say you've presented nothing that supports that statement I don't mean you haven't made a persuasive argument...I mean you haven't even moved the needle. You've completely lost the DNA side of the discussion to the point you've simply had to concede the matter entirely. What you're left with is absolute and unbridled speculation about similarities in certain features. Quite problematically you completely sidestep the absolute and genuinely vettable fact that people that clearly are not "black" can have these features. In fact it's great sport seeing you repeatedly try to show that same link I myself used as though it's some great supporter of your argument. It's not. Let's look closely at a couple things. First let's revisit the statement under Luzia's "new face".

"Distinctly African features attributed to Luzia were wrong."

That sentence doesn't state anything like "Luzia presents clearly African negroid features despite her DNA". No, it says attributing distinctly African features to her at all is wrong. There is literally nothing about her that requires she was "black" by any meaningful definition. Now don't just look but SEE what they're talking about. I've blown up the picture to help your questionable eyesight. (now I'm going to assume you aren't such a blithering idiot you know the color given that molding is completely arbitrary so just look at the features)



Now tell me, does this look more like someone who would be walking through the jungles of Brazil with your example



or these guys?



I know the better answer as does everyone else viewing this post, including you. You need to go back to your Egyptian discussion. I'm still not 100% on any of that but haven't uttered a single word on the topic as I know the boundaries of my knowledge on the matter. Right or not you come across as an erudite individual on the matter. This blackwashing of South America however comes across as weak, wishful and tragically speculative. It's a stark and unfortunate contrast compared with your contributions regarding Egypt.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

This last sentence could not be further from the truth. When I say you've presented nothing that supports that statement I don't mean you haven't made a persuasive argument...I mean you haven't even moved the needle. You've completely lost the DNA side of the discussion to the point you've simply had to concede the matter entirely. What you're left with is absolute and unbridled speculation about similarities in certain features. Quite problematically you completely sidestep the absolute and genuinely vettable fact that people that clearly are not "black" can have these features. In fact it's great sport seeing you repeatedly try to show that same link I myself used as though it's some great supporter of your argument. It's not. Let's look closely at a couple things. First let's revisit the statement under Luzia's "new face".

"Distinctly African features attributed to Luzia were wrong."

That sentence doesn't state anything like "Luzia presents clearly African negroid features despite her DNA". No, it says attributing distinctly African features to her at all is wrong. There is literally nothing about her that requires she was "black" by any meaningful definition. Now don't just look but SEE what they're talking about. I've blown up the picture to help your questionable eyesight. (now I'm going to assume you aren't such a blithering idiot you know the color given that molding is completely arbitrary so just look at the features)

View attachment 552643

Now tell me, does this look more like someone who would be walking through the jungles of Brazil with your example

View attachment 552644

or these guys?

View attachment 552645

I know the better answer as does everyone else viewing this post, including you. You need to go back to your Egyptian discussion. I'm still not 100% on any of that but haven't uttered a single word on the topic as I know the boundaries of my knowledge on the matter. Right or not you come across as an erudite individual on the matter. This blackwashing of South America however comes across as weak, wishful and tragically speculative. It's a stark and unfortunate contrast compared with your contributions regarding Egypt.

With regard to your first point that black people didn't colonize the world I'll direct you to this article: 7,000-Year-Old Human Bones Suggest New Date for Light-Skin Gene

Black people colonized the world because tens of thousands of years ago there was only black people on this planet. Light skin only evolved 7000 years ago.

It's why there are native black populations in places you wouldn't expect like the Pacific. The humans who went to the Pacific stayed black because their environment was tropical like the one their ancestors left in Africa so they had no reason to evolve different skin or hair. Other early humans who went to areas that were not tropical ended up changing their features to better survive in this new habitats.

With regard to the point about Luzia and the first Americans. Their facial features showed a subnasal prognathism. As I stated earlier this is a feature most commonly seen in "negroid" populations of Sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific. You don't find subnasal prognathism in Europeans or Asians. If the first Americans were not negroid then they wouldn't have had a noticeable prognathism.



Non-negroid skulls are typically flat as this old eugenics picture shows. Compare that to the reconstruction and its obvious the first Americans had subnasal prognathism clearly marking their skulls as negroid.

 

[SamRebel35]

It's amazing how simply trying to correct the record gets this type of response. If the history of black people was not systematically erased or hidden then there would be no need for me to make these arguments.

You have posters in here unashamedly posting pictures of mummies from the Greek and Roman era of Egyptian rule and trying to trick people into thinking that's how Ancient Egyptians looked. But here you are mad at me for simply calling them out on that deception and correcting the record by posting images of actual Pharoahs from the time native Egyptians ruled the country.

I shouldn't have to defend the blackness of Ancient Egypt. But these are the cards we've been dealt. So I'll take up anyone who thinks they have a better command of history on this topic. Cause I know a lot about Ancient Egypt. And the more you study it the blacker it gets.

What you're doing in this thread isn't "correcting the record". You're a prosyletizing zealot spreading kookie old afrocenterist talking points in the face of direct DNA evidence. Why does this sh*t matter to you this much? Why does Egypt have to have been founded by slightly darker people than the ones who are commenly believed to have done so? Why is that important at all to you?

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

What you're doing in this thread isn't "correcting the record". You're a prosyletizing zealot spreading kookie old afrocenterist talking points in the face of direct DNA evidence. Why does this sh*t matter to you this much? Why does Egypt have to have been founded by slightly darker people than the ones who are commenly believed to have done so? Why is that important at all to you?

Actually the only DNA evidence presented of Ancient Egyptian Pharoahs was by me. The study from DNATribes in 2012 and 2013 on mummies from King Tut and his relatives showed the closest genetic affinity to Sub-Saharan Africans. So I don't know where you're getting this notion that DNA evidence says the Ancient Egyptians weren't black.

The study @85SugarVol cited was from mummies who were not royalty and were from just one part of Egypt (northern Egypt near the Mediterranean). A part of Egypt which has historically had mixed population and was not the location the Pharoahs originated from. And even then the DNA study was faulty because they used West Africans as the "Sub-Saharan African" comparison population for those mummies from Northern Egypt rather than using Nubians or East Africans who are geographically closer to Egypt than West Africa.

It seems like you guys don't read the studies nor do you guys have a understanding of Ancient Egyptian history. Nobody who is being honest would only look at mummies from northern Egypt in trying to determine the genetic ancestry of Ancient Egyptians as a whole since every scholar all the way back to the Ancient Greeks talked about how the Egyptians in Upper Egypt (aka southern Egypt) were darker skin and more negroid than Egyptians in Lower Egypt (aka northern Egypt). And it was in Upper Egypt that the Pharoahs came from and ruled for most of Egyptian history. Also no one who is being an honest researcher would use West Africans as the baseline population to compare the Sub-Saharan ancestry of the Ancient Egyptians. An honest researcher would have used the Nubians or other East Africans as the Sub-Saharan comparison group. But it's obvious the researchers from that study had an agenda. They wanted a conclusion and manipulated the data to get that conclusion.

 

[KB5252]

Never said the Olmecs were Africans. All I said is they were black.

View attachment 552566

These kids are from an island in the Pacific called Vanuatu. They are not Africans but are clearly black. Their ancestors colonized the Pacific Islands as well as Australia.

I'm simply saying a similar group of people with black features colonized the Americas. They were not directly from Africa. But they would have looked like Africans. Just as modern day Pacific Islanders look like Africans despite being more closely related genetically to Asians than Africans.

That bust was not depicting them though. It was depicting either Asian or South American people. Not black but native South American "Indian" or possibly Polynesian or even less likely Asian with African bringing up the rear right in front of Winston Churchill. The civilization in question was not ancient enough for it to be these supposed "black" people that were present everywhere at the same time. I find it much more likely that we share common ancestors and that to the extent we understand genetics were black.

As people spread upon earth traits were retained and others cast off. What you appear to be championing is the idea that at some magical point in history half or more of the world population just cast off their "negroid" traits.

What we know about generics and species traits is that they are almost always gradual (many, many generations). When they are not they are due to a great stimulus of some type. What you are suggesting and cherry picking evidence to support completely contradicts what we know about species and genetic change.

 

[KB5252]

Actually the only DNA evidence presented of Ancient Egyptian Pharoahs was by me. The study from DNATribes in 2012 and 2013 on mummies from King Tut and his relatives showed the closest genetic affinity to Sub-Saharan Africans. So I don't know where you're getting this notion that DNA evidence says the Ancient Egyptians weren't black.

The study @85SugarVol cited was from mummies who were not royalty and were from just one part of Egypt (northern Egypt near the Mediterranean). A part of Egypt which has historically had mixed population and was not the location the Pharoahs originated from. And even then the DNA study was faulty because they used West Africans as the "Sub-Saharan African" comparison population for those mummies from Northern Egypt rather than using Nubians or East Africans who are geographically closer to Egypt than West Africa.

It seems like you guys don't read the studies nor do you guys have a understanding of Ancient Egyptian history. Nobody who is being honest would only look at mummies from northern Egypt in trying to determine the genetic ancestry of Ancient Egyptians as a whole since every scholar all the way back to the Ancient Greeks talked about how the Egyptians in Upper Egypt (aka southern Egypt) were darker skin and more negroid than Egyptians in Lower Egypt (aka northern Egypt). And it was in Upper Egypt that the Pharoahs came from and ruled for most of Egyptian history. Also no one who is being an honest researcher would use West Africans as the baseline population to compare the Sub-Saharan ancestry of the Ancient Egyptians. An honest researcher would have used the Nubians or other East Africans as the Sub-Saharan comparison group. But it's obvious the researchers from that study had an agenda. They wanted a conclusion and manipulated the data to get that conclusion.

Again, you are confusing the aristocracy who were serial inbreeders to the point of deformity. If you want to get a better picture of any civilization you start with the people, rank and file. Not the aristocracy for the stated reasons above.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

That bust was not depicting them though. It was depicting either Asian or South American people. Not black but native South American "Indian" or possibly Polynesian or even less likely Asian with African bringing up the rear right in front of Winston Churchill. The civilization in question was not ancient enough for it to be these supposed "black" people that were present everywhere at the same time. I find it much more likely that we share common ancestors and that to the extent we understand genetics were black.

As people spread upon earth traits were retained and others cast off. What you appear to be championing is the idea that at some magical point in history half or more of the world population just cast off their "negroid" traits.

What we know about generics and species traits is that they are almost always gradual (many, many generations). When they are not they are due to a great stimulus of some type. What you are suggesting and cherry picking evidence to support completely contradicts what we know about species and genetic change.

When Europeans first started categorizing people by race there was no genetic testing. Race isn't based on DNA. Race is based on phenotype (aka how one looks). The game yall are trying to play right now is you wanna frame race as simply being about your DNA when in reality none of us use DNA in our everyday life when we categorize people.

You see this guy walking down the street, what race would most people think he is?



They would think he's 100% black. But yet his DNA would say he's most closely related to the Japanese and not any Africans. So is he black or not?

My argument has been very simple. The first Americans looked like black people. I never argued that they were directly descendants of modern day Africans. I only said they looked negroid as the fossil remains in Brazil showed as well as the Olmecs heads in Mexico.