|
Original Message
|
Robert Bauval is the guy who came up with the concept that the pyramids in Egypt align up with Sirius.
The problem is they don't
All pyramids around the world have to do with the SUN, but Bauval is not an anthropologist and has no education to speak of, so he is not aware of this.
Bauval is a an Afrocentrist author who's latest book is called "Black genesis". His garbage is marketed and sold to an eager afrocentric community, the same one that claims King Tut was black, not to mention Cleopatra, Plato, and basically any ancient culture that introduced civilization tot he world was supposedly Black.
With over 30 million African Americans eager to purchase Bauval's BS, the cash is rolling in. But why? Because of Bauval's accuracy.. or is there other factors at play?
Afrocentrism has become an excuse to teach lies, especially in the classroom. The politically correct out-of-africa theory is being debunked daily, yet is still backed and promoted by the UN and any other globalist organization, especially instituations that recieve government grants and funding.
Afrocentrism: An Excuse To Teach Myth As History
Afrocentrism is like “therapeutic mythology”, a way to promote the self-esteem of African Americans “by creating a past that never was.” The origins of Afrocentrism lay in black nationalism and is NOT factual history. Were Afrocentrism a means of creating African American community and thus empowering a minority, it would be comparable to such mythologies used by other minorities. Such mythologies, however, have been grounded in historical thought, while Afrocentrism is factually errant and theoretically flawed.
By urging black Americans to seek empowerment in a misconstructed Egyptian history, Afrocentrists likr Robert Bauval not only mislead, opening their students to ridicule, but they also assert that culture is “transhistoric”–that is, it can be transferred through time and space intact. Culture is always changing and will be different as a result of any transfer, willing or unwilling, on the part of those living it. African Americans have created a culture of their own – a culture of which to be proud, but not an Egyptian or African culture. Afrocentrism turns African Americans into helpless victims whose ancestors created a glorious culture and then for thousands of years accomplished little. They became the dupes and victims of Europeans, enslaved and exploited, and now their descendants must look to a mythical African past for purpose and meaning.
Given the popularity of Robert Bauval style Afrocentrism and its spread through the academic community and popular culture, anyone teaching history or otherwise interested in the nature of historical methodology should take the time to educate themselves. The manipulation of history to create a particular attitude or support a political point of view is sometimes a way of creating unity and gaining power for political gain.
Afrocentrism in a nutshell: The ancient Egyptians were black, Cleopatra was black, the ancient Greeks stole Africa’s culture (philosophy, medicine) and claimed it as their own, Africans invented writing, had many architectural achievements, developed electricity and “early planes.” They believe that Africa is one homogeneous culture, despite the fact that many cultures exist on the continent, and that all ancient civilizations were either black or stole ideas from blacks.
Here’s the kicker: Jesus was black. Yes, despite the fact he was born in the Middle East of a Jewish mother, he was in fact a black man. Therefore, Jews and Christians hijacked Judaism and Christianity from Africans.
Afrocentrism is currently taught in some government-run (taxpayer-supported) schools. Every subject, even mathematics, is taught from an afrocentric perspective.
University of California history professor Clarence Walker has written extensively on the subject. He says, “Afrocentrism is a mythology that is racist, reactionary, and essentially therapeutic.
For more on the absurdity of afrocentrism, check out scholar Mary Lefkowitz, who wrote an excellent book, Not Out of Africa.
In the study of genetics, we find that we can only inherit what our ancestors had, nothing more and nothing less. Blood factors are transmitted with much more exactitude than any other characteristic. If mankind evolved from the same African ancestor their blood would be compatible. Where did the Rh negatives come from? Why does the body of an Rh negative mother carrying an Rh positive child reject her own offspring?
Blacks, Whites and Asians have different ancestors – and did not come from Africa, claims scientist
A public claim by a fellow of the prestigious Royal Geographic Society that humans did not all come from Africa — and that blacks, whites and Asians have different ancestors — has been dismissed by world experts as “dangerous”, “wrong” and “racist”.
In a paper widely trumpeted and due for release in book form, Akhil Bakshi, the leader of a recent major scientific expedition supported by India’s prime minister, claims that “Negroid”, “Caucasian” and “Mongoloid” peoples are not only separate races but separate species, having evolved on different continents. Responding to the claims — developed while Bakshi led the Gondwanaland expedition from India to South Africa — Professor Lee Berger, a leading palaeoanthropologist at the University of the Witwatersrand, immediately insisted that, there were no fundamental differences between the races and that all humans had the same genetic and physical roots in Africa.
The prevalent scientific theory of modern humans — the “Out of Africa” model — is that they left Africa just 55000 years ago and replaced the last remnants of other ancient hominids living in Europe, Asia and elsewhere.
The old biological racial distinctions of “Caucasian”, “Negroid” and “Mongoloid” have recently been abandoned by mainstream scientists — removed, for instance, from the US National Library of Medicine in 2003.
Bakshi has become a self-declared champion of a minority scientific view called “multiregionalism”, which claims that modern humans evolved from separate hominid populations. Hominids encompass all humans and the ancient family of human-like ancestors, including large-brained ancient ancestors and unsuccessful species such as Neanderthals.
However, Bakshi — who has no training as an anthropologist — has linked to this model a theory that these populations evolved according to the genetic material left behind when the prehistoric supercontinents, the northern Laurasia and the southern Gondwanaland, broke up. An influential figure in India, Bakshi is also a filmmaker and author who has led four major scientific expeditions since 1994. Bakshi admitted to the Sunday Times that “some of my points may prove to be wrong, and may be seen as politically incorrect.
He claims indigenous “Negroid” populations occur in places like Australia, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and the Andaman Islands not because they moved there from Africa, but because all these land masses were once part of Gondwanaland — and that all evolved separately. Whites, according to Bakshi, are from Laurasia and blacks are from Gondwanaland. He argues that, 60000 years ago, humans could not have crossed vast oceans and deserts to reach remote places like Australia and North America, and they must therefore have evolved there.
“His is a highly confused argument which jumps enormous levels, which are quite impossible to link,” Tobias said.
However, he added that the true picture of modern humanity’s precise departure from Africa was far from clear-cut.
[link to www.articlesafari.com]
Humans Not As Genetically Identical As We Thought
What’s previously been taught is that of the 6 billion or so people on the planet, we all share 99.9% of each others genes and identity. These results came from the Human Genome Project 5 years ago and are now assumed to be very much wrong. Today, research was published in the journal Nature and ABC Science News reports that we are genetically more varied than what was once assumed.
The analysis of the genome has been focused mainly on comparing differences, or ‘polymorphisms’, in the patterns of single letters in the chemical code for making and sustaining human life. But now, a group scientists from around the globe have come from a different angle and believe they have uncovered a complex, higher-order variation in the code.
This large difference in code between individuals can now explain why some people are vulnerable to certain diseases and respond well to certain drugs, while others fall sick quickly or never respond to treatment.
What the scientists have been doing is digging out deletions or duplications of code among relatively long sequences of individual DNA and then comparing these ‘copy number variations’ across a range of volunteers of diverse ancestry.
The researchers were stunned that they were able to locate 1447 copy number variations in nearly 2900 genes, which is about one eighth of the human genetic code.
Dr Matthew Hurles from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in the UK is one of the project’s partners and says that “Each one of us has a unique pattern of gains and losses of complete sections of DNA. One of the real surprises of these results was just how much of our DNA varies in copy number. We estimate this to be at least 12% of the genome.”
The group found that almost 16% of genes that are known to be related to disease have these copy number variations. The diseases involved include rare genetic disorders like DiGeorge (caused by the deletion of a piece of chromosome number 22), Williams-Beuren (otherwise known as ‘Pixieism’) and Prader-Willi syndromes and those linked with schizophrenia, cataracts, spinal muscular atrophy and atherosclerosis.
But kidney disease, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and vulnerability to malaria and HIV, which recent research has blamed on single-letter variations in the gene code, may also well be rooted in CNVs, the scientists believe.
Consequences of this recent research could benefit medical diagnosis and new drugs.
[link to www.articlesafari.com]
Studies contradict view that race doesn’t exist
Racial differences among people are real, new studies suggest, contradicting claims by some of the world’s leading scientists and scientific institutions that race doesn’t exist.
These experts had said race is merely a “social construct,” or a creation of society’s collective imagination. But the new studies, some of which come from Stanford University in Stanford, Calif., suggest that the way people classify themselves by race reflects real and clear genetic differences among them.
This indicates there is some truth behind the racial distinctions that seem obvious to most ordinary people.
But they added that it’s important to define race correctly, since dangerous misconceptions, such as the notion that some races are superior to others, persist and can serve to excuse racism. What is true, researchers said in light of the new studies, is that people of different races have different ancestries. This means different genes, since genes are inherited from ancestors.
“The public in general is much more honest” about race than many academics are, “because the general public knows it signifies something rather than nothing,” said Jon Entine, a journalist and author.
The emotions surrounding the debate arise from its origins in the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, which led to widespread efforts to wipe out racism from society. Recognizing the evils that racial classification had created, from slavery to genocides, many tried to fight racism by playing down racial differences as much as possible.
Partly in order to further this goal of ending racial discrimination, some experts began to publicize the view that race didn’t exist at all.
Regardless of evidence, many scientists, especially anthropologists, have continued to support the race-as-social-construct position.
The latest research to challenge the race-as-social-construct theory is a study of 3,636 people from across America and Taiwan, led by Neil Risch, then of the Stanford University School of Medicine and now at the University of California at San Francisco.
It found that people’s self-identified race is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background, contradicting the race-as-social-construct view, Risch said.
The study’s authors said it was the largest study of its kind. The participants identified themselves as either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic. For each participant, the researchers examined 326 DNA regions that tend to vary between people. These regions are not necessarily within functioning genes—some regions of the genome have no known use—but are simply genetic signposts that come in a variety.
Without knowing how the participants had identified themselves, Risch and his team ran the results through a computer program that grouped individuals according to patterns of the 326 signposts. This analysis could have resulted in any number of different clusters, but only four clear groups turned up. And in each case the individuals within those clusters all fell within the same self-identified racial group.
“This work comes on the heels of several contradictory studies about the genetic basis of race. Some found that race is a social construct with no genetic basis while others suggested that clear genetic differences exist between people of different races,” a press release from Stanford said.
“What makes the current study, published in the February issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, more conclusive is its size. The study is by far the largest, consisting of 3,636 people who all identified themselves as either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic. Of these, only five individuals had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the box they checked at the beginning of the study.”
Although it was reported as the largest study to find genetic differences between races, Risch’s study is not the first. Previous studies have found that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically more susceptible than average for Tay-Sachs disease, a fatal nervous system disorder, for instance. Black populations have been found to carry higher levels of a mutation that leads to sickle-cell anemia. The education gap is another reality that shows up repeatedly regardless of socioeconomic conditions.
Risch’s study is not only the largest study but also the first to find that these genetic differences are not isolated cases involving a handful of genes, but are spread throughout the genome.
These differences should be of more than passing interest to the medical community, Risch added, because recognizing them can help tailor treatments and prevention programs to better serve specific ethnic groups.
It can also help geneticists avoid skewed results in epedemiological studies, he wrote. For instance, failing to account for the gene-race relationship could make researchers think a particular difference between populations results from genes when in fact it stems from different cultural conditions.
Several scientists who have supported the view of race as a social construct did not respond to requests for comment on the new studies, including officials from the American Anthropological Association and the author of the New England Journal editorial.
However, some other scientists reacted without surprise to the new findings.
“As an ordinary citizen educated in biology, it is self-evident that there are genetic differences between people who have been geographically segregated into mating populations, just as there are genetic differences for all species and subspecies,” wrote Michael Wigler, a professor at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Cold Spring Harbor, New York, in an email.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGbFKt2TzzQ&feature=player_embedded
|
