Talk:Clyde Winters/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 14 March 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

Peer-review controversy

The author of this article claims Winters has published letters and comments in response to peer-reviewed articles in academic journals. However his responses while appearing in journals are not peer-reviewed, despite him claiming the contrary. B. O. de Montellano points out: "the articles you [Clyde Winters] claim in journals like PNAS are your letters commenting on a legitimate article. These letters are NOT reviewed and just published-- i.e. like the vanity press Current research Journal of Social Sciences which has no review and published your article full of typos so it was not even proofread. Similarly, the talk that is mentioned at the start of this thread, is NOT peer reviewed. Talks at regional meetings, particularly those that not part of organized sessions on a particular topic are NOT reviewed or given academic approval."

This is false. You can not make a presentation at a Conference if it has not been reviewed and found acceptable for the Conference by experts in the field.Dr. Winters has made numerous presentation at international and national anthropological meetings, before his "peers" including AAA on his decipherment of Olmec , Indus Valley and Meroitic writing. Dr. Winters was part of a panel when he presented his paper on April 3,1997 on the Power98 (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Decipherment of the Olmec Writing. Dr.Linda Schele attended his 1997 Olmec presentation.If you note below Dr. Winters was also on a panel for the April 17th presentation.

Friday, April 16th ... in Highland Chiapas. 9:30. Clyde Winters (Loyola U - Chicago) Olmec Symbolism in the Mayan Writing. 9:50. Nestor Quiroa (U Illinois ... - 47k - Cached - Similar pages

Saturday, April 17th ... 11:15. Samuel Cooper (Bar Ilan U) The Classification of Biblical Sacrifice. 11:35. Clyde Winters (Loyola U - Chicago) Harappan Origins of Yogi. 11:55. - 50k - Cached - Similar pages

preliminary program csas98 ... Mexican Villages. 4:10 Clyde A. Winters (Uthman dan Fodio I) Jaguar Kings: Olmec Royalty and Religious Leaders in the First Person. 4:30 ... - 39k - Cached - Similar pages

Thursday April, 3 - Early Afternoon ... Russia [1413]. 2:30 pm - Clyde A. Winters (Uthman dan Fodio Institute) - The Decipherment of Olmec Writing [1414]. 2:50 pm - James ...

The author claims that :Most of the peer-reviewed work Winters has actually had published are confined to fringe and pseudo-journals, examples include the Journal of African Civilizations and the Mankind Quarterly.

The author writes: Dr. Winters' work is only published in fringe publications this is false. Dr. Winters' articles in the Journal of African Civilization and Mankind Quarterly, were published 30 years ago. He has published over a hundred articles since then.

It is normal science for scholars to write responses to published research letters. Dr. Winters is only doing what other scientist do.

Dr. Winters has published many peer reviewed articles and they are not in "fringe" journals. For example, Dr. Winters has three articles recognized by the NCBI. The is the United States agency that only list peer reviewed science articles. These articles are 1. A comparison of Fulani and Nadar HLA, by Clyde Winters, Indian J Hum Genet. 2012 Jan-Apr; 18(1): 137–138. doi: 10.4103/0971-6866.96686 PMCID: PMC3385173.

2. The Fulani are not from the Middle East, by Clyde Winters, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 August 24; 107(34): E132. Published online 2010 August 3. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1008007107. PMCID: PMC2930572.

3. Can parallel mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-I motifs in Indian M haplogroups, by Clyde Winters Indian J Hum Genet. 2007 Sep-Dec; 13(3): 93–96. doi: 10.4103/0971-6866.38982 .PMCID: PMC3168144

As you can see many of the comments in this article are unfounded. Given the bias and lies published in this Wiki, it should be unlocked so that it can show a more balanced view. Power98 (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Afrocentric historical revisionism

The author claims that this is historical revisionism. This is false Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America, was the first researcher to write that the olmecs were Black.. Africa and the Discovery of America is 3 volumes. Writing that Blacks founded the Olmec and Sumerian civilizations is Afrocentric Revisionism, the Afro-American historian trained at Harvard University, Dr. E.B. DuBois has been writing about this fact since publication of the Negro in 1915 ; he also discussed this historical reality in The World and Africa . How is this historical revisionism when Afro-Americans have been stating these historical truths since 1915.

Power98 (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Decipherment

This page claims that Dr. Winters decipherments are wrong because of an article by Jason Colavito and comments attacking Dr. Winters by Bernard Ortiz de Montellano in a discussion group. This section is biased because Calavito and Montellano are not linguists—but Dr. Winters is a linguist who has a Master’s Degree in Social Science with Minors in Anthropology and Linguistics. It also fails to acknowledge that Dr. Winters taught linguistics at Saint Xavier University—Chicago. People claim they have deciphered dead languages everyday—just because people disagree does not mean the decipherment should be ridiculed. The author of this page failed to acknowledge that Dr. Winters has published authoritative articles and books on his decipherments. Dr. Winters has published significant articles on his decipherment of the Indus Valley Writing, i.e., Dravidian is the Language of the Indus Valley Writng,  ; and Literacy Existed in the Indus Valley .Science Magazine. E-Letter. (2June 2009)</ref> He has also written a major article on the Olmec writing , see: Olmec (Mande) Loan Words in the Mayan, Mixe-Zoque and Taino Languages. Having published articles on his decipherments in Science and Current Science, illustrates that although Dr. Winters’ decipherments are controversial they are public knowledge. It also fails to acknowledge that Dr, Winters has also published books on his decipherment: Olmec Language and Literature, Dravidian (Tamil) is the language of the Indus Valley Writing: A study of the most ancient Tamil Language In addition, Dr. Winters has published 10 articles on his decipherment of the Indus Valley Writing that can be found at his webpage on Academia Edu

As you can see the section on decipherment is not neutral and fails to look at the issue without bias

Power98 (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Power98 (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

-- from the section: "However, archaeologist Carl Feagans noted that the bowl is dismissed as a hoax by scholars and described Winters as "a pseudo-historian"." I want to point out that the sumerian origin of the Fuente Magna Bowl is not from Winters, but from italian assyriologist Alberto Marini who discussed it in a paper in 1985. Alex^{— Unsigned, by: 95.247.233.253 / talk}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Publications

Books The Publication section is full of lies. Author claims that “Winters publishes, and sells his books on Amazon Kindle, or self-prints copies from Uthman dan Fodio Institute his home”. This is false, Dr. Winters’ books are published by Amazon’s Createspace, not the Uthman dan Fodio Institute. The author makes it appear that there are no good reviews for Dr. Winters’ books. This is false. African Empires in Ancient America (2013) KNOWLEDGE2POWER.By TClark on February 23, 2013. Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase. “Excellent book to gain an even clearer, accurate & proper portrayal of just some of the many achievements of African people in the America's long before Christopher Columbus' erroneous claim to have discovered a land that was already occuppied & thriving! TRUTH2KNOWLEDGE2POWER”. Before Egypt (2013) very good research. By Rathael G. Fambro on April 22, 2013, Format: Paperback Verified Purchase“there is very little research on what came before kemet/egypt. this is an excellent source that utilizes diopian methods of linguistics, culture, history, religion, etc., to get to the true origins. niger-kordfanian language family, is the language of all "adams".” The Ancient Black Civilizations of Asia (2013) Great book on Black Asian by Clyde Winters.By Mena on June 7, 2013. Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase. “The Ancient Black Civilisations of Asia is a great book on the black Asian by Clyde Winters.The Author tell us in the old model of history the Graeco Roman historian tell us 1) that the Egyptian were black 2) The Kushite founded civilisation in Africa and Eurasia 3) the first inhabitant of Greece and Rome were black from Africa.” Atlantis in Mexico: The Mande Discovery of America (2013) africans before slavery and the slave trade.By Rathael G. Fambro on May 14, 2013. Format: Paperback Verified Purchase’ “very good information on the african presence in the america's before slavery and the slave trade. main stream and academia, have ignored, misinformed, distorted, and lied, about africans for too long. very good scholarly work”. Ancient African History Primer (2014) Good. By Rathael G. Fambro on June 5, 2014.Format: Paperback Verified Purchase.winters always does a good job, but he comes off as cocky and arrogant in person. having said that, his research is sound. I have learned a lot from him”. Meroitic Writing and Literature (2013) Reviewed by a customer who wasted their money: Total Afrocentric trash from a pseudo-academic. Made-up linguistics. The ancient Meroitic language has not been translated.[10] Dravidian (Tamil) is the language of the Indus Valley Writing (2014) We Are Not JUST Africans: The Black Native Americans (2015) Power98 (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits

Power98 I presume is Clyde Winters. The guy is a black supremacist crank and pseudo-academic. What was posted about him was well sourced and not libelous. The claim he is not a racist is laughable. His racist posts (such as melanin theory) are all over the internet and his Afrocentric pseudo-historical claims all ancient civilizations and peoples (even the Celts) were "black", e.g.:

• http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/articles/the-ancient-celts-and-vikings-were-black-people-by-dr-clyde-winters/comment-page-1/

How is this not racist? Even native americans he thinks are inferior and have no history, technology he claims was given to them by African migrants:

An example of this more extreme position with regard to ”black” hegemonism in pre—Columbian America is that of Clyde Ahmad Winters (1982178—84), who says that “the first civilization to appear in America, called the Olmec culture, was founded by Africans. The Olmecs spoke one of the Mande languages. . . . The Olmecs' script had its origin in the Western Sahara. . . . In addition to teaching the Indians how to grow crops, the Olmecs also taught them how to make calendars and built step pyramids. . . . The original Maya were probably Africans...As a result, the technology being brought to the Amerindians was of African origin.”

- Haslip-Viera, G., de Montellano, B. O., Barbour, W. [1997]. "Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's Afrocentricity and the Olmecs". Current Anthropology. 38(3): 419-441

Krom (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Krom claims that Dr. Winters' research on the Celts is unfounded. This is just his opinion. Dr. Winters presents numerous references supporting his claim. Krom does not present any citations falsifying the research of Dr. Winters.

Dr. Winters' has never stated that Indians were inferior. He supported the African origin of the Meso-American calendar and pyramids on the research of Leo Wiener, Africa and the discovey of America, volume 3. It is not racism to cite the research of other scholars in your own research.

Dr. Winters research is not racist because it is discussing research first mentioned by WEB DuBois in his books The Negro and Africa and the World. Also Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America, said the Aztec and Mayan languages and calendar were influenced by the Mande speakers and the Tuxtla statuette of the Olmecs was written in the Mande writing system. How can Dr. Winters' be racist when he is repeating the research of Dr, DuBois and Wiener? Leo Wiener in volume 3, Africa and the Discovery of America, makes the claims attributed to Dr. Winters based on his one extensive research.

Wim van Binsbergen (*1947), Amsterdam-trained anthropologist, proto-historian, and intercultural philosopher (various professorial chairs in Europe and Africa, Professor of Intercultural Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Editor of Quest: An African Journal of Philosophy / Revue Africaine de Philosophie), commenting on Howe's work, in Black Athena Comes of Age, page 277, wrote:

" The synthetic programmatic overview of Afrocentrism by Clyde Ahmad Winters is sarcastically dismissed (67), but no attention is paid to the same writers intriguing linguistic work published in authoritative international journals, tracing parallels between West African languages, Asian and native American contexts, and suggesting an unexpected Asian dimension to African presence, thus challenging all accepted geopolitical wisdom".

. Here Dr. van Binsbergen makes it clear that Dr. Winters is not a "crank" "fringe" social scientist he makes it clear that Dr. Winters' has published his work in "authoritative international journals". Dr. van Binsbergen is a European he has no reason to lie about the research of Dr. Winters.

The author of this page is biased and does not look at the research of Dr. Winters' objectively, his mission is to make it appear Dr. Winters is a racist when Dr. Winters based his research on the findings of DuBois and Leo Wiener to name a few scholars.

Power98 (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Clyde Winters supports Melanin theory black supremacism

• Melanin: The Cosmic Gene African People and Humanity by Clyde Winters

So what's the point in denying you are a black supremacist when you publish racist pseudo-science like this? Not only is it racist, but it talks about black people receiving their melanin from extraterrestrials or something as ridiculous. You don't seem to realize RW's purpose is to cover: "1.Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement." and "2.Documenting the full range of crank ideas." (read the Main page) Krom (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

See also Melanin theory. Krom (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

An example of the comments in that link above:

“”Every person should be taught this stuff in elementary school. Had it not been hidden, perhaps some young black (now in jail) would have formulated a cure for diseased Jews and mentally retarded whites.

Clyde's response:

“”^Correct. Europeans know the power of melanin that's why they attempt to play down its role in knowledge building and intelligence.

And you're not racist? This is only one link. You've got a web-history going back a decade or more, and someone could make a whole dossier on your racism/black supremacism, racial conspiracy theories against whites etc. No one is fooled by this nonsense you are some sort of respectable scholar. Also just google your name and you're well known to be a black supremacist crank all over the net. Krom (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in Dr. Winters' paper about "mentally retarded jews", this was made up by Krom.

There is nothing in Dr. Winters paper on Melanin that is racist. It is not Black supremacist because Dr. Winters does not claim that Blacks are superior to white. I challenge Krom to show where Dr. Winters has ever claimed that Blacks were superior to whites. If Krom feels this is "Black supremacist", it must be based on his own feelings of inferiority. Moreover,this page which we are talking about has nothing to do with Black Melanin it is about the research of Dr. Winters relating to his linguistic and genetics/anthropology research. Research that Dr. Winters has published in peer reviewed journals.

What Krom sees as pseudoscience is just a different way of looking at protohistory and history generally. Dr. Winters' research on the Olmecs is based on the research of WEB DuBois and Leo Weiner.

In a call for papers for An international conference to mark the retirement of Wim van Binsbergen, and one of the activities in the context of the 65th anniversary of the African Studies Centre, Leiden (the Netherlands), the organizers, recognizes that some of Dr. Winters research is part of a long tradition of historical revisionism of proto-history aimed at telling people historical facts that have been ignored by other researchers

Recent studies of protoglobalisation have projected back into preceding millennia, today’s typical phenomena of intense cultural plurality and hybridity, albeit under older technologies of information and communication – those of the sailing ship, the mail pigeon and the chariot or horseback. Transcontinental arguments continue to both intrigue and offend – in the times of Thor Heyerdahl (although the accumulated indications for trans-Pacific contacts in all directions have turned out to be rather more extensive than is generally admitted) no more than today: cf. Stephen Oppenheimer’s Sunda thesis for South and West Asia; Robert Dick-Read’s application of a similar idea to sub-Saharan Africa – where incidentally the Indian Ocean coast has always been regarded as a window on Asia; Clyde Winters´ insistence on Mande elements in South and East Asia.,

If Dr, Winters is making non-scientific claims where is Krom's citations from experts in the field falsifying Dr. Winters references. To falsify research you have to present counter evidence falsifying Dr. Winters' claims. All Krom does is give his opinion an cite an article 20 years old, that does not even discuss Dr. Winters' research except in a footnote.Power98 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Power98 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Clyde has written the following (these are his articles):

• The Ancient Celts and Vikings were Black People
• The Sumerians were Black
• The Black Greeks
• The Blacks of China's First Civilization: The Xia
• Ancient African Kings of India

So how is this not black supremacism? He (you) thinks all ancient peoples were "originally black" and that civilization was only the creation of "blacks". If someone wrote an article claiming the ancient Zulu were white people from Europe, this would be racist pseudo-history too. Essentially all you are doing is reversing white supremacy claims which makes you a black supremacist loon. Krom (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Does Mr Winters sincerely believe that the ancient Celts and Vikings were black people, or is he just mocking this idea? That is just nutty if not anti-evolutionary, everyone knows they were a bunch of white dudes with long hair and beards drinking mead worshipping the white god Odin. If they were black how would they survive in such ice cold climate conditions for so long? It appears Mr Winters likes to steal peoples cultures and histories and pass them off as his own. I say poe or psychosis. Mr Burton (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Krom is the racist. Dr. Winters is only claiming certain ancient people were Black based on the research of whites. All these white researchers can not be “Black Supremacists”. Dr. Winters is not the first person to say the Celts were Black. The first researchers to make this claim were William and Robert Chambers,; and Father O’Growney . Chambers and O’Growney were white. Col. Henry Rawlinson , used textual evidence to determine that a link existed between the Mesopotamians to their ancestors in Africa . Rawlinson called these people Kushites The Kushites were Black. There is a positive relationship between crania from Africa and Eurasia. The archaeologist Marcel-Auguste Dieulafoy (Dieulafoy,2004) and Hanberry (1981) maintains that their was a Sub-Saharan strain in Persia . These researchers maintain that it was evident that an Ethiopian dynasty ruled Elam from a perusal of its statuary of the royal family and members of the army ( Dieulafoy, 2004; Dieulafoy, 2010;Hansberry,1981). Dieulafoy (2010 ) noted that the textual evidence and iconography make it clear that the Elamites were Africans, and part of the Kushite confederation

Dieulafoy (2010) made it clear that the Elamites at Susa were Sub-Saharan Africans. Marcel Dieulafoy and M. de Quatrefages observed that the craniometrics of the ancient Elamites of Susa indicate that they were Sub-Saharan Africans or Negroes (Dieulafoy,2010).Ancient Sub-Saharan African skeletons have also been found in Mesopotamia (Tomczyk et al, 2010). The craniometric data indicates that continuity existed between ancient and medieval Sub-Saharan Africans in Mesopotamia (Ricault & Waelkens,2008) Rawlinson, Dieulafoy, Tomczyk and Ricault are all white—not Afrocentrict scholars.

Dr. Winters based his proposition the Sumerians, Greek and etc., on white researchers not Afrocentric researchers.Whites were the first researchers to claim that the Greeks,Sumerians/Elamites, and Celts were Black/African but they are not called “Black Supremacist. Also whereas Zecharia Sitchin, in The Lost Realms, and David Hatcher Childress , in The Mystery of the Olmecs, can say the Olmecs were Blacks and they are called diffusionist, Dr. Winters says the same thing and he is called a “Black Supremacist”. This indicates to me that Krom is the real racist, in that it is alright for whites to say the Olmecs were Blacks, but if an Afro-American says the same thing he is a “Black Supremacist.

It was white scholars who believed the Sumerians/Elamites and etc., were Black before Dr. Winters wrote his books and papers.The real RACIST is Krom.Power98 (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Power98 (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Zecharia Sitchin is a crackpot who believed in aliens, and quoting Father O’Growney a catholic priest from the 1800s is just embarrassing, you seem to quote mine or misquote very old books almost two hundred years for a single purpose, I doubt the geologist Robert Chambers claimed the Celts were black but even if he did this is old literature years old not from a scholar in the field. None of those authors wrote complete books or articles like you have claiming the vikings were black, so you are not taking your beliefs from "white researchers", taking them out of context maybe.

Show me a peer-reviewed modern paper in a well respectable journal published in the last few years that distinctly claims the ancient Celts were black. None exist. When you go to sleep at night, do you actually deep down believe the ancient Vikings were black dudes? This defies everything in archeology, history, genetics and just throws common sense and all reason out of the window. It is batshit insane pal, if you honestly believe this you have deceived yourself - you are in the same boat at young-earth creationists or flat-earthers. Anyone in public would laugh if they heard you making this claim. I really don't get why you want to steal other peoples cultures and histories especially Europeans, is this to boost yourself up to make yourself feel better about your life? Watch a recent series of Vikings on the history channel, they are all white people as depicted in every media outlet, history museum, school in Europe and held by almost every scholar in the world. If you want to believe in creationism, aliens and the Vikings were black that is up to you, but you will be exposed on websites such as this for promoting such crazy beliefs and pseudoscience.

As skeptic Jason Colavito reports [1] "Afrocentrism is a false pseudoscience that shares much in common with the ancient astronaut theory. Both propose a single explanation for ancient history (African dominance or space aliens) and both use almost identical evidence to support the notion that the cultural achievements of native peoples elsewhere in the world should be ascribed to the direct intervention or influence of African migrants or space aliens. As seen with Dr. Winters, as well as the Nuwabian movement, some Afrocentrists also cross over into ancient alien theorizing as a way of justifying the special nature of African peoples. The problem seems to be right there, Regards. Mr Burton (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

===Archaeological and Genetics evidence Support  Black Selures===

Your comments are not relevent . First of all I have never said I believe in creationism nor the ancient Alien theory so don't place these ideas as part of my worldview. I have not used Sitchin to support my research I just said that no one calls him a racist. Krom implies I'm a racist, which I am not because I say the Olmecs were Blacks.

You admit the Silures were called dark, and as we know Europeans only used dark to refer to Blacks. Moreover, MacRitchie makes it clear the many early Britons were Black skinned. ,b.MacRitchies work is supported by genetics and archaeology. This was recently supported by the discovery of the "Bangled Lady". This Black woman was an elite in Britain in Roman times. Africans were first recorded in the north 1800 years ago, as Roman soldiers defending Hadrian's Wall; many Britons continue to carry African genes.

The genetic and archaeological evidence Burton, makes your comments groundless.

What genetic and archaeological evidence do you have Winters that the ancient Romans, Celts and Vikings were black men with affros? Show me a single modern scientific peer-reviewed article that makes that claim, you have none. You have not cited any genetic evidence. You are quote-mining books nearly two-hundred years old written by crackpots that didn't even argue they were black, but "dark" or wavy hair not affros. As said "dark" could refer to darker or tanned skinned Caucasians or Arabs, and various European peoples had "wavy" hair, none of the authors you quote claim these ancient European peoples were "negroid" or had affros. David MacRitchie was a folklorist who believed fairies were real and this is your apparent source proving the ancient Britons were black men. Nobody across the internet takes you seriously. The fact that you devote your entire life trying to steal, Native American, Asian, white or Indian peoples heritage and history is a little disturbing. Mr Burton (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Also I have shown contemporary articles that show the skeletal remains from Mesopotamia are of Sub-Saharan Africans . Ancient Sub-Saharan African skeletons have also been found in Mesopotamia (Tomczyk et al, 2010). The craniometric data indicates that continuity existed between ancient and medieval Sub-Saharan Africans in Mesopotamia (Ricault & Waelkens,2008)Power98 (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Power98 (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes there will be skeletal remains in Mesopotamia from all kinds of races, slaves from Africa were there. Mesopotamia is in Iraq a very hot desert landscape. Nobody is asking you for this and that is not controversial, those papers don't argue that black people founded mesopotamia. Show us your peer-reviewed scientific evidence that ancient Celts or Vikings were black men with affros. None exist. The Vikings had long straight hair, blondes and redheads. So far you have provided no evidence the ancient Britons, Vikings, Celts or Saxons were black men from Africa. It is a fantasy you have constructed built out of insecurity and jealousy for other peoples cultures and history. I will not further respond to your nonsenses. Regards. Mr Burton (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You're funny the evidence of the bangled woman and African DNA have proved you wrong about Black Britons-- you lose. Now you are just fronting. Nobody said these Blacks were from Africa. MacRichie says that these Blacks were indigenous.Power98 (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Celts as "Black"

Following the discussion above, I chose to check Clyde's sources for this claim. Clyde writes the following:

“”"The Celts were originally Black people. Ephorus (c. 405BC) claimed that the Celts were Blacks or Ethiopians(1)The Celts continued to be recognized as Blacks by Tacitus, who wrote about the Black Celts and Picts in 80 AD .(2) The Celts on the mainland of Europe were called Iberians or Silures.(3)

All these claims are false, and stem from misreading the 3 sources he provides, for example:

• (1) William and Robert Chambers, Chambers Information for the people, Vol. 2 ,(London & Ediburgh,1884) p.66:

“”"Ephorus, too (405 B.C.), seems to have had a very great impression of the power of the Ethiopians, since he names in the east, the Indians , in the south, the Ethiopians, in the west, the Celts, in the north, the Scythians, as the most mighty and numerous peoples of the known Earth.

Ephorus divided the known (mapped) peoples of the earth into: Ethiopians (below Egypt), Indians, Celts in Western Europe and Scythians in the furthest north. That's all he says. Clyde Winters like a complete imbecile misreads this as saying the Ethiopians extended their territory across all these areas, into the Celtic zone, so then the Celts are Ethiopians (blacks).

• (2) J.A. Rogers, Sex and race, Vol.1 (New York, 1967) page 196 (I found the book on archive.org)

Rogers was an Afrocentrist pseudo-historian author who wrote Cleopatra and Abraham Lincoln was black and plenty of other nonsense, so he's not a proper source. Anyway Clyde quotes him, who in turn cites the Roman historian Tacitus. The passage from Tacitus reads:

“”Silurum colorati vultus, torti plerumque crines et posita contra Hispania Hiberos

Tacitus describes the complexion of the Silures, as "colorati". Note this is not black, but "coloured", and then he points to their origin in Hispania (Spain). What Tacitus is describing is the tanned or light brown skin, typical of peoples in Mediterranean countries like Spain. He's not saying the Silures were black as in dark brown skinned, e.g. as the Ethiopians were described (nigra, nigros, niger, etc). So once again the sources Clyde writes do not match what he is saying. This has been noted by B. O. de Montellano who has debated Clyde. In conclusion: don't trust a word Clyde Winters writes, he's a liar and a distorter with a racist agenda. Krom (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It is hilarious that he's quote mining and misrepresenting very old articles or books from the 1800s written by non professionals in the field for a single line. All he needs to do is just pick up a modern day history textbook written by any historian from a library or visit any history museum but he won't. I guess he will be claiming black people built the great wall of china next (he's now claiming the Native Americans were black), so why not the Chinese too? And why stop there? The Nazis were black people. Evidence? They had a paramilitary wing called the "blackshirts". That is Winters style of "evidence" find anything with "black" in the title, from a single line and magic they were black. Funny guy. But I am bored of this funny guy now. Back to other articles. Mr Burton (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Krom is a liar.Colorati, means the people were colored like negroes or Blacks. Silurum colorati vultus, torti plerumque crines et posita contra Hispania Hiberos, is Latin. It means Silures colored; "and color of face, their usually curly hair, and the fact that Spain is Iberia". This translation means that people had colored [black] faces and "curly hair", all phenotypical features associated with Black or African people.. The fact that Krom would lie about what the Latin sentence means indicate that what he writes can't be trusted and by ignoring the fact that it was the Greco-Romans who claimed the Celts and other people were Black suggest that Krom manifest moral and mental degeneracy. This shows the racist agenda of Krom, attack Afro-American researchers and ignore the whites who first recognized that selected populations were Black.Power98 (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Colorati does not mean black and it is never applied to Ethiopians in classical literature [2] "To give a color to, to color, tinge"/"In partic., to color reddish or brownish, to tinge". So it is describing a brownish tinge of pigmentation (like I said a tan or light brown), hence Tacitus thought the Silures came from Hispania (Spain), where this complexion is common (like across the Mediterranean). Furthermore the Silures were just one tribe of ancient Britons, not all Celts. Anyone who can read (and doesn't have a racist Afrocentrist agenda) can see you are wrong and I am posting the correct meaning of colorati, and Tacitus' passage. Krom (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Issue is Misrepresentations of Krom not Silures and Celts

Krom is lying as usual. David Mac Ritchie, Ancient and Modern Britons , makes it clear that the Silures were "almost beyond question a dark-haired, dark eyed and dark skinned people", pg.186.

The Celts and Silures has nothing to do with this page. The discussion is about the statements of Krom that are invalid. He has lied about Dr. Winters background . Dr. Winters has a Masters degree in Anthropology and Linguistics, and he taught Linguistics at Saint Xavier University-Chicago. Dr. Winters has published peer reviewed articles even thogh Krom says otherwise.Power98 (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Unlock Page

Krom has many misrepresentations on this page. Dr. Winters' research is diffusionist--not racist. If Childress and Sitchin can claim the Olmecs were Black and they are not called racists. Dr. Winters should not be called a racist.

Krom has lied about Dr.Winters experience and training. He maintains Winters has not training in anthropology and linguistics, even though Dr. Winters has an M.A. degree with Minors in Linguistics and Antropology,taught Linguistics at Saint Xavier University-Chicago and Wim van Binsbergen (*1947), Amsterdam-trained anthropologist, proto-historian, and intercultural philosopher (various professorial chairs in Europe and Africa, Professor of Intercultural Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Editor of Quest: An African Journal of Philosophy / Revue Africaine de Philosophie), commenting on Howe's work, in Black Athena Comes of Age, page 277, wroteThe synthetic programmatic overview of Afrocentrism by Clyde Ahmad Winters is sarcastically dismissed (67), but no attention is paid to the same writers intriguing linguistic work published in authoritative international journals. Power98 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Winters has published many peer reviewed articles and they are not in "fringe" journals. For example, Dr. Winters has three articles recognized by the NCBI. The is the United States agency that only list peer reviewed science articles. These articles are 1. A comparison of Fulani and Nadar HLA, by Clyde Winters, Indian J Hum Genet. 2012 Jan-Apr; 18(1): 137–138. doi: 10.4103/0971-6866.96686 PMCID: PMC3385173.

2. The Fulani are not from the Middle East, by Clyde Winters, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 August 24; 107(34): E132. Published online 2010 August 3. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1008007107. PMCID: PMC2930572.

3. Can parallel mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-I motifs in Indian M haplogroups, by Clyde Winters Indian J Hum Genet. 2007 Sep-Dec; 13(3): 93–96. doi: 10.4103/0971-6866.38982 .PMCID: PMC3168144

As you can see many of the comments in this article are unfounded. Given the bias and lies published in this Wiki, it should be unlocked so that it can show a more balanced view.Power98 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The presence of Clyde?

Power98: are you Clyde Winters writing spookily in the third person? Or someone else?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

He's writing in the third person because it's his view of how the article should be, it seems. He's... Not very coherent. Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 14:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Clyde Winters misrepresenting Eugene O'Growney

Winters misquotes Eugene O'Growney a catholic priest from the 1800s this is apparently Winters main evidence. Nowhere in these 9pages does O'Growney specifically say the Celts were black people. He mentions dark and light haired peoples and a "mixed" race. The word "black people" does not appear anywhere in the text. Nowhere in the text is black skin discussed. He uses the word "dark" once in reference to skin tone which he compares to modern berbers. A couple of dark skinned tanned people does not equal an African. Winters has jumped the gun and obviously equated O'Growney's outdated nonsense with modern day black people.

Father O'Growney did not state anywhere the celts were black, he would probably be offended by such an idea Winters has claimed. Not only are Winters sources outdated, he misrepresents them. None of the sources he uses have actually claimed in clear language the Celts or Vikings were black people. As stated above no actual sane person on the planet believes this deep down. This is hilarious stuff.

Please read O'Growney's article here

Online [3] Are the Irish Celts?. pp. 350-359 Mr Burton (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact o'Growney says they were dark implies they were Bkack, In the 19th Century you did not refer to white people as "dark" Burton should be ashamed of being a liar. Krow is a liar who tries to interpret 19th Century work based on his own ideas. All of Burton's's statements are based on his personnal opinion.Power98 (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Power98 (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The point you miss: "dark", "light", "black", "white", often are ethno-culturally dependent terms. "Dark" to a milky white skinned Swede may be the light brown complexion of an Italian, but to Nigerian, Italians are "light" skinned. The Ibos of Nigeria traditionally employ ocha (white) and ojii (black), so that nwoko ocha (white man) meant an Ibo with a lighter complexion. But of course this "white" is nowhere near as light skinned as a Swede. Do you think the Igbo nwoko ocha were Northern Europeans? So its pretty obvious, the "dark skinned" Celts of 19th century texts refer to light brown or tanned skin common in the Mediterranean, not dark brown skinned people from tropical African climate. Krom (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

So Clyde wants to play vocabulary games. Did the Black Irish come from Africa? How about Édith Piaf? (She may have been part Berber.) SmartFeller (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow this is getting silly.

"The fact O'Growney says they were dark implies they were Bkack". No Mr Winters, dark means dark. It is you doing the implying. He does not mention black skin anywhere in his article. Dark does not automatically equal black, that is a fallacy. You are putting the cart before the horse. How do you know he is not referring to Arabs or tanned Caucasians from southern Europe? Both are "dark".

Arabs and Indians and some southern Asians and Europeans are dark skin tone, not black. Just because some people may have darker skin does not automatically make them "black people". He compared the Irish to the Berbers. Run a Google search image on modern day "Berbers", they are not black people. They are dark skinned yes, like Arabs with Caucasian features. Even so the O'Growney article seems to contradict your own writings. He asserts that various Europeans peoples had blonde or red-hair such as the Belgians or old Welsh peoples, a trait of white people. Yet your own writings ignore such a thing.

It seems to me all your sources are 1. Out of date and 2. misrepresentation or "vocabulary games" as a user above puts it. You quote mine old texts looking for the word "dark" and then claim they were black people. It is absolutely nuts. You have no scientific evidence for your claims (still no peer-reviewed modern sources that claim Celts or Vikings were black dudes), and all you are doing is stealing other peoples cultures and histories and trying to pass them off as your own. It is very dishonest. As for O'Growney he was a catholic priest from the 1800s, I know of no modern scholar or history textbook that is using his material on this subject. I find it funny you quote-mine O'Growney for one line. As for "personal opinion" I have just shown you what O'Growney wrote [4]. you have even admitted he didn't write they were black and came up with a silly idea they could only use the terminology of dark, but dark could mean anything. So the original research seem to be coming from your end, not mine. I think it is dishonest for you to write an article claiming the Celts and Vikings were black when your sources don't even specifically say this. Regards. Mr Burton (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

MacRitchies and Genetics Research says some Celts were Black

MacRitchie makes it clear the many early Britons were Black skinned. MacRitchies work is supported by genetics and archaeology. This was recently supported by the discovery of the "Bangled Lady". This Black woman was an elite in Britain in Roman times. Africans were first recorded in the north 1800 years ago, as Roman soldiers defending Hadrian's Wall; many Britons continue to carry African genes. Power98 (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The "bangled lady" has not been described as black in any scientific literature. A study on her skull published in 2010 has described her as "mixed race" [5], but if you look at the craniometric plot (FORDISC 3.0 graph), "bangled lady" is shown to fall closer to the modern "white" populations, than "black", despite appearing between those two social-racial categories as "mixed". Of course these sort of studies are open to much criticism, e.g. the idea you can determine someone's geographical ancestry from a skull with high accuracy is questionable, so too is the way they categorize or cluster these populations, but none of these studies support your statement this woman was black. Those same authors in another study found:

Previous anthropological investigations at Trentholme Drive, in Roman York identified an unusual amount of cranial variation amongst the inhabitants, with some individuals suggested as having originated from the Middle East or North Africa. The current study investigates the validity of this assessment using modern anthropological methods to assess cranial variation in two groups: The Railway and Trentholme Drive. Strontium and oxygen isotope evidence derived from the dentition of 43 of these individuals was combined with the craniometric data to provide information on possible levels of migration and the range of homelands that may be represented. The results of the craniometric analysis indicated that the majority of the York population had European origins but that 11% of the Trentholme Drive and 12% of The Railway study samples were likely of African decent (Leach et al. 2009).

So roughly 1/10 people in the Roman cosmopolitan cites in England were African migrants (they would have been much rarer to non-existent in rural areas). This doesn't make "many" or "most" early Britons as black which you claim. Also by "African decent" Leach et al. are mostly discussing North Africans, and its doubtful many would fit a "black" racial tick-box by society standards (on most census forms, North African populations are not considered "black African", nor do populations like Kabyle Berbers think they are black). Krom (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

These statistics are your opinion. The reconstruction of the bangled woman was of a negro, stop making stuff up. The fact remains there were Black Silures and you claimed there weren't any. You said there was no contemporary articles saying Blacks were part of Britain. These article prove you are wrong.It also makes it clear the bangled lady was not a slave. Dr. Winters research is supported by contemporary genetics and anthropology research.Power98 (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Burton stop saying these are African migrants, again this is your opinion. MacRitchies says that Britons Blacks were indigenous and the whites were migrants.Power98 (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Issue is Misrepretations of Krom not Silures and Celts

Krom is lying. David MacRitchie in Ancient and Modern Britons makes it clear that their were negro or Black Irishmen

The Celts and Silures has nothing to do with this page. The discussion is about the statements of Krom that are invalid. He has lied about Dr. Winters background. Dr. Winters has a Masters Degree in Anthropology and Linguistics, and he taught Linguistics at Saint Xavier University-Chicago. Dr. Winters has published peer reviewed articles, though Krom says otherwise.Power98 (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Power98 (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Krom I, think it is dishonest to claim that just because an article or book is old it is unreliable. We continue to use Greco-Roman writing to explain events in the past because they are often eye-witness accounts. Your problem is that due to your white supremacy ideas you can not imagine that whites are the scholars who claimed the founders of many ancient civilizations were Blacks or negroes. As I said earlier researchers have written about these civilizations since Greco-Roman times.Power98 (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Disputes?

The sources on the page show Clyde Winters has an M.A. in Social Science, although this was apparently with minors in linguistics and anthropology (which is not mentioned). This is hardly relevant. The entry isn't meant to be an exact biography. Secondly, what Clyde taught at Saint Xavier University - was not deciphering these ancient scripts he claims to be an expert in (his decipherments have been dismissed as fantasy or crackpot by experts, e.g. Clyde Winters is mentioned on websites and blogs such as badarchaeology). Not only does Clyde hold black supremacist historical revisionist views (all ancient civilizations were "black"), but his posts often involve other pseudo-sciences like ancient astronauts, and pseudo-historical claims about Atlantis, and so on.Krom (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Krom has not presented any evidence that Dr. Winters is a Black Supremist or made pseudo-historical claims about ancient astronauts. Dr. Winters research is carefully researched and supported by reliable citations.It has been shown that Dr. Winters based his research on the writings of DuBois and Leo Wiener. His studies only confirm what they wrote about years ago. DISPUTES WITH KROM THERE ARE FOUR MAJOR DISPUTES WITH KROM’S ARTICLE 1) THAT DR. WINTERS HAS NO CREDENTIALS TO WRITE ANTHROPLOLOGY AND LINGUISTICS ARTICLES (DECIPHERMENT); 2) THAT DR. WINTERS DOES NOT HAVE PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES;3) THAT DR. WINTERS RESEARCH IS PSEUDOSCIENCE INSTEAD OF DIFFUSIONISM; AND 4) KROM’S USE OF HOWE TO PROVE THAT DR. WINTERS RESEARCH IS UNFOUNDED.. KROM fails to acknowledge that Dr. Winters has published authoritative articles and books on his decipherments. Dr. Winters has published significant articles on his decipherment of the Indus Valley Writing, i.e., Dravidian is the Language of the Indus Valley Writng,  ; and Literacy Existed in the Indus Valley .Science Magazine. E-Letter. (2June 2009)</ref> He has also written a major article on the Olmec writing , see: Olmec (Mande) Loan Words in the Mayan, Mixe-Zoque and Taino Languages. Having published articles on his decipherments in Science and Current Science, illustrates that although Dr. Winters’ decipherments are controversial they are public knowledge. It also fails to acknowledge that Dr, Winters has also published books on his decipherment: Olmec Language and Literature, Dravidian (Tamil) is the language of the Indus Valley Writing: A study of the most ancient Tamil Language In addition, Dr. Winters has published 10 articles on his decipherment of the Indus Valley Writing that can be found at his webpage on Academia Edu

As you can see the section on decipherment is not neutral and fails to look at the issue without bias

It is relevant that Dr. Winters has published many peer reviewed articles and they are not in "fringe" journals. For example, Dr. Winters has three articles recognized by the NCBI. The is the United States agency that only list peer reviewed science articles. These articles are 1. A comparison of Fulani and Nadar HLA, by Clyde Winters, Indian J Hum Genet. 2012 Jan-Apr; 18(1): 137–138. doi: 10.4103/0971-6866.96686 PMCID: PMC3385173.

2. The Fulani are not from the Middle East, by Clyde Winters, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 August 24; 107(34): E132. Published online 2010 August 3. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1008007107. PMCID: PMC2930572.

3. Can parallel mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-I motifs in Indian M haplogroups, by Clyde Winters Indian J Hum Genet. 2007 Sep-Dec; 13(3): 93–96. doi: 10.4103/0971-6866.38982 .PMCID: PMC3168144

What Krom sees as pseudoscience is just a different way of looking at protohistory and history generally. Dr. Winters' research on the Olmecs is based on the research of WEB DuBois and Leo Weiner.

In a call for papers for An international conference to mark the retirement of Wim van Binsbergen, and one of the activities in the context of the 65th anniversary of the African Studies Centre, Leiden (the Netherlands), the organizers, recognizes that some of Dr. Winters research is part of a long tradition of historical revisionism of proto-history aimed at telling people historical facts that have been ignored by other researchers

Recent studies of protoglobalisation have projected back into preceding millennia, today’s typical phenomena of intense cultural plurality and hybridity, albeit under older technologies of information and communication – those of the sailing ship, the mail pigeon and the chariot or horseback. Transcontinental arguments continue to both intrigue and offend – in the times of Thor Heyerdahl (although the accumulated indications for trans-Pacific contacts in all directions have turned out to be rather more extensive than is generally admitted) no more than today: cf. Stephen Oppenheimer’s Sunda thesis for South and West Asia; Robert Dick-Read’s application of a similar idea to sub-Saharan Africa – where incidentally the Indian Ocean coast has always been regarded as a window on Asia; Clyde Winters´ insistence on Mande elements in South and East Asia.,

If Dr, Winters is making non-scientific claims where is Krom's citations from experts in the field falsifying Dr. Winters references. To falsify research you have to present counter evidence falsifying Dr. Winters' claims. All Krom does is give his opinion and cite an article 20 years old, that does not even discuss Dr. Winters' research except in a footnote.

Krom has made Dr. Winters presentations at conferences a disputed issue.The author of this article claims Winters has published letters and comments in response to peer-reviewed articles in academic journals. However his responses while appearing in journals are not peer-reviewed, despite him claiming the contrary. B. O. de Montellano points out: "the articles you [Clyde Winters] claim in journals like PNAS are your letters commenting on a legitimate article. These letters are NOT reviewed and just published-- i.e. like the vanity press Current research Journal of Social Sciences which has no review and published your article full of typos so it was not even proofread. Similarly, the talk that is mentioned at the start of this thread, is NOT peer reviewed. Talks at regional meetings, particularly those that not part of organized sessions on a particular topic are NOT reviewed or given academic approval."

This is false. You can not make a presentation at a Conference if it has not been reviewed and found acceptable for the Conference by experts in the field.Dr. Winters has made numerous presentation at international and national anthropological meetings, before his "peers" including AAA on his decipherment of Olmec , Indus Valley and Meroitic writing. Dr. Winters was part of a panel when he presented his paper on April 3,1997 on the Power98 (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Decipherment of the Olmec Writing. Dr.Linda Schele attended his 1997 Olmec presentation.If you note below Dr. Winters was also on a panel for the April 17th presentation.

Friday, April 16th ... in Highland Chiapas. 9:30. Clyde Winters (Loyola U - Chicago) Olmec Symbolism in the Mayan Writing. 9:50. Nestor Quiroa (U Illinois ... - 47k - Cached - Similar pages

Saturday, April 17th ... 11:15. Samuel Cooper (Bar Ilan U) The Classification of Biblical Sacrifice. 11:35. Clyde Winters (Loyola U - Chicago) Harappan Origins of Yogi. 11:55. - 50k - Cached - Similar pages preliminary program csas98 ... Mexican Villages. 4:10 Clyde A. Winters (Uthman dan Fodio I) Jaguar Kings: Olmec Royalty and Religious Leaders in the First Person. 4:30 ... - 39k - Cached - Similar pages

Thursday April, 3 - Early Afternoon ... Russia [1413]. 2:30 pm - Clyde A. Winters (Uthman dan Fodio Institute) - The Decipherment of Olmec Writin. 2:50 pmg [1414] Stephen Howe, Professor of History and Cultures of Colonialism, University of Bristol has noted:

The tendency to claim or imply grand-sounding academic careers and affiliations seems to be quite widespread among Afrocentrists.

He refers to Clyde Winters as an example.

Wim van Binsbergen (*1947), Amsterdam-trained anthropologist, proto-historian, and intercultural philosopher (various professorial chairs in Europe and Africa, Professor of Intercultural Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Editor of Quest: An African Journal of Philosophy / Revue Africaine de Philosophie), commenting on Howe's work, in Black Athena Comes of Age, page 277, wrote:

"Scholarly reputations are also readily sacrificed on the altar of Howe's indignation vis-a-vis Afrocentrism and the more readily so, the less Howe knows of their specialist field. The synthetic programmatic overview of Afrocentrism by Clyde Ahmad Winters is sarcastically dismissed (67), but no attention is paid to the same writers intriguing linguistic work published in authoritative international journals, tracing parallels between West African languages, Asian and native American contexts, and suggesting an unexpected Asian dimension to African presence, thus challenging all accepted geo political wisdom".

Power98 (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Negative Comments about Dr. Winters on Websites mean Nothing

Krom justifies his negative comments about Dr. Winters by citing websites. Websites are not scholarly journals. They contain the comments of the owners of the site. These comments on these sites are just opinions they are not supported by actual research. The only article mentioned by Krom relating to D. Winters research was written over 20 years ago. And in this article Dr. Winters is only mentioned in a footnote.Power98 (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Winters Straw man

Winters sets up a straw man that people deny there were movements of peoples from Africa to Europe, Middle-east etc., in ancient times. No one has ever denied this: there has always been gene flow and cultural contact between different populations. There were certainly migrants in Roman Britain from Africa, which would have included people he defines as "blacks". This is obviously a different claim than saying "The Ancient Celts and Vikings were Black People" which is the title of Clyde's work, which also says "blacks" founded ancient Britain and were most of the population. The actual number of "black" migrants in Roman Britain was small, to miniscule (in the case of Viking Norway). See the estimates in the study I posted above, roughly 1/10 inhabitants of York, and other cosmopolitan cities are thought to have been migrants from Africa during the Roman occupation. But before the Roman occupation this figure was much less. If there was a significant number of "blacks" in these places during classical antiquity, they would have been described as such. Instead this is what we find for the Celts in general:

“”The Gauls are tall of body, with rippling muscles, and white of skin, and their hair is blond, and not only naturally so, but they also make it their practice by artificial means to increase the distinguishing colour which nature has given it.

- Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 5. 28. 1 (60 – 30 BC)

“”Nearly all the Gauls are of a lofty stature, white, and of ruddy complexion; terrible from the sternness of their eyes, very quarrelsome, and of great pride and insolence. A whole troop of foreigners would not be able to withstand a single Gaul if he called his wife to his assistance, who is usually very strong, and with blue eyes.

- Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History, 15. 12. 1 (378 AD)

Krom (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm Tall, Caucasian men with rippling muscles and blonde hair and ruddy healthy complexions. Stern eyes and great pride! Whole troops of others not withstanding a single one and his strong blue-eyed wife you say? Sound's like some kind of S.S. end goal. Anyway, on a serious note I have further looked into this and it seems a lot of it is based on lighter skin being a mutation but I don't see how this supports his conclusion of Blacks being better because of this/powerful. Non sequitur much? eVil áτheIsτ CO∏SPî®aÇ¥ (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

By his logic that merely 1 "black" migrant to Celtic Britain makes the entire British population "black" and "black history" (that's what he says, the "Celts and Vikings were Black" is his article), 1 "white" migrant can claim all history of Africa. The Zulus were white... Krom (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Clyde Winters spam

Clyde's spam here is typical, he does it across forums:

“”As usual, Clyde Winters fills the air waves with spam with the hope that the sheer volume will deter people from checking up on his data and sources. I have dealt with practically everything about Mesoamerica that he just posted here. A search of this forum will come up with megabytes on these topics. As you have seen, Winters NEVER acknowledges that he is in error. Lately he has take to making flat assertions as if they were not in any doubt." - B. O. de Montellano (posting as "Quetzalcoatl" on the Egyptsearch forum)

Also Montellano has covered most of Clyde's claims his "talks" and response comments and letters are peer-reviewed (which they are not) at the same link: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=010149;p=1#000000

No one claimed Clyde doesn't have a few peer reviewed (he provides just 3). On the entry it clarifies most (not all) of his are bogus (not peer-reviewed, or in legitimate journals, i.e. he regularly publishes in pseudojournals). I don't think anyone gives a crap about the 3 he lists. The first one I clicked on (the Fulani) is less than half a page. So its not as if his peer-reviewed work is of quality anyway. Krom (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Correction above, it is this link: [6] but anyway i'm no longer responding to his spam. The entry as it is written is accurate. Krom (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Krom is Bernard Montellano

Krom based this website/article about Dr. Winters on the statements of Montellano. The statements about Dr. Winters are mainly lies perpetuated by Montellano on other sites. At these sites Dr. Winters illustrates that Montellano does not know what he's talking about. As a result, Montellano has mounted a vendetta across the web to defame Dr. Winters. Wiki should publish articles that are objective--not based on someones hate and jealousy.14:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Power98 (talk)

Vague ad hominem and borderline doxxing, nope, you're not doing yourself or Winters any favours. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Krom Avoids the Disputes

It appears that Krom may be Montellano. This would explain why Krom keeps citing an article that discusses Dr. Winters in a footnote as justification for lying about Dr, Winters' experience and scholarship. The talk on this page should be about the lies manifest on this website. Instead of talking about strawmen and spam we need to discuss the Disputes that exist on what is written on this page and reality.

Krom/Montellano dose not want to discuss Dr. Winters background (noted on his Vita at Academia edu) as a developer of the Social Studies Standards of the Chicago Public Schools, Lecturer of Linguistics at Saint-Xavier-Chicago and advisor to authors of two Education books used by 1000's of students across the U.S., so that he can imply that Dr. Winters is a crank. Publishing Dr. Winters real background falsifies the lies made by Krom/Montelano on this website.

Krom admits that he knew Dr. Winters has published peer reviewed articles, yet, in this article he makes it appear as if Dr. Winters has done no scholarship at all recognized by his peers. This shows that Krom/Montellano is deliberately spreading a lie.

Krom writes that the only legitimate Conference presentations are those in which several scholars present on the same theme, while Dr. Winters presentations are illegitimate. This was a lie. Krom/Montellano knows that Dr. Winters' presentation on the Olmec Writing was part of a panel--the type of presentation Montellano/Krom says is a legitimate scholarly presentation. Again we see that Krom/Montellano is spreading a lie.

Krom attempts to use Howe, to imply that Dr. Winters fails to write good scholarship, and blocked any post, from noting that Wim van Binsbergen observed that Howe could not evaluate Dr. Winters' work because of its specialized field, and that Dr. Winters' "linguistic work [is] published in authoritative international journals" . Krom/Montelano didn't want this published because it proved that when this article stated Dr. Winters 1) lacks scholarship; and 2) has no linguistic back ground to decipher ancient languages, this was a LIE. It is clear that Krom/Montellano didn't want this added to the article because it pointed out another lie Krom/Montellano was spreading about Dr. Winters,

Krom/Montellano declares that Dr. Winters is a racist because he has written articles claiming Blacks founded the Olmec civilization and other civilizations. This is no reason to claim Dr. Winters is a racist because 1) the craniometrics of Mesopotamia as pointed out above show that they were negroes i.e., the Sumerians and Elamites; 2) the genetics research and bangled lady of Britain indicate that there were Black Celts; and 3) Sitchin and Childress also claim the Olmecs were Blacks.If the craniometrics, archaeology and research of others support Dr. Winters' research, Krom is calling Dr. Winters a racist without any foundation. This labelous claim of Krom/Montellano should not be allowed to stand when it is unfounded. Krom's is spreading a lie based on Montellano's jealousy of Dr, Winters. Wiki should not allow someone to use this site to spread blantant lies.

Krom/Montellano recognizes white scholars who say the Olmecs are Black diffusionists. But when Dr. Winters says the same thing he is labled a Black supremacist and Afrocentrist racist. This is not fair at all. If Dr, Winters is saying the same thing as Sitchin, Childress, DuBois and Leo Wiener, he can be called a diffusionist, but not a racist black supremist.Power98 (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

So, do you actually have anything beyond slagging off Krom, echoing Winters' nonsense (black Sumerians... riiiight...), supporting one pseudo-scholar (Winters) by citing similar pseudo-scholarly cranks (Sitchin and Childress), and general ranting? ScepticWombat (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact remains that if Sitchin and Childress are not called "black supremists", Dr. Winters should not be called one either.Power98 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Note how Clyde has gone from claiming the ancient Celts were black (i.e. that they virtually all were), to "most" were black, to "many", to "some", to now just trivially arguing there was a very small presence of African migrants that entered during the Roman occupation of Britain (which is what two quoted articles state). No one denies the latter, but his other claims are false. Like I said above he originally argues all or most Celts were black (which is nonsense), but then shifts his position to just argue there was "some" African migrants there. Its not as if he even holds consistent views.Krom (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Krom/Montellano you are making up things. MacRitchies said the Blacks were indigenous. It is just your opinion that the Blacks were migrants. There bangled lady was an indigenous elite as recognized by the burial items in her tomb. Stop lying and tell the truth ^{— Unsigned, by: Power98 / talk / contribs} 18:05, 3 August 2015‎

^ Spoken like a true crank... ScepticWombat (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Archaeological, Craniometrics and genetics show there were Black Celts

Krom/Montellano admit the Silures were called dark, and as we know Europeans only used dark to refer to Blacks. Moreover, MacRitchie makes it clear the many early Britons were Black skinned. ,b.MacRitchies work is supported by genetics and archaeology. This was recently supported by the discovery of the "Bangled Lady". This Black woman was an elite in Britain in Roman times. Africans were first recorded in the north 1800 years ago, as Roman soldiers defending Hadrian's Wall; many Britons continue to carry African genes.

The genetic and archaeological evidence of Black Celts and African genes in Britain are less than 7 years old. This makes Krom/Montellano's comments groundless.Power98 (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wim van Binsbergen

Clyde quotes Wim van Binsbergen, but here is what he actually says about Afrocentrism:

If one is familiar with current Afrocentrist writings one cannot help being aware (just as aware as Howe turns out to be) of the deficiencies which are endemic to that genre: the poor scholarship; the amateurish and autodidactic approach to grand historical and comparative themes without systematic use of obvious sources and obvious methods;[6] the Afrocentrist authors’ manifest and deliberate isolation from current debates and current advances in the fields of scholarship they touch on; and the tendency — yet by no means universal among Afrocentrists — towards Black racism. On all these points Howe has extremely sensible things to say. He parades well-chosen and convincing examples of these ills of Afrocentrism. I for one find myself in agreement with much of the details of his writing. I particularly admire his uncompromising stance[7] against any introduction of race-based arguments in decent academic debate — a weakness by which Afrocentrists, and Bernal, often embarrass their otherwise most sympathetic readers.

What Binsbergen never did was look at Clyde Winters properly, who would find all those things bolded apply to Clyde (black supremacism, poor scholarship, quoting outdated sources, sloppy research, lies and distortion etc).

I could easily email Binsbergen and show him Clyde's postings and he will probably retract the statement he wrote about him. Bingbergen obviously didn't look at Winters properly and just quoted a few of his linguistic articles. I mean what will Binsbergen make of this:

• The Ancient Celts and Vikings were Black People
• The Sumerians were Black
• The Black Greeks
• The Blacks of China's First Civilization: The Xia
• Ancient African Kings of India

This is crazy Afrocentric/black supremacist historical revisionism. Winters also has published a racist pseudo-science booklet on his support for melanin theory: Melanin: The Cosmic Gene African People and Humanity by Clyde Winters. I'm sure Binsbergen would change his mind of Clyde straight away after he reads this.Krom (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Binsbergen's Quote about Dr.Winters Work is from his book

Stop lying, Dr. Binsbergen's quote about Dr. Winters work is taken directly from his book.Krom/Montellbano You can contact Binsbergen if you wish but I am quoting directly from his book. As a result, your statement is BS. I will repeat the quote and anyone interested can verify the statement.

Wim van Binsbergen (*1947), Amsterdam-trained anthropologist, proto-historian, and intercultural philosopher (various professorial chairs in Europe and Africa, Professor of Intercultural Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Editor of Quest: An African Journal of Philosophy / Revue Africaine de Philosophie), commenting on Howe's work, in Black Athena Comes of Age, page 277, wrote:

" Clyde Ahmad Winters is sarcastically dismissed (67), but no attention is paid to the same writers intriguing linguistic work published in authoritative international journals, tracing parallels between West African languages, Asian and native American contexts</ref>, and suggesting an unexpected Asian dimension to African presence, thus challenging all accepted geo political wisdom".

This is a direct quote so your statement is not germaine.

Krom/Montellano you are just jealous that Dr. Winters has published significant articles on linguistics and African genetics. Dr. Winters has published significant articles on his decipherment of the Indus Valley Writing, i.e., Dravidian is the Language of the Indus Valley Wiritng,  ; and Literacy Existed in the Indus Valley .Science Magazine. E-Letter. (2June 2009) He has also written a major article on the Olmec writing , see: Olmec (Mande) Loan Words in the Mayan, Mixe-Zoque and Taino Languages. Dr Winters has published books explaining his decipherment. They are: Olmec Language and Literature Dravidian (Tamil) is the language of the Indus Valley Writing: A study of the most ancient Tamil Language Meroitic Writing and Literature

Stop saying Dr. Winters is a racist and black supremacist when you know he is not.Power98 (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The block

is kinda excessive. We should probably revoke Power98's autopatrolled status and make the page editable only for autopatrolled users.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Power98 is not blocked now, and has never been blocked on this wiki. Autopatrolled and autoconfirmed entail slightly different things. Sysop-level page protection is appropriate, if the article is to be kept free from our loquacious new friend's dribblings. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not fair to block me because Krom has never disputed the fact that Dr. Winters has a 1)back ground teaching and studying linguistics,2) he has published articles in peer reviewed journals,3) that the Uthman dan Fodio Institue website acknowledges it was originally a school, now it is a research institute, 4) plus I showed citations that the bangled woman was a African/Black Celt and Britains continue to carry African genes,5) I provided citations that skeletal remains from Mesopotamia show the Elamites and Sumerians were Black. Given these facts it is unfair to block me from correcting information on this site that wrongfully project Dr. Winters as a Black supremacist and racist, when he is not.Power98 (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

How are you not a black supremacist? You claim all ancient civilizations were created by "blacks": Sumer, ancient Greece, China etc. (however when people challenge you on this you start altering your position because you know yourself it is nonsense), also you believe in melanin theory pseudo-science. Afrocentrism by the way is black supremacist historical revisionism. See the black supremacist page. Just think for a moment think of replacing these titles of your books with "white" or "European":

• http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=clyde+winters

• African Empires in Ancient America > European Empires in Ancient America
• The Ancient Black Civilizations of Asia > The Ancient White Civilizations of Asia

etc

This would be white supremacy. Even you would call it so. So what you write is black supremacist material. Your pseudo-history is just a reversal of white supremacy into black supremacy. Krom (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Krom/Montellano you are mistaken can research be called Black supremist when the white researchers say the remains the analyzed was of Blacks.

For example , Dr, winters didn't make up the idea that the Mesopotamians were Black. It was a white researcher Tomczyk et al( 2010) who said Ancient Sub-Saharan African skeletons had also been found in Mesopotamia . Ricault & Waelkens (2008),another white scholar said the craniometric data indicates that continuity existed between ancient and medieval Sub-Saharan Africans in Mesopotamia If these white scholars are saying the same thing as Dr. Winters, why is he a Black suprmacist and these researchers are just reporting their find?

White archaeologist claim there were Africans in Britain when the Romans arrived. Moreover, MacRitchie makes it clear the many early Britons were Black skinned. ,b.MacRitchies work is supported by genetics and archaeology. This was recently supported by the discovery of the "Bangled Lady". This Black woman was an elite in Britain in Roman times. Africans were first recorded in the north 1800 years ago, as Roman soldiers defending Hadrian's Wall; many Britons continue to carry African genes. If whites are saying there were Black Celts like Dr. Winters and they are recognized as simply scientist, it is racist for Krom/Montellano to say that Dr. Winters is a Black supremacist.Power98 (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Except these alleged "white scientists" say no such thing. You misread or distort sources. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). say absolutely nothing about "continuity existed between ancient and medieval Sub-Saharan Africans in Mesopotamia". Your sources do not match up to what you claim. You have the be the worst sickening liar I have ever encountered online, you just outright lie about sources.Krom (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's the paper: "we analyzed the frequency distribution of 17 cranial discrete traits from Sagalassos and 27 Eurasian and African populations". Sagalassos is not Mesopotamia, its an archaeological site in southwestern Turkey. Secondly the study does not support what you are saying that these ancient peoples were "black":

“”Indeed, beyond an expected biological affinity of the Sagalassos population with eastern Mediterranean populations, we also detected affinities with sub-Saharan and northern and central European populations. We hypothesize that these affinity patterns in the Sagalassos biological package are the traces of the major migratory events that affected southwest Anatolia over the last millennia, as suggested from biological, archeological, and historical data.

Note the study also detected non-metric cranial affinities to "northern and central European populations" (what you would call "white"), not only sub-Saharan populations. This study just confirms migration and gene flow, not a surprise since the paper cover 12 millenia. They detect many different affinities, as noted also populations from northern European. Krom (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Winters (2012) - Good for a laugh

So I looked up that supposed peer-reviewed article. It was good for a laugh.

First up - it's not actually a paper - not a review paper, not original research, and not a technical report. It's not long or detailed enough to be any of those. It's in a part of the journal called 'personal reflection'. As for peer review, I don't think it can properly be called peer reviewed when there's actually not any content in it that could be reviewed. The gist of it is a comparison of allele frequencies in a particular part of the genome between two geographically distinct subpopulations. The presence of those rare alleles in both subpopulations is supposedly suggestive. However, there is zero discussion as to whether the data from those two studies are properly comparable (a major consideration in the HLA region, as it is notoriously difficult to sequence) and hence no justification for drawing any conclusions from them. I would expect at least a cursory justification. As it stands, it's academically useless.

There's also the somewhat broken English (not a necessarily an issue in a non-Anglophone journal, but a big red flag for someone at a US-based institution - there must have been someone to help with the phraseology somewhere in the department) and the incorrect references (the results section uses footnote 15 twice, instead of footnotes 14 and 15) make a strong case that no-one much bothered giving the article the once-over.

I've tried to dig up more information about the mentioned alleles to verify the claims, but they seem to be presented in a non-standard format, and I'm fed up trying. ^{— Unsigned, by: Queex / talk / contribs}

This is what I was saying, most of his claimed "peer-reviewed" work is spurious: its either in pseudojournals, or responses he has had published that are not peer-reviewed (heck, not even spell checked). At most he only has 2-3 peer-review articles out of hundreds he lists and lies about. Clyde is a charlatan. Also note he claims he is a "Professor of Education, Anthropology and Linguistics, Uthman dan Fodio Institute (UdFI)", as well as a "Faculty Member, Archaeogenetics", an "Associate Professor" and "Director" at the same institute. However the Uthman dan Fodio Institute (UdFI) is a private school in Chicago, that enrolled to teach 13-14 year olds. So how can there be an "archaeogenetics" department etc? So Clyde is a fraud also. The Uthman dan Fodio Institute is probably his own house, yet he slops that on all his work to fool people into thinking it is a legitimate academic institute. Krom (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It's also rather hilarious that when Power98 claims that Winters' crankery is "supported by modern researchers" (s)he starts out by citing "Col. Henry Rawlinson" from 1853... ScepticWombat (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I haven't even skimmed most of this talk page because of the torrent of efluent that got poured all over it. No-one should have to wade through all of that. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 22:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Umm, guys I think it's pretty clear that you just don't understand because you lack the superiority of Melanin, I mean us Black Celts over here in Britain have to deal with ignorant Saxons everyday./sarcasm off eVil áτheIsτ CO∏SPî®aÇ¥ (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

[ec] I've been sort of following the discussion, and Power98 repeats himself a lot, almost as if he were copy/pasting his previous comments. If Power98 is Chambers, I'm amazed at the feeble grasp of simple mechanics of English writing, shown by someone supposedly educated to a high level at some decent schools.

[not ec] Oh, please, Brock, next thing you'll tell me the crofters' black houses of the western isles were not the dwellings of Black folk... Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

They literally weren't though- as you know a crofter is somebody who works a croft. They're rather common here in Scotland, one of the most Celtic and therefore Black places in the Isles.

Yes, but what bothers me is Power (which brings to mind the phrase Black Power, he might be hinting at that which is slightly notable) should be able to provide at least one legitimate source if it was so correct. He has been going on for a long time. Stop pushing for this nonsense to have equal footing with normal science, until you can stop using pseudoscience to attempt to verify it. eVil áτheIsτ CO∏SPî®aÇ¥ (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, by western isles I meant the ones south and west of the Minch. Pretty sure black houses in the highlands can be found, too. Alec Sanderson (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If you refute or oppose Clyde's crackpot black supremacism, he labels you a "white supremacist". Bizarrely he labels this against anyone, even ethnic Han Chinese (on one forum that I saw some Chinese posters were getting fed up with Clyde trolling their Chinese history site, claiming the ancient Chinese were black). I'm surprised a page was not made on this site for Clyde years ago. His racist trolling is probably more notorious that Egmond Codfried's who had his entry added I think in 2012. Krom (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not by any means what somebody would consider White so I have no real basis to dislike what he's saying if it was true, it's simply no different than other pseudoscience. I wonder if Clyde is Power or closely affiliated. eVil áτheIsτ CO∏SPî®aÇ¥ (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Clyde's irrational behavior here

Quotes are from: De Montellano, B. O. (1995). "Multiculturalism, cult archaeology, and pseudoscience". In: F. Harrold & R. Eve (Eds.) Cult archaeology and creationism. University of Iowa Press:

“”Creationists misquote or partially quote Stephen Gould (Gould 1983); Afrocentrists similarly employ distorted quotations.

Clyde has distorted quotes and misread studies.

“”Afrocentrists make much use of antiquated sources such as Churchward (1913, 1921), Massey (1907), and Budge (1904).

Clyde's sources are mostly over a century old (note MacRitchie who he keeps mentioning is this strange guy).

“”Afrocentrists share with cult archaeologists what Cole (1980) calls "intimations of persecution." They allege a conspiracy by the Establishment to conceal the truth, which Afrocentrists then claim they are trying to reveal. Deborah Moore (1992) claims that the information about melanin and the pineal has been hidden for forty years. Van Sertima (1992:7, 37-38), referring to an Olmec head which is supposed to have Ethiopian braids, claims that it is "probably the best kept secret in Mesoamerican archaeology" and that the head "has never appeared, in any work on the subject, outside of Mexico."

Clyde thinks there is a conspiracy among scientists that are hiding or trying to cover up the ancient history of "black people".

“”Most of the genetic diversity in humankind is due to differences between individuals belonging to the same "race" or tribe, while only 10 percent of the total diversity occurs between "racial" groups (Latter 1980; Lewontin 1972). The Afrocentric emphasis on race and melanin invokes an outmoded and useless concept (Graves 1993). The Afrocentrists' fixation on biological races actually makes their task more difficult [...] A problem with Afrocentric melanists is that they promote an essentialist view of race, the existence of immutable races that are recognizable by stereotypic characteristics, that these races have biological and evolutionary significance, and that some races are superior to others. This is racism, pure and simple. The essentialist concept of race is rejected by the overwhelming majority of anthropologists, biologists, and geneticists (Littlefield, Lieberman, and Reynolds 1982; Graves 1993).

Clyde holds outdated and discredited views about race and is fixated with "blackness". Krom (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Also this quote is pretty interesting:

“”A more important factor, one which is in sharp contrast with "scientific" creationism, is the extreme reluctance of the scientific establishment to criticize any aspect of Afrocentric pseudoscience. Whereas the AAAS, the National Academy of Science (NAS), and numerous well-known scientists like Stephen Gould and Carl Sagan vigorously and openly criticize "scientific" creationism, these bodies have been pusillanimous in confronting Afrocentric pseudoscience. Several bodies within the AAAS have refused to take stands on the use of the Baseline Essay in Science when asked to do so; the Project on Science Education Standards of the NAS did not even want to hear a presentation on the topic; and the American Anthropological Association would not schedule a symposium entitled "Pseudoanthropology and Multiculturalism," which dealt with Afrocentrism, at its 1992 annual meeting, which had multiculturalism as its theme. The fear of being called racist seems to produce a paralyzing effect on consciences and on scientific integrity. This is unfortunate and shortsighted.

This is a problem - some people are too scared to challenge Afrocentrists/black supremacists because they fear being branded a racist. Most skeptics don't cover Afrocentrism for this reason.Krom (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the reluctance to engage with them is also partly because black supremacy, unlike "scientific racism", has always been a fringe concept. Most scientists don't challenge black supremacy for the same reason they don't waste time on the Ancient Aliens cranks or "cult archaeologists" claiming that the Sphinx is 10,000 years old or what have you. After all, how many peer reviewed black supremacy articles are there to respond to? Also, unlike the backers of creationism/ID, supporters of black supremacy are not in a position to impose their views through a well-developed parallel indoctrination "education" system or to seriously challenge scientific views in the public sphere. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The latter point is probably one of the reasons, although it's probably a little naive. Consider Mbeki/AIDS - Crank ideas like these could easily get a foothold in African countries if those in power like what they hear about them. Better to challenge them now than after an entire edifice of pseudoacademia has grown up around them in a couple of susceptible countries, not least because of the waste of potential such an edifice would would cause in its creation. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 09:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

And let's not pretend there is no anti-White bigotry (I'm trying so hard not to sound like a racist Redneck the Bible belt or some brainwashed minority) as well even if not significant (In America, there's sadly incidents in some African countries where there is a lot of lethal anti-White bigotry) NO, I don't believe in reverse racism nonsense as used by wingnuts but actual dislike/distrust/etc against people labled Caucasian does exist and it isn't exactly the rarest thing either. I know for a fact many of my friends and people I interact with do not like people of clear European ancestry, nor did I for a good period of a time. It doesn't need more fuel and scientific justification. I feel like I may be going too far or saying something too controversial, sorry. How in my view a cancer allowed to grow will not end well. Any potentially harmful beliefs like this should be countered. I, SAID, NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT! GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, OR I'LL PUT IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD! (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not suggesting that anti-white bigotry/racism doesn't exist and I don't mind calling it racism either (with such variants as the melanin theory shading into outright racialism). I also agree that black supremacy crap à la Winters' should definitely be debunked. I'd actually call Winters' ideas racist since they involve doing pretty much what white racist historians/archaeologists did in the past (and what their fringe descendants still do): If you find a "high civilisation", claim it was white (Winters: black), with the implicit or explicit notion being that "primitive natives" couldn't possibly have built such a civilisation themselves (Ancient Aliens crankery has some of that aspect too, btw). I was merely suggesting that fear of being labelled as racists might not be the only or even prime motivation for scientists not to address this fringe crankery. By contrast, I suspect that such fears of the "racist card" may be the reason why sceptics in general may be less keen on debunking black supremacy nonsense than "classic" racist/racialist BS. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely, it just feels like sometimes criticizing things with actual problems like Black Supremacy (even when disguised as not such) can result in smears like being called a racist or some kind of race treason nonsense. I, SAID, NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT! GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, OR I'LL PUT IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD! (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)