The Constantly Changing Faces Of The Olmec

The failure of Haslip- Viera, Ortiz de Montellano and Barbour (1997) to realize an African presence in PreColumbian America, is the result of their ignorance of the normal science of ancient Afrocentric studies (Winters, 1996).

Haslip-Viera, Ortiz de Montellano and Barbour (1997: 419) assume that ancient Afrocentric research is the result of the "cultural nationalism of the 1960's and 1970's.

This view is false. The ancient Afrocentric studies research tradition was developed before the 1960's (Winters, 1994, 1996).

The ancient Afrocentric studies research tradition reflects almost two hundred years of original research in the area of ancient Afrocentric studies ( Winters, 1994, 1996).

Contrary to the views of Haslip-Viera, Ortiz de Montellano and Barbour (1997) ancient Afrocentric historical research makes ancient Afrocentric area studies a valid field of research (Winters, 1994).

Haslip-Viera, Ortiz de Montellano and Barbour (1997) criticized the view held by many Afrocentrist that the Olmec people were Africans, due to the research of Ivan van Sertima.

Use of van Sertima (1976) by Haslip-Viera, Ortiz de Montellano and Barbour (1997: 419) to denigrate Afrocentrism is unfair, because this researcher has made it clear since the publication of his book, They came before Columbus in 1976, that he is not an Afrocentrist.

Although Haslip-Viera, Ortiz de Montellano and Barbour (1997: 431) acknowledge this truth in there rebuttal of van Sertima, the authors refer to Afrocentrist as purveyors of "racisim", interested only in denying the authentic role of Native Americans in the rise of American civilizations.