If we as Historians, Anthropologists and Biologists(and this goes out to only serious educated posters) advocate that there is one race, and that so called "Negro" features don't exist then why do we claim Egypt was "Black". Im mean are we not using our Western notion of Black and imposing it on A. Egypt??
Is there another Term we can use that properly establishes Egypts African and Southerly origins with out seeming to use a double standard.
Opinions?? How do yall(Only Serious intelligent posters) feel, explain to me how I am wrong?? I think if some of us get up in Arms about using Negro when we should also not use black because in all the years I have been here all the debates stem down to one commong factor what WE consider to be "Black" which has variation to what the establishment considers "black" which is "Negro".
I mean are we not fighting a circular battle??
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
This same problem was posed to the National Black Police Association (United Kingdom).
In UK if white person starts an organisation for whites only it is considered racist. Yet the National Black Police Association (United Kingdom) is a black organisation that only accepts blacks. Whites cannot join as members.
When accused of racism (only by the BNP might i add) the ''National Black Police Association (United Kingdom)'' has responded:
''The definition of "Black" does not refer to skin colour. The emphasis is on the common experience and determination of people of African, African-Caribbean and Asian origin.''
So there you have it 'black egypt' was not black racially only it was 'black' in the sense of a common experience and determination of people of African, African-Caribbean and Asian origin. Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Btw, just to point out the obvious: ancient egypt was Caucasoid.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Ausar if anyone responds to the above poster or Rahotep please delete this thread. Non Prophet is O.K as he is less of a troll than the former two thanks Ausar..
Posted by Manu (Member # 18974) on :
Many Africans from places like the Sahara/Sahel, the Horn, North Sudan, and Upper Egypt who would be described as black by many here actually do not necessarily view themselves as such in their own societies. Often they describe themselves as ‘reds’ (or variants thereof) and have other descriptions for darker people south of them.
Posted by Khufu (Member # 17461) on :
The only term I can think of besides 'black' to described the ancient Egyptians is African--dark-skinned native Africans that is.
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
I don't really advocate for us calling them anything. At all. In fact.
But in general, as in today, since I thought this thread was going to be about it as a social construct in general -> why is black at all used?
Well, it's a social construct. People just use it. It's part ethnonym and can discribe physical appearance (and with emphasis extreme physical appearance, as in Wesley Snipes). Hope that helps. In a non-Western sense there are someplaces where the people look hardly black and have called themselves such and then there's the heart of Africa where people who would be called black here (in the U.S.) are not called it.
Back on the Kemetian question though, is there a term, etc.
Well, I don't think the name for the continent even existed back then and a number of cultures or at least two cultures, the Nile River Valley and Greco-Roman cultures, held ethno-cultural conceps that transcended Africa and Asia: the Greek Aethiopia and the Egyptian Kemetian vs. Deshretian thing both said f**k the "African" border. Also, the word Africa is just a geographic term, a title for a piece of land (and the Egyptians knew the difference between a piece of land and a real nation or city), wasn't Africa and Eurasia all connected at one point anywho?
When I'm talking about this advanced civilization though my opinions would stay the same about no matter what label is used, so I really couldn't give a f**k. Also, if you did give a hoot, in saying like that Rome was Nordic or something, and the other side saying that it hugged the Mediterranean Sea, it's like there are so likely to be exceptions to any rule with how un-isolated these civilizations were that the best you could do if you were butt horny for either gay scenario would be to just let the opposite of your arguement fly so folks could see how bad it fits. Even with nations as multiethic as Rome/Greece I would not advocate a "multi-cultural" approach even, what I'm saying here is that no approach wins hands down because they're all attempts to picture paint not to mention people are always free to paint pictures themselves at whatever you're both looking at whether it's their artwork or other stuffs.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
@ Jari
What you seem to be doing is equating black soley with Negroid, hence you see a discrepency involved.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: advocate that there is one race, and that so called "Negro" features don't exist
Not sure anyone says these features don't exist.
What to understand here is that the lumping of all indigenous Africans under one label of Negroid is the fallacious part, while the features do exist, but are simply one of the variations within indigenous Africans.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Im mean are we not using our Western notion of Black and imposing it on A. Egypt??
Not really, as you note the wests idea of black is only "Negroid", when in reality there are blacks in Africa who do not fit the Negroid profile, you know this, so black does not simply = Negroid.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
See thats my whole point. Also don't forget Africans even in the diaspora have "Reds". In America a Red Bone is "Black" but def. not seen as the same as a Dark Skinned person. this is probably different than Africans who have not interacted with Europeans and Hispanics etc as much so they don't see "Reds" as just as Black as a Dark Skinned person.
This seems to exist all over Africa and even Egyptians themselves showed African "Reds" and "blacks"
Abbysinia even had this same notion of Reds and Blacks...
Good point.
quote:Originally posted by Manu: Many Africans from places like the Sahara/Sahel, the Horn, North Sudan, and Upper Egypt who would be described as black by many here actually do not necessarily view themselves as such in their own societies. Often they describe themselves as ‘reds’ (or variants thereof) and have other descriptions for darker people south of them.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) you keep claiming there is 'diversity' in blacks.
So can you produce a photo of a straight red, auburn, blonde haired negro?
Are you also saying blacks have white skin?
Blue, green or gray eyes???
None of this diversity is in your race, its only in whites.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I personally prefer Tropically adapted but it may be too scientific for the average lay person. Plus I have heard that Tropically adapted people are not always what we would consider black. Some claim the Modern Egyptians in the Delta and the Light Skinned Berbers are Tropical Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Khufu: The only term I can think of besides 'black' to described the ancient Egyptians is African--dark-skinned native Africans that is.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) you keep claiming there is 'diversity' in blacks.
When I speak of diversity I am speaking of phenotypic and genetic diversity which is way higher in Africa than elsewhere, this has been confirmed over and over.
From Larry Angel onto A. Manica et al...
We know;
quote: Lead researcher, Dr Andrea Manica from the University's Department of Zoology, explained: "The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate. Our genetic research shows the further modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population.
"However, some have used skull data to argue that modern humans originated in multiple spots around the world. We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area in Sub-saharan Africa."
The research team found that genetic diversity decreased in populations the further away from Africa they were. - a result of 'bottlenecks' or events that temporarily reduced populations during human migration. They then studied an exceptionally large sample of human skulls.
Taking a set of measurements across all the skulls the team ***showed that not only was variation highest amongst the sample from south eastern Africa but that it did decrease at the same rate as the genetic data the further the skull was away from Africa.***
To ensure the validity of their single origin evidence the researchers attempted to use their data to find non-African origins for modern humans. Research Dr Francois Balloux explains: "To test the alternative theory for the origin of modern humans we tried to find an additional, non-African origin. We found this just did not work. Our findings show that humans originated in a single area in Sub-Saharan Africa."
^^There it is!
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Physical diversity is only found in the white race. A typical white family has blondes, redheads and brunettes and a range of eyes colours.
Blacks in contrast are wooly black haired and dark eyed.
Therefore to claim black africans are physically diverse is retarded.
All blacks look the same. This was demonstrated by mike and others where they claimed red and blonde hair and all the other diverse hair colours in whites are ''albino traits only''.
You must hate looking in the mirror knowing your race all looks the same?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): @ Jari
What you seem to be doing is equating black soley with Negroid, hence you see a discrepency involved.
I will admit that my O.P does seem that way but let me explain my self better. I don't think black equals negro, I consider black to be any Dark skinned native of Africa.
However what I am saying is that the word black has always been equated with Negro. When we use "Black" Most people think Negro. Now I realize that its fallacious with all the evidence proving African diversity but many people will still equate Negro with black.
I will use an example, the word "Gay" originally meant Happy but now no serious person would say they are "Gay"(Happy) without conjuring up the image of Homosexuality. The same can be kinda said about "Black" it seems we are fighting a circular battle.
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): @ JariWhat to understand here is that the lumping of all indigenous Africans under one label of Negroid is the fallacious part, while the features do exist, but are simply one of the variations within indigenous Africans.
I agree 100%
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): Not really, as you note the wests idea of black is only "Negroid", when in reality there are blacks in Africa who do not fit the Negroid profile, you know this, so black does not simply = Negroid.
This is what I mean, so if black=negriod in the Western sense and in the minds of majority of Western peoples are we not fighting a never ending battle using "Black" and at the same time claiming black are diverse. Im just asking, I mean like I said I agree 100% that Africans are diverse and that black does not mean Negriod but many people don't see it that way.
On a side note I have was asked by a professor if I thought the Egyptians were "black" and I said "Yes" to which he replied that I owed him "Slavery Reparations" because "my people" held his people(The Jews) as slaves. If any lay person asked me if I believe the A. Egyptians were Black I would say yes.
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: See thats my whole point. Also don't forget Africans even in the diaspora have "Reds". In America a Red Bone is "Black" but def. not seen as the same as a Dark Skinned person. this is probably different than Africans who have not interacted with Europeans and Hispanics etc as much so they don't see "Reds" as just as Black as a Dark Skinned person.
This seems to exist all over Africa and even Egyptians themselves showed African "Reds" and "blacks"
Abbysinia even had this same notion of Reds and Blacks...
Good point.
Right. There are people they painted medium skinned / brown and called "red" and just like Native Americans got called red, rednecks git called red and Near Eastern examples of calling whites "red".
So even if originally in part in reference to physicall appearance, it's subjective, though, the Nehesy wearing red wigs makes me wonder about those, but then I wouldn't be surprised because at different times there were different groups who were enemies and so probably considered aliens -- let's not forget that at one time the Medjay were part of the Nine (9) Bows and also it was learned that the Hyksos had had Nehesy espionage help.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
dark-skinned native Africans that is ========
AFROCENTRIC NUTTERS DEBUNKED -
BLONDE HAIRED WHITE NATIVES OF NORTH AFRICA
The Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax (4th century BC) described fair haired Libyans (Geograohi Graeci Minores, Vol. 1, p. 88, Col. B).
The poet Callimachus in the 3rd century BC described blonde haired Libyan women (Hymn II to Apollo, 85).
The Roman author Lucan (61 AD) wrote of auburn haired, white skinned Libyans (Pharsalia, 10. 155).
Procopius wrote of a native North African tribe who were ''white in body and fair haired'' (History of the Wars, xiii. 26-29).
Pausanias also recorded Berber deities with blue eyes (1. 14. 6).
Antaeus the Libyan giant who Herakles slew, is depicted on Greek pottery as pale skinned and red-golden haired.
========
So where are these straight red or blonde haired, white skinned negroids?
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Physical diversity is only found in the white race.
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: A typical white family has blondes, redheads and brunettes and a range of eyes colours.
Your mum mustve been one busy lady with the milk, mail and delivery man to have all those different hair and eye colors...lol
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: However what I am saying is that the word black has always been equated with Negro.
So this means you must stop using the term when you know better?
Of course not.
As people become more educated on the subject this thinking will have no other choice but to cease, or else they'll be blatantly ignoring bio-anthropological data.
If one chooses not to accept the bio- anthropolgical data that's on them, but you know better.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I will use an example, the word "Gay" originally meant Happy but now no serious person would say they are "Gay"(Happy) without conjuring up the image of Homosexuality. The same can be kinda said about "Black" it seems we are fighting a circular battle.
What you're describing here is preferential identification.
Who wants to be identified with who and what not..
There is no battle, the bio-anthro data speaks for itself and has won a long time ago.
We know who's black and who is not.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): Not really, as you note the wests idea of black is only "Negroid", when in reality there are blacks in Africa who do not fit the Negroid profile, you know this, so black does not simply = Negroid.
This is what I mean, so if black=negriod in the Western sense and in the minds of majority of Western peoples are we not fighting a never ending battle using "Black" and at the same time claiming black are diverse. Im just asking, I mean like I said I agree 100% that Africans are diverse and that black does not mean Negriod but many people don't see it that way.
What you seem to be doing is trying to pander to others emotions, instead of going with what you know is right.
Like I said, so what if people want to be ignorant to the facts readily available, it's their problem not yours.
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: This is what I mean, so if black=negriod in the Western sense
Actually the Western sense of the word is very broad and leaves much room for variation.
It is the continental archityping idea you refer to.
Really though, and simply, if folks would expect an area that much larger than the whole of North America to all look alike, or exactly the same - while we have people of various phenotype all on similar latitude: Native Americans, Chinese, French - then that's their dumbas fault.
Even using the name of the continent in general and as if to put some emphasis somewhere can be lackluster to me, and although pan-Africanism is a thing and if I recall two early pan-Africanists were Nasser and Nkrumah (Egypt and Nigeria), not everyone on the continent agrees -- different peoples don't get along, and are like **** that idea.
That is all.
quote:Ausar if anyone responds to the above poster or Rahotep please delete this thread. Non Prophet is O.K as he is less of a troll than the former two thanks Ausar..
^LOLs.
Posted by MelaninKing (Member # 17444) on :
Of course it is, and as long as YOU continue to confuse perception with reality, then you will continue to become stuck in the contradiction. All humans share identical inventories of biological subsystems and components.
The only real delta between humans is hue, which is in itself, a social construct created to define what we see, without actually understanding exactly what it is we are actually seeing. Thus, we define optic interpretation of energies within a specific range while exhibiting specific characteristics as; Blue, Green, Red, etc. Hue is solely based on optical perception of specific wavelengths of radiation being absorbed and emitted to the observer's optic perception of reflected radiation(s). Therefore, the social construct called RACE is solely based on hue (black, red, yellow), or non-hue (white) based on MELANIN filtered, optic perceptions of band shifted radiation.
The above being absolute, shows the world being comprised of two forms of humans; Original Hued (Majority), and Derived Hue-less (Minority).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I agree partly with what Jari says, but what I don’t get about what you say Jari, is that ‘’Negro’’ somehow conflicts with the idea that there is only one human race. I get the feeling that you’re buying a little too much into what that retard Lioness is saying. What I will say is that the terms have multiple applications that are highly inconsistent, ie both black and white can mean different things and include different groups, depending on who you ask, just like Negro and Caucasian can mean different things and include different groups, depending on who you ask. You are right when you say Negro doesn't exist as a concrete thing, since it has never been defined and/or strictly followed. If you want to know which terms to use to refer to different African groups you can look up Keita and Hiernaux, they have conjured up plenty of terms that I consider relatively free of problems. Saharo-tropical variants, Elongated types, Broad featured types, Tropical groups, Equatorial Africans, Coastal North African type(s), just to name a few.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Jari says the term black is a social construct
but AGÜEYBANÁ says black is defined by bio-anthropological specifications
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
If we as Historians, Anthropologists and Biologists(and this goes out to only serious educated posters) advocate that there is one race, and that so called "Negro" features don't exist then why do we claim Egypt was "Black". Im mean are we not using our Western notion of Black and imposing it on A. Egypt??
Nope, because the idea of considerably pigmented folks being referred to as "black" is not a 'Western notion' of Blacks. The traditional "Western notion" is to attach cranio-facial archetypes to these sort of words.
quote: Some claim the Modern Egyptians in the Delta and the Light Skinned Berbers are Tropical Africans.
Who are these "some", and why do they say this?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: [QB] Physical diversity is only found in the white race. A typical white family has blondes, redheads and brunettes and a range of eyes colours.
Blacks in contrast are wooly black haired and dark eyed.
Therefore to claim black africans are physically diverse is retarded.
All blacks look the same.
This is profoundly stupid. Physical diversity is not solely determined by hair type, eye and skin color. It is also largely determined by body type and facial features. These are less superficial and more structural. You cannot see this because your perception is very weak. You act like the only way you can tell two people apart is if one person has red hair and the other blond. The retardation is on you.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: the idea of considerably pigmented folks being referred to as "black" is not a 'Western notion' of Blacks.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I stand by my statement that the South African Bushmen are not black. They are subtropically rather than fully tropically adapted as evidenced by their limb proportions and relatively light skin. Have a problem with that?
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ We know who's black and who is not.
If one chooses not to accept the bio- anthropolgical data that's on them, but you know better.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
retracted.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
changes noted, edited you said those words but they were taken out of context with a misleading result, my mistake
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
I have retracted the strong language used against you, since you made said "change". You shouldn't be going around even quoting people totally out of context, and then accusing them of flip flopping. Even the quotation you have above for me, is still out of context, but I'll give it a pass, because anyone reading this thread should be able to see the original one on top.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
-Just Call Me Jari- wrote:
quote: I consider black to be any Dark skinned native of Africa.
What is "dark-skinned"?
Is an Ethiopian whose skin is yellow colored, black?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
People, notice how docile "The Explorer" is to whites. No referencing them as slaves or other slave related insults that we have all seen him hurl at people whom he considers "Black Africans".
Why is this "Explorer"?
Posted by Confirming Truth (Member # 17678) on :
Just call them what they were, "Egyptians." How hard is that? Very hard when one has a racial agenda.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Are we willing to stop using the term White when referring to Western Eurasians for one will not work without the other,and then you have ancients who apply the term black to themselves the "Kemites were one such folk regardless of their actual individual complexion. another is Sumerians and Babylonians with Saggigga and Salmat respectively regardless of their features.
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
Black isn't only about skin color. There is more to notice. It's clear people that shared the commonality of adversity have united with this identity under the banner. Black is sometimes more recognized as a matter of perception and mental state more so than a reality. In the case of attributing the black identity to the Ancient Egyptians, this is because of the evident affinity they share with the indigenous people of Africa or whose ancestors are indigenous to Africa bearing our identity. This is reflected along multiple lines of evidence to the point that it is nothing but faithful and appropriate to designate the black identity to this civilization and its people.
Posted by 2F4CE (Member # 15917) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Are we willing to stop using the term White when referring to Western Eurasians?
What a ridiculous idea. You will look like Pentecostal Christians holding hands in public and praying out loud to Jesus. Only difference is in your case you're not making things up.
'White' as far as most people understand it relates to skin color and nothing else. Though they use the term 'race', most people don't have a clue (besides nationality and hair-type) what other characteristics might add to meaning of the 'Race' idea. The irony here being that nationality and hair-type are not characterics that can be used to identify a person's "original" identity (the instinctive definition of Race really has to do with Origin). Most people's thinking is very surface level, they won't get it.
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
^You know what, I've noticed that too that white is basically just phenotype but then again their are some folks who otherwise would be included in white and would say I'm not white I'm Jewish, etc, I've even heard the rediculous sounding I'm not white I'm Irish, but I've seen others of ethnies the same as those that deflected the 'wHite' label described as white and hold no objections like "I'm white. Alright, I'm white, that's great. No biggy."
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Sumerians and Babylonians with Saggigga and Salmat respectively regardless of their features.
Babylonians? Really?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): this means you must stop using the term when you know better?
Of course not.
Well I use the term because it is much more easy to say black than a more scientific term like Tropical Adapted. When I say black it is much easier for people to know what I mean.
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): As people become more educated on the subject this thinking will have no other choice but to cease, or else they'll be blatantly ignoring bio-anthropological data.
I hope so, but think about it even Keita does'nt use the word. I always guessed it was because of the very same reasons, that becuase the average Lay person associates Black with one type of African feature its not worth having to explain African Diversity everytime he uses the word. From what I gather about Keita he believes what most here believe that Africans are very diverse.
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): If one chooses not to accept the bio- anthropolgical data that's on them, but you know better.
What you're describing here is preferential identification.
Who wants to be identified with who and what not..
There is no battle, the bio-anthro data speaks for itself and has won a long time ago.
We know who's black and who is not.
I guess the best thing to do is to get the info out via scribd, facebook and Youtube. As far as I can tell mainstream Biogists, Historians et al are not doing anything direct to change the status quo, most either avoid using black or use 19th-20th century racial classifications for Africans.
I guess it is up to us.
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): What you seem to be doing is trying to pander to others emotions, instead of going with what you know is right.
Like I said, so what if people want to be ignorant to the facts readily available, it's their problem not yours.
Trust me Im not Pandering to anyone. People who come here read the same Data and studies we do an continue to use Caucasian and Negro to segregate Africans are lower than trash, they are not my concern. My questions are just that questions, something for us to ponder and consider Im not attacking or saying we should abandon using black but that we should realize alot of the debates stem down to what is "black".
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
When I finished this thread I proof read my post an realized It sounded like somethings Lioness says. PLEASE PLEASE don't think I came to this because of Lioness. What she does is go to the extreem by trying to say that Indians and Tanned Europeans can be included as black and try to claim tanned Europeans fit the Reddish Brown Egyptian skin tone. Im not advocating such stupidity, my questions arose from what your latter post says that black seems to differ from person to person.
I agree with you post you seem to get where I am at...
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I agree partly with what Jari says, but what I don’t get about what you say Jari, is that ‘’Negro’’ somehow conflicts with the idea that there is only one human race. I get the feeling that you’re buying a little too much into what that retard Lioness is saying. What I will say is that the terms have multiple applications that are highly inconsistent, ie both black and white can mean different things and include different groups, depending on who you ask, just like Negro and Caucasian can mean different things and include different groups, depending on who you ask. You are right when you say Negro doesn't exist as a concrete thing, since it has never been defined and/or strictly followed. If you want to know which terms to use to refer to different African groups you can look up Keita and Hiernaux, they have conjured up plenty of terms that I consider relatively free of problems. Saharo-tropical variants, Elongated types, Broad featured types, Tropical groups, Equatorial Africans, Coastal North African type(s), just to name a few.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Nope, because the idea of considerably pigmented folks being referred to as "black" is not a 'Western notion' of Blacks. The traditional "Western notion" is to attach cranio-facial archetypes to these sort of words.
Ok!! So then when you use black its about skin color, so darkskinned folks not native to Africa and more related to non Africans like Australian Aboriginals be considered black to you.
Anyway I agree that facial features to describe black is fallacious, but when we use black most people associate it with facial features and Negro. This means for example when we say the Egyptians were black some think Negro when in reality we mean they fit into the diversity of Africans not that they were Negro.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: [QB] Who are these "some", and why do they say this?
Mathilda seems to advocate that Modern Egyptians and we all know she means the Delta Phenotype are Tropically adapted.
When Salsassin released his interview with Keita I had a conversation with him and he claims that the Light Berbers are tropically adapted. Even Keita said in a video here that the "Blond Blue Eyed" Berbers could have evolved in Africa. I would have to look at the video again to get his exact words but what I get from him is that the Light Berbers could have evolved in Africa.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
People, a sure indication of a liar and/or a loon who doesn't know what he's talking about, is that they run from questions or demands for evidential substantiation.
We're waiting -Just Call Me Jari-..............
What is "dark-skinned"?
Is an Ethiopian whose skin is yellow colored, black?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^ Yes, I consider an Ethiopian who has "Yellow" skin to be dark skinned or Black.
As I said in another thread Yellow is a common desciptor in African communities esp. for Feminine features.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: If we as Historians, Anthropologists and Biologists(and this goes out to only serious educated posters) advocate that there is one race, and that so called "Negro" features don't exist then why do we claim Egypt was "Black". Im mean are we not using our Western notion of Black and imposing it on A. Egypt??
Is there another Term we can use that properly establishes Egypts African and Southerly origins with out seeming to use a double standard.
Opinions?? How do yall(Only Serious intelligent posters) feel, explain to me how I am wrong?? I think if some of us get up in Arms about using Negro when we should also not use black because in all the years I have been here all the debates stem down to one commong factor what WE consider to be "Black" which has variation to what the establishment considers "black" which is "Negro".
I mean are we not fighting a circular battle??
The AEs need not be referred to as "Black" as much as it should be emphasized that their closest relatives are in fact groups who westerners traditionally referred to as Black. This exposes the hypocrisy. Quite literally, they were native Africans in the same sense that Aztecs were Native Americans, but we don't jump around calling the Aztecs "red people" and defending their "redness". There is a more refined way of making the same point, as I did in a recent paper, by inextricably tying them bio-culturally to the majority of the African continent.
Evidence speaks for its self, so if it can be shown that there were close similarities in language, culture, and skeletal structure between AEs and Africans traditionally classed as "Blacks", then people will be forced to either impose onto them this identity or do away with the term completely while acknowledging the relationship. The latter occurs as people realize that "Black" and "Ancient Egyptian" is a false dichotomy, which is the main reason some still insist on referring to them as "Black" (because other, more southernly Africans are still referred to as such by a majority of scholars, media, and lay persons without hesitation or fear of ridicule).
^I do not criticize those who wish to refer to the AEs as Black within the realm of social constructs if it is simply meant to address the underlying relationships as noted, or meant to undermine that false dichotomy. As soon as there is no false dichotomy, the term "Black" as applied wouldn't be useful (in other words, Eurocentric propaganda gives Afrocentrists fuel; it is a reactionary response to call them Black).
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
-Just Call Me Jari-
Good point on the EThiopians that are yellow skinned.
BUT
None of the women in your pic is "Yellow". I think these people are closer to the yellow that we see in the Pics of Old Kingdom Egypt and East Africans in general:
^2nd women
Hopefully you can add some real yellow Africans to your collage to show the difference and that Yellow is built into Black Africans like the Khoisan, Tigre, Amhara etc.
Peace
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING:
Hopefully you can add some real yellow Africans to your collage to show the difference and that Yellow is built into Black Africans like the Khoisan, Tigre, Amhara etc.
Peace
Indeed, you'd be amazed at how many "intelligent" people aren't aware of this little tidbit. Just recently in my South African history class we were discussing the San and my professor gave a description of their physical appearance, and once she mentioned that they were traditionally described as "yellowish-brown" in complexion, a hand immediately flew up from a student asking where these light-skinned Africans/San came from and how'd they get all the way to South Africa. Of course my professor is a historian and also has an accent, so she bumbled in trying to explain it from an anthropological perspective to which I had to interject and school my compatriot on how diversity works.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: The AEs need not be referred to as "Black" as much as it should be emphasized that their closest relatives are in fact groups who westerners traditionally referred to as Black. This exposes the hypocrisy. Quite literally, they were native Africans in the same sense that Aztecs were Native Americans, but we don't jump around calling the Aztecs "red people" and defending their "redness".
This is what Im sort of driving at.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: There is a more refined way of making the same point, as I did in a recent paper, by inextricably tying them bio-culturally to the majority of the African continent.
I agree I notice all that trolls can come here and argue all day over what is black and what is not in reguards to Egypt but they always avoid and run from the Bio-anthro studies that link Egypt to Africans over Eurasians.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Evidence speaks for its self, so if it can be shown that there were close similarities in language, culture, and skeletal structure between AEs and Africans traditionally classed as "Blacks", then people will be forced to either impose onto them this identity or do away with the term completely while acknowledging the relationship. The latter occurs as people realize that "Black" and "Ancient Egyptian" is a false dichotomy, which is the main reason some still insist on referring to them as "Black" (because other, more southernly Africans are still referred to as such by a majority of scholars, media, and lay persons without hesitation or fear of ridicule). ^I do not criticize those who wish to refer to the AEs as Black within the realm of social constructs if it is simply meant to address the underlying relationships as noted, or meant to undermine that false dichotomy. As soon as there is no false dichotomy, the term "Black" as applied wouldn't be useful (in other words, Eurocentric propaganda gives Afrocentrists fuel--it is a reactionary response to call them Black).
Im not trying to criticize fellow members who use black to describe Egypt and other Africans. I think they have given valid points on this topic. For example when someone such as Mind or explorer uses black I know what they are referreing to. Im just bringing up something I noticed in some recent debates...What I consider black is different than what others consider black no matter how much I shoe that Africans have variation. This is why I have stopped engaging trolls there is no point in debating willfull idiots but I also notice that the Average Lay person equates black with negro.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Big ups King I will add your suggestions..thanks!!
quote:Originally posted by KING: -Just Call Me Jari-
Good point on the EThiopians that are yellow skinned.
BUT
None of the women in your pic is "Yellow". I think these people are closer to the yellow that we see in the Pics of Old Kingdom Egypt and East Africans in general:
^2nd women
Hopefully you can add some real yellow Africans to your collage to show the difference and that Yellow is built into Black Africans like the Khoisan, Tigre, Amhara etc.
Peace
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
More lightskinned Africans from Nigeria:
^^These pics also debunks people like Rahotep who believe that Ancient Egyptian women painted yellow, meant that it could not be "Black" Women.. It shows there is light skinned Africans without admixture.
Peace
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: What I consider black is different than what others consider black no matter how much I shoe that Africans have variation. This is why I have stopped engaging trolls there is no point in debating willfull idiots but I also notice that the Average Lay person equates black with negro.
^Agreed. Therein lies the problem as people will use different markers to establish identity, hence such terms are never objective. What every literate person with a brain can agree on is the data (how they interpret it is up to them).
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
The American definition of "black" is pretty damn schizo. There is definitely the widespread idea of "black facial features" which is the "True Negro" concept Jari is referring to, but on the other hand Northeast Africans and even people with only partial tropical African ancestry are classified as "black" by most Americans.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: The AEs need not be referred to as "Black" as much as it should be emphasized that their closest relatives are in fact groups who westerners traditionally referred to as Black.
I concur with this. People have no right to call Northeast Africans in general or biracial people like Barack Obama or Halle Berry "black" if they're not willing to do the same for the Egyptians. If you insist on sorting people into racial categories, at least be consistent about it.
Posted by 2F4CE (Member # 15917) on :
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox: ^You know what, I've noticed that too that white is basically just phenotype but then again their are some folks who otherwise would be included in white and would say I'm not white I'm Jewish, etc, I've even heard the rediculous sounding I'm not white I'm Irish, but I've seen others of ethnies the same as those that deflected the 'wHite' label described as white and hold no objections like "I'm white. Alright, I'm white, that's great. No biggy."
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: If we as Historians, Anthropologists and Biologists(and this goes out to only serious educated posters) advocate that there is one race, and that so called "Negro" features don't exist then why do we claim Egypt was "Black". Im mean are we not using our Western notion of Black and imposing it on A. Egypt??
Is there another Term we can use that properly establishes Egypts African and Southerly origins with out seeming to use a double standard.
Opinions?? How do yall(Only Serious intelligent posters) feel, explain to me how I am wrong?? I think if some of us get up in Arms about using Negro when we should also not use black because in all the years I have been here all the debates stem down to one commong factor what WE consider to be "Black" which has variation to what the establishment considers "black" which is "Negro".
I mean are we not fighting a circular battle??
Well, the founders were several tribes from the Sahara/ Sahel. So Sahellians/ Saharans is the fairest term, the implication is that simple. The Sahel/ Sahara is also the bridge which connects all Africans.
I dislike term forced upon us by westerners / Europeans, so I understand your complainment.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
It shows there is light skinned Africans without admixture. =====
You are pasting ugly photos of women with brown/chocalate coloured skin.
How is brown skin ''light skinned''??
Blacks are nowhere near as light as most egyptian art.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Blacks can get nowhere near as light as this unless they have white admixture.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
- White skinned egyptian females from the Tomb of Seti.
LOL. The afrocentric loons think black woman now have pale/white skin.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: These pics also debunks people like Rahotep who believe that Ancient Egyptian women painted yellow, meant that it could not be "Black" Women.. It shows there is light skinned Africans without admixture.
Egyptian women were not always painted yellow. See this video by me:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Physical diversity is only found in the white race. A typical white family has blondes, redheads and brunettes and a range of eyes colours.
Blacks in contrast are wooly black haired and dark eyed.
Therefore to claim black africans are physically diverse is retarded.
All blacks look the same. This was demonstrated by mike and others where they claimed red and blonde hair and all the other diverse hair colours in whites are ''albino traits only''.
You must hate looking in the mirror knowing your race all looks the same?
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Btw, just to point out the obvious: ancient egypt was Caucasoid.
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: This same problem was posed to the National Black Police Association (United Kingdom).
In UK if white person starts an organisation for whites only it is considered racist. Yet the National Black Police Association (United Kingdom) is a black organisation that only accepts blacks. Whites cannot join as members.
When accused of racism (only by the BNP might i add) the ''National Black Police Association (United Kingdom)'' has responded:
''The definition of "Black" does not refer to skin colour. The emphasis is on the common experience and determination of people of African, African-Caribbean and Asian origin.''
So there you have it 'black egypt' was not black racially only it was 'black' in the sense of a common experience and determination of people of African, African-Caribbean and Asian origin.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Ausar if anyone responds to the above poster or Rahotep please delete this thread. Non Prophet is O.K as he is less of a troll than the former two thanks Ausar..
Oh sh*t , I just did.
By the way another term used often is Thamareh.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: More lightskinned Africans from Nigeria:
^^These pics also debunks people like Rahotep who believe that Ancient Egyptian women painted yellow, meant that it could not be "Black" Women.. It shows there is light skinned Africans without admixture.
Peace
Beautiful pics by the way. Especially the first and the last pic.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
More lightskinned Africans from Nigeria =====
Afrocentrics really are the worst internet trolls.
LOL ''light skinned'' africans and your pics show dark skinned ugly negroids.
If you really think dark brown skin is 'light' then you need to see an optician.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Real light skin -
Now how many blacks have skin like this?
None do.
There is no such thing as a light skinned negroid.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
- White skinned egyptian females from the Tomb of Seti.
NOTE: to state the obvious blacks can not get their skin this light.
The evidence egypt was caucasoid or white is overwelming, you only have to look at the art.
How sad that in such denial the afrocentrics have to claim blacks now have pale skin...
what will be next? Negroes with straight blonde hair?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Physical diversity is only found in the white race. A typical white family has blondes, redheads and brunettes and a range of eyes colours.
Blacks in contrast are wooly black haired and dark eyed.
Therefore to claim black africans are physically diverse is retarded.
All blacks look the same. This was demonstrated by mike and others where they claimed red and blonde hair and all the other diverse hair colours in whites are ''albino traits only''.
You must hate looking in the mirror knowing your race all looks the same?
Africans are connect by the PN2 ROOT clade, yet look diverse. The group you speak of does not.
Mankind spend most of it's days in Africa, therefore had more time to adapt to several regions/ climates, leading to biodiversity.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
A few Afrocetric sources for ya'.
As a close friend of Napoleon, and as first president of the Institute, he should have busied himself with carrying out Napoleon’s suggested research programs. Instead, Monge became fascinated with the physics of mirages.
The phenomenon became known to the French army quite early, when they marched across the desert from Alexandria to Cairo. The soldiers saw what seemed to be immense lakes in the distance. A distant village might appear as if it were an island, surrounded by a lake with the inverted image of the village reflecting off its surface.
Exhausted by heat and fatigue, they saw the inviting and large body of water retreat as they gradually approached until it finally disappeared altogether, to their great disappointment. The same vision would then repeat itself further on, again and again. Knowledge of the mirage effect was not new, as there are numerous reports and descriptions in the scientific literature and in the writings of antiquity, such as that of Diodorus. No one before Monge, however, had tried to give an optical explanation for mirages.
The pith helmet is a traditional helmet spread throughout the world by European powers in the 19th century as protection from the sun and heat of colonized countries in Asia and Africa.
Materials
Pith is the name of a form of cork derived from the sola, an Indian swamp plant. Other materials are used to create helmets in the style of the pith, but they can't be called true pith helmets.
History
The pith helmet was modeled on military helmets worn by German soldiers in the 1870s. British soldiers began wearing pith helmets in hot climates within the British Empire during the same period.
Types
European countries with colonies in hot climates created their own versions of the pith helmet. The French pith helmet was created for use in Vietnam, where during the Vietnam war, the rebel Viet Minh developed a pith style helmet as well.
These Folks were dressed up in army gear, not even half naked like the ancient Egyptians. lol
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Real light skin -
Now how many blacks have skin like this?
None do.
There is no such thing as a light skinned negroid.
Exactly on both accounts.
Geography The rates of melanoma and other skin cancers are highest where fair-skinned Caucasians migrated to lower latitudes, with annual sun exposure that is substantially higher than their historically native climates. Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Israel bear a disproportionate burden of skin cancer. In Australia, melanoma is the third most common cancer. In the United States, Hawaii and the desert Southwest have the highest rates of skin cancer of all kinds and melanoma.
http://major -diseases2011.blogspot.com/2011_06_05_archive.html
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Real light skin -
Now how many blacks have skin like this?
None do.
There is no such thing as a light skinned negroid.
Prevalence of the different forms of albinism varies considerably by population, and is highest overall in people of sub-Saharan African descent. It is estimated that over 150000 albinos live in Tanzania alone. For many people as light as any of the three people above having skin that light is a disadvantage because their skin can easily burn in the summer, for example in New York, or at any time in more Southern latitudes
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Not albino,
The Alpha and Omega.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Meet Miss Wachira, a 100% Kikuyu girl with blue eyes. The genes responsible for the colour of the skin are not responsible for the colour of eyes or hair. This is why Africans often have green, rarely blue eyes. Picture taken in 1997 in a KLM flight from Nairobi to Amsterdam. Mr Richard Wachira and his daughter were on their way to Washington.
Nigerian woman,
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
Blacks can get nowhere near as light as this unless they have white admixture.
The woman here fits the light skinned description. Not that pale thang you pushed forward.
The real descendants Unlike you and your fantasy cohorts.
Posted by MelaninKing (Member # 17444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Meet Miss Wachira, a 100% Kikuyu girl with blue eyes. The genes responsible for the colour of the skin are not responsible for the colour of eyes or hair. This is why Africans often have green, rarely blue eyes. Picture taken in 1997 in a KLM flight from Nairobi to Amsterdam. Mr Richard Wachira and his daughter were on their way to Washington.
Nigerian woman,
Wrong and sorry, no wishful thinking.
The eyes are blue due to a Defect. The defect is expressed in the ocular system due to OCA. All of those people have inferior eyesight, as well as pending ocular damage over time due to melanin depletion of the Iris.
All green/blu/hazel/tan/red eyes are characterized by these same deficiencies. One group has inherently defective optics in the vast majority of the populace; Ashkenzazis.
In the original world, under ideal maturation, humans eyes are dark brown/black. Every other color expression is due to defects in the optimal human design.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Let me settle this issue. You are correct "black" and "white" are social constructs. Do Asians go around saying "yellow power" ?
Look at these people:
are they black?
don't even bother, this question has no relevance to ancient Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: If we as Historians, Anthropologists and Biologists(and this goes out to only serious educated posters) advocate that there is one race, and that so called "Negro" features don't exist then why do we claim Egypt was "Black". Im mean are we not using our Western notion of Black and imposing it on A. Egypt??
Is there another Term we can use that properly establishes Egypts African and Southerly origins with out seeming to use a double standard.
Opinions?? How do yall(Only Serious intelligent posters) feel, explain to me how I am wrong?? I think if some of us get up in Arms about using Negro when we should also not use black because in all the years I have been here all the debates stem down to one common factor what WE consider to be "Black" which has variation to what the establishment considers "black" which is "Negro".
I mean are we not fighting a circular battle??
^^^this is exactly right
yes "black" is an unscientific social construct
yes it leads to a circular battle
It's a political term which has no measurable definition.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me : Is there another Term we can use that properly establishes Egypts African and Southerly origins
Why is a special term needed? The question answers itself- were they or were they not African. Phrased more clearly:
Excluding later dynasties were the ancient Egyptians all indigenous Africans?
^^^This question has a lot less problems then "were the Egyptians black" because the term "black" can mean a lot of things while Africa is a continent with a clearly defined area and borders.
Now we come to the issue of if we are examining the remains of an ancient person can we establish them being an indigenous African. Somebody could make a strong argument that Atlas mountain Berbers are descendants from ancient Sea People or Phoenicians, people who came from places not in Africa, places more North of Africa and that they are now considered "indigenous" but are not indigenous in the truer sense, they were not always African.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Africans are connect by the PN2 ROOT clade, yet look diverse. The group you speak of does not.
Ish Gebor and The Exlorer say that Africans are defined by the PN2 Root clade. Add to this tropical limb ratios.
The term "Black" and "white" as regard to scientific discussions of ancient Egypt has no place other than to satisfy people's emotions and use these words for sport like competitions.
Excluding later dynasties were the ancient Egyptians all indigenous Africans?
An even better question might be more detailed
Excluding the Hyksos and prior to the 21st dynasty were ancient Egyptian Pharaohs all indigenous Africans?
I put it this way because the Pharaoh is so defining to what is considered great about Egypt in large part the architecture and monuments commissioned by the Pharaoh in tribute to him, pyramids, temples, monuments.
These "racial" issues about the Egyptians seem to be of concern mainly to American "black nationalists" and "white nationalists" American "black nationalists" are primarily of West African descent. Coming from this angle we could frame a primary question without mentioning "black" also:
who is more biologically similar to the ancient Egyptians modern West Africans or people in some parts of the Middle East?
this is really what people are concerned about -who in modern times is more biologically similar to the ancient Egyptians.
"Black" and "white" are part of the old simplistic skin color oriented categorization systems. If people are going to be concerned with how biologically similar they are to the ancient Egyptians then in the future they could come to identify themselves with pure biological genetic terms, clades, clusters, haplotypes etc.. That will happen in the future. Everybody will have a more and more precise genetic profile as determined by routine physical tests. Eventually people may being to identify themselves by these things alone It may or may not be a good thing. But if you want to look at these things on a scientific level that's where it's headed rather than old school simplistic "Black, white, brown, red, yellow" terms. Every time genetic data is mentioned these old social construct terms get less and less credibility.
So what about politics? What if you want political power? It's handled by armies and armies are part of things which are called nations. Political power has to do with what nation you are in, the alliances and what army and weapons they have. Anything else is just a semantic game about how people look and is only an illusion of power as if we can discuss ourselves into power. It's not done that way it's done with guns. I don't like to participate in that ugliness unless forced to.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Asians have a sense of self pride and know well that they are Asians, without using any reference. They are not black, just as they aren't called indigenous Africans, however they are people of color.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Let me settle this issue. You are correct "black" and "white" are social constructs. Do Asians go around saying "yellow power" ?
Look at these people:
are they black?
don't even bother, this question has no relevance to ancient Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: If we as Historians, Anthropologists and Biologists(and this goes out to only serious educated posters) advocate that there is one race, and that so called "Negro" features don't exist then why do we claim Egypt was "Black". Im mean are we not using our Western notion of Black and imposing it on A. Egypt??
Is there another Term we can use that properly establishes Egypts African and Southerly origins with out seeming to use a double standard.
Opinions?? How do yall(Only Serious intelligent posters) feel, explain to me how I am wrong?? I think if some of us get up in Arms about using Negro when we should also not use black because in all the years I have been here all the debates stem down to one common factor what WE consider to be "Black" which has variation to what the establishment considers "black" which is "Negro".
I mean are we not fighting a circular battle??
^^^this is exactly right
yes "black" is an unscientific social construct
yes it leads to a circular battle
It's a political term which has no measurable definition.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me : Is there another Term we can use that properly establishes Egypts African and Southerly origins
Why is a special term needed? The question answers itself- were they or were they not African. Phrased more clearly:
Excluding later dynasties were the ancient Egyptians all indigenous Africans?
^^^This question has a lot less problems then "were the Egyptians black" because the term "black" can mean a lot of things while Africa is a continent with a clearly defined area and borders.
Now we come to the issue of if we are examining the remains of an ancient person can we establish them being an indigenous African. Somebody could make a strong argument that Atlas mountain Berbers are descendants from ancient Sea People or Phoenicians, people who came from places not in Africa, places more North of Africa and that they are now considered "indigenous" but are not indigenous in the truer sense, they were not always African.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Africans are connect by the PN2 ROOT clade, yet look diverse. The group you speak of does not.
Ish Gebor and The Exlorer say that Africans are defined by the PN2 Root clade. Add to this tropical limb ratios.
The term "Black" and "white" as regard to scientific discussions of ancient Egypt has no place other than to satisfy people's emotions and use these words for sport like competitions.
Excluding later dynasties were the ancient Egyptians all indigenous Africans?
An even better question might be more detailed
Excluding the Hyksos and prior to the 21st dynasty were ancient Egyptian Pharaohs all indigenous Africans?
I put it this way because the Pharaoh is so defining to what is considered great about Egypt in large part the architecture and monuments commissioned by the Pharaoh in tribute to him, pyramids, temples, monuments.
These "racial" issues about the Egyptians seem to be of concern mainly to American "black nationalists" and "white nationalists" American "black nationalists" are primarily of West African descent. Coming from this angle we could frame a primary question without mentioning "black" also:
who is more biologically similar to the ancient Egyptians modern West Africans or people in some parts of the Middle East?
this is really what people are concerned about -who in modern times is more biologically similar to the ancient Egyptians.
"Black" and "white" are part of the old simplistic skin color oriented categorization systems. If people are going to be concerned with how biologically similar to the ancient Egyptians then in the future they could come to identify themselves with pure biological clade terms. That will happen in the future. Everybody will have a more and more precise genetic profile as determined by routine physical tests. Eventually people may being to identify themselves by these things alone It may or may not be a good thing. But if you want to look at these things on a scientific level that's where it's headed rather than old school simplistic "Black, white, brown, red, yellow" terms. Every time genetic data is mentioned these old social construct terms get less and less credibility.
So what about politics? What if you want political power? It's handled by armies and armies are part of things which are called nations. Political power has to do with what nation you are in, the alliances and what army and weapons they have. Anything else is just a semantic game about how people look and is only an illusion of power as if we can discuss ourselves into power. It's not done that way it's done with guns. I don't like to participate in that ugliness unless forced to.
All Africans have the same root, so therefore cluster genetically. No matter what they look like, or where they reside. Its not what I say, it's what geneticist say.
Ps. The Hyksos can not and should not be considered Egyptians/ Kemetian. They were simple invaders, who've been kicked out after they oppressed the indigenous people.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: More lightskinned Africans from Nigeria:
^^These pics also debunks people like Rahotep who believe that Ancient Egyptian women painted yellow, meant that it could not be "Black" Women.. It shows there is light skinned Africans without admixture.
And this one? Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by MelaninKing:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Meet Miss Wachira, a 100% Kikuyu girl with blue eyes. The genes responsible for the colour of the skin are not responsible for the colour of eyes or hair. This is why Africans often have green, rarely blue eyes. Picture taken in 1997 in a KLM flight from Nairobi to Amsterdam. Mr Richard Wachira and his daughter were on their way to Washington.
Nigerian woman,
Wrong and sorry, no wishful thinking.
The eyes are blue due to a Defect. The defect is expressed in the ocular system due to OCA. All of those people have inferior eyesight, as well as pending ocular damage over time due to melanin depletion of the Iris.
All green/blu/hazel/tan/red eyes are characterized by these same deficiencies. One group has inherently defective optics in the vast majority of the populace; Ashkenzazis.
In the original world, under ideal maturation, humans eyes are dark brown/black. Every other color expression is due to defects in the optimal human design.
I know its caused by a defect, like blonde and red hair. Its a unnatural state of defect.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Asians have a sense of self pride and know well that they are Asians, without using any reference.
exactly,
As an African American I see what happened.
We were on the right track calling ourselves African Americans.
But because Europeans called themselves a skin color term "white", And thinking that's some sort of exclusive privilege we imitated them, dropped the term "African American" and had a celebration over calling ourselves "black people".
But we are chumps, what got dropped out of the equation, thrown in waste basket with this term "black" is that we still have not accepted our AFRICAN heritage. It's not part of our identify anymore only a skin word remains we think we are 100% Western people with no earlier link.
Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, i.e. Asian Americans don't have this problem. I tell you we've been played for suckers .
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
LOL, have any more manipulated photos in your collection?
Nigerian woman,
quote:Originally posted by MelaninKing:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Meet Miss Wachira, a 100% Kikuyu girl with blue eyes. The genes responsible for the colour of the skin are not responsible for the colour of eyes or hair. This is why Africans often have green, rarely blue eyes. Picture taken in 1997 in a KLM flight from Nairobi to Amsterdam. Mr Richard Wachira and his daughter were on their way to Washington.
Wrong and sorry, no wishful thinking.
The eyes are blue due to a Defect. The defect is expressed in the ocular system due to OCA. All of those people have inferior eyesight, as well as pending ocular damage over time due to melanin depletion of the Iris.
All green/blu/hazel/tan/red eyes are characterized by these same deficiencies. One group has inherently defective optics in the vast majority of the populace; Ashkenzazis.
In the original world, under ideal maturation, humans eyes are dark brown/black. Every other color expression is due to defects in the optimal human design.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
I know its caused by a defect, like blonde and red hair. Its a unnatural state of defect. =====
Regardless, fair hair and light eyes are universally agreed to be the most attractive features and they only occur in white people.
Blacks have no redheads or blondes. They have no hair diversity like the asians.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Let me settle this issue. You are correct "black" and "white" are social constructs. Do Asians go around saying "yellow power" ? =====
All incorrect.
Historically speaking East Asians have called themselves ''yellow''.
The first chinese emperor was called the ''Yellow Emperor'' who the Chinese claim racial descent from.
Yellow is of course an ethnic reference to the shade of skin found in Asian literature.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Ish Gebor
quote: Orignally posted by Ish Gebor:
Wow Ish....You struck....GOLD. These women look clearly Ethiopian. It shows the diversity of Africa that Africans can look so B. U. T. FUL and link to regions from North, South, East and West. All African women are probably the most beautiful women in the world(No disrespect to White, Asian, Latin etc) I respect that African women have the most intangibles when it comes to Beauti...Long Legs, Thick legs, Thick Lips, Nice skin, Nice booty makes you understand why God created Black Women and Men first.
Let me Post some Beautiful West African(Nigerian) Women:
Peace
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Folks the lioness is a white boy with pink penile blisters. Don't buy into his "I'm black" schtick.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Isn't it interesting how these "non-black" liberals: Djehuti, KING, Truthcentric are so obsessed with how Africans look? Notice they are the main purveyors of picture spam regarding them. As if Africans are some kind of aliens to planet Earth.
These freaks like the typical white liberal is obsessed with the fact that Africans/black people have various phenotypes.
They then need to create a hierarchy on these varying phenotypes.
They need to believe that those Africans/blacks whom they deem as "unmixed" or "whose looks they don't like" are at the bottom of the barrell and cannot function at the most basic level without their liberal help.
Its the same with damn near all liberals.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Blacks have no redheads or blondes. They have no hair diversity like the asians.
Lies; pictures have been posted in other threads showing otherwise...
@ other posters- isn't it interesting how historically every single non-'white' people across the globe all had the same sh*t to say about the 'white' man's forked tongue and devious nature...
Just sayin.....
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
These freaks like the typical white liberal is obsessed with the fact that Africans/black people have various phenotypes. =====
Damn retard...are you blind?
Africans/blacks have NO physical diversity in phenotype.
Physical diversity is only in white race. We have blondes, redheads, auburn haired etc.
White race only diverse:
Now compare the above to black females:
All look the same.
Blacks have no physical diversity. All are wooly black haired and dark skinned.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Herodotus
"It is undoubtedly a fact that the Colchians are of Egyptian descent. I noticed this myself before I heard anyone else mention it, and when it occurred to me I asked some questions both in Colchis and in Egypt, and found that the Colchians remembered the Egyptians more distinctly than the Egyptians remembered them. The Egyptians did, however, say that they thought the original Colchians were men from Sesser?s? [Senusret] army. My own idea on the subject was based first on the fact that they have black skins and woolly hair (not that that amounts to much, as other nations have the same), and secondly, and more especially, on the fact that the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians are the only races which from ancient times have practiced circumcision.... There is a further point of resemblance between the Colchians and the Egyptians: they share a method of weaving linen different from that of any other people."
Tinman said
quote:All look the same. Blacks have no physical diversity. All are wooly black haired and dark skinned.
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: LOL, have any more manipulated photos in your collection?
Nigerian woman,
quote:Originally posted by MelaninKing:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Meet Miss Wachira, a 100% Kikuyu girl with blue eyes. The genes responsible for the colour of the skin are not responsible for the colour of eyes or hair. This is why Africans often have green, rarely blue eyes. Picture taken in 1997 in a KLM flight from Nairobi to Amsterdam. Mr Richard Wachira and his daughter were on their way to Washington.
Wrong and sorry, no wishful thinking.
The eyes are blue due to a Defect. The defect is expressed in the ocular system due to OCA. All of those people have inferior eyesight, as well as pending ocular damage over time due to melanin depletion of the Iris.
All green/blu/hazel/tan/red eyes are characterized by these same deficiencies. One group has inherently defective optics in the vast majority of the populace; Ashkenzazis.
In the original world, under ideal maturation, humans eyes are dark brown/black. Every other color expression is due to defects in the optimal human design.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Isn't it interesting how these "non-black" liberals: Djehuti, KING, Truthcentric are so obsessed with how Africans look? Notice they are the main purveyors of picture spam regarding them. As if Africans are some kind of aliens to planet Earth.
These freaks like the typical white liberal is obsessed with the fact that Africans/black people have various phenotypes.
They then need to create a hierarchy on these varying phenotypes.
They need to believe that those Africans/blacks whom they deem as "unmixed" or "whose looks they don't like" are at the bottom of the barrell and cannot function at the most basic level without their liberal help.
Its the same with damn near all liberals.
well maybe you can consult confirming truth for the conservative view
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Isn't it interesting how these "non-black" liberals: Djehuti, KING, Truthcentric are so obsessed with how Africans look? Notice they are the main purveyors of picture spam regarding them. As if Africans are some kind of aliens to planet Earth.
They are all a bunch of no good Negroes.
If Djehuti really is Filipino (which I sincerely doubt), he must be one of those fugly Negrito types.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Ish Gebor wrote: -------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
So says the clown who got his ass beat by multiple posters, who refuted Ish Gebors sick claim that "African negroids" were the world's slaves.
Ish Gebor shall I post links? : )
I'm sure everyone want to revisit that scholarly beatdown that Clyde, Dana, and I gave you.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Folks, check out the scholarly beatdown that was administered to this Ish Gebor racist. If you noticed he could not even respond coherently. He throwing around red herrings and strawman arguments to defend his pseudohistorical propaganda.
What is shocking is how upset Ish Gebor becomes when someone says that there were slaves other than so called "west" Africans. Also shocking as you can see throughout the thread is just how badly he needs to believe that only so called "west" Africans were slaves. Its impossible not to notice isn't it everyone?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Perahu,
Why do the women of your ethnicity age so badly and look like hags when they hit 30? Many look like witches.
Perahu? Will you answer? : )
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Folks, what is also obvious is how much that I said that the "ejupt be black crew" believes in an intra-African hierarchy. I also stated how they believe in many of the very same propaganda white pseudoscientist spout.
Their main bone of contention is that they do not want to excluded from anjunct ejupt.
^^^^^while argyle has a point on this last post aside we have to understand how his mind works in order to interpret his enigmatic remarks.
argyle has what the psychology textbooks call "equalization obsessive disorder" (EOD) This means whatever situation the patient is dealing with, if there are component parts each part is always equal in nature to the other.
For example, if you had a bag of fruit with oranges, apples and bananas and you had ten apples, four oranges and two bananas the person with equalization obsessive disorder would claim that the bag contained four apples, four oranges and four apples.
It doesn't matter how extreme the numbers are. If you had a bag of U.S. coins containing sixty pennies, seven nickels and two pennies the total would be 69 coins. The person who had equalization obsessive disorder would agree that the bag had 66 coins but they would say there was twenty three of each type of coin.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Perahu?.............................
We're waiting.................................
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Perahu?.............................
We're waiting.................................
^^^^ "we're" = "I alone"
waiting for an answer when there was no question even asked-only a statement you made
argyle has a sick fetish for intellectually thrashing retarded people
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Ok!! So then when you use black its about skin color, so darkskinned folks not native to Africa and more related to non Africans like Australian Aboriginals be considered black to you.
Yes. Tropical/recently tropically-derived peoples don't just end within African borders.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Ok!! So then when you use black its about skin color, so darkskinned folks not native to Africa and more related to non Africans like Australian Aboriginals be considered black to you.
Yes. Tropical/recently tropically-derived peoples don't just end within African borders.
are Khosians tropically adapted?
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Perahu,
Why do the women of your ethnicity age so badly and look like hags when they hit 30? Many look like witches.
Perahu? Will you answer? : )
At least our women do not look like gorillas.
Negroids have very primitive features. Even most Afrocentric posters on Egyptsearch unconsciously acknowledge this, as they refrain from posting pure Negrids due to their sheer ugliness and only are obsessed with the highly Caucasoid hybrid variants.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Perahu,
Why do the women of your ethnicity age so badly and look like hags when they hit 30? Many look like witches.
Perahu? Will you answer? : )
At least our women do not look like gorillas.
Negroids have very primitive features. Even most Afrocentric posters on Egyptsearch unconsciously acknowledge this, as they refrain from posting pure Negrids due to their sheer ugliness and only are obsessed with the highly Caucasoid hybrid variants.
stop the BS
Why would Thomas Jefferson have fooled around with Sally Hemings ? This type of thing going on with other of your ancestors
other folks: Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
are Khosians tropically adapted?
You already know my position on the San, as we had dealt with it in a thread you opened yourself. What did I say then?
As far as their pigmentation goes, among other anatomical matters, I consider them "blacks". Their peppercorn hair is a relic of their tropical African heritage. The same goes for their slender physique, and steatopygia [mostly frequent in females]. Their pigmentation is also a reflection of their heritage in the tropics, though apparently some selection towards lightening had occurred. I haven't seen any geographically comprehensive studies done on limb-ratios, given the fact that part of the San territory lies in the tropics; however there does appear to have been some selection towards limb shorting among them, as a response to long residence in the sub-tropical areas of residence.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Negroids have very primitive features. Even most Afrocentric posters on Egyptsearch unconsciously acknowledge this, as they refrain from posting pure Negrids due to their sheer ugliness and only are obsessed with the highly Caucasoid hybrid variants. ========
Compared to the average white -
I think everyone honest agrees blacks are not physically attractive to look at. This is not racist or offensive, it's just fact. Blacks have very unattractive features.
Posted by Confirming Truth (Member # 17678) on :
Blacks are the missing link. This is why we resemble apes and gorillas more than any other race.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Asians have a sense of self pride and know well that they are Asians, without using any reference.
exactly,
As an African American I see what happened.
We were on the right track calling ourselves African Americans.
But because Europeans called themselves a skin color term "white", And thinking that's some sort of exclusive privilege we imitated them, dropped the term "African American" and had a celebration over calling ourselves "black people".
But we are chumps, what got dropped out of the equation, thrown in waste basket with this term "black" is that we still have not accepted our AFRICAN heritage. It's not part of our identify anymore only a skin word remains we think we are 100% Western people with no earlier link.
Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, i.e. Asian Americans don't have this problem. I tell you we've been played for suckers .
Why continue with this hyphenated American crap?
I feel that we should just see ourselves as American period. We all have different ethnic origins but to constantly dwell on them and seek always to define oursleves accordingly just causes more division and tension in this country. I think it's time to move on. Many AAs will never embrace their African heritage anyway though some pretend to. When challenged you will find that many are as ignorant of Africa as they can be, and largely indifferent to the history and events that transpire on the continent. You can see this phoniness on most Afrocentric forums. They will fight tooth and nail to claim Egypt but rarely ever concern themselves with many of the other cultures and acheivements in Africa like Ghana, Mali, Meroe, the Nok in Nigeria or even Ethiopia.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
Um-hm.
Pale skin and thin lips......hmmmmm....
If I am not mistaken, orangutangs (sp?) have orange hair.....and I have seen more than a few 'white' people who are considered to be redheads despite their orange color hair...hence the nickname I've heard quite a few of them called: "carrot-top"....
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Perahu,
Why do the women of your ethnicity age so badly and look like hags when they hit 30? Many look like witches.
Perahu? Will you answer? : )
At least our women do not look like gorillas.
Negroids have very primitive features. Even most Afrocentric posters on Egyptsearch unconsciously acknowledge this, as they refrain from posting pure Negrids due to their sheer ugliness and only are obsessed with the highly Caucasoid hybrid variants.
You continue to insist that our Africanness = ugliness. But that didn't seem to stop 'white' massa from routinely raping Black women for yeeeeeaaaaaaarrrrrrrs....from they set foot on the shores of Mama Africa, on the boats over the Middle Passage, to the shores of the Caribbean and the Americas...they couldn't keep their nasty filthy pale pig-skinned Selves off of our Ancestors....even creeping down to slave quarters while their 'white' wife was at home minding her business to rape Black women, and the poor Black Women who worked in the Big House- massa couldn't leave them alone, right under the roof of his 'white' wife...
quadroon balls...where rich 'white' men looked a mixed-race mistress...
And in the Caribbean, it was UNusual for a 'white' man NOT to have a Black mistress...
as well as several very recent news headlines, lol, we know that 'white' men STILL can't keep their nasty filthy pale pig-skinned Selves off Black Women and Our 'ugliness.'
Oh, and 'white' women can't keep their nasty filthy pale pig-skinned Selves off of Black Men's "ugliness" either...I would be posting for yeeeeaaarrrrrrrs if I had to post the evidence of that...
Do you know the FACTS: how many many many 'white' women come to the Caribbean just for the "rent a dreads"- who are Black Men, those 'white' women pay to f*k them, btw (KMRT @ towards the 'rent a dreads')... and 'white' women practice sex tourism in Africa as well; here is an example and YES, THIS MAKES ME WANT TO VOMIT UP MY ENTIRE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Masai Tribe Sex Secrets Attracting White Women Kenya Safari
Believe it or not most Kenyans who are fellow countrymen to the Masai tribe know very little about this African tribe in comparison to white European, Asian, American women and white westerners at large who have discovered many amazing Masai secrets through mainly word of mouth. Local Kenyans who don’t belong to the Masai tribe don’t have the slightest clue about these Masai top secrets. The reason is not too difficult to guess, Many Africans who believe that they are civilized normally look down on the Masai tribe and dismiss them as primitive, backward and uneducated, they therefore have no need to value this rare African tribe’s culture.
So finding out what many women in the west have discovered about the Masai tribe is virtually unattainable for them. What you will read will shock you, and most of all will answer a burning question where white women on holiday safari in Kenya have travelled with only one- to find a lover from the Masai tribe. Even more worrying trend has arisen, women who manage to achieve this objective are hooked for life and some have even left their families, husbands and financial security, to stay for life with their new-found penniless Masai lovers.
In one widely revealed situation in UK the rather odd couple soon got into financial troubles that the woman was forced to sell “her story” to the British tabloid, The News Of The World. Basically what readers wanted to know was what kind of lover Masai would cause an intelligent, sophisticated white woman to forget herself, abandoned her teenage children and British husband for her young “ridiculous looking” Masai lover, many wondered what they discussed—if they were capable to have a discussion in the first place.
Firstly it is critical to note that Masai are very reserved and hardly reveal their secrets you. To begin with Masai are the most promiscuous tribe in Kenya; their culture allows them any woman in the village as a lover, as long as she is married to a person of the same age, or a man they were circumcised on the same day with, all he needs to do is bury his spear at the doorway of the Manyatta, if the man of the house happens to arrive back home finds a spear buried in the ground outside his home, he takes a walk.
They are required by circumstances to go in search of some other age mates’ house where they can bury their spear for the night. The Masai have been practicing this bizarre tradition for years. All Masai women are circumcised and it is impossible for any woman not to. Masai Men have a way of arousing their circumcised women; this is archived by the way they are circumcised. They leave heavy skin hanging downwards around the penis, this accomplishes two main objectives, it prolongs lovemaking enormously and allows for much more “friction” (in the right places). This is Masai secret way that makes the tribe brilliant in lovemaking attracting white women and making them go crazy and stop thinking straight.
Additional factors that enhance the Masai warriors as lovers are the fact that the Masai are well gifted, size that is, because they don’t wear trousers they literally move with a small red cloth covering the front and back, so women get a side and are able to see and inspect. Secondly in a world that boys continuously pretend to be men, the Masai are actual men, their initiation into manhood typically involves them killing a full-grown lion. This is certainly not something for the faint hearted. Many white men aren’t aware of the fact that this are the biggest turn on for white woman. beach boys in Mombasa have noted the white women tourists’ preference for Masai lovers and have taken the trouble to modify their looks so as to qualify for Masai’s to the eager white women tourists who have no problem paying handsomely for services rendered.
Edwin is a specialist in African Safaris and a tour operator. His tour company, African Safaris & Adventures, has presence in South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, Egypt, Madascar, Tanzania, Zanzibar, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, and Seychelles.
Nuff 'White' woman tourists take vacation just to go to Africa to f*k African men and "have no problem paying handsomely for services rendered"
and
The amount of 'white' women who naaaaaaaaaaah stop chase after Black Jamaican man hood is a shame....smh...
Mi seh....But we're so ugly...lol...
Guh milk yu granny....
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
I think everyone honest agrees blacks are not physically attractive to look at. This is not racist or offensive, it's just fact. Blacks have very unattractive features.
Interestingly, weird Neanderthal looking folks occur more amongst "whites" than "blacks". It is funny how primitive thinking 'whites' accuse blacks as being close to apes when 'whites' tend to be quite hairy, even to the point of approaching a fur like appearance like a champazee or gorilla...
If anyone is going to mistake some person for Neanderthal, that person is likely going to be a white dude. LOL
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
Ironically, the same study that Perahu tried to distort in erroneously asserting that East Asians are genetically more similar to Africans than are Europeans, show all humans being basically genetically equidistant from Chimpanzees, and if anything, non-Africans are slightly closer (to such a small degree though that it would make no sense to dwell on it).
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: You continue to insist that our Africanness = ugliness. But that didn't seem to stop 'white' massa from routinely raping Black women for yeeeeeaaaaaaarrrrrrrs....from they set foot on the shores of Mama Africa, on the boats over the Middle Passage, to the shores of the Caribbean and the Americas...they couldn't keep their nasty filthy pale pig-skinned Selves off of our Ancestors....
No, Africans are not all ugly, particularly Berbers, Egyptians, and East Africans look good, mainly because of their high levels of Caucasoid ancestry.
However, West-Central-South African aka True Negroid women are very ugly on average, they look very primitive, as if they aren't fully evolved.
Only men with bestiality tendencies would be attracted to them.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
The concept of ugliness has to do only with cultural expectations or perhaps some sexually-selected preference mechanism induced by hormones (not appearance). Any association of the concept with non-human primate features is silly. If any of it was tied to genetic expression many wouldn't consider felines to be more aesthetically pleasing to the eye than Chimps, who are grossly more anatomically similar to us (and more "evolved" according to the race junkies).
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Negroid skulls are more similar to Gorillas than are Caucasoid skulls. Anyone can observe that with their own eyes.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^What's wrong with Gorillas? What makes them "uglier" than any other non-human species?
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^What's wrong with Gorillas? What makes them "uglier" than any other non-human species?
Are you serious? Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Not really since I understand who I'm dealing with, however, the QUESTION indeed is. Since ALL humans resemble Gorillas, your association of "ugly" with Gorilla is worth exploring.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: You continue to insist that our Africanness = ugliness. But that didn't seem to stop 'white' massa from routinely raping Black women for yeeeeeaaaaaaarrrrrrrs....from they set foot on the shores of Mama Africa, on the boats over the Middle Passage, to the shores of the Caribbean and the Americas...they couldn't keep their nasty filthy pale pig-skinned Selves off of our Ancestors....
No, Africans are not all ugly, particularly Berbers, Egyptians, and East Africans look good, mainly because of their high levels of Caucasoid ancestry.
However, West-Central-South African aka True Negroid women are very ugly on average, they look very primitive, as if they aren't fully evolved.
Only men with bestiality tendencies would be attracted to them.
WOW! That's a lot of 'white' people (that would be men and women) that have bestiality tendencies...enough that one could say that bestiality is an inherent trait of the "'white' race"....
DWBCL.....Ah wha di rassclaat yuh ah chat bout waiss bwoy......YUH DEH PON SKUNT FE TRUE... Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: The American definition of "black" is pretty damn schizo. There is definitely the widespread idea of "black facial features" which is the "True Negro" concept Jari is referring to, but on the other hand Northeast Africans and even people with only partial tropical African ancestry are classified as "black" by most Americans.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: The AEs need not be referred to as "Black" as much as it should be emphasized that their closest relatives are in fact groups who westerners traditionally referred to as Black.
I concur with this. People have no right to call Northeast Africans in general or biracial people like Barack Obama or Halle Berry "black" if they're not willing to do the same for the Egyptians. If you insist on sorting people into racial categories, at least be consistent about it.
Indeed. This is the very crux of the matter! White Westerners in their futile attempts to keep their so-called race 'pure' attempt to bastardize their black-mixed offspring by disowning them and simply acknowledging the black ancestry only. Yet when we get to North Africans like the Egyptians and others who are the same complexion or often times darker, they are all of a sudden white or at least "caucasian". This is the double-think and hypocrisy of Western racialism.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
^ I would sum that up with this:
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
The Egyptian man is morphologically Caucasoid (aquiline nose, no progranthism). Obama has slight progranthism and a Negroid nose:
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
^What's wrong with Gorillas? What makes them "uglier" than any other non-human species?
Here's the deal: It is not that gorillas are considered 'uglier than any other non-human species'; rather it is that they look more similar to humans than other non-human species that supposedly makes them attractive subjects of ridicule. The idea, as primitive as it may be, is that by likening one to a gorilla, one is saying that the person on the receiving end of the "insult" is approximating towards human form, but not quite there yet. This implicitly means that the person on the receiving end of the "insult" has not yet evolved into a fully developed human.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Perahu
I see your foolish self is back speaking the same things you were DEBUNKED about before.
Whats wrong with you?? You really think that if you repeat yourself enough times, that it will make your foolish lies right?
It seems you forget the Gif of a limbless man you posted because I refuted your nonsense that you "Claimed" to of not read.
You now say West African women are ugly, when that is FAR from the truth..On the other page me and Ish posted beautiful West African women from Nigeria without mixture. Also TruthAndRights has an entire thread about Black women and ALL those women are beautiful. Matter of fact many of the people in my Neighbourhood love themselves some African(West) women since they are the largest minority group in my Neighbourhood next to muslims. The only thing UGLY is your attitude and ignorance of Africans...Of course you are the person who claimed that the Tutsi are "Mixed" because you thought the Hima were mixed, So I don't expect much from you at all..Maybe you have a GIF that states "Did not post" so you can run from that shameful blunder of the Tutsis bahahahahahahah.
Your a Sad Joke and your posts shows you have no facts at all only wishful thinking of caucasoid Africans that will never be. Grow up.
Peace
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
It is ironic that primitive thinking non-Africans like Perahu post stuff presumably as an effort to show similarities between 'black African' and apes, because the 'black African' defined what is modern human to begin with. Non-Africans like Perahu owe their existence to the 'black African'. If anything, folks who gave rise to non-Africans generally had the so-called "stereotype" features that the likes of Perahu love to parade around as "undesirable". Perahu and his/her ilk are nothing more than minor mutants of the original 'black African' [man and woman], the original modern human being. More than 99% of human genes originated in sub-Saharan Africa. This means even those who attempt to say they are "pure" from "Negro blood", are in fact fully loaded with "Negro blood". LOL
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
The Explorer
Nothing but TRUTH resonates from your post.
Blacks were the first people and ALL people comes from them.
People like Perahu are just lowlifes who have been trashed in debates and now resorts to insulting Blacks because that is all they have been left with.
Majority of the Worlds features can be found in Black Africans, whether they are thin lips, straight nose etc you have Africans in both East and West with these features. Perahu thinks that ALL Africans with these kind of features are mixed, he has no proof for this, but he hopes if he says it enough times it will be true. Sad character.
For Everyone
There is nothing wrong with Blacks, Whites, Asians etc...We are all Humans and belong to the same family. Too much people emphasize what someone looks like instead of studying the Heart of said person and how that person supports Peace and Love in their community. We all have the oppurtUNITY to support peoples and build up our communities in a good way. People have to realize that people who insult others and degrade entire ethnicites, do it because they are missing something. So they compensate by their emptyness by filling themselves with hate. We see the World around us filled with hate and violence. We see people suffering young and old because of Hate. We see in a Country as rich as Libya, racism taking place because the rebels hate Black Africans, there brothers and sisters. We see hate in Sudan between Black "Arabs" and Black Africans and the seperation of an country because the 2 sides cannot live together. We see violence in other parts of the world and we turn a blind eye to it because it does not affect us personally instead of looking at these things as seperate from us, we must look at these things as hurting our Brothers and Sisters from the Human race. Love is the Key to breaking the bondages of hate and violence that is affecting the world. With Love we can unite all ethnicites around a cause like child labour and force countries like India to STOP allowing children as young as 5 to work in jobs many adults find hard. With Love we can also educate parents to know that if they allow there children to get an education, then they will benefit their families more when they grow up, other then allowing there children to work at an young age and becoming illiterate and can't support their family when they grow up. Love can also strengthen people who suffer from loneliness like seniors, to show that there is people out there that care for them and want to spend time with them. The seniors should be shown love, yet in this fast paced world people only have time for themselves and ignore simple things like simply talking to a senior helps them overcome their lonely lives and puts a smile on their faces. If we consider the next man/woman, we think how we can better help them succeed and when we uplift people around us, we uplifts us also and build people who care. For too long this world is moving way too fast and people forget the simple things that makes people Happy. Put a smile on other peoples faces goes a long way in bettering the world around us. When we support others we make it easier for our children to pick up these traites of caring, I remember a story of an 4 yearold boy who donated his birthday money to children in Niger who could not afford pencils, It's because the child saw his parents showing love to charities and giving back, thats why a child so young can learn to care for others at that young of an age. It's "All Good" when our children learn from caring parents how to live better in this world and give to those who don't have what we have. Things we take for granted like education, is a struggle in majority of other countries. So when the Youth can learn to give back at the learning ages, it builds a better world and "Peace and Love" can be an reality. Really it's all about the next generation and hoping they don't repeat the mistakes made by the last generation. The more Knowledge we give to the next gen, the more they will grow and use that knowledge to better the world for when we become old and thats what we should want for all children in developed countries and developing countries, To know HOW to give back and help others. I remember we had posters who had so much, say that they would throw money at poor people in their country as if they are better then them because they have more. Let me say that just because you have more money then others, does not make you better then others. We are ALL Brothers and Sisters and should not think something as corrupting as money makes us better then our Brother Man. To be better, you must help those less fortunate then you and build up your people, not tear down. What I understand is that Africans are among the smartest people in the world, They prove it in studies in USA and Britain which showed that many African immigrants lead in Higher learning. This is Good, but what bothers me is the brain drain on the Continent. Africans leave Africa to make their name and forget the countries they leave behind. To uplift Africa we have to build infrastructre that makes Africans WANT to stay in Africa and build up Africa. Africas potential is scary in a Good way because the countries have not united, but there is great stories of African success like Rwanda, Kenya and East Africa in General. Read this Article about African success story:
And thats just the beginning, Africa is growing even though Africa has many dictators and we should support African development. I long for the day that Africa can put more into their countries then what Europe and USA take out. The mineral wealth of Africa is the greatest in the World so Africa should not be poor, but when you have Leaders like in Gabon, who care more about lineing their pockets then building there nation, you get poverty like what we see in parts of Africa. We need Leaders that will give back to there countries and sacrifice so their people can live and develop in an good way. It really boggles the mind, just how good in sports can Africans be since they have little money to build up their sport systems. When they actually are par with Europe in Investing in their athletes, watch out. France in Sports is Dominated by Africans because they support ALL there Athletes, yet we see some french wanting to change this because they are jealous, instead of wanting to be a template for other Nations to follow, France wants to curb this. France be a Leader and show the World just how good Africans can be if they were allowed to be invested in like Europeans.
I may sound like an "broken record" to the uninformed, but when I speak on Love, I speak the TRUTH and I never sugarcoat my words to make people agree with me. Either you agree or not. I Truly believe the things I speak and It all comes from the Heart.
Also I am Tired of the Jealousy showed by people like Perahu and cassiterides, If they weren't jealous of Black Africans, then they would not be on a African forum stateing the ignorant and biased things they say. They always get corrected and yet they continue with their Nonsense. Africans had 2 of the oldest civilizations(Egypt, Kush) for a reason. It's because they are better at uniting and living in peace with eachother then others..We all can Learn from Africans.
Less hate more Love and this "world" would be a Better place.
Peace
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: It is ironic that primitive thinking non-Africans like Perahu post stuff presumably as an effort to show similarities between 'black African' and apes, because the 'black African' defined what is modern human to begin with. Non-Africans like Perahu owe their existence to the 'black African'. If anything, folks who gave rise to non-Africans generally had the so-called "stereotype" features that the likes of Perahu love to parade around as "undesirable". Perahu and his/her ilk are nothing more than minor mutants of the original 'black African' [man and woman], the original modern human being. More than 99% of human genes originated in sub-Saharan Africa. This means even those who attempt to say they are "pure" from "Negro blood", are in fact fully loaded with "Negro blood". LOL
Eurasians do not derive from the modern common Negro (that is the Niger-Congo type) at all. Stop talking out of your ass.
The common Negro is more primitive than Caucasoids and exhibits more archaic features.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Primitive perahussy,
You are thinking out of your pussy. Who said anything about Eurasians "deriving" out of the "Niger-Congo" type? There is no such thing as a crakazooooid of 60ky ago.
Apparently, you haven't been eating enough bananas, and so you've gone bananas yourself. LOL
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Perahu, A lot of ignorance in your positing re phenotype and archaism. Nature just doesn't operate that way. Traits are either adaptive or not. For example, the thin ape-like lips of whites is a trait that humans obviously evolved with, but in the case of whites retained its structure for whatever adaptive reason.
Again: dogs are supposedly descendants of the wolf but have adapted or bred by humans to acquire certain characteristics. Would you say then that that those breeds of dog that most resemble the wolf are more archaic and primitive than those that look least like the wolf? So which are the most primitive? Alsatian/German Shepherd, Husky, etc. vs bulldog, pitbull, chow, Pekinese?
Take the case of the primates: monkeys and apes. Some are almost orthogonal in profile such as the spider monkey, while others have long snouts such as the mandrils. In fact most monkeys are not as "prognathous" as the chimp--closest to human genetically--or the ape.
Re the Egyptians: The consensus by the physical anthropologists is that the AEs were "moderately prognathous"[sic], with "fleshy lips"[sic], "short thick noses"[sic], and "weak cnin". Many Africans share such characterictics.
You must be aware too that East Asians also tend to be prognathous and Platyrrhine.
You have to understand that in nature traits are either adaptive or not. Thus you just cannot insert non-scientific value judgments into the analysis of traits when it comes to humans.
The only valid scientific question is whether the trait is adaptive or not? In fact using your language, one might say that a trait that is still extant over thousands shows more robustness than one than is seemingly more recent.
Again, I am just speculating here. After all, the common cockroach has maintained its present phenotype over at least 160 million years. Why change a good thing?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
This can be said of all Americans who are 3rd, 4th Generation Americans. I don't see any of my Irish friends worried about what goes on in Ireland, where were the Irish protesting with their Kin in Ireland on Bank Bailouts, or the same for Greek Americans.
Your little High brow opinion of A.A relationship with Africa should be applied to other races who are just as phony when it comes to their ancestors. You have whites claiming a whole host of folks from Vikings to some mysterious "Aryans" yet they probably descend from Illiterate British or German farmers who were dirt poor, illiterate, bathed once a year and considered little more than trash by the Elite in Europe.
Why don't I see you in White Supremist forums lamenting on Whites claiming Egypt..
BTW, we have plenty of threads dealing with other African cultures outside of Egypt going back to 2005.
I would do a thread on Ethiopia but you know that trolls will ruin the thread with chase the weasel arguments like this thread was ruined.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Many AAs will never embrace their African heritage anyway though some pretend to. When challenged you will find that many are as ignorant of Africa as they can be, and largely indifferent to the history and events that transpire on the continent. You can see this phoniness on most Afrocentric forums. They will fight tooth and nail to claim Egypt but rarely ever concern themselves with many of the other cultures and acheivements in Africa like Ghana, Mali, Meroe, the Nok in Nigeria or even Ethiopia.
Posted by MelaninKing (Member # 17444) on :
LOL, this place has gone far downhill over the years. What are supposed to be free thinking young students actually turn out to be simpletons using flawed physiological data (Skull dimensions, limb proportions, ect) developed by White/Jews who had no clue of WHY there are deltas between blacks and whites in these areas. They refused to research and comprehend that all of these physical differences were due to the presence or absence of MELANIN, and Vitamin D production. Typical ashkenazi worldview displayed even in teaching. Teaching symptoms rather than true cause.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Primitive perahussy,
You are thinking out of your pussy. LOL
YUH SEET....THE LIKKLE BATTYBWOY PUSSY TONGUE LONG LIKE.....LOL....
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
To help prove Just Call Me Jari's point that we have other threads on Other parts of Africa other then Egypt, Here is Some Threads..Melchior7 I hope you enjoy:
quote:You continue to insist that our Africanness = ugliness. But that didn't seem to stop 'white' massa from routinely raping Black women for yeeeeeaaaaaaarrrrrrrs....from they set foot on the shores of Mama Africa, on the boats over the Middle Passage, to the shores of the Caribbean and the Americas...they couldn't keep their nasty filthy pale pig-skinned Selves off of our Ancestors....even creeping down to slave quarters while their 'white' wife was at home minding her business to rape Black women, and the poor Black Women who worked in the Big House- massa couldn't leave them alone, right under the roof of his 'white' wife...
As a black woman I hate how we use rape during slavery to validate our beauty. Rape is an act of violence and has aboslutely nothing to do with how attractive or unattractive a woman is--they also raped children & babies as well, does that make little girls sexually attractive no it doesn't. and just about every land that the white man conquered he raped the women--it was all about power, plain and simple.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nyasha:
quote:You continue to insist that our Africanness = ugliness. But that didn't seem to stop 'white' massa from routinely raping Black women for yeeeeeaaaaaaarrrrrrrs....from they set foot on the shores of Mama Africa, on the boats over the Middle Passage, to the shores of the Caribbean and the Americas...they couldn't keep their nasty filthy pale pig-skinned Selves off of our Ancestors....even creeping down to slave quarters while their 'white' wife was at home minding her business to rape Black women, and the poor Black Women who worked in the Big House- massa couldn't leave them alone, right under the roof of his 'white' wife...
As a black woman I hate how we use rape during slavery to validate our beauty. Rape is an act of violence and has aboslutely nothing to do with how attractive or unattractive a woman is--they also raped children & babies as well, does that make little girls sexually attractive no it doesn't. and just about every land that the white man conquered he raped the women--it was all about power, plain and simple.
My girl...I do not use rape during slavery to validate our beauty...it was just one small example of other examples given to show a whole picture...part of a timeline, so to speak...
and yes, I am well aware of the rest of what you said...
Respectfully, you're new here- no? Maybe you should sekkle yourSelf a likkle bit, read some more posts and thus get to know who is about what around here and who views things what way before you chat off your mout to people...
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
You idiots know Perahu is a troll and if you argue with him you must like his trolling.
Posted by Calabooz ' (Member # 18238) on :
^A little unfair, don't you think?
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz ': ^A little unfair, don't you think?
maybe, but this is not the first time we've seen trolls with arguments like this.
Posted by Calabooz ' (Member # 18238) on :
Not that; I mean saying those who responded to Perahu, and therefore must "enjoy" his trolling (?) are "idiots". How is that fair?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Calabooz ' wrote: -------------------------------------- I mean saying those who responded to Perahu, and therefore must "enjoy" his trolling (?) are "idiots". How is that fair? --------------------------------------
Because it's the truth, dummy.
Posted by Calabooz ' (Member # 18238) on :
^Whether it's true or not isn't relevant to the point I was making.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by MelaninKing: LOL, this place has gone far downhill over the years. What are supposed to be free thinking young students actually turn out to be simpletons using flawed physiological data (Skull dimensions, limb proportions, ect) developed by White/Jews who had no clue of WHY there are deltas between blacks and whites in these areas. They refused to research and comprehend that all of these physical differences were due to the presence or absence of MELANIN, and Vitamin D production. Typical ashkenazi worldview displayed even in teaching. Teaching symptoms rather than true cause.
I concur - there is no end to the nonsense Albinos have written, mostly for themselves I think, to convince themselves that their defects in fact, make them "Superior". Look at their "Supposed" love for Milky White Skin, when in fact, we know they hate it. Likewise their adoration for Redheads, when in fact, most find the sight of a Red-haired crotch disgusting. A little self-hypnosis I think.
But I notice that sooner or later, these albino trolls always get around to mentioning prognathism, and no one ever debunks it. Since I know prognathism to be rarer in Blacks per-capita than Whites, am I to assume that everyone here is from one of those rare prognathism prone populations?
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Look at their "Supposed" love for Milky White Skin, when in fact, we know they hate it. Likewise their adoration for Redheads, when in fact, most find the sight of a Red-haired crotch disgusting. A little self-hypnosis I think. ===========
Mike, you have no understanding of beauty since you are attractive to gorilla faced ugly black women with afros (Yuck).
Redheaded with pale skin are often top models such as barbara meier, winner of Germany's Next Topmodel.
In contrast black woman don't win model contests, as they are not attractive.
No one wants an afro, thick lips or dark skin.
True beauty, barbara meier -
Posted by Calabooz ' (Member # 18238) on :
^I don't find her that attractive, but I guess you do. See how subjective this is?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^Wait until you see that body without make-up.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Mikes idea of beauty:
Posted by Calabooz ' (Member # 18238) on :
^HeLL YeAh. LOL Posted by MelaninKing (Member # 17444) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Mikes idea of beauty:
From a biological viewpoint on reproduction, the woman above if impregnated 10 times, will birth 10 babies. The albino woman above is very likely infertile, and if impregnated 10 times will be very likely to have at least 5 miscarriages, and birth defective children. Who would want that, except the doctors making billions of INVITRO birthing.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
True beauty, barbara meier -
LOL! This pale/pasty broad is no where near a "true beauty". She looks like she's sick or something. She also reminds me of one of those high school nerds who got older and received a full body makeover but still looks like an ugly high school nerd.
Posted by Spectrum Juice (Melanin) (Member # 15917) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
True beauty, barbara meier -
LOL! This pale/pasty broad is no where near attractive to me. She looks like she's close to death. She evokes no feelings in me besides "ugh".
This is a very beautiful white women all political dogma aside Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^I disagree with you. No disrespect, but your opinion is irrelevant to mine. All B.S. aside, the woman is NOT attractive to me, not even a 7. Maybe I'm not as easily impressed by pale skinned broads with split ends, skeleton-like bodies, ugly teeth, weird/goofy-looking faces, and the shellish glare of a pill addict. I have higher standards I guess.
Posted by Spectrum Juice (Melanin) (Member # 15917) on :
You perhaps have not enjoyed the unique and subtle delights of a white woman who knows how to please a man. Hey, do you man. Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
^What's wrong with Gorillas? What makes them "uglier" than any other non-human species?
Here's the deal: It is not that gorillas are considered 'uglier than any other non-human species'; rather it is that they look more similar to humans than other non-human species that supposedly makes them attractive subjects of ridicule. The idea, as primitive as it may be, is that by likening one to a gorilla, one is saying that the person on the receiving end of the "insult" is approximating towards human form, but not quite there yet. This implicitly means that the person on the receiving end of the "insult" has not yet evolved into a fully developed human.
Oh yea, I definitely got that. I found myself trying to explain this to Kalonjiboy some time ago after he'd claimed similarly that Africans retained the most "primitive" features (in terms of overall affinity with ancient relatives) and of course it fell on deaf ears. I'm just trying to get at the arbitrariness of it all. There doesn't seem to be anything innately debilitating (in terms of intellectual, physical, and emotional capacities) concerning these so-called retentions and even Kanazawa's bogus study showed that notions of "attractiveness" are not predicated upon that if we are to assume the "Black male" as exihibiting these traits most markedly since his study showed Black men to be the more attractive of all groups compared. That he found opposite results for females shows that there is a cultural stigma against black females but none of these feelings are ultimately traced back to any ideas of Africans retaining primitive traits since as you even show, it depends on what you measure. Why is increased prognathism is SOME Africans more important to look at than the increased body fur on SOME Europeans? I think only the Euro nuts can answer that question.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spectrum Juice (Melanin): You perhaps have not enjoyed the unique and subtle delights of a white woman who knows how to please a man. Hey, do you man.
Sorry to tell you this, but there are no shortage of proud Black Men who consider 'white' women the bottom of the barrel, not even worthy of being a temporary d*ck warmer....plenty plent will not even give a 'white' woman a second glance nor thought, much less take one home and/or home to his parents....
Is not everyone endorses/supports IR relations...many Black Men and Women recognize want and embrace the beauty of BLACK LOVE....
Thank GOD....
Posted by Spectrum Juice (Melanin) (Member # 15917) on :
These things are not mutually exclusive. Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spectrum Juice (Melanin): You perhaps have not enjoyed the unique and subtle delights of a white woman who knows how to please a man. Hey, do you man.
I couldn't care less for white women and that's a separate issue from her appearance and my assessment of her "attractiveness". Based on her looks, I wouldn't give her the time of day to even consider letting her please me anyhow and there isn't anything that she can do that a black woman can't, especially with that skinny azz frame.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
^What's wrong with Gorillas? What makes them "uglier" than any other non-human species?
Here's the deal: It is not that gorillas are considered 'uglier than any other non-human species'; rather it is that they look more similar to humans than other non-human species that supposedly makes them attractive subjects of ridicule. The idea, as primitive as it may be, is that by likening one to a gorilla, one is saying that the person on the receiving end of the "insult" is approximating towards human form, but not quite there yet. This implicitly means that the person on the receiving end of the "insult" has not yet evolved into a fully developed human.
Oh yea, I definitely got that. I found myself trying to explain this to Kalonjiboy some time ago after he'd claimed similarly that Africans retained the most "primitive" features (in terms of overall affinity with ancient relatives) and of course it fell on death ears. I'm just trying to get at the arbitrariness of it all. There doesn't seem to be anything innately debilitating (in terms of intellectual, physical, and emotional capacities) concerning these so-called retention and even Kanazawa's bogus study showed that notions of "attractiveness" are not predicated upon that if we are to assume the "Black male" as exihibiting these traits most markedly since his studied showed Black men to be the more attractive of all populations. That he found opposite results for females shows that there is a cultural stigma against black females but none of these feelings are ultimately traced back to any ideas of Africans retaining primitive traits since as you even show, it depends on what you measure. Why is increased prognathism is SOME Africans more important to look at than the increased body fur on SOME Europeans? I think only the Euro nuts can answer that question.
yuh really ah entertain dis..... Posted by Spectrum Juice (Melanin) (Member # 15917) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by Spectrum Juice (Melanin): You perhaps have not enjoyed the unique and subtle delights of a white woman who knows how to please a man. Hey, do you man.
there isn't anything that she can do that a black woman can't, especially with that skinny azz frame.
If you say so. Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by Spectrum Juice (Melanin): You perhaps have not enjoyed the unique and subtle delights of a white woman who knows how to please a man. Hey, do you man.
I couldn't care less for white women and that's a separate issue from her appearance and my assessment of her "attractiveness". Based on her looks, I wouldn't give her the time of dayto even consider letting her please me anyhow and there isn't anything that she can do that a black woman can't, especially with that skinny azz frame.
Respect Black Man/Kingman.... Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spectrum Juice (Melanin):
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by Spectrum Juice (Melanin): You perhaps have not enjoyed the unique and subtle delights of a white woman who knows how to please a man. Hey, do you man.
there isn't anything that she can do that a black woman can't, especially with that skinny azz frame.
If you say so.
^I know so. Posted by Spectrum Juice (Melanin) (Member # 15917) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by Spectrum Juice (Melanin):
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by Spectrum Juice (Melanin): You perhaps have not enjoyed the unique and subtle delights of a white woman who knows how to please a man. Hey, do you man.
there isn't anything that she can do that a black woman can't, especially with that skinny azz frame.
If you say so.
^I know so.
We're both happy then. No worries. Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by Spectrum Juice (Melanin):
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by Spectrum Juice (Melanin): You perhaps have not enjoyed the unique and subtle delights of a white woman who knows how to please a man. Hey, do you man.
there isn't anything that she can do that a black woman can't, especially with that skinny azz frame.
If you say so.
^I know so.
Mek him gwan keep his pale becky dem deh...is jus more Black Women fe Black Man like yuhSelf yuh seet
lol Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Indeed.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Mike111 -
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Asians have a sense of self pride and know well that they are Asians, without using any reference.
exactly,
As an African American I see what happened.
We were on the right track calling ourselves African Americans.
But because Europeans called themselves a skin color term "white", And thinking that's some sort of exclusive privilege we imitated them, dropped the term "African American" and had a celebration over calling ourselves "black people".
But we are chumps, what got dropped out of the equation, thrown in waste basket with this term "black" is that we still have not accepted our AFRICAN heritage. It's not part of our identify anymore only a skin word remains we think we are 100% Western people with no earlier link.
Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, i.e. Asian Americans don't have this problem. I tell you we've been played for suckers .
Why continue with this hyphenated American crap?
I feel that we should just see ourselves as American period. We all have different ethnic origins but to constantly dwell on them and seek always to define oursleves accordingly just causes more division and tension in this country. I think it's time to move on. Many AAs will never embrace their African heritage anyway though some pretend to. When challenged you will find that many are as ignorant of Africa as they can be, and largely indifferent to the history and events that transpire on the continent. You can see this phoniness on most Afrocentric forums. They will fight tooth and nail to claim Egypt but rarely ever concern themselves with many of the other cultures and acheivements in Africa like Ghana, Mali, Meroe, the Nok in Nigeria or even Ethiopia.
First off all I am not AA and second you don't know what most blacks are concerned with or associate with in historical context.
You always try to speak for people and groups you have nothing to do with in the first place.
Don you know how foolish and stupid that looks? Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: You continue to insist that our Africanness = ugliness. But that didn't seem to stop 'white' massa from routinely raping Black women for yeeeeeaaaaaaarrrrrrrs....from they set foot on the shores of Mama Africa, on the boats over the Middle Passage, to the shores of the Caribbean and the Americas...they couldn't keep their nasty filthy pale pig-skinned Selves off of our Ancestors....
No, Africans are not all ugly, particularly Berbers, Egyptians, and East Africans look good, mainly because of their high levels of Caucasoid ancestry.
However, West-Central-South African aka True Negroid women are very ugly on average, they look very primitive, as if they aren't fully evolved.
Only men with bestiality tendencies would be attracted to them.
Shutup you hairy beast. The pops you summed aren't particularly hairy, in fact not at all. With exceptions of coastal areas.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Ausar if anyone responds to the above poster or Rahotep please delete this thread. Non Prophet is O.K as he is less of a troll than the former two thanks Ausar..
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Nigerian woman,
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
