The Real History of Britain

Afrocentric history might just be the biggest load of bollocks I've ever encountered on the internet. It's a shocking discipline where assumptions and misleading sources accumulate to destroy the very basis of rationalised historical facts. I could have just ripped the shit out of this, but instead let's cross examine the 'factual' points made to highlight the stupidity of this discipline. And what a better way to do it than with the history of my own country told by some crackpot imbecile on the internet.
____________________________________________________________________
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Crests/Crests.htm
____________________________________________________________________
Edit: Since originally writing this piece there has been a section added claiming that the number of slaves purchased by Western powers and the 'black artifacts' they accumulated are intertwined. I'm not sure how this adds up considering I have never cohabited with a single American in my house, yet still have the possession of an American made Xbox One, so really these two points bare no relation to each. Apparently the idea of buying or acquiring something is mysterious to this author, which is funny considering how the original point was based around the buying of people. 

I think we can already see where this 'factual' website is headed just from that introduction. Ignoring that this author can barely string a sentence together yet alone make a coherent point, we essentially have an opening paragraph of utter bollocks. I will admit that I did feel amazed at reading this. I'm amazed how stupid a single human being can be. Apparently the Hellenistic civilisations of ancient Europe were founded by African Americans, who must have mysteriously vanished over the past few thousand years and throughout the majority of recorded history. Either that or they succumbed to an impossibly rapid form of evolution that changed their skin colour. In any case, the first actual argument presented by this author is a complete straw man fallacy. Putting words in my mouth is one thing, but it's then another thing to say that Western history is flat out wrong in terms of its origin, when all you have as evidence is a plain conspiracy theory masquerading as 'factual' information. Still, let's commence with the evidence.

The first pointers of Afrocentric history are based around a pygmy race of so called 'negroids'. 'The Grimaldi Man' is certainly a well documented case of a pre-civilisation human, but to then claim that these people were responsible for Western civilisation as a whole is a huge leap in logic that unfortunately quickly becomes the standard form of argument. Again, the further sources only conclude that these people inhabited an area, and have nothing to do with the origins of British culture. Sparrows also inhabit the British Isles, and there's fossilised evidence that there descendants did too. So does that mean sparrows are also responsible for Western civilisation? Really this faux history of humanity is just a warmup for the following statement that only emphasises this author's sheer ignorance.

I'm sorry mate but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that not only do black people have less vitamin D in their bodies, but that also a deficiency in vitamin D leads to health complications, as does a deficiency of any vitamin. The counter argument provided for this apparent lie is even more ludicrous. I didn't know you could quantify the term 'epidemic', but then as we can see here you critical thinking skills need a lot of work. You are however correct in saying that diet has a heavy influence on rickets, although I hate to add there really isn't a racial divide in vitamin D rich foods, only a national one. Rickets is still heavily prevalent in African countries, so this idea of black people not needing vitamin D couldn't be any further from the truth.

Further down the article this author claims Europeans 'turned white', which is not only a very impressive claim, but also one that's in complete denial of how genetics play a role in human evolution. A whole population cannot simply 'turn white' over such a short period of time. Even the sources provided don't back up anything this man says, he only cherry picks the individual pieces of information that conform to his narrative. Even then all of these sources still predate the dawn of civilisation in the Western World, which didn't arrive until approximately 3000 years before Christ in modern day Greece. If any logical source is provided then they're just humorously dismissed by this fanatic, often with the most desperate of reasons. Claiming that you cannot draw an accurate face of a historical person unless you're an anthropologist is my personal favorite. Of course we don't actually know who drew the pictures in the first place, but they can't possibly be right because that doesn't fit the narrative. This whole website suffers from unbelievable confirmation bias. This author loves to use modern day sources that show DNA evidence of blacks being in ancient Britain, and then subsequently switches to ancient historians famed for their abilities of telling the truth depending on whether it supports his argument. For some reason when this man uses revisionist sources it's factually correct, yet when white imperialists support the same tactic that's an odious lie. Funny that. And this biased and often crackpot trend continues with a fantastic scientific description of how genetics work in race.

What a surprise, more blind accusations and guesswork, but the science is actually fairly interesting if inaccurate. Firstly, I'm amazed this moron has any concept of genetic variation, but in layman's terms he's sort of understood how genetics change over time. However it then goes horribly wrong. This argument relies on the inheritance of sex chromosomes, which unfortunately have zero effect on the racial phenotype of an individual, whereas many other alleles in the human genome will have dependent on the environment of the individual. You see the science of genetics doesn't rely on logic, rather illogical variances that give rise to different phenotypes. So this little equation you're doing although surprisingly complex is something for the GCSE biology textbook I'm afraid. You haven't taken into account mutations, which is how different haplogroups arise, or the high chance of genetic drift due to the small population size in your hypothesis. You simply cannot determine where white people came from with this basic and fundamentally flawed equation, and certainly not the proportion and emergence of ancient demographics. Funnily enough the current models for haplogroup migration don't follow your hypothesis, with the most common haplogroup being R1B which is thought to have originated in Asia, not Africa.

The rest of the 'factual information' on the page is exactly the same. There are admittedly some interesting sources that shine light on the commonly developing study of anthropology, however the real history of Britain is currently so far adrift from this racially biased cherry picked shit that it's a wonder anyone takes this stuff seriously. Never does this piece prove black people were the sources of civilisation in Britain, yet this author has the audacity to shun whitewashed imperialistic history when his own version is another side of the same coin.