posted
^ LOL Again for like the 10th time in this thread, you are psychologically projecting on me.
The only one caught up in semantics is YOU!
Europe is a region that is part of the Eurasian landmass. It matters not where the word was first coined, the point is that it exists as a label for a very real place.
Now, Define the term African please and how it relates to those people who first settled Europe.
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti What about other Eurasians like Chinese and Koreans? Do you consider these folks to be African? What about Native Americans?
I don't know what he thinks about Native Americans, but he actually believes that your people are actually mulattoes:
Posts: 7103 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly, I don't care what he thinks. I am done arguing with idiots who offer nothing but nonsense.
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recent genetic studies (Stephen Oppenheimer) have confirmed that about 75% of the people of the British Isles have bloodlines that can be traced to inhabitants of the Basque areas of Spain and France based on Y-chromosome and mtDNA analysis.
I am Basque I come from the French Basque country just on the border of the Spain, and this is the first time that I heard that 75% of the British Isles have bloodlines that can be traced to Basque.
I beleive that our language and our roots are more related to some latin american and georgian family than British ones. Example in our alphabet we have letter such as "x" that is prounonce " ch" exactly like in the Russian alphabet "Cyrillic" which is the also the Georgian alphabet
"Although there are theories (none of them proven beyond a doubt) that Basque is related to other languages (such as the Georgian family of languages in the Caucasus, or the Berber language family of Africa, or even the Quechua language of Latin America)"
posted
^ Yes, he will dig up more nonsense about your ancient ancestors being black Africans! LOLPosts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
well not really, it does make more sence about our ancient ancestors being black African than British.
People who come from the other side of the south of France which is close to Italy, are more light and look much more European than us.
A lot of Basque people’s hair and skin are very dark which is quiet unusual for some French to look so tan. We know that long time ago we were occupied by Arab who went up to a city name Poitier, which is situated on the middle ouest part of France, We Basque come form the south Ouest, therefore it is not difficult to figure out who were our ancient ancestors and where they were coming from, and why some of us look so dark to compare to other French.
And French Basque country is the only region in France where you can find native French with such dark skin and hair.
Posts: 1182 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Souri - I think that I might be able to help alleviate your confusion. As I see it, the problem is that many of the previous posters assert a direct evolution from Blacks to Whites in Europe (I apologize if I got that wrong, I skimmed). Which leaves out a great deal of human history.
My own research indicates that the first White (of a sort) in Europe was actually Neanderthal. Crossbreeding between Neanderthal and Homo-sapien (the Black man) produced Cro-Magnon which inhabited the Mediterranean (both sides), the middle-east and Europe, alongside Neanderthal and finally replacing Neanderthal in Europe. These Cro-Magnons remained Cro-Magnons.
Cro-Magnons also migrated to the Eurasian plains, where they once again crossbred with Homo-Sapiens, this time as the result of the second great migration out of Africa some 50 or 60,000 years ago (the first being the migration to Australia).
This second mating produced modern Caucasians and Mongols. The Caucasians migrated westward into Europe (about 1500-2000 B.C.) where they mated with - and displaced - the resident Cro-magnons into extinction. They also migrated south into India, where they mated with the native Dravidian's in northern India and produced the modern Indian.
The Mongols displaced the resident Blacks (Xia/Shang) then turned eastward to invade Japan and displace the resident Black Jomon/Ainu. All the while encroaching on the Black Champa, Mon, and Khmer to the south.
By now the Blacks of southern Europe had developed great civilizations and it does not appear that they had much to do with the Cro-Magnons. But DNA indicates that the incoming Caucasians did.
The relationship between the incoming Caucasians and the resident Blacks turned violent at some point, probably as competition for resources increased. This is demonstrated by the "Sea Peoples" exodus of 1200 B.C.
Ultimately the Blacks were either killed, forced out, or absorbed. Which brings us to your people, the Basques or as the Romans called them, the Gauls (the Celts of Gaul are of course excluded).
They appear to have been the last holdouts who retained a pure bloodline and their original identity. But they were finally done in by Julius Caesar, who defeated your last unified king "Vercingetorix" at Alesia. There is very little available on them, their destruction was very complete. But this site has a little piece. http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Etruria_the_Etruscans_2a.htm
posted
Dear Souri. I still plan to respond to your inquiry but in time. Mike. I agree with all you say and want to thank you as I learned many new things from your contribution. Also, I hadn't know of our ancestral hero, Vercingetorix. I added him to my picture collection.
My only reservation is that I don't see where or how Neanderthal could be white. On the web page below from 1.7 mya are images of the first European and they are all identifiably African. They were the early population archeology leaves for us and they aren't white. I think the idea comes from popular imagination that Neanderthal are white. People add that they were hairy. However, the Ainu are African and living in ice-cold Hokkaido are typically called hairy. On this page are pictures of the Ainu showing they are African:
http://www.beforebc.de/600_fareast/Africans.in.Japan.html / click pictures at "...Ainu have roots going back to the Old Stone Age in Japan." So, for so-called scientists to say that "whites are hairy and the Neanderthal were hairy so they were white," is modern fiction.
Whites (who'd become today's Europeans) appear to have emerged in the Russian Steppes for the first time in history near 5000 BC and followed the arrows in the map above into Europe near 900 BC.
posted
I apologize; it appears that I didn’t explain myself properly.
On the issue of the Neanderthals: I agree with the hypothesis at realhistoryww; Quote: They exhibit anatomic adaptations to cold, especially in Europe, such as large body cores and relatively short limbs, which maximize heat production and minimize heat loss. The evidence of Neanderthal’s body adaptations to cold weather also makes it safe to assume that there was also a change in skin color from dark, with lots of melanin, to light (or white) with very little melanin.
But Neanderthals were NOT people: they were Humanoids. There is no argument as to who the first PEOPLE were.
However the timeline for Caucasians in Europe has to be earlier, in order to account for the “Sea People” exodus, which was the defining point in the transition from Black African to Eurasian Caucasian in Europe.
There is no argument about Japan.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi Mike. We are on the same page. I'm curious, however, what scenario in terms of a time-line and route from geographical place of racial genesis (i.e. where whites geographically first emerged) to their entry to the "Sea" (e.g. when and where did they first enter the "Sea"?) And, what type of ships would you attribute to their invention from bottom-up (e.g., from logs, to early plank, to sail)?
I ask because from my interpretation of the evidence, the "Sea" people appear to have first emerged in the 19th Dynasty of Egypt in the sea somewhere between Thessaly and eastern shores of Thrace. See this map:
This would account for a racial genesis on the Steppes and a southward migration to the Aegean shores. However (and I still have to assemble the pictures I have into a web page), Africans have had fleets of ships the world around for thousands of years and to my recollection, the first ships whites are recorded using [with racially mixed crews] in the archeological record are plank boats with sails manned by rowers. These, though, are identical to those found in the Saharan rock art going back to 6000 or 7000 BC.
My take on the situation is that when they reached Aegean shores, they basically stole the ships and forced/cajoled naieve African crews to navigate them around. That blacks were the crews for the first whites at sea I think is a point that is supported in the archeological record and isn't speculation - though in this post, I am not presenting evidence because of the time and relevance factor.
SOME PROOF FOR SOMETHING, THOUGH: I'd said the first ships used by whites were plank and below is one page (I have others, too) showing that plank boats were invented by Africans and as whites are pictured using these boats meanst they basically stole them and put African crews to their service (note: the web page doesn't show the boats of the sea people, per se, but larger versions of the types they used as portrayed on Egyptian steala).
This is no challenge to you. I'm just interested in knowing what scenario (first paragraph) you use. Following up on your first post in this thread, I found just how ignorant I am. I had no idea the extent of white genocide of the indigenous Africans of Europe was until some hours ago reading (starting at the quotation mark):
In those days, Jews were black Africans. Talk about hanging by your own rope: "An estimated 12,000 Jewish slaves built the Roman Colesseum."
And, "hanging by your own rope?" Meaning Africans building the stadium they'd be killed in by whites who invaded their homeland and then eradicated the Africans:
"Augustus in 10 A.D. exhibited the first tiger ever to be seen in Rome and had 3, 500 elephants. He boasted that he had ten thousand men killed in eight shows. After Trajan’s victory over the Dacians, he had eleven thousand animals killed in the arena."
The genocide blacks faced at the hands of whites is all the more ironic as evidence has it that Africans invented the Semitic language, Latin (source of Vulgate Latin and the Romance languages), Indo-European (i.e. Hurrian renamed and carried out of Anatolia - an African homeland invaded by whites), and the language group holding Finn-Ugrik and Basque. We invented the languages spoken in the world today and the people who learned them from us eliminated us from many continents and countries we once lived in.
I will receive hoots and be disputed by some whites over the language claims above but over the next few years as I assemble my evidence, I expect whites raising a rancor about these claims will be silenced by the proofs.
But, to stay on topic, what scenario do you use? And, I appreciate your insights into the African origins of the Basques.
Marc
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike. Not to dispute you but to speculate about the way realhistoryww.com interprets the evidence of adaptation to the cold "...such as large body cores and relatively short limbs..." as indicative of whites. I wonder how they would evaluate the fact that some African pygmy groups have stout bodies and short legs.
Pygmies, arguably, were the oldest group of humanity (or second after the Khoi) and migrated to North Europe. From North Europe and Siberia. Siberia by 15,000 BC had pottery.
At least one wave from Siberia via seacraft went to Japan carrying pottery found in Japan at 10,000 BC with Siberian features from the Late Pleistocene of 15,000 BC. I have figurine of the Jomon and they also have stout bodies and short legs. The Ainu are African but hairy.
I believe an argument could be made based on known facts that "Neanderthal" with the characteristics realhistoryww.com speak of were early Pygmies. Though they started out short in stature, all humanity are arguably a combination of San/Pygmy morphs - all human beings tall, short, fat, thin, blue-eyed and blond haired, to kinky black hair all came from San/Pygmy combinations.
Neanderthal African? I'd say it's within the realm of probability as the archeological material evidence shows African presence and among those images we see are perhaps Neanderthal. too.
Just thoughts.
Take care,
Marc
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marc - I think that you might have misunderstood my reference to the “Sea People” as “a sea people”. Sorry for that: The “Sea People” exodus refers to the conglomeration of large parts of all the Black inhabitants of Southern Europe joining up into one group and leaving Europe in search of new homes.
Once at sea, they split-off into two main groups: one went to Anatolia and destroyed (what is commonly called), the Hittite Empire. This Hittite Empire is shrouded in racist B.S. (there has been attempts to classify these people as the first Caucasians in the middle-east, so therefore they had to have an Empire). Subsequent research has demonstrated that no Hittite Empire actually existed, and that the Empire in question was actually the well-known and very old Hattie Empire.
The second group attempted to invade Egypt, they were however, stopped by Ramesses III.
But then Ramesses did something strange: he allowed the Tjekker (Minoans of Crete), later called (Biblical) Philistines to settle in southern Canaan, very close to Egypt’s border. Whether this was because he couldn’t stop them, or whether this was because of the two peoples long history together is unknown: (they together with the Egyptians appear to have built the first city on the Greek mainland; Mycenae (1600 B.C.?). If you like pictures, here is a beauty for you. BTW - The Caucasian invasion of Europe was by land.
posted
Marc – I think that perhaps you misconstrue the relationship between the Blacks who remained in Europe and the Caucasians who invaded and conquered them.
There is no evidence that they were particularly mistreated or discriminated against. To the contrary, tomb paintings and relief’s suggest that they were integral members of the relevant societies, and that mixed marriages were common. http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Etruria_the_Etruscans_2.htm
In addition; Blacks were a major part of the Roman military (almost all conquered people were required to serve in the military). Recent discoveries show that Blacks were part of the Roman occupation force in Britain. And a few Roman Emperors were of mixed blood, plus there were four or five Black Popes.
The Roman relationship with the Hebrews, appears to be much more complicated however. The fact that Rome would soon usurp their offshoot religion Christianity, and that Rome’s ally, the Khazars, would soon usurp their original religion, might have something to do with that.
The virulent racism that you describe, to me, didn’t begin until the conquest of the Americas and the Atlantic Slave trade. It appears to me; that they had a major problem: How to rationalize how could “Good” people like themselves, possibly do such horrible things to other human beings? Their solution was to dehumanize non-Whites, problem solved. Now they were not doing those things to people like themselves, but rather to some subhuman creatures.
The well-documented corruption of the stolen Hebrew religion, particularly the Catholic branch of it, gave religious cover to their atrocities. And then to make the dehumanizing complete, they decided to obliterate the history of these dehumanized people. Luckily for us, not all Whites are such pathetic, fearful, Beasts. And because of their efforts in research, we are able to piece together some of our history.
As to Neanderthal, Pygmies, and Bushman; who really knows. All we can really do is paste together the best facts that we have, and try to come to some reasonable conclusions.
The problem before us is how to explain Whites: we know they exist, they’re all around us, unlike Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon, they are modern humans in every way, so how did they evolve?
Quote: Genetic data shows that the biochemical systems of Asian and European populations, appear to be more similar to each other, than they are to African populations. Thus, Asians (Mongols) and Europeans (Caucasians) may have shared a common ancestry with each other, some 40,000 years ago and a common ancestry with African populations, some 120,000 years ago.
Moreover, investigations of human mitochondrial DNA reveal two facts: that the variation among modern human populations is small compared with for example, that between apes and monkeys. Which points to the recency of human origin; and that there is a distinction between African and other human mitochondrial DNA types, suggesting that African peoples are very old, and that Asians (Mongols) and Europeans (Caucasians) are relatively young.
In my opinion, if you don’t have a White Neanderthal and a mixed Cro-Magnon, then I don’t see how it all works. In case you’re not aware of it, the common perception of age is wrong. Neanderthals were from 100,000 to 30,000 years ago, Cro-Magnon was from 40,000 to 4000 years ago. Modern man (Blacks) are from 400,000 years ago. Maybe that helps in trying to figure it out.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Marc - I think that you might have misunderstood my reference to the “Sea People” as “a sea people”. Sorry for that: The “Sea People” exodus refers to the conglomeration of large parts of all the Black inhabitants of Southern Europe joining up into one group and leaving Europe in search of new homes.
This is ridiculous. Since when were the Sea Peoples, let alone those of southern Europe 'black'??
quote:Once at sea, they split-off into two main groups: one went to Anatolia and destroyed (what is commonly called), the Hittite Empire. This Hittite Empire is shrouded in racist B.S. (there has been attempts to classify these people as the first Caucasians in the middle-east, so therefore they had to have an Empire). Subsequent research has demonstrated that no Hittite Empire actually existed, and that the Empire in question was actually the well-known and very old Hattie Empire.
Again, what you say makes no sense. How is the notion of Hittite empire racist?!! Yes, the use of the classification "caucasian" is racist as is the term itself and all other Blumenbach derived racial terms, but I fail to see what the Hittite empire has to do with that. You keep saying Hattie empire, but that is the very word that Hittite is derived from! So what is the difference here? The Hittite/Hattie became an empire, but only by Indo-European speakers, not that there is anything racial about it.
quote:The second group attempted to invade Egypt, they were however, stopped by Ramesses III.
But then Ramesses did something strange: he allowed the Tjekker (Minoans of Crete), later called (Biblical) Philistines to settle in southern Canaan, very close to Egypt’s border. Whether this was because he couldn’t stop them, or whether this was because of the two peoples long history together is unknown: (they together with the Egyptians appear to have built the first city on the Greek mainland; Mycenae (1600 B.C.?). If you like pictures, here is a beauty for you.
The Minoans of Crete were called Keftiu by the Egyptians. The Tjekker were a different group of people. Scholars are not even entirely certain which of the Sea Peoples were the Philistines. Some think it was the Pelestu simply because of a similarity in name. The Pelestu was the main group of Sea People involved in the attempted invasion of Egypt from the sea.
quote:BTW - The Caucasian invasion of Europe was by land.
I find it strange you complain about Eurocentric racism just in terms of the Hittite empire, yet you yourself continue to use real Eurocentric racist terms like "caucasian" as if that were a valid scientific label.
quote:
Are you sure that the picture above depicts a Sea People?? The men in the picture look no different from Egyptians except with the two feathers in the hairs, which leads me to believe they are Libyans perhaps Tjehenu(?)
quote:The link gives a nice history for the Sea People.
I will respond to the other stuff in the next post.
Interesting. But again, as to the exact identity of the various Sea Peoples, it still a matter of dispute.
Most scholars think the people above represent Philistines since their headdresses bear a striking resemblance to descriptions made by the Hebrews and their contemporaries.
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
WHAT THE X#@$. Cro-Magnon mating with Neanderthals. . . .I thought that was genetically was impossible. . . .Now I have t second guess you Marc/Mike
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Souri - I think that I might be able to help alleviate your confusion. As I see it, the problem is that many of the previous posters assert a direct evolution from Blacks to Whites in Europe (I apologize if I got that wrong, I skimmed). Which leaves out a great deal of human history.
My own research indicates that the first White (of a sort) in Europe was actually Neanderthal. Crossbreeding between Neanderthal and Homo-sapien (the Black man) produced Cro-Magnon which inhabited the Mediterranean (both sides), the middle-east and Europe, alongside Neanderthal and finally replacing Neanderthal in Europe. These Cro-Magnons remained Cro-Magnons.
Cro-Magnons also migrated to the Eurasian plains, where they once again crossbred with Homo-Sapiens, this time as the result of the second great migration out of Africa some 50 or 60,000 years ago (the first being the migration to Australia).
This second mating produced modern Caucasians and Mongols. The Caucasians migrated westward into Europe (about 1500-2000 B.C.) where they mated with - and displaced - the resident Cro-magnons into extinction. They also migrated south into India, where they mated with the native Dravidian's in northern India and produced the modern Indian.
The Mongols displaced the resident Blacks (Xia/Shang) then turned eastward to invade Japan and displace the resident Black Jomon/Ainu. All the while encroaching on the Black Champa, Mon, and Khmer to the south.
By now the Blacks of southern Europe had developed great civilizations and it does not appear that they had much to do with the Cro-Magnons. But DNA indicates that the incoming Caucasians did.
The relationship between the incoming Caucasians and the resident Blacks turned violent at some point, probably as competition for resources increased. This is demonstrated by the "Sea Peoples" exodus of 1200 B.C.
Ultimately the Blacks were either killed, forced out, or absorbed. Which brings us to your people, the Basques or as the Romans called them, the Gauls (the Celts of Gaul are of course excluded).
They appear to have been the last holdouts who retained a pure bloodline and their original identity. But they were finally done in by Julius Caesar, who defeated your last unified king "Vercingetorix" at Alesia. There is very little available on them, their destruction was very complete. But this site has a little piece. http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Etruria_the_Etruscans_2a.htm
Here is the only known picture of Vercingetorix.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are all of the genus "Homo" (man), why would you think that interbreeding was impossible?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Because populations must be members of the same species to interbreed. Neaderthals and Homo Sapiens are related yes, but are they related enough to produce viable offspring? Look at donkeys and horses and the resultant mules.
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike. I am commenting here on the African aspect of Europe before whites arrived near 900 BC - i.e. the Germanic and the proto-Italic tribes that would be known as today's Italians. Also, you note I may be mistaken about the "the blacks who remained in Europe and the Caucasians who came and conquered them." I don't think I am, Mike. There's long been an acknowledged African presence in Europe. Whites later came and wiped them out; exterminated them and took all they had enslaving the remaining population after the period of peaceful co-existence you speak of. What whites did to Africans (taking country, property, body as slaves and through murder, and slavery not to mention shameful lies, deceit, adn identity theft
makes Auschwitz look like innocent child's play. Anyway, here is what some research reveals - though you are well-read and no doubt aware of it:
[A] G.E-Smith wrote: “At the outset of my remarks on the story bones have to reveal I should like to emphasize a statement made by Prof. Giuseppe Sergi in his remarkable book on the Mediterranean Race. So striking is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population of both ancient and modern Egypt and East Africa, that a description of the bones of an early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to the inhabitants of Somailand.” In: Grafton Elliott Smith, The ancient Egyptians and the origin of civilization, (Books for Libraries Press, New York, [1923] 1970), p. 65.
[B] "Near Schaffhausen, Dr. Kollman found skeletal remains of small human beings, which have been regarded by some authorities as belonging to the European pygmies of the Neolithic Period. Some anthropologists of authority indeed—in spite of the absence of definite data in support of such a view—believe that a dwarf Negroid race at one time existed in northern Europe and may have given rise to the traditional tales of elves, goblins, gnomes and fairies."
[C] "Archeological researches in Europe have proved the existence in Europe, from Neolithic times, of a race of small stature, with long oval skulls, who buried their dead in tombs … they bear resemblance to a type common among the Basques (Marc’s note: so not the Basques per se. The type, in my view, is African descendent) and all over the Iberian Penisula. This Neolithic race has been nicknamed the Iberians (Marc’s note: this black race preceded the white Iberians of today) … and the racial characteristics of ‘Iberians’ has been identified with the ‘small dark highlander,’ and the Black Celts (so, a race preceding the European Celts: make note) … Thus a race with fairly uniform characteristics was at one time in possession of the South of France, the whole of Spain from the Pyrenees to the Straights; the Canary Islands; a part of North Africa and Corsica. Whether this type is more conveniently designated by the word ‘Iberian’ or by some other name (‘Eur-African’, ‘Mediterranean’ etc.) is a matter of relative indifference.” Britannica, 1951, Iberian, p. 31A, Vol. 12.
___
I think you're doing a great job with your research. Pity there are not more like you. Keep the good work up.
Marc
PS - and you're right. The pictures are dynamite.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marc - Thank you, I wasn't aware of that article, I wonder if it's available on-line. Unfortunately, now that the vile ones have noted that Blacks are cataloging this type of information, they have started withdrawing it, or changing it. Hope it's still there.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"vile" ones!! Guys Mike/Marc what is goin on here, getting second thoughts on you all
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
xyyman - No need for a second thought, your first thought was correct. It was one thing to defeat the Black races,(they brought it on themselves), it was another to destroy and distort their history. There is no human or historical justification for that, so it can only be described as the work of sick, vile, weak, fearful, pathetic people. Hope that clears everything up.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
YUP! they are out today. I want to work with you guys but. . .. .so such bitterness. . .Mike
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: xyyman - No need for a second thought, your first thought was correct. It was one thing to defeat the Black races,(they brought it on themselves), it was another to destroy and distort their history. There is no human or historical justification for that, so it can only be described as the work of sick, vile, weak, fearful, pathetic people. Hope that clears everything up.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. I can appreciate Leucoderms being new(<6ky) on the planet based on the Upennn study. I can see that African-like people were present throughout Europe several thousand years prior to that. What else would they be. But man has been waging war against each other, even within/amongst Africans. It is in our nature regardsless of race -ethnicity-. So tone it down. People will think you are . . . .well. . .nuts.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: YUP! they are out today. I want to work with you guys but. . .. .so such bitterness. . .Mike
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: xyyman - No need for a second thought, your first thought was correct. It was one thing to defeat the Black races,(they brought it on themselves), it was another to destroy and distort their history. There is no human or historical justification for that, so it can only be described as the work of sick, vile, weak, fearful, pathetic people. Hope that clears everything up.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caucasians take great pleasure in thinking of themselves as "Good" people. I have no intention of allowing them that comfort. Their behavior as relates to Blacks has been subhuman, and I take great pleasure in pointing that out to them.
As to your personal agnst, if you are Black, you need to learn more, if not, I don't care if you work with me or not. Accepting the truth, and telling the truth, must be a personal choice.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kemson. Many thanks. I made both a link to your article on my Basque page and established a backup there, too, in the event the article disappears from the web. I did attribute it to you.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Frankly, I don't care what he thinks. I am done arguing with idiots who offer nothing but nonsense.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic