Talk:Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.)

[edit] Neutrality

This theory, while notable, is not very commonly held. The article needs to be rewritten to address how controversial this theory really is. — BrianSmithson 02:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Can this page be put on a "project" or other list to help it get the attention it needs? --192.154.63.19 18:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is only controversial because many people are racist and history is centered on Europeans. Many other peoples made contact with Native Americans before Columbus and there is enough concrete evidence to say this. People just don't want to admit this. - ProfessorYing 05:35, 3 December 2006

Accusations of racism do not address the issue: This is a fringe theory. Maybe that's because of racism or Eurocentrism, but Wikipedia policies require that topics be approached neutrally (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). It is inappropriate to present this information as fact. Instead, we should say who claims these things happened, information that is indisputable. For example, instead of (this made up example) "Africans encountered the Olmecs in 1383," we must say something like "Samuel Jones of Yale University claims that Africans encountered the Olmecs in 1383." Until the article is rewritten in such a style, the NPOV tag must remain. -- BrianSmithson 01:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this article needs a total rewrite, if it is not to be deleted altogether. Accusations of 'racism' directed against opponents of this fringe theory are wide of the mark; indeed it has more than once been pointed out by notable commentators that the extreme Afrocentrist position in its turn negligently downplays the role and heritage of the actual indigenous American peoples whose achievements the fringe claimants seek to co-opt.--cjllw | TALK 02:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

BrianSmithson and cjllw are entirely correct. Opposing dodgy scholarship has nothing to do with racism or Eurocentrism. I've done a bit of work myself trying to help out the Africans section of the Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact page. It turns out that much information posted in regards to this theory (usually by someone with an anonymous IP address) is lifted directly from websites chock full of factual and logical errors, misspellings, mixups of historical persons and events, poor style, et cetera.

There are some aspects related to the theory that are worth considering, but as BrianSmithson points out, it's quite a leap to say that many of these assertions are facts (like the bit about bringing elephants to Arizona). Twalls 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this page to a more neutral and descriptive title (which does not presume the claims as historical fact), and commenced a rewrite of at least the lead section in what I trust is a more balanced and accurate view. The remainder of the article needs throrough attention, accumulation and x-checking of refs, etc etc...--cjllw | TALK 08:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Another one you might want to take a look at: Muslims first journey to America. That page should be moved to a better title, too. — BrianSmithson 08:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to sound flip, but since the accepted idea is that people walked to present-day North America from Siberia, Manchuria, Korea, China, etc., it might clarify the situation to hear the Asian view on the subject. I'm not sure what that view is, but it might alleviate the confused nature of this article on the Wikipedia. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 10:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is the Models_of_migration_to_the_New_World article, which discusses theories of how the Western hemisphere came to be populated. Although there are several views on the subject, I'm not sure if there is a distinctly "Asian" view. The African contact claims aren't related to how the Americas were populated, although some of the proponents say that Maya have a high level of African genes. Twalls 03:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re the Muslims first journey to America article, I personally doubt whether this is a cohesive-enough topic to stand on its own, and if any of the material there is to be retained it is probably better off merged and redirected to some other article(s). Perhaps Native Americans and Islam, although this too suffers from much of the same misinformation problems and POV as these others, and is in great need of cleanup. Possibly also the material could be transposed (once cleaned up) to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact if it's not covered there already...?--cjllw | TALK 10:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Reconsidering, I've now moved Muslims first journey to America to Pre-Columbian Islamic contact theories and begun what is intended to be a more balanced rewrite. As long as it addresses the claims as hypothetical and unaccepted by the great majority (I would even say all) of historians, it can probably stand as its own article covering the debate (such as there is). --cjllw | TALK 04:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of racism are ridiculous, this theory is fringe and widely ignored, agreed. But NPOV is a bit far fetched too. "Samuel Jones of Yale University claims that Africans encountered the Olmecs in 1383." Sure... what about doing the same thing for other accounts of other peoples encountering Amerindians? You just can't write an article like that. Sources have to be given to a certain degree, but you can expect a reference for every single statement. If you do please tag the whole Wikipedia as NPOV. --moyogo 04:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's an exemple of how you're overusing the {{fact}} tag :

According to a Malian scholar, Gaoussou Diawara in his book, ''The Saga of Abubakari II'', Abubakari left with around 2,000 large boats.{{fact}}

Isn't According to [Gaoussou Diawara's book The Saga of Abubakari II] a citation? What kind of citation do you need? Do you need the actual statement copied from his book? --moyogo 05:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right that that statement doesn't need further sourcing, as the source is right there in the text. You're wrong that "you can't write an article" by attributing specific claims to specific people. Examples are all over Wikipedia. One example off the top of my head is Dixie (song)#African American origin?, which describes a controversial theory that the song was written by African Americans. This article needs to be refactored in this way or it will remain in violation of WP:NPOV. -- BrianSmithson 06:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I poorly phrased my statement. I was just saying it's impossible to give a reference for every single statement but your example seem to prove my statement false anyway. Now, why don't we have this kind of reference everywhere? --moyogo 06:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as the Diawara citation is concerned, I highly doubt that the original contributor here had access to it- the work appears to have been only published in French in a very limited edition by a publishing house which normally specialises in theatrical texts (while Diawara may hold a professorship at a Malian university, he is probably better known as a playwright, dramatist and organiser of Malian arts).

In fact, most if not all of the original article here seems to have been cobbled together verbatim from a number of afrocentrist-orientated sites, such as this one and this one the latter actually a book review of van Sertima's work by some Uni student on a message board. In fact earlier on in this article's editing history a {copyvio} tag was added to it by another editor and just as quickly removed by the orig contributor.

So before expending much effort validating the 'cites needed' the remaining text which is in copyvio needs to be removed, if it is not immediately rewritten.--cjllw | TALK 07:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The reference to this theory as fringe shows that some of you need to update your research. This is one archeological theory that has gained a lot of traction in relation to other accounts of pre-columbian contact. The evidence is significant though not as mind blowing as finding an actual settlement. The fact is that we are talking CONTACT, not colonization and the evidence that is there is significant in showing that there may have been CONTACT. --68.16.209.82 22:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The sections without references whould be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.162.36.220 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Fix it and stop the rhetoric

I believe that instead of folks pointing fingers about who is racists and who is crazy we should just fix the page so that it all the citations are accurate. There isn't much on this page that isn't factually accurate, but the kneejerk reaction of many White people (which most of the detractors are) is to simply toss these facts and theories aside instead of properly investigating them. This isn't a page about debunking or proving anything. It should be a page about presenting the facts as are and leaving opinions out. Remember the wiki rules! The author's sources are on this page if you'd take a second to look at them instead jumping to delete his page or portions of it. Oh and sign your freakin comments why don't ya. Scott Free 21:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

First you say, "...instead of folks pointing fingers about who is racists..." Then you say, "...the kneejerk reaction of many White people (which most of the detractors are)..." You do realize how that sounds, don't you? Kajmal 18:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The page is not as bad as some think

I don't think this page is as bad as some say it is. We have an outline of a theory that does certainly exist. We have a list of many claims which one could write about, either to debunk them or support them. For example, the claim about African plants in the new world clearly debunks the gourd as evidence. But the other plants could be good evidence if we can find some support for them, i.e. evidence that the plant did indeed exist in the new world in the right timeframe.

Other items are ridiculous and rather than deleting them, we could explain why. For instance the claim that legends of a black world indicate Africans were in America a long time ago. This is a somewhat racist statement that could only be believed by a person who thinks that Africans are blacks. In fact, the majority of Africans do not have black skin. The term "black" used to refer to Africans is a cultural artifact of the USA and England. In Australia "black" means aboriginal. In Russia it means Chechen. In ancient Sumer it meant the people of Sumer, i.e. "us".

Some work with Google could provide citations to add to the article.

I would suggest that the article be restructured in 4 parts. An intro, a list of claims that could be true, a list of claims for which the evidence seems rather weak, and a list of claims that are clear nonsense or which have some serious flaw. In addition to the black world claim, the Olmec statue claim has a serious flaw in that they have not compared the statues to other racial groups, especially local Mexicans. I know for a fact that many orientals, especially South China, and Indochina, have broad flat noses like many (not all) Africans.

One item of information that is generally ignored or poorly explained in these theories is the ocean and wind currents. My vague knowledge of these is that voyages from somewhere in the region of Mali, would easily get to America, but run into some difficulty in returning eastwards. This seems consistent with the Mali fleet story.

--Wavetossed 00:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)