>>17895097
We would know without a shadow of a doubt because the spaniards did not experience late postclassic Mesoamerica through books. They went there. They lived there. And of course, they conquered and saw it, and at no point do they mention populations of negros or indians who remember negros from the distant past.
As for book burning, the Spaniards burned books for religious reasons, not for any desire to actively erase history. Which is why they did record all local history they could, as did the native nobility they educated and taught to write. Unless you believe that 16th century Spaniards and indians alike were going out of their way to specifically erase negros from their history centuries before american culture turned black people into a global concern, you're making no sense.
>>17895102
>another thing is that blacks did reach islands in the pacific
They did not. Despite their superficial similarities to black africans, melanesians, papuans, negritos and australian aboriginals are less closely related to negros than they are to east asians.
>there are ideas of ancient whites reaching the pacific and south america long before columbus too
So? Those are also universally frowned upon by every specialist on the subject, and much like your theories, are based mostly around superficialities and general misconceptions about amerindians, with some roots in questionable Spanish accounts added in.
>and the phenotype of central and south americans always perplexed me since they don't look exactly like as much like north american indians or asians
They do though. I live here and I've seen them, so trust me i know more than you do. If anything, north american indians look less asian than them.
As for why, keep in mind that North America has populations who are descendants of more recent migrations from Siberia, as proven by genetic evidence (which, by the the way, does not at all support any idea of there being any negros in the americas before Columbus).
