Using Yonis' retarded, trolling logic, these two Africans would likewise be considered "Levantine" and or "Asiatic" if the were mummified:
Also Yonis, the non thinking new age troll poster, would agree with a scientist calling this Somali "West Eurasian", "European" and or "Levantive" if he were mummified:
If you don't believe he would be called "Levantine" and or "Asiatic", of course using *YOUR* dumb stereotypical logic, tell me what would make him look "Somali" as opposed to "Levantive" and or "Asiatic"?
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Who the hell are you? buzz off, you think i care what you think, now go and continue attacking the "trolls" and agreeing with everything your "role models" or whoever says. LOL
You can't even have an opinion here without distraction by the elves protecting the opinion of santa clause and repeating same old sh/t as a broken record.
Obviously your nerves are hit and you are frustrated.
All I gotta say about this is don't hate the messengers. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Charlie Bass wrote: Now lets back things up, where is your peer-reviewed, well researched evidence that Ramses II was Asiatic and or a descendant of Asiatics? Quit tapdancing and spinning around the question and just plain give a damn answer.
A French team who investigated the mummy of Ramses II also support what i've been saying all along.
After having achieved this immense work, an important scientific conclusion remains to be drawn: the anthropological study and the microscopic analysis of hair, carried out by four laboratories: Judiciary Medecine (Professor Ceccaldi), Société L’Oréal, Atomic Energy Commission, and Institut Textile de France showed that Ramses II was a ’leucoderm’, that is a fair-skinned man, near to the Prehistoric and Antiquity Mediterraneans, or briefly, of the Berber of Africa. Balout, et al. (1985) 383.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Charlie Bass wrote: Now lets back things up, where is your peer-reviewed, well researched evidence that Ramses II was Asiatic and or a descendant of Asiatics? Quit tapdancing and spinning around the question and just plain give a damn answer.
A French team who investigated the mummy of Ramses II also support what i've been saying all along.
After having achieved this immense work, an important scientific conclusion remains to be drawn: the anthropological study and the microscopic analysis of hair, carried out by four laboratories: Judiciary Medecine (Professor Ceccaldi), Société L’Oréal, Atomic Energy Commission, and Institut Textile de France showed that Ramses II was a ’leucoderm’, that is a fair-skinned man, near to the Prehistoric and Antiquity Mediterraneans, or briefly, of the Berber of Africa. Balout, et al. (1985) 383.
Thats not evidence, leucoderm simply means "fair-skinned". Your source don't say he was "Asiatic", "Levantine", come on man, get your skills up, right now your arms are still too short to box with God.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Charlie Bass wrote: Using Yonis' retarded, trolling logic, these two Africans would likewise be considered "Levantine" and or "Asiatic" if the were mummified:
You dumbass Sadat is a modern Egyptian, and why don't you posta a pic of Hawass instead (isn't he african too)..... oooh i forgot "Hawass is a descent of invading arabs" right?
Btw didn't modern Egyptians bann the movie of sadat played by an AA quite recently?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Charlie Bass wrote: Using Yonis' retarded, trolling logic, these two Africans would likewise be considered "Levantine" and or "Asiatic" if the were mummified:
You dumbass Sadat is a modern Egyptian, and why don't you posta a pic of Hawass instead (isn't he african too)..... oooh i forgot "Hawass is a descent of invading arabs" right?
Btw didn't modern Egyptians bann the movie of sadat played by an AA quite recently?
Idiot, quit tapdancing, you know what the hell I'm talking about. If those peoples I posted were mummified and you saw their remains your jackass would be calling them "Levantine" also. Quit acting retarded with your trolling, ducking and doging and answer the questions I put forth. Don't be "scured"
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Charlie bass wrote: Your source don't say he was "Asiatic", "Levantine"
Well who said he was asiatic, I said he was descendant of levantines. But ofcourse he was an Egyptian since he was born there and belonged to the royal family. But he had physical affinities closer to the levantine region more so than africa atleast most of Africa, he falled in the range of coastal berbers.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Charlie Bass wrote: Using Yonis' retarded, trolling logic, these two Africans would likewise be considered "Levantine" and or "Asiatic" if the were mummified:
You dumbass Sadat is a modern Egyptian, and why don't you posta a pic of Hawass instead (isn't he african too)..... oooh i forgot "Hawass is a descent of invading arabs" right?
Btw didn't modern Egyptians bann the movie of sadat played by an AA quite recently?
Retard, was it not *YOU* who compared Ramses II to this Algerian?
So why are you acting like a jackass when I compared Ramses II to those other Africans I posted? Is it because they look too "black" for your liking?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Charlie Bass wrote: Now lets back things up, where is your peer-reviewed, well researched evidence that Ramses II was Asiatic and or a descendant of Asiatics? Quit tapdancing and spinning around the question and just plain give a damn answer.
A French team who investigated the mummy of Ramses II also support what i've been saying all along.
After having achieved this immense work, an important scientific conclusion remains to be drawn: the anthropological study and the microscopic analysis of hair, carried out by four laboratories: Judiciary Medecine (Professor Ceccaldi), Société L’Oréal, Atomic Energy Commission, and Institut Textile de France showed that Ramses II was a ’leucoderm’, that is a fair-skinned man, near to the Prehistoric and Antiquity Mediterraneans, or briefly, of the Berber of Africa. Balout, et al. (1985) 383.
And where is this report? The last I checked it was hard to determine the original structure of hair given the mummification and cosmetic treatments.
See:
quote: Developments in microfocus synchrotron techniques have led to new results regarding the long-term alteration of archaeological samples of biological origin. Here, ancient hair samples from two Egyptian mummies have been analyzed using a conjunction of structural and elemental synchrotron methods. In this favored context of conservation, structural analysis revealed a remarkable preservation of keratin supramolecular organization at any observed length scale. Bulk keratin structure has therefore not been modified significantly over 2000 years. However, infrared spectroscopy indicated a partial disorganization of keratins close to the hair surface through polypeptide bond breakage. Elemental mapping showed a strongly heterogeneous distribution which can be related to mummification and cosmetic treatments.
And it is quite obvious as well that hair is nowhere near enough to disprove analysis of cranial features. Therefore, this hair study does nothing to reverse the conclusions of the study provided, which puts 19th dynasty rulers into the range of NORTH EAST African features.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Charlie bass wrote: Your source don't say he was "Asiatic", "Levantine"
Well who said he was asiatic, I said he was descendant of levantines. But ofcourse he was an Egyptian since he was born there and belonged to the royal family. But he had physical affinities closer to the levantine region more so than africa atleast most of Africa, he falled in the range of coastal berbers.
It was *YOU* who said he was a descendant of Asiatics/Levantines so the burden of proof is still on *YOU* to prove it. Basically you have presented no evidence to support what you say so this debate is over, THE END.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Charlie bass wrote: So why are you acting like a jackass when I compared Ramses II to those other Africans I posted?
Hey you little HBF punchbag i'm not the one who thinks that all people of modern egyptians who don't meet a certain standard/criteria were all arab invaders while all Ancient egyptians were "black", that' why i found it amusing that you use a modern egyptian in comparison for whatever point you wanted to make. consistency is not the afrocentric greatest strength i see.
I can post the Algerian leader how much i want in comparison to Ramses and still be consistent coz unlike you i don't think that the entire AE were "black" (whatever that means). Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Their phenotypes vary but I think they belong to virtually the same ethnicity, that of the Black Americans (unless the female is a born Jew which would make her ethnicity slightly different than the male's).
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: But what can i expect from someone who thinks that these two below (adam clayton powell and whoopi goldberg) are the same type of people belonging to the same "black" ethnicity.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Charlie bass wrote: So why are you acting like a jackass when I compared Ramses II to those other Africans I posted?
Hey you little HBF punchbag i'm not the one who thinks that all people of modern egyptians who don't meet a certain standard/criteria were all arab invaders while all Ancient egyptians were "black",
Ad-hominem and a strawman, no one stated anything about Arabs, so quit ducking, dodging and dancing around and answer the questions, whats takig so long and is it really that hard?
quote: that' why i found it amusing that you use a modern egyptian in comparison for whatever point you wanted to make. 8b]consistency is not the afrocentric greatest strength i see[/b].
HBD house nigga, answer the questions put forth or shut up.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Charlie Bass wrote: HBD house nigga, answer the questions put forth or shut up.
Bitch who invited you to this discussion, i don't talk normally to docile, submissive punks who made an art into making threads at Dodona and HBF titled "Why you have to hate us blacks, what have we done" [Cry] [Cry] [Cry]
posted
^ Now I must agree with Yonis here-- whoever creates threads in forums like HBF and especially Dodona and especially with titles like "Why do you hate black people" has some issues!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Now I must agree with Yonis here-- whoever creates threads in forums like HBF and especially Dodona and especially with titles like "Why do you hate black people" has some issues!
House nigga scum Yonis ignored all these threads and even in the one he posted in no place in that thread was I being submissive. In fact, on HBD, I'm probably, if not already, the most hated nonwhite poster in a forum full of crackers. Yonis simply parrots the crackers by talking about "Afrocentrics", but I'm not going to let the Somali Uncle Thomas go off topic in a thread he created. The burden of proof is still on him to provide evidence that Ramses II was a descendant of Levantives and or Asiatics. No matter how many times he tries to sidetrack me, house nigga scum still hasn't backed up his claims.
Once again Yonis backs up my claim that these new breed posters consistently clutter up the forum with their so-called "debate" tacts, by making stupid jackass claims, not backing them up and then resorting to offtopic mudslinging in an attempt to sidetrack.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you see, that is the stuff of debate (vs discussion).
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Name the French and british pharaos? Btw Seti and the rest of Ramsedins were most likely descendants of migrants who were of Syrian/palestinian origin.
Your "White folks Egyptian madness" has come to distort this entire topic:
a) It is extremely easy for you to find the French and British rulers of Egypt...
b) Seti, Rameses were Blacks, and no protestations of yours will alter that fact...
c) I posted this in January of 2004:
quote: I have posted certain specific items simply to illustrate the point that the only people who want to 'debate'(pervert) the ethnicity of the Ancient Egyptians are White folks. Call this observation what you will. They can believe this nonsense of a white, non-African Ancient Egypt forever. (It must make them feel good or something...) I am not profoundly concerned with either the sensibilities or the silliness of non-Africans on the subject.
What is of concern, however, is that Africans, whether they live in Africa or in the Diaspora be re-connected to their Classical African heritage. Cheikh Anta Diop dedicated his entire life to this pursuit. The point of re-attaching the head (Ancient Egypt) to the body of African history IS CRUCIAL.
posted
Wonder if Yonis knows that you can't tell the way a dead person's nose looked alive, judging by a deteriorated corpse.
Wow, I don't mean to be this ill, but in seriousness, look at Michael Jackson's nose now verses when he was a child.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Human cranial diversity and evidence for an ancient lineage of modern humans. J Hum Evol. 2007 Dec 27
Schillaci
This study examines the genetic affinities of various modern human groupings using a multivariate analysis of morphometric data. Phylogenetic relationships among these groupings are also explored using neighbor-joining analysis of the metric data. Results indicate that the terminal Pleistocene/early Holocene fossils from Australasia exhibit a close genetic affinity with early modern humans from the Levant. Furthermore, recent human populations and Upper Paleolithic Europeans share a most recent common ancestor not shared with either the early Australasians or the early Levantine humans. This pattern of genetic and phylogenetic relationships suggests that the early modern humans from the Levant either contributed directly to the ancestry of an early lineage of Australasians, or that they share a recent common ancestor with them. The principal findings of the study, therefore, lend support to the notion of an early dispersal from Africa by a more ancient lineage of modern human prior to 50ka, perhaps as early as OIS 5 times (76-100ka).
^^
But since Yonis believes thin features denote race, and black skin does not,
he will continue to parrot un-scientific claims:
thin features = "Levantine 'race'"
I think when someone's that pittiful, you should leave them be; or if you like the topic, and feel such talk is worthless, dismiss the character, and move on.
posted
I believe we tend to see ourselves in those we admire. It is natural and healthy. A person who is reluctant or incapable of seeing themselves in those others they admire...is a damaged being.
Your ideal reality is blurring your judgment.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never had a problem with seeing the greatness, wonder and inspiration in every civilization I studied, whether African, Asian, Indian, American or Pacific. All of them reflect the same spark that is in all humanity. Only a silly person with a low sense of self needs to see people who LOOK LIKE THEM in a culture or civilization to call it great.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug M wrote: Only a silly person with a low sense of self needs to see people who LOOK LIKE THEM in a culture or civilization to call it great.
Exactly! That's why it shouldn't be devastating for you to acknowledge that Ramses II was not necesserily the same ethnicity as you adhere to. Calling a 4000 year old remain "black" (whatever that means) doesn't offer much to your life, now does it?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Your bitter tone, and complete inability to either present or address evidence is also a consistent factor in your limited range of postings.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:Doug M wrote: Only a silly person with a low sense of self needs to see people who LOOK LIKE THEM in a culture or civilization to call it great.
Exactly! That's why it shouldn't be devastating for you to acknowledge that Ramses II was not necesserily the same ethnicity as you adhere to. Calling a 4000 year old remain "black" (whatever that means) doesn't offer much to your life, now does it?
^ Actually Black [Km.t] is what Ramesids called themselves, per the Tomb of Ramses III:
^ The only one who has a problem with that.... is you.
quote:^ The only one who has a problem with that.... is you.
I don't have a problem with that, why should I? 3000-5000 years ago is a very long time ago, if they called themselves "black" then it's still highly unlikely that it had the same meaning socially as in modern times, in particular the same meaning as in modern america. Not even in 2007 do most people outside america use colour as ethic designation or identity. That's why all this talk of "black pride" during antiquity is nonsensical, since such attitude doesn't take into consideration the different type of social dynamics in modern and ancient times.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been gone from this forum for quite some time. I come back to see Yonis talking his stupidness about rameses being levantine/asiatic. This is pathetic. Yonis it takes a man to admit when they are wrong. Instead of getting in stupid arguements with Charlie just admit what he said about the somalis mummies would be considered levantine is true. Yonis What everyone seems to want from you is some kind of evidence instead of trying to use Doug M's study against him. Yonis you need to realize that you need proof not eyeball evidence, you need facts.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How Am I Parrot. Because I go with Facts, and you go with...... whatever you think you see in features. If this is your best argument for not giving facts then whatever, you should not call people parrots because they are not dumb enough like you to go against facts. The more I read this thread the more you make yourself look like a fool. I Suggest you actually give proof for your claims instead of your worthless opinion.
This is a link to the full study maybe you might learn some things.
X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980).
Courtesy of James Harris and Edward Wente:
The XVIV Dynasty is higher in ANB and SN-M Plane than the XX Dynasty. Ramesses IV is the only one in these two dynasties with strong alveolar prognathism, at least, as indicated by SNA. However, dental alveolar prognathism is quite common in both dynasties. Also, both have ANB and SN- M Plane at mean angles higher than even African Americans.
In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads. The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults. Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
posted
^ Long time, no see King. What you been up to all this time?
And yes, no matter how long you're gone nothing changes on the good (or bad) old Egyptsearch forum! Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Word of advise Yonis. Going against what most people say just to be different does not make you look smart. Actually backing up what you say may get people to respect you and think you have something of worth to offer. Sadly most of your post on this forum is repeating the same stupidness over and over again. I really don't understand what you really have learned on this forum. I don't really consider you a troll but you really need to come to terms with your ignorant and sterotypical views about ancient egypt.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug M wrote: Only a silly person with a low sense of self needs to see people who LOOK LIKE THEM in a culture or civilization to call it great.
Exactly! That's why it shouldn't be devastating for you to acknowledge that Ramses II was not necesserily the same ethnicity as you adhere to. Calling a 4000 year old remain "black" (whatever that means) doesn't offer much to your life, now does it?
Exactly what? This isn't about personal feelings of worth, it is about facts. But that isn't your strong point.
When I say Ramses was a Nile Valley African with features similar to other Nile Valley Africans, that is a fact, not a statement of personal desire or fulfillment. But obviously, what can you expect from someone who takes a paper that CLEARLY states this scientifically and turns it into something TOTALLY different.
So like I said, only a SILLY person needs to twist the facts about ancient people and cultures in order to identify with them or consider them great.
The only thing DEVASTATING is how you continue to believe the following has something to do with me and my self worth:
quote: In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads. The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults. Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
It is more like your inability to read that is DEVASTATING and the fact that you are in complete denial and ignorance of the facts....
And for fairness, here is the data that you THINK supports what you are saying:
quote:The XVIV and XX dynasty heads do not have steep foreheads, receding zygomatic arches or prominent chins. Generally, both glabella and occiput are rounded and projecting to varying degrees. The sagittal contour is usually flattened, at least to some degree, although this sometimes begins before the bregma rather than in post-bregmatic position. The whole mandible is rarely squarish, although the body sometimes has a wavy edge. The latter feature, though, is very common in both ancient and modern Nubians. According to Gill (1986), an undulating mandible is a characteristic of Negroids.
The difference between late XVII and XVIII dynasty royal mummies and contemporary Nubians is slight. During the XVIV and XX dynasties we see possibly some mixing between a Nubian element that is more similar to Mesolithic Nubians (low vaults, sloping frontal bone, etc.), with an orthognathous population. Since the Ramessides were of northern extraction, this could represent miscegenation with modern Mediterraneans of Levantine type. The projecting zygomatic arches of Seti I suggest remnants of the old Natufian/Tasian types of the Holocene period.
If the heads of Queens Nodjme and Esemkhebe are any indication, there may have been a new influx of southern blood during the XXI Dynasty.
In summation, the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens whose mummies have been recovered bear strong similarity to either contemporary Nubians, as with the XVII and XVIII dynasties, or with Mesolithic-Holocene Nubians, as with the XVIV and XX dynasties. The former dynasties seem to have a strong southern affinity, while the latter possessed evidence of mixing with modern Mediterranean types and also, possibly, with remnants of the old Tasian and Natufian populations. From the few sample available from the XXI Dynasty, there may have been a new infusion from the south at this period.
Again, it proposes the possibility of mixing. However it STILL says that the OVERALL affinity of the 19th and 20th dynasty is with OTHER NORTH EAST AFRICANS, with some POSSIBLE Levantine influence.
You, on the other hand, are saying they were UNLIKE any North East Africans and MOSTLY Levantine, which the quoted page does not say at all.
And you have to remember that ALL populations on earth have combinations of ALL craniofacial features to some degree. The key is in the AVERAGES across the population that they use to determing "racial" typing. Therefore, this does NOT mean that any ONE feature, like orthognathism can be said to be uniquely WHITE, as there are indeed many black Africans who have such a trait and vice versa concerning prognathism. All the features of a given skull have to be considered TOGETHER, along with those from neighboring populations to determine affinity. In this case, the 19th and 20th dynasty are MOST affiliated with other North East Africans.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Doug M: I never had a problem with seeing the greatness, wonder and inspiration in every civilization I studied, whether African, Asian, Indian, American or Pacific. All of them reflect the same spark that is in all humanity.
Agreed. I also recognize the humanity in everyone, which is why I am able to see greatness in them all.
"Only a silly person with a low sense of self needs to see people who LOOK LIKE THEM in a culture or civilization to call it great."
I hope, I did not give this impression. However, some people do seek out physical resemblances to find kinship among different civilizations. I am not sure it means they have a low sense of self. The poster Marc Washington is such a person, and he appears quite satisfied being the son of an iconic father.
I still believe it’s the opposite of said above behavior that reveals a low sense of self.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
^ There is no 'if'. They were Black, called themselves Black, and will forever be Black.
Your refusal to directly face that fact shows that you are uncomfortable with it. The word 'if' for you is a fright response.
quote: then it's still highly unlikely that it had the same meaning socially as in modern times,
Actually, Blacks has and has always encompassed *exactly* the meaning [and POWER] that you fear it does - TODAY, and for exactly the reasons that you keep running away from it, or trying to deny it.
And the more you resist, the more power and importance you give the term.
This is true of all Eurocentists, and their brainwashed Black-lackeys.
The only way to render Black irrelevant - is to simply *not care* who is or is not Black, and why.
But Eurocentrists can't *not care*, because the threat to their world view posed by the concept of Black, is very real.
[Hawass is excellent example of this kemophobic mentality, which drove him to the desparate/revealing extreme of claiming that "Ancient Egyptians were not African"
One has to ask, what Hawass and Yonis are running away from - so fearfull - that it causes them to make bizarre propaganda claims they must know aren't true,]
Kemophobia - fear of Blacks - is all you've related in this thread, Yonis.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:King wrote: Yonis, I really don't understand what you really have learned on this forum. I don't really consider you a troll but you really need to come to terms with your ignorant and sterotypical views about ancient egypt.
^ Yonis is just a Black man uncomfortable with being black and frustrated by other Blacks who don't share this discomfort.
Hense his need to attack the ethnic concept of Blackness, since it is Black people who assert that they are Black - who keep Yonis *trapped* in his own mind, into and ethnic catagory that Europeans and Arabs have taught him to hate.
The ancient Kemetians are the ultimate affront to Yonis self-hate, because they are the ultimate Black men who called themselves Black men and who were proud of it.
This is a place [a higher plain of self awareness] that Yonis can't reach.
So he *must* oppose the reality of Kemetians being Blacks, even if it means opposing what they themselves said about who they were. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ By the way, kudos to Wally for this thread, which is quite perceptive and clever in terms of its technique in terms of leading the discussion and what it revealed.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug M wrote: Only a silly person with a low sense of self needs to see people who LOOK LIKE THEM in a culture or civilization to call it great.
Exactly! That's why it shouldn't be devastating for you to acknowledge that Ramses II was not necesserily the same ethnicity as you adhere to. Calling a 4000 year old remain "black" (whatever that means) doesn't offer much to your life, now does it?
Point blank coward, you still haven't provided not one shred of evidence to back up your claims and now you want to sidetrack by questioning what is "black", why don't you explain to us what the hell is/are Levantine features?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol wrote: The ancient Kemetians are the ultimate affront to Yonis self-hate, because they are the ultimate Black men who called themselves Black men and who were proud of it.
Self-hate?? Lmao
I don't even identify as "black" (whatever that means) so how can it be self-hate? You think every darkskinned person should adopt the AA model of identity, imposed on them recently by their oppressors? Please. You are one arrogant...., you should be ashamed of yourself.
I guess this is also an expression of self-hate, right?
No "black pride" or "ultimate black men" expressed here.
[kushite enemy or not, the point is there was no unity based solely on such a superficial variable as skin colour (as depicted by themselves above), which colourist/racialist such as rasol is trying to propagate on poor minds at this forum]
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on Yonis, punk, still waiting for your evidence that proves Ramses II is was a Levantine descendant, stop trying to spin this topic into a discussion about what is black and taking shots at AAs. Why don't you just man up and post your evidence or bow down and admit your defeat at the hands of your own baseless claims which you failed to substantiate.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yonis the liar and distorter as well as coward overlooks the fact that Egyptians talked ill of read heads and also the fact that there are numerous stelae and painting of Egyptians slaying Asiatics/Levantines and Libyans. Don't let the distorter and coward sidetrack, I'm still waiting on evidence that Ramses II was descended of Levantines. The clock is still ticking Yonis. Just admit you got owned.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Anyone know who the guy with the white crown is in these last two pictures?
Posts: 248 | From: Way Down South | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Self-hate?? Lmao I don't even identify as "black"
I know. Most self hating Blacks don't.
The Km.t on the other hand - did identify themselves as Blacks, much to the irritation of a self-hating Black man like you.
Why bother denying it? You know it's true. And it's very obvious to anyone who has *ever* talked to you.
Even your ongoing arguments with African American Charlie Bass, and your Bantu vs. Somali cat fights with Africa I, make plainly obvious your self hating Black man pathology.
And if you think denying the Black identity of AE can somehow *hide* this, then you're and even bigger fool than we credit you for.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug M: Note how these Sudanese also have red hair and even yellow hair.
Note also how they are being slayed.
Btw how come everytime Egyptians depict people with prognathism, flaring nostrils and bulging lips, they are either being slayed or paying tribute?
Also those don't look like northern sudanese, probably some darfurian types, Taharqa however looks like a northern sudanese.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yonis latest self hate rant: Btw how come everytime Egyptians depict people with prognathism, flaring nostrils and bulging lips, they are either being slayed or paying tribute?
Like Menes you mean?
You are clearly frustrated at your inability to debate Doug, who completely overmatches you intellectually.
Thus you resort to lower and lower, self-hate-ridden tactics.
Doug shows you Kushites with red hair, you have *no rebuttal* for this, so you switch to rhetorics of 'flared nostrals and bulging lips' [no longer even *trying* to hide your parrotings of the contemptuous terminologies of racists].
But even this slimey behavior doesn't help you, so now what?
For your next post, you should rail against 'nappy' hair as well.
You're such a childish and pathetic excuse for a Black man - and embarrassment really to Blacks, and Africans, and Somali.
quote:Charlie Bass writes: The clock is still ticking Yonis. Just admit you got owned.
That's exactly what happened. And Yonis knows it too, judging by the increasingly crude and desparate racisms he's been reduced to.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Thats not evidence, leucoderm simply means "fair-skinned". Your source don't say he was "Asiatic", "Levantine", come on man, get your skills up, right now your arms are still too short to box with God.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic