>>17895125
>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.
addressed that
>As for book burning, the Spaniards burned books for religious reasons, not for any desire to actively erase history.
a fine story

>>17895125
>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.
the point I was making is that they didn't sprout up from the ground.
>So? Those are also universally frowned upon by every specialist on the subject,
don't care, their stories make less sense and don't add up. often it's indigenous lore vs some ((specialist)) who couldn't care less about the truth.
>If anything, north american indians look less asian than them.
that's another interesting topic and we're only scratching on the diveristy in phenotypes of amerindians, but again it's a waste of time trying to talk to you about this.
>(which, by the the way, does not at all support any idea of there being any negros in the americas before Columbus).
there are over 100 million blacks in south america. the schizo idea is that some of these people had ancestors from before columbus. it's not in any way far fetched yet would mostly be impossible to prove looking at genetics until some serious AI evaluation is possible.