quote: Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: [QB] Debunked doesn't want to get down to the specifics instead he just posts quotes and makes vague arguments from them, without actually getting down to or actually naming the specific evidences.
I.e #'s 1-10
1) Failed to name traits shared between Ancient Africans (Hofmeyr) and recent Europeans.
2) Fails to answer why or how Greeks inherited genes such as E3b, Benin hbs, L1 L2 if not from Africans?
3) Fails to address the fact that Europeans are closest genetically to Africans whereas the original OOA populations. I.e Oceanians appear furthest away genetically from Africa, if Oceanians and Europeans are part of the same non-African OOA population structure, then Europeans should be as distant genetically from Africans, as Oceanians are. If this is not due to post OOA Neolithic migrations into Europe from Africa, then what is it, debunked?
4) Fails to name the paternally and maternally haplotypes that Ethiopians share with Norwegians.
5) Fails to address the quote below from Wilson et al., after he erroneously tried to claim that "Y chromosomes are a thing of the past"
quote:The degree to which 'mixed' ancestry is due to recent vs ancient mixing/separation could be estimated with series of genealogical genetic systems such as the Y chromosome, but *not* with lots of unlinked loci each of which gives very little gene genealogical information.--Wilson et al
6) Fails to address the fact that almost half of Greece's Y chromosome is NON-European in origin E3b and J, but yet debunked is still unbelievably and ignorantly persistent on claiming Greece to be "pure" or 100 % Imaginary "Caucasoid".
7) Fails to address how or why E3a carrying Africans exhibit so called "Carcusoid" traits
8) Fails to address the Buba Clan Priestly class carrying Hg J, shouldn't this had turned these people "Caucasoid", as you're erroneously proposing imaginary lineages(failed to name) in East Africans, debunked??
9) Fails to address the fact that Europeans turned pale only recently.
10) Failed to address his erroneous Eurasian Adam claim, when approached with the below quote from Cavalli Sfroza.
From Cavalli-Sforza: Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution. Pg 187.
quote: ..."In other words, all non-Africans carry M168. Of course, Africans carrying the M168 mutation today are the descendants of the African subpopulation from which the migrants originated.... Thus, the Australian/Eurasian Adam (the ancestor of all non-Africans) was an East African Man."
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
As rasolwitz has finally come to his end, failing to show how I took Keita's quote "out of context", and he will never explain Keita's comments on "black" genetic influence ("In my time on my terms", i.e. never LOL), a final word for those other color obsessed weirdoes.
No matter how many times you fill this thread with Wallis Budge spam, "black" will forever be a subjective term used to describe a people who's skin color ranges from dark skin to light skin, it is not an "accurate description of skin color". The Negro's color in actual fact verges on brown (Diop) There are no "black" or "red" people in reality.
Also, both constructs "black" and "race" are equally subjective terms. As I said before, their meanings change with time and new information. Those who use "race" arent any less scientific or correct than those who dont use it. Some Africanist scholars such as Cheikh Ana Diop used both. Some such as SOY Keita sees BOTH as problematic but even he still falls back on them occasionally, "Black" [if such exists]..."Europeans, the defining Caucasians...would therefore be a secondary type, or race due to its hybrid origins".
Yes This [bowcock's interpretation] compromises the racial schema [of biologically separate units of homo sapiens sapiens] and also invalidates the underpinnings of the race construct [of human groups being separate fundamental units], but he still fell back on the term "race" to describe the "secondary type" European hybrid "group" because as he said "categorical thinking is entrenched".
"blacks", "whites" etc = categorical thinking. But it's all subjective in the end. Black can be "powerful" to some, especially those like rasolowitz et al. who suffer from low self-esteem and need to shout slogans and cut and paste genetic studies to "debunk" "Evil Euros" to feel self worth. LOL But others not suffering from complexes, like Keita, they doubt it even exist!
Now that said carry on, I'm sure Evil Euro will come back for y'all to cut and paste some more old threads from ES . LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: From the Worterbuch volume 5 page 127 - we have primary textual evidence -> Km.t translated as 'the nories', the blacks, literally the negroes.
rasol, this is an excellent example of one of the self-descriptive words used by the Ancient Egyptians; so let us look at it in detail...
a) The first letter is "Charcoal" and is the strongest biliteral word in the language for "Black"; the 'Owl' is the letter "M" and is used to 'complete' the word - the first word is then, simply, "Black"
b) The second word is "Rom -ou" or simply, "people"; this is often translated in it's "shorthand" version as "Ret -ou" but the entire word is "Kem_Rom_ou" and was probably pronounced "Kemou (Kemw)." This word is explicit in its meaning: "The Negroes, the Blacks, Le Noires, etc. And there will be no rebuttle to this reading, as there is none.
^Black people.
The words: black + people + [determinative for people] = black people.
Note:
people + [determinative glyph for people]
is Rm + ou and is like putting special emphasis on *people*.
^Forgot to add that Budge just translates the above to Egyptians.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:akoben cries: Stop misrepresenting my position!
See the following for and accurate rendering of your "position".....
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
^^^Poor Akoben
Akoben's redundant garbage posts....
quote:You still present Webster's Negro definition
Websters: Blacks - any of a number of populations having dark skin.
^ The above does not contain the word Negro, nor does it have the same meaning, and you know this, so what is the point of repeating your stupidity?
You read like a monkey and lie like a coward. - strike one.
quote:Tamhu "red", it's symbolic not literally.
^ No one claimed that ethnic references to color, whether black, blonde, white or red were 'literal'.
So this is a strawman argument, which all sore losers of all debates resort to, because they cannot evidence any of their own far fetched claims, nor refute facts presented by others. Strawman arguments don't work. - strike two.
quote:Yes, not primary but a secondary type or race
This is taken out of context, as Keita is not saying Europearns *are* a secondary race. He is showing how their admixed position refutes the notion of 'caucasian' as primary race.
He states that this is one of -many- facts that undermines the entire foundation of the race-schematic because said schematic is -centered- on caucasian as primary race to begin with.
In order to be consistent with the fact of Europe's *admixed* position, caucasian would have to be declared a secondary, diverged form of -NEGRO- race.
But Keita is not advocating secondary 'races', or any other kind of 'race'.
He is pointing out how the failure of Europeans to chart genetically as a primary race, undermines the concept of race.
Keita is so saying the opposite of what you claim.
Question: Why did baby-akoben mis-cite Keita?
Answer: Because she/he's a braying ass, whose brain is clogged with fecal material. - strike three.
posted
I see that your Faggot-Cancer spreading Coon-clitness is getting quite a thrashing.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Coon-descended Faggot Cancer spreader:
quote: All Blacks vary in color.
[Repeat from post 2:53] Oh really?! Yet you still present Webster's Negro definition: dark skin pigmented peoples, and to pictorially represent what your "black" is, you post that famous Ramses pic with literal (though obviously symbolic) black skin and stereotypical "black/negro" features to neatly fit into your white masters Webster's definition for "black" (Negro). LOL
Your Faggot-Cancer spreading Coon-clitness, if you didn't get all that Arab dick in that numb head, you'd instantly realize that "dark skin" doesn't pin skin pigmentation down to only one specific setting. What does dark mean to you, your Arab jacked Coon-clitness?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Websters: Blacks - any of a number of populations having dark skin. (pigmentation) ALSO! 6 a: thoroughly sinister or evil : wicked
quote:The above does not contain the word Negro (no one said it did) , nor does it have the same meaning (oh yes it does), See Malcolm X movie where Denzel Washington reads out the classical (rasolowitz's)defintion for "black" by whites)
quote:No one claimed that ethnic references to color, whether black, blonde, white or red were 'literal'.
quote:Is the Tamhu "red" in that picture?
quote:Yes.
quote:Skin isn't symbolised, but literally shown ie - Black skin[/b]
quote:["red"] like Blacks, it's and [sic] ethnic reference, based on color
In literal/actual fact there is no "Black man" negros color verges on brown. (Diop)
quote:In order to be consistent with the fact of Europe's *admixed* position, caucasian would have to be declared a secondary, diverged form of -NEGRO- race.
^ after he claims "Negro" (distinct from his "black" definition) is no longer in use.
"Europeans, the defining Caucasians...would therefore be a secondary...race due to its hybrid origins". This [Euros being a secondary race due to admixture] compromises the racial schema [of them being primary race; them as pure "ancient race"] and also invalidates the underpinnings of the race construct [of human groups being separate fundamental units].
"By microscopic examination is a laboratory method which enables us to classify the ancient Egyptians unquestionably among the black races."
"Blacks, in history, subjugated the white race for three thousand years. (Great African Thinkers, pg. 217)
Are these two Africanist scholars using "race" in the classical context? No. But no-race fundamentalists dumbies wont know his. LOL
Still waiting on you to explain Keita's comments on "black" [if such exists] genetic influence in Greece.
quote:"dark skin" doesn't pin skin pigmentation down to only one specific setting.
Oh really? So neither does "light skin" Your Cuntess? LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:In literal/actual fact there is no "Black man" negros color verges on brown. (Diop)
^ how does this help you deny that black is a reference to dark skin? According to...the source you just cited?
Ramses II was black. May he rest eternally in his black skin - Diop
quote: Websters: Blacks - any of a number of populations having dark skin. This definition does not contain the word 'negro'.
quote:akoben: (no one said it did)
If the definition does not claim to be synonomous with 'negro', then you cannot claim that it is. Learn how to read, jackass.
quote:nor does it have the same meaning
quote:akoben oh yes it does.
^ No donkey-brain, it doesn't.
Negro is a defunct "race classification", based on a number of physical features, plural, and not any single feature, such as skin color.
Race, in humans is the idea that phenotype equates to lineage, which is false.
The anthropology race classifications of K-zoid, N-groid, and Mongoloid were invented by J. Blumenbach in the 18 century, and most anthropologists reject them as pseudoscience.
The definition of "Blacks" provided, is a color discriptor, *not* a race classification, and does not equate to negro.
The term Blacks as reference to dark skinned peoples has and ancient history.
Its earliest attestation is Km.t[rm.t], ie - Black people, from the "ancient egyptians"
Based on 'racist' anthropology definitions, one might have dark skin, but not be 'negro'. One might have dark skin but be Mongoloid, or Caucasoid, or....Martian.
That the definition of 'n-groid/m-gloid and k-zoid' all contain internal contradictions is precisely why the terms are *no longer in scientific use*.
Finally this is distinct from both the social definition of Blacks, and the scientific definition of 'melanoderm' - ie dark skin.
Thus everyone with a brain can now clearly understand the important differences between all these terms.
Only a jackass like akoben is incapable of comprehending.
quote:Explorateur writes: dark skin" doesn't pin skin pigmentation down to only one specific setting.
quote:akoben: Oh really?
Yes really.
quote:akoben So neither does "light skin"
Donkey-boy: If you admit the above, then your entire argument is pointless.
Evidently they either don't have schools in Jamaica or you've been smoking too much crank, and it's messed up your brain.
quote:akoben: Still waiting on you to explain Keita's comments on "black" genetic influence in ancient Greeks.
^ It's already been 'explained' to everyone else satisfaction.
Can you 'explain' to us your inability to grasp what everyone else understands?
How can -anything- be explained to a jackass whose brain isn't working?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:[my Webster] link points to and [sic] "offensive" race classification anthropology based on physical features [dark skin pigmentation].
quote: This is [...] the same- as the definition of Black as having dark skin [I'm just too much of a devious dishonest clown to admit it so I leave out the dark skin pigmentation part].
quote: The two definitions are [not] fundamentally different, ... only a retard like [me] is encapable [sic!!!] of reading a dictionary and comprehending the [similarities] between two ... words.
quote: [My] link to Negro points to and [sic] "race classification", based on physical featuress, [sic!!!] plural. The definition of "Blacks" [...] is [...] based on features [dark skin pigmentation, same as Negro. I'm splitting hairs of course, but hey, I'm losing so I have to!].
quote:The race classifications of K-zoid, N-groid, and Mongoloid were invented by J. Blumenbach in the 18 century, this has nothing do with the definition of 'blacks' as dark skinned people whose earliest attestation is Km.t[rm.t], ie - Black people, from the "ancient egyptians"Based on 'racist' anthropology definitions, one might have dark skin, but not be 'negro'. One might have dark skin but be Mongoloid, or Caucasoid.That the definition of 'n-groid/m-gloid and k-zoid' all contain internal contradictions is precisely why the terms are *no longer in scientific use*.[never mind the fact that none of these last minute distinctions, hurriedly conjured up by me to explain away the same meaning for Webster's "Negro" and "black", can be found in my masters link. But, hey, I'm losing here so I have to give this appendix!
quote:same meaning for Webster's "Negro" and "black"
^ Nope.
Blacks - any of a number of populations having dark skin.
^ Negro - race classification based on a number of physical features, not in scientific use.
Two fundamentally different meanings.
Of course, you're and illiterate jackass so to you it's all just a complicated 'paradox' of confusing words, which gives you a headache and makes you start 'braying'.
Want to see and example of two terms which are entirely synomomous?
Here you go.....
Jackass - a fool, a slow witted or stupid person, a stubborn person, a stubbornly stupid person.
Akoben - a fool, a slow witted or stupid person, a stubborn person, a stubbornly stupid person.
^ Now, that's the same.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's already been 'explained' to everyone else. As you're clearly and ineducable jackass, there is little chance of explaining anything *to you*. [I was going to explain the meaning of Keita's "black" (if such exists) genetic influence on Greece and its relevance to this debate, but since realized it won't do my case any good so I decided against it.]
quote:Nope. [what I menat to say was the same as I'v been saying all along] [that] ^ Blacks - any of a number of populations having dark skin [pigmentation].
^ Negro - race classification based on a number of physical features [dark skin pigmentation], not in scientific use [but I still find it useful – the Angel quote].
[according to my master, Webster, they're both] the same. [I'm such a] Jackass - a fool, a slow witted or stupid person, a stubborn person, a stubbornly stupid person. [a clown]
quote:akoben: according to Webster, they're both the same.
No, they are fundamentally different according to webster and anyone with a brain, but you're a brainless jackass, which is why you are having a hard time understanding.
quote:akoben: [I'm such a] Jackass - a fool, a slow witted or stupid person, a stubborn person, a stubbornly stupid person.
^ Indeed, you are, admitting it is the 1st step towards learning.
Now, if only you would take your ritalin. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:[look at me I'm chasing a distinction between two words that doesn't exist in my masters link! Weeeeeeeeeeeeee] they are different, they are different, they are different, they are different, they are different, two different definitions two different definitions two different definitions two different definitions . Weeeeeeeeee
posted
^ Yes, look at you, you sure look silly trying to deny that two different words, with two different definitions have two different meanings. Good luck with that.
quote: Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: [QB] Debunked doesn't want to get down to the specifics instead he just posts quotes and makes vague arguments from them, without actually getting down to or actually naming the specific evidences.
I.e #'s 1-10
1) Failed to name traits shared between Ancient Africans (Hofmeyr) and recent Europeans.
2) Fails to answer why or how Greeks inherited genes such as E3b, Benin hbs, L1 L2 if not from Africans?
3) Fails to address the fact that Europeans are closest genetically to Africans whereas the original OOA populations. I.e Oceanians appear furthest away genetically from Africa, if Oceanians and Europeans are part of the same non-African OOA population structure, then Europeans should be as distant genetically from Africans, as Oceanians are. If this is not due to post OOA Neolithic migrations into Europe from Africa, then what is it, debunked?
4) Fails to name the paternally and maternally haplotypes that Ethiopians share with Norwegians.
5) Fails to address the quote below from Wilson et al., after he erroneously tried to claim that "Y chromosomes are a thing of the past"
quote:The degree to which 'mixed' ancestry is due to recent vs ancient mixing/separation could be estimated with series of genealogical genetic systems such as the Y chromosome, but *not* with lots of unlinked loci each of which gives very little gene genealogical information.--Wilson et al
6) Fails to address the fact that almost half of Greece's Y chromosome is NON-European in origin E3b and J, but yet debunked is still unbelievably and ignorantly persistent on claiming Greece to be "pure" or 100 % Imaginary "Caucasoid".
7) Fails to address how or why E3a carrying Africans exhibit so called "Carcusoid" traits
8) Fails to address the Buba Clan Priestly class carrying Hg J, shouldn't this had turned these people "Caucasoid", as you're erroneously proposing imaginary lineages(failed to name) in East Africans, debunked??
9) Fails to address the fact that Europeans turned pale only recently.
10) Failed to address his erroneous Eurasian Adam claim, when approached with the below quote from Cavalli Sfroza.
From Cavalli-Sforza: Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution. Pg 187.
quote: ..."In other words, all non-Africans carry M168. Of course, Africans carrying the M168 mutation today are the descendants of the African subpopulation from which the migrants originated.... Thus, the Australian/Eurasian Adam (the ancestor of all non-Africans) was an East African Man."
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Looks like Debunked has admitted defeat. [that Euros are a seconday race due to their admixture. Any one else want to debate the same stuff with me over and over so we can go round and round? I love going round and round! weeeeeeee look at meeeeeeee! Webster's Negro is not same as black weeeeee
quote: rasolowitz cries: Stop calling me an uneducated jackass [because I don't know the difference between singular and plural. I can't tell the difference between one word and two word[s] [sic] !!
Blacks - any of number of populations having dark pigmentation of the skin.
Negro - Anthropology, a race classification based on a number of physical features, no longer in scientific use [though I still find it useful in my posts and I keep leaving off dark skin pigmentation WAAAHHHHHHHHH
quote:akoben writes: Negro - Anthropology, a race classification based on a number of physical features, no longer in scientific use
^ Correct. which is cleary distinct from:
Blacks - any of a number of populations having dark skin.
^ Only a jackass like akoben would keep arguing even after he admits he is wrong.
This definition in question, makes no claims about race, or attempt to qualify dark skin peoples into a race.
It is a distinct from race-typologies, which themselves also -do not- qualify into race soley on having dark skin - which per race classifications might a characteristic of any race.
quote:aboben: keep leaving off dark skin pigmentation
^ Because that's not equivalent to Negro in faux anthropology - in such, someone might have 'jet black' skin, but still not be 'negro'. They are *not* one and the same.
I know this enrages you because it makes the rest of your argument -fall apart-, but what can you do about it? Nothing.
That's what makes toying with you so much fun. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Europeans, the defining Caucasians...would therefore be a secondary...race due to its hybrid origins".
This [Euros being a secondary race due to admixture] compromises the racial schema [of them being primary race; them as pure "ancient race"] and also invalidates the underpinnings of the race construct [of human groups being separate fundamental units].
"By microscopic examination is a laboratory method which enables us to classify the ancient Egyptians unquestionably among the black races."
"Blacks, in history, subjugated the white race for three thousand years. (Great African Thinkers, pg. 217)
Are these two Africanist scholars using "race" in the classical context? No.
Blacks - any of number of populations having dark pigmentation of the skin.
Negro - Anthropology, a race classification based on a number of physical features: dark skin pigmentation
^ Correct. which is cleary distinct from my dishoenst editing of the two meanings. Only a jackass like [me] would keep editing dark skin pigmentation in an effort to draw imagined distinctions! [I] admit[I'm] wrong.
quote:Euros being a secondary race due to admixture
^ No, Keita is not saying that Europeans are a secondary race. This is not his position. Anytime you suggest this, you are misrepresenting his views. [not that anyone would listen to you, as you would be immediately out-ed as a total jackass]
He is saying that genetics shows Euros are and admixed population and as such cannot be conceived as a primary race, and that this fact compromises the entire schematic of 'n-groid, k-zoid, and m-glod which is the bases of race to begin with.
Of course you don't understand what I just said, but then, you're a jackass with no brain, so.....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasolowitz: In faux-anthropology having dark skin is *not* equivalent to the defunct race catagory - negro. This is why the definition speaks of features, plural, and not simply 'dark skin'.[Of course Whites, faux anthropologists, have also argued too that you can have dark skin (Hamites – dark skinned whites) and not be "black". Hence ancient Egypt wasn't a "black" civilization. This is same as "Negro" in such, someone might have 'jet black' skin, but still not be 'negro'. but again I'm splitting hairs because I'm losing [I'm] a jackass without a brain.
quote:Euros being a secondary race due to admixture
^ [Yes], Keita is [...] saying that Europeans are a secondary race. This is [in fact what he is saying/said ].
He is saying that genetics shows that that [there] are admixed population [thus Euros are a secondary type OR race] and as such cannot be conceived as a primary race, and that this fact compromises the entire schematic of 'n-groid, k-zoid, and m-glod which is the bases of [classial definition] race to begin with.
quote: Of course Whites, faux anthropologists, have also argued too that you can have dark skin (Hamites – dark skinned whites) and not be "black".
^ Yes, which is a contradiction, hense 'faux' anthropology.
But [by admitting this, I'm saying that my imagined anthropology distinctions between Websters "negro" and "black" both mean dark skinned pigmented peoples are just that, imagined] how does this help [me]? [I don't know, I just stupid and contradict myself all the time]
quote:akboen writes: I'm saying that my imagined anthropology distinctions between Websters "negro" and "black" both mean dark skinned pigmented
No they do not. And they are not both anthropology definitions to begin with jackass.
The definition given for negro is and anthropology classification for race, no longer in scienfitic use.
It is based on a number of physical features..and *not* just skin color.
The core of the theory of race is that physical features shows ancestral sub-species...which is wrong.
The definition given for 'Blacks' is *not* anthropological, and not racial.
It far pre-dates racial pseudo-threory.
It is a social reference to dark skin peoples.
The distinction is as fundamental as the difference between a round peg and square hole, and you are likened to retarded child, trying to jam the one into the other.
In all of these conversations you've failed to make any point other than that you are and idiot, who can't read, or grasp as well as the average 9 year old child.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Because the [faux anthropology] race construct of negro [and "black"] is distinct from skin color. Amazing that [I] can write the above, and yet still [argue for a difference between "black" and "Negro" in faux anthropology and Webster. I do] not understand...even [my] own writing.
posted
^ Actually it's because you're a jackass, who can't understand the obvious, no matter how simply it is broken down for you.
Normal people learn. All you do is spin in circles. Too bad. Keep spinning...
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:I'm saying that my imagined anthropology distinctions between Websters "negro" and "black" both mean dark skinned pigmented
No they are not, and the two definitions are not anthropological, you illiterate jackass.
The definition given for negro is and anthropology classification for race, no longer in scienfitic use.
It is based on a number of physical features..and *not* just skin color. Of course its racial conception is internally inconsistent and flawed, as is caucasoid and mongoloid, which is why they are no longer in scientific use.
The definition given for 'Blacks' is a social reference to dark skin peoples.
It is not and anthropology classification into race.
The distinction is as fundamental as the difference between a round peg and square hole, and you are likened to retarded child, trying to jam the one into the other.
In all of these conversations you've failed to make any point other than that you are and idiot, who can't read, or grasp as well as the average 9 year old child.
Actually it's because [I'm] a jackass, who can't understand the obvious, no matter how simply it is broken down for [me].
Normal people learn. All [I] do is spin in circles.
I'm saying that my imagined anthropology distinctions between Websters "negro" and "black" both mean dark skinned pigmented, are imagined.
This [Websters definition for "negro" and "black"] is [...]correct because the definition given for negro (like "black") is and [sic] anthropology [sic] classification for race based on a number of physical features...and *not* just skin color] The definition given for 'Blacks' is a social reference [up dated "race"] to dark skin peoples [and an example is given African Americans, once called NEGROES.
This is of course why both "black" and "negro" are used interchangeably by Webster and said faux anthropologists which is why there are the same definitions dark skin pigmentation given. The distinctions are my desperate straw diversions].
Too bad. [I'll] Keep spinning...
Weeeeeeeeeeeeee look at meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee there's a distinction between "Negro" and "black" and I'm going to find it Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
The (Webster's) definition given for 'Blacks' is [...] anthropological, and [...] racial.
It (Webster's!) [does not] pre-dates racial pseudo-threory [sic]
It (Webster's) is a social reference to dark skin peoples [and an example is given African Americans, once called NEGROES].
So does this mean [the white created] "Negros" pre-dates [white] racial pseudo-threory [sic] which is said Negroes?! I'm not making sense because I'm rasolowitz!
WWWWWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Weeeeeeeeeeeeee look at meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee there's a distinction between "Negro" and "black" and I'm going to find it Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
quote:Originally posted by akoben: As rasolwitz has finally come to his end, failing to show how I took Keita's quote "out of context", and he will never explain Keita's comments on "black" genetic influence ("In my time on my terms", i.e. never LOL), a final word for those other color obsessed weirdoes.
No matter how many times you fill this thread with Wallis Budge spam, "black" will forever be a subjective term used to describe a people who's skin color ranges from dark skin to light skin, it is not an "accurate description of skin color". The Negro's color in actual fact verges on brown (Diop) There are no "black" or "red" people in reality.
Also, both constructs "black" and "race" are equally subjective terms. As I said before, their meanings change with time and new information. Those who use "race" arent any less scientific or correct than those who dont use it. Some Africanist scholars such as Cheikh Ana Diop used both. Some such as SOY Keita sees BOTH as problematic but even he still falls back on them occasionally, "Black" [if such exists]..."Europeans, the defining Caucasians...would therefore be a secondary type, or race due to its hybrid origins".
Yes This [bowcock's interpretation] compromises the racial schema [of biologically separate units of homo sapiens sapiens] and also invalidates the underpinnings of the race construct [of human groups being separate fundamental units], but he still fell back on the term "race" to describe the "secondary type" European hybrid "group" because as he said "categorical thinking is entrenched".
"blacks", "whites" etc = categorical thinking. But it's all subjective in the end. Black can be "powerful" to some, especially those like rasolowitz et al. who suffer from low self-esteem and need to shout slogans and cut and paste genetic studies to "debunk" "Evil Euros" to feel self worth. LOL But others not suffering from complexes, like Keita, they doubt it even exist!
Now that said carry on, I'm sure Evil Euro will come back for y'all to cut and paste some more old threads from ES . LOL
Folks, I wanted to apologize for editing out a two-line summation of this post (he would have deleted his post after seeing my edit so I wanted to edit it back in after it was too late for him to edit out this lame ass post - forgot. Had better things to do.
Anywho, making ako look stupid isn't the point, or necissary as:
Basically, anyone following who sees that post can tell that he didn't contest anything said and attempted to confound the everyone's arguement by saying that word meanings change with time [therefore the terms are subjective - which no one contested or debated]. By the way, we defined both 'race' and 'black' and laid out in which ways they don't and do exist.
Read the prior page or 2 and you'll know he can't read.
posted
Faggot-Cancer spreading Diaper head FuckStick ranger,
Why are you too intellectually challenged to answer this...
Your Faggot-Cancer spreading Coon-clitness, if you didn't get all that Arab dick in that numb head, you'd instantly realize that "dark skin" doesn't pin skin pigmentation down to only one specific setting. What does "dark" mean to you, your Arab jacked Coon-clitness?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
What does it take to get you to answer no-brainer questions, a bucket of male cock-cum? Lol. Isn't that why you keep speaking of me so much?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: No matter how many times you fill this thread with Wallis Budge spam, "black" will forever be a subjective term used to describe a people who's skin color ranges from dark skin to light skin,
Well..... In the United States of America, where this racial classification became a norm, regardless lightskin or darkskinned, if you come from Africa, look African, YOU'RE BLACK. Let's not play games as if this means anything biologically, because it doesn't.
Black was/is a social designation and an accepted definition of oneself, by African Americans in a whole, who are/were proud of what they are and always will be!! Regardless of light or dark, you're from Africa, then you're BLACK!!
Separatism is the idea, but it can't last much longer in the face of adveristy.
Point blank, if the Ancient Egyptians would've been around in the 40's, 50's in the U.S.A they would've had to sit at the back of the bus.
quote:CA Diop: Ramses II was Black, let him sleep for eternity in his black skin.
quote:Jackass akoben's response: "Black" will forever be a subjective term...no matter what the Ancient Egyptians say.
^ Ancient Egypt will 'forever' be Black.
Your jackass braying protests make no sense.
All terms describing ethnicity are 'subjective'.
Are you saying that there are -no Blacks- anywhere, and ever.... because the term is subjective?
You provide a cautionary tale of what happens when jackasses keep braying instead of taking their ritalin.
Your desparate braying only furthers your humiliation.
Meanwhile, here again are the material facts, which enrage you precisely because you cannot find any way to refute them
So, read them again.
Read them, and weep....
quote:All of these words can be found in "An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary" by E. A. Wallis Budge, Dover, NY
Used as an adjective
kem;kemem;kemom - black kemu - black (m) keme.t - black (f) hime.t keme.t - "black woman" himu.t keme.t - "black women"
Used as a noun
keme.t - any black person, place, or thing
A determinative is then used to be more specific:
keme.t (woman) - "the Black woman"; ie, 'divine woman' keme.t (cow) - "a Black cow" - ie, a 'sacred cow' Keme.t (nation) - "the Black nation"
kem - a black one (m) keme.t - a black one (f) kemu - black ones (m) kemu.t - black ones (f) kemeti - two black ones
Used for Nationality
Sa Kemet - a man of Black (an Egyptian male) Sa.t Kemet - a woman of Black (an Egyptian female) Rome.t Kemet - the people of Black (Egyptians) Kemetou - Blacks (ie, 'citizens') Kememou - Black people (of the Black nation)
Other usages
Sa Kem - "Black man", a god, and son of Sa.t Kem.t - "Black woman", a goddess (page 589b) kem (papyrus) - to end, complete kem.t (papyrus) - the end, completion kemi - finished products kem khet (stick) - jet black ... kemwer - any Egyptian person, place or thing ('to be black' + 'to be great')
Kemwer - "The Great Black" - a title of Osiris - the Ancestor of the race
Kemwer (body of water) - "the Great Black sea" - the Red sea Kemwer (body of water + river bank) - a lake in the Duat (the OtherWorld) Kemwer Nteri - "the sacred great Black bulls" kemwer (fortress) - a fort or town Kemwer (water) - the god of the great Black lake
Kem Amut - a black animal goddess Kemi.t-Weri.t - "the great Black woman", a goddess Kem-Neb-Mesen.t - a lion god Kem ho - "black face", a title of the crocodile Rerek kem; kemu (shield) - buckler, shield kem (wood) - black wood kem.t (stone) - black stone or powder kem.tt (plant) - a plant kemu (seed) - seeds or fruit of the kem plant kemti - "black image", sacred image or statue
Using the causative "S"
S_kemi - white haired, grey-headed man (ie, to have lost blackness) S_kemkem - to destroy, overthrow, annihilate S_kemem - to blacken, to defile
Antonyms
S_desher - to redden, make ruddy S_desheru - red things, bloody wounds
Some interesting Homonyms (pages 770 > )
qem - to behave in a seemly manner Qemi - the south, Upper Egypt qem.t - reed, papyrus qemaa - to throw a boomerang qem_au - to overthrow qemam.t - mother, parent qemamu - workers (in metal, wood) qemqem - tambourines qemd - to weep qemati - statue, image - same as kemti qema - to create qemaiu - created beings Qemau;Qemamu - The Creator
Deshret - the opposite of Kemet
deshr.t - any red (ie, non-Black) person, place, or thing ... deshr.t (woman) - "the Red woman"; ie, 'evil woman' deshr.t (cow) - "a Red cow" - ie, the 'devil's cow' deshr - a red one (m) deshr.t - a red one (f) deshru - red ones (m) deshru.t - red ones (f) -- White or light-skinned people; devils deshreti - two red ones
This boy is really sick. This is his code word for "true negro".
Why doesn't the boy just give it up and come into the 21st century. Again this is what happens when you are an armchair scholar who's only accomplishment is repeating after racist white scientists who's only goal is to steal African culture and history.
Folks, isn't this just one more evidentiary fact that this boy has been mentally sodomized by the white man. This is why he has and continously quotes Carton Coon and the rest of those racist so called scientists.
The man believes in the racial division of human beings. That is why his posts from day one wreak with the stinch of racism.
You're a sick person Knowledgeiskey718.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Stop misrepresenting my position!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic