We are of a mind when speaking of history. The conquering culture gains nothing by allowing the conquered to express their point of view and all too often items that would hold significant value and information for future generations are destroyed as part of the colonization process. We are working from some very limited pools of information. Added to this is the fallacy of taking history at face value and overlooking some very important details; mainly that history is an opinion, usually written by someone who wasn’t there, who is commonly a member of the conquering culture and will write in a way that either justifies the actions of their ancestors, regardless of how heinous they may have been, or glosses over the worst of it. And, although we live in very “modern” and “sophisticated” times, the reality of racism and the lack of value given to “certain histories” cannot be overlooked.

I also agree when you say that “blowing African achievement out of proportion is inexcusable”, however, you mention something else that is, in my opinion, very important; that Afrocentrics are “essentially doing what they accuse Europeans of doing”. What I have learned through readings in psychology as well as what I have lived in personal experience and observation, has been that dysfunctional and abusive patterns become inter-generational and will be perpetuated unless a conscious decision is made to change it. Fact is that we, as conquered people, have been lied to and imposed upon for so long, and very often in such a brutal manner, that the continuation of the pattern is not surprising. But hope springs eternal, and I believe that by dissecting the information we do have, seeking further knowledge and being open to the possibilities, we can overcome these patterns of behavior and find some measure of “truth”. I, for one, would rather have a distasteful truth than a pretty lie, any day of the week.

Thank you again for visiting my blog and posting your thoughts. I hope to hear from you again.

N

A link to your essay They came before Columbus…and what?!? was left in my journal after I shared interest in the subject of Africans in the Americas pre-Columbus. As an African who holds a keen interest in history, I have to say I agree with most, if not all, of what you’ve written in both essays. Afrocentrists are wrong for trying to stake claims over other cultures. I find such claims not only full of holes and wrong but also disturbing. When Afrocentrists try to say every single civilisation built in history was thanks to Africans they are essentially doing what they accuse Europeans of doing i.e. whitewashing history.

I am grateful that I was not introduced to Africa-Americas relations by Van Sertima. The book I read (When We Ruled) actually turned things the other way round by arguing that maize used in parts of West African originated from the Americas. Of course that has been met with opposition. Another point the author of that book made was that in ancient Ile-Ife, the ancient capital of Yorubaland, the streets were once paved in designs that seem indigenous American in style. The book also mentioned a 14th century king of Mali going on an expedition across the Atlantic and never returning. I find all this amazing and am currently trying to find out more on the topic.

The question of evidence is very tricky for several reasons, so many things have been lost in time and I firmly believe that certain histories are pushed aside and under-reasearched which means we never know about them.

My disagreement with Van Sertima is based on his far-fetched conclusions accrediting indigenous American progress to African influence based only on the opinion of African superiority and nothing else, because what he presents as “evidence” doesn’t hold water.

I find Van Sertima’s conclusions beyond offensive. I don’t understand why he would try to suggest that Africans influenced indigenous Americans so much. Why not just provide evidence, if there is any, that is not based on any superiority. For example, I’m interesting in knowing if there was some exchange that happened between continents on an equal basis.

Consider that these huge carvings are artistic representations and not realistic images.

I personally believe this is something everyone should have in mind when looking at historical sculptures. It reminds of essays arguing that Buddha looks African based on some statues! It was after reading those essays that I moved away from staunchly Afrocentric versions of history. I agree with you when you say it is revisionism.

The African that Van Sertima claims came to the Americas (Nubian, Egyptian, East African) was of different features than the African people he compares to the megalithic heads (Benin, Nigeria, Ghana, West African), which is a sad deception taking advantage of those stuck on “skin color” issues, racism, discrimination and victim mentality or those who buy into the notion of racial profiling as good science.

This makes absolutely no sense. It would have been better I guess if Van Sertima argued that it was West Africans that reached the Americas. I’m still trying to see what is so African-looking about the Olmec heads…

In ancient days it was your caste that was important, not your color.

Ditto. Race did not exist back then. Black people today who do not know much about our history and feel that African achievement has been pushed to the side are interested in the history of Africans and Black people. However there is always a middle path, taking things to the extreme and blowing African achievement out of proportion is just inexcusable.

This post and the previous one are truly excellent. Your essays were eye-opening and also jaw-dropping (I had no idea about the pyramids and mummification! if Isis was actually a Mayan queen that’ll be so interesting) Thank you for writing them.

Thank you for revisiting my blog and adding your thoughts. I welcome comments that are well researched and thought over. It makes these important discussions fun and interesting; a real pleasure. Thank you

As for expansion, a better question to ask, I think, would be how the Polynesians got to those islands 2-3,000 years before the European expansion began if the Europeans were the first to travel such distances. The only evidence we have is of people being on these islands that far back, but not how they got there. The same way they expanded thousands of miles into the Pacific is the same way they expanded elsewhere.

You are right when you say that possibility doesn’t equal occurrence, but lack of physical evidence doesn’t equal lack of occurrence either; especially when the people are there already. The Europeans didn’t find empty islands.

N

“Please notice that my disagreement with Van Sertima is not with regards to the idea of pre-Columbian intercontinental travel. That makes complete sense to me. Hawaii is about 3,800 miles from Guam and Guam is about 1,500 miles from the Philipines. The Maori (New Zeland/Aotearoa) have an oral history that links them to Hawai’i and these islands are over 4,000 miles apart. The indigenous population in these islands have been present for thousands of years before the Europeans even dared travel out of land-sight distance and I’m sure they didn’t swim there. Just because scientists don’t believe in ancient man’s intelligence and ingenuity doesn’t mean they didn’t have it; it’s what has brought us to the technological levels we enjoy today.”

Possibility does not equate to occurrence. You still have to find evidence that Polynesians ever made it to the Americas.