quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Like negroids in europe Mike. Silly silly stuff.
Cracka boy, give it up. Who do you think that you're fooling? I just cleaned your clock, you really should be on stormfront trying to find something new to say.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have never cleaned anyone's clock Mike, you do not even read. If you are going to play the game you have to get into shape. How many Michael Grant books have you actually read, try none.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Sundjata Quote: "It's your presentation Mike. Some of the things that you refer to and take for granted as "evidence" seems so dubious and outright objectionable as to defy common sense".
Let's see if you can do any better than TheAmericanPatriot.
LIKE WHAT???
So Sundjata; you couldn’t come up with anything could you? No surprise, there is nothing to criticize; the material is true and accurate. But what about your reaction to it: Now I can understand that there would be a certain amount of shock at finding out that true history is so much different from what White people have led you to believe. But that wasn’t really the cause for your reaction.
You are an African American, as such, you know that you are likely Sub-Saharan African, and that is what you identify with ONLY. It’s not that you don’t believe that the ancient Europeans, Middle Easterners, South Asians, Chinese, and whoever, were Black, it’s just that you don’t care: They weren’t YOUR kind of Black, so what does it matter.
At some point, you probably got tired of trying to get excited about Mansa Musa’s pilgrimage to Mecca; a pilgrimage that likely bankrupted his country. So you are here on this board, to find ways to connect the ancient Egyptians to Sub-Saharans. Well good luck, because you know what, the ancient Egyptians had much more in common with all of those people that you don’t care about, than they did with Sub-Saharans. That’s just the way it is.
So you might as well become a Pan-Black like me. Wherever and whenever niggers were doing some Bad-Assed sh1t, Ya they be my Niggas.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug, We have all read the Prince and we understand that Europeans took advantage of their political opportunities after 1500 just like all societies do. There is no evidence that they did it by creating a pseudo science. They did it by the exertion of raw military and economic power and yes, they were superior to other peoples in those critical attributes that build empire. That said, their scholarship is honest and has given us 95% of everything we know today in almost every field. Black people have no future as a race, they have a future as individuals within western civilization.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: luck, because you know what, the ancient Egyptians had much more in common with all of those people that you don’t care about, than they did with Sub-Saharans.
So to sum it up, ancient Egyptians basically had more in common with your mythical Black Celts than with [other] Black Africans? I don't propose to share ties to "sub-Saharan" Africans as there is no defining "sub-Saharan" African. "sub-Saharan" in of its self is a ruse that neglects geography, geology, biology, and common sense. See, this is what I'm getting at Mike. How can I dignify this with an appropriate response? It's nonsense. Point is, you hate Africa and hence, your ancestry and thus seek solace elsewhere. Not my problem that you make up fairy tales on par with Atlantean romanticism.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Doug, We have all read the Prince and we understand that Europeans took advantage of their political opportunities after 1500 just like all societies do. There is no evidence that they did it by creating a pseudo science. They did it by the exertion of raw military and economic power and yes, they were superior to other peoples in those critical attributes that build empire. That said, their scholarship is honest and has given us 95% of everything we know today in almost every field. Black people have no future as a race, they have a future as individuals within western civilization.
TheAmericanPatriot: You fool, hasn't it dawned on you that there is no such thing as White Western civilization. Your culture, your language, the foundations of your science, it's ALL BLACK YOU IDIOT!!
Now I know that a fool like you will come back with some kind of nonsense. So bring it, give me an example of something important whose foundation isn't Black.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
So to sum it up, ancient Egyptians basically had more in common with your mythical Black Celts than with [other] Black Africans? I don't propose to share ties to "sub-Saharan" Africans as there is no defining "sub-Saharan" African. "sub-Saharan" in of its self is a ruse that neglects geography, geology, biology, and common sense. See, this is what I'm getting at Mike. How can I dignify this with an appropriate response? It's nonsense. Point is, you hate Africa and hence, your ancestry and thus seek solace elsewhere. Not my problem that you make up fairy tales on par with Atlantean romanticism.
Sundjata - Well then little girl, give me an example. I mean if you can't THINK your way through this, and come up with REASONS why you think that way. That can only mean that you can't think - you just like to run your mouth - What just another ghetto kid with problems?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nobody can have a serious conversation with you. It is like talking to someone who promoted UFO's and little green men. You just do the little black men and put them everywhere.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: [QB] Doug, We have all read the Prince and we understand that Europeans took advantage of their political opportunities after 1500 just like all societies do. There is no evidence that they did it by creating a pseudo science.
"The first thing that brought me to my senses in all this racial discussion was the continuous change in the proofs and arguments advanced. . . . I was skeptical about brain weight; surely much depended upon what brains were weighed." - [W. E. B. DuBois 1943, cited by Visweswaran 1998:76]
"First we must admire the apparent cranial expansion of Asians over the last half-century, when [earlier] researchers consistently reported their havingsmaller brains than whites. Obviously this implies the possibility of a comparable expansion in blacks. More likely, it implies the possibility of scientists finding just what they expect when the social and political stakes are high. " - [Marks 1995:271]
Look up Samuel G. Morton (1799-1851).. He helped inspire the modern pseudo-scientific and racist classification scheme that your ideology so desperately relies on. It it the foundation on which the justification for white supremacy is based.
quote: They did it by the exertion of raw military and economic power and yes, they were superior to other peoples in those critical attributes that build empire.
LOL.. Your ideas are like that of a 6th grader. "Raw" military power is not an effective means of population control. It takes a considerable amount of political arm twisting and cooperation. It was a system of trade that included African nations selling their own people for economic gain, and those enslaved, once isolated were rendered impotent..
quote:That said, their scholarship is honest and has given us 95% of everything we know today in almost every field.
Are your that dumb, deaf, and blind? Every progressive step forward as established by Europeans has virtually always been based on a precedent set fourth in Africa or Asia first. The very products of the military might you cite, namely arms, were Asian inventions (i,e gun powder and guns themselves).. Mathematical principles [Egypt, Arabia], western calender system (Egypt) system of writing (Phoenician), Navigational knowledge (Phoenician....even the compass came from China!), western Philosophy and hence, foundations for science via Greece was heavily influenced by Egypt. Many other things attributed to Europeans also were independently created elsewhere first without due acclamation, or simply later but with out diffusion and much of our knowledge that we now take for granted and can apply to future research comes from the efforts of other countries, Blacks within the diaspora and other minorities, elsewhere. Europeans are not central and your revisionist view of history has no place here...
quote:Black people have no future as a race, they have a future as individuals within western civilization.
Maybe because we are individuals, and not a "race" of individuals to begin with...
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Does that mean that like Sundjata, you CAN'T come up with examples? Rednecks and ghetto kids, same product, different color.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Mike, Even the other Afrocentrics here think you are wacked.
Don't use me as cannon fodder you vile deceiver you.. We have nothing in common. You are a lot more "wacked" than Mike is. At least he tries to make sense.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Doug, We have all read the Prince and we understand that Europeans took advantage of their political opportunities after 1500 just like all societies do. There is no evidence that they did it by creating a pseudo science. They did it by the exertion of raw military and economic power and yes, they were superior to other peoples in those critical attributes that build empire. That said, their scholarship is honest and has given us 95% of everything we know today in almost every field. Black people have no future as a race, they have a future as individuals within western civilization.
Oh now what they did is Machiavellian? What in the world makes Machiavelli a universal pattern of human societies? Last I checked whites are the only society to EVER go around and destroy people based on the notion of "race". Therefore, this race based paradigm of human social development is strictly an aberration of the white mind. Blacks were not killing people in the name of black skin and neither were most civilizations. Only whites did that and none of it has anything to do with Machiavelli.
In fact, if anything the concept of divide and conquer was something they learned from the Islamic forces in Spain whom they defeated precisely because they were so divided. And the intrigues and scandals of Europe only pale compared to the intrigues and treachery of the Islamic world and its infighting for power and glory. And yes, Islamic writers and thinkers pondered these forces in their courtly systems long before a Machiavelli. Again, another example of Europeans starting at the end of the book and making pretend that it is the start of the story.
Like I said, Europeans only discovered the world 500 years or so ago and then immediately developed plots and plans to conquer as much of it as possible for their own benefit. That isn't Machiavellian it is simply evil. Not only that, these same people who only became civilized 1000 years ago then began preaching that they, yes they the noble cave dwellers of Western Europe 2000 years ago are suddenly the lights of the world. What a joke. And now you sit here and defend such historical nonsense as somehow a fact and based on "honest" story telling. Please.
Not only that now these people who just "discovered" sailing and navigation 500 years ago want to pretend that they are the sole historians of the entire world. The same entire world they only just discovered in the last 500 years. But somehow they want to get credit for always knowing everything about everyone else's civilization but know little about the empty spot in Western Europe that was void of civilization for most of their history, except when it was introduced from outside.
The same people that didn't even know where ancient Egypt was on a map 500 years ago, let alone anything about ancient Persia, now want to pretend to be the experts on everything ancient, even as they have nothing ancient of their own. And the funniest thing, is that the same people who only discovered ancient Greece 500 years ago, seem to be so hell bent on claiming it as "theirs".
And on top of that Machiavelli and the Prince is simply another example of how late Europeans are at the game of civilization. Wisdom texts and books about how young men and women should act in the court of Kingship are as old as the Pyramids and even older, yet here we are to believe that Machiavelli is the father of such concepts only 500 years ago.
Again, Mr Patriot, you need to stop pretending to represent "honest" scholarship, because you don't. Because while when we do post "honest" scholarship by Europeans you seem to dismiss it. So the point is that you don't represent any "honest" scholarship and therefore aren't trust worthy on the subject and as you yourself mentioned all historians are not honest and never have been and will twist history and facts to suit their aims whenever they see fit. But of course you knew that.
Posts: 8899 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
500, 1000 years ago? You left out the greeks and Romans Doug. They were as white as I am, you know that. You raised a broad array of questions and I find them interesting but they are so extensive that they would probably be better seved with a verbal conversation. You are a very bitter person, that will not serve you well.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: 500, 1000 years ago? You left out the greeks and Romans Doug. They were as white as I am, you know that. You raised a broad array of questions and I find them interesting but they are so extensive that they would probably be better seved with a verbal conversation. You are a very bitter person, that will not serve you well.
They were Greeks and Romans not Germans, not British, not French, not Spanish. That is the point. Greece did not colonize America and the rest of the world. Rome did not either. And Greece and Rome both received substantial influence from outside Europe. The "Western World" is a product of the people in Spain, France, Britain and Portugal, not Greece or Rome. ANd none of these countries had any part in the ancient Greek and Roman world and all of these countries only DISCOVERED ancient Greece as a result of foreigners introducing it to them: the Muslims. And either way, Greece and Rome were still 3000 years late to the game of civilization.
Posts: 8899 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sundjata, The Egyptians created nothing. They had a very conservative society that changed little for 3000 years. To compare them to the Geeks is absurd. No two societies could be more different. They lived under the yoke of a despotic king and never created a scrap of political theory passed the idea of a god king and his vassals. These was no Egyptian Aristotle, no Egyptian shakespeare, no Egyptian Newton, no Egyptian Copernicus etc. It was a society that was headed into a brick wall. That it did not survive is testament to it's limitations.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug, You know better than the greatest scholars of the world. Sir Doug the Great who can single handedly rewrite the history of the world. You have to be a nut to think that Britain and Germany were not molded by the empire. Hell man, britain was a ROMAN COLONY for 400 years, what is wrong with your brain. Greece was not influenced by Africans, they had nothing to influence them with. Your bitternesss has taken you right over the cliff. Africa has contributed nothing but labor and aids to the march of the human race.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Well good luck, because you know what, the ancient Egyptians had much more in common with all of those people that you don’t care about, than they did with Sub-Saharans. That’s just the way it is.
Mike this is a new low, even for you.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Doug, You know better than the greatest scholars of the world. Sir Doug the Great who can single handedly rewrite the history of the world. You have to be a nut to think that Britain and Germany were not molded by the empire. Hell man, britain was a ROMAN COLONY for 400 years, what is wrong with your brain. Greece was not influenced by Africans, they had nothing to influence them with. Your bitternesss has taken you right over the cliff. Africa has contributed nothing but labor and aids to the march of the human race.
Right, the British and the Germans were colonized by the Romans. So that makes them an advanced civilization at the time? I think not, at least not in the words of the Romans. But again, you don't seem to care about that fact. According to the Romans they were barbarians.
So, like I said, these places had no ancient advanced civilization to speak of that they created on their own and what they had was introduced to them from outside of Europe. And ancient Greece was something they didn't even know about until almost 800 years after the fact. And not to mention the fact that they only "discovered" ancient Egypt 300 years ago.
Posts: 8899 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Sundjata, The Egyptians created nothing. They had a very conservative society that changed little for 3000 years. To compare them to the Geeks is absurd. No two societies could be more different. They lived under the yoke of a despotic king and never created a scrap of political theory passed the idea of a god king and his vassals. These was no Egyptian Aristotle, no Egyptian shakespeare, no Egyptian Newton, no Egyptian Copernicus etc. It was a society that was headed into a brick wall. That it did not survive is testament to it's limitations.
Mr Patriot the fact is that the Greeks nor the Romans did not invent civilization, did not invent math, writing, art, architecture or anything else. Trying to pretend that Shakespeare 3000 years later equates to "originating" writing is simply nonsense. Equating Copernicus who came 3000- 3500 years later as "originating" math is the same. None of this changes the fact that math, writing and architecture did not originate in Greece or Rome and that those things were introduced there from outside.
Nor does it change the fact that civilization was already 3000 years old when Greece and Rome came into being.
Posts: 8899 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You have to be a nut to think that Britain and Germany were not molded by the empire. Hell man, britain was a ROMAN COLONY for 400 years, what is wrong with your brain.
LMAO!! is that you're claim to fame... for 400 years a few savage club bearing anglo saxons were encamped on their own land and forced to pay taxes by the Roman Empire! WOW, what a connection... you were practically brothers....
By that logic, 400-500 years of slavery and colonisation by Britain makes me what, white? And the ENTIRE Middle East have a claim to Ancient Macedonia.... My god, you are a plebb!
Just because Roman brought a semblance of civilisation to your calf-hide wearing Island, it doesn't mean you are the same people!
posted
Doug, You get more ignorant by the minute. the question was Roman influence on Britain. It might not make them a great civilization but it made them a frickin ROMAN civilization. Ever read a book on Roman Britain in your life? You might try it out. The Brits has a bustling Roman civilization. We were dealing with your stupid idea that modern europe was not created by Rome and Greece.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Doug, You get more ignorant by the minute. the question was Roman influence on Britain. It might not make them a great civilization but it made them a frickin ROMAN civilization. Ever read a book on Roman Britain in your life? You might try it out. The Brits has a bustling Roman civilization. We were dealing with your stupid idea that modern europe was not created by Rome and Greece.
So if they had such a bustling civilisation, why did it lay in ruins for centuries during the dark ages... if so connected, why did it hundreds of years to reuse the Roman foundations to form British Castle structures... Don't act like Britain is some continuation of Rome... Roman civilisation (Britannia) died out, before British 'civilisation' (Germanic) was birthed...
Talk about clinging to heritage that has played NO part in shaping your nation. The British would be ashamed at your desperate claim to Britannia as a close relative of the current Germanic race....
Aside from that, 'Rome civilised Britain' so it makes Britain a Roman Civilisation is akin to saying that Israel, Egypt and Syria were Roman Civilisations... its a fallcy. They were all COLONIES under Roman rule, and outposts for Roman profiteering and the enjoyment of Roman citizens.... the Britons were not partners in some trade off of civilisations, they were a colonised mass serving the needs of a foreign power... no doubt that the meditterean form of civilisation they brought Britain improved the existence of the inhabitants, but spare us your Romantic babblings, they are not a reflection of reality...
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are too stupid and uneducated to make the connections Narmer. The points were
1. That modern europe was not directly the product of Greece and rome. that is a crazy statement that nay indepth study of the empire will show.
2. The second point made by Doug was that civilization was older than Greece and Rome. That is correct by does not matter. Greece and rome did not create civilization, they created western civilization.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You are too stupid and uneducated to make the connections Narmer. The points were
1. That modern europe was not directly the product of Greece and rome. that is a crazy statement that nay indepth study of the empire will show.
2. The second point made by Doug was that civilization was older than Greece and Rome. That is correct by does not matter. Greece and rome did not create civilization, they created western civilization.
ok professor. I'm stupid. Keep posting those books and backing up those wild claims with credible sources.... Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, you are unread. That can be corrected if you begin reading the books I am posting on the Book Alerts.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The assertions, assumptions, and subjects of the above posts, makes it painfully clear that none of you have ever done any serious reading or thinking about any of it. Apparently all of you depend on posts such as on this board, and other such fractured sources, such as the odd abstract of some study, to educate yourselves. Well, I will offer you this: It's not that easy!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Do any of you even know the "Ethnic" name of the people the you so authoritatively talk about? Don't bother, I know that you don't. So I know that it would be impossible for you to know when they came to Europe, or what they did when they got there.
So let me see if I can help you out.
The Greeks that you so authoritatively talk about, have the ethnic name "Hellenes". In Greek legend, Hellen was the king of Phthia (a city on the Gulf of Euboea) and grandson of the god Prometheus; he was the eponymous ancestor of all true Greeks, called Hellenes in his honor. They called themselves Hellenes, and Hellas is their name for Greece. Aeolians, Dorians, Ionians, and Achaeans. In Greek myth these tribes are traditionally descended from, and named for, Hellen's sons, Aeolus and Dorus, and his grandsons, Ion and Achaeus.
Just to show you that I am not just being mean when I refer to you all as a bunch of ignorant "fuch-ups". The following is from Wiki, the last resort, the bottom of the barrel. But even here, you can get an overall (though sometimes inaccurate) picture of things. And all you had to do was plug-in a search word! You couldn't even do that! What a bunch of fuch-ups. The following piece was written by a White person, so necessarily, some White B.S. is there, and the dates have been extended to make it appear that Whites were more of a factor than they were. And of course, as is typical with Whites, they freely admit that they "ARRIVED" there, but they don't like to say, arrived from "WHERE". Hint; Eurasian plains - Central Asia.
The Greeks, also known as Hellenes, are a nation and ethnic group native to Greece, Cyprus and neighbouring regions, who can also be found in diaspora communities around the world.
The Indo-European progenitors of the "proto-Greeks" probably arrived at the area now referred as "Greece" (the southern tip of the Balkan peninsula) at the end of the third millennium BC. There they mingled with the native pre-Hellenic populations and by the 16th century BCE this fusion had created the civilization we call Mycenaean today. Some archaeologists have pointed to evidence that there was a significant amount of continuity of prehistoric economic, architectural, and social structures across these assumed migrations, suggesting that the transition between the Neolithic civilisation of c.5000 BCE and the Greek civilisations of later periods may have proceeded without major rifts in social texture. The Mycenaeans were ultimately the first Greek-speaking people attested through historical sources, especially through their written records in the Linear B script, and through their literary echoes in the works of Homer, a few centuries later.
The Mycenaeans quickly penetrated the Aegean and by the 15th century BCE had reached Rhodes, Crete, Cyprus where Teucrus (a characteristic Cypriot name) is said to have founded the first colony, and the shores of Asia Minor. From 1200 BCE the Dorians, another Greek-speaking people, followed from Epirus. The Dorian Migration was followed by a poorly attested period of migrations, appropriately called the Greek Dark Ages, but by 800 BCE the landscape of Classical Greece was discernible.
In the Homeric epics, the Greeks of prehistory are viewed as the forefathers of the early classical civilization of Homer's own time, while the Mycenaean pantheon included many of the divinities (e.g. Zeus, Poseidon and Hades) attested in later Greek religion.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Since there were nothing but whites in ancient Greece Mike the point is moot.
You are such a stupid little cracker. Are you saying that there were no humans in Greece before the Hellenes got there? If you are saying that there WAS humans in Greece before the Hellenes, but they were White; well then, who were they? What was their name? Where did they come from? So on, and so forth.
Try this; stop playing with your pink little pecker, and try to educate yourself to SOMETHING, ANYTHING, just so you can stop annoying me with your ignorance.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do some reading on the subject, I did. Come to find out your ideas about negroid greeks are incorrect at best. There is material beyond the afro-crap propaganda you guys toss around to each other.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: There is material beyond the afro-crap propaganda you guys toss around to each other. [/QB]
You're defying both principles of logic and scholarship by constantly begging the question. "What crap"? Why is it the case that you can so easily find books on Amazon pertaining to your interests but can never produce any citations to support your positions or refute others, as if we're all to have faith in your memory and/or imagination? It seems to be that you never read books beyond the summary and hence, 80% of information out there is crap if you haven't read about it, weighed the evidence that you can retrieve FROM reading it, in order to debunk the crap. Point is, you can't and never will because "Eurocrap" is modeled around taking priority over all other crap. By nature, it is the most abundant crap on the planet, all other crap seems to be a sub-set of the main crap put out by Eurocentrism, of which you're a die hard proponent. You even defend crap pseudo-science.. You are definitely among the radical fringe right-wing hack jobs.. Who can take you seriously?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afro Crap are the crazy demented theories many of you promote. It has been awhile but I have taught Western Civ classes many times. I have read those books or books just like them. Actually I am not right wing at all but rather a political moderate, conservative on some issues, liberal on others.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I'm not talking politics in specific, I'm talking your conservative approach to world history, your conformist ideology and reactionary behavior. You embrace the imaginary mainstream and cast blankets over ideas without being specific. I also hear that you teach welding and not history, as you funnel and direct crap for a living, I assume you should be used to it but projecting isn't the answer.
Point I'm making is that the things that you say are that of 19th and early 20th century fringe science. For you to call other ideas "crap" is delusional and psychotic since yours are either outdated, uncited, or completely made up by you. Euro quackery at its finest. Again, I don't think anyone takes you seriously.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not being talken seriously on this board is a badge of honor. Every text book on history makes you a fraud.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
For you Black kids who think that all of that reading is just too much work. I will demonstrate why it is so important.
Like any other people, White people can be broken-up into several groups. As relates to presenting history, they can be broken-up into the following:
The totally ignorant talker, knows nothing, learns nothing; all he knows is that Whites MUST have done it, because after all, he is White - TheAmericanPatriot being a perfect example.
The totally Eurocentric White racist (and in some cases, just beat down, ignorant Blacks). The title says it all. Nothing they say can be trusted.
The reluctant racist: These are for the most part decent people, but they are also White. So they find it very difficult to admit that pretty much everything of value in the world is attributable to ancient Black people. And that White people pretty much just collected the crumbs.
This internal conflict is manifested when they present history. They don't want to come right out and say that anyone was Black, but at the same time, they don't want to lie and say that they were White. So what they do is use words and references that will allow you to follow-up with your own research to discover the truth, While not offending their White audience. They do want to sell their books and articles you know!
The last is the totally truthful White anthropologist or writer. They say exactly who was White and who was Black. Unfortunately, I don't know, nor have I ever heard of one of these. If they exist, I don't know about them.
So for the Black student; the best that you can hope for, is the "Reluctant Racist". But that's okay, with a little work, you can work with that.
I will now demonstrate how to use the little bits that the "Reluctant Racist" will allow you, so that you may learn, (with additional work), the truth.
You will recall from my previous post, the following:
Quote: They called themselves Hellenes, and Hellas is their name for Greece. Aeolians, Dorians, Ionians, and Achaeans. In Greek myth these tribes are traditionally descended from, and named for, Hellen's sons, Aeolus and Dorus, and his grandsons, Ion and Achaeus.
There is an important little piece of information in that quote, but lets leave it for a while.
We now go to Egyptian history. This is about king Wahibre, one of the very last native Egyptian kings. This article (piece of the article) is from Wiki, but it is a generic type article, found in many places. I am not sure who the original author was.
King Apries
Apries is the name by which Herodotus and Diodorus designate Wahibre Haibre, a pharaoh of Egypt (589 BC - 570 BC), the fourth king (counting from Psamtik I) of the Twenty-sixth dynasty of Egypt.
Apries inherited the throne from his father, pharaoh Psamtik II, in February 589 BC and his reign continued his father's history of foreign intrigue in Palestinian affairs. Apries was an active builder who constructed "additions to the temples at Athribis (Tell Atrib), Bahariya Oasis, Memphis and Sais." In Year 4 of his reign, Apries' sister Ankhnesneferibre was adopted as the new God's Wife of Amun at Thebes. However, Apries' reign was also fraught with internal problems. In 588 BC, Apries dispatched a force to Jerusalem to protect it from Babylonian forces sent by Nebuchadrezzar II.
His forces were quickly crushed and Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians. His unsuccessful attempt to intervene in the politics of the Kingdom of Judah was followed by a mutiny of soldiers from the strategically important Aswan garrison. While the mutiny was contained, Apries later attempted to protect Libya from incursions by Dorian Greek invaders but his efforts here backfired spectacularly as his forces were mauled by the Greek invaders. When the defeated army returned home, a civil war broke out between the indigenous Egyptian army troops and foreign mercenaries in the Egyptian army.
This is where the cruk of the Wiki article ends. And the re-written Wiki article is full of little things to throw you off. You might want to remember that the world is full of little TheAmericanPatriot's and they all want to post on Wiki.
Though it is certainly true that TheAmericanPatriot is an ignorant piece of White sh1t; it is also true that even HE, can ask an intelligent question (by accident). He often asked the question: “If all of those people were Black, What happened??” I will now answer his question.
We can now begin our Analysis.
In order to do that, you will need to know something of the following:
Merenptah - Ramesses II’s 13th. Son and 4th. King of the 19th. Dynasty. (about 1,200 B.C.)
AND
Ramesses III - 2nd. King of 20th. Dynasty. (about 1155 B.C.)
AND
The “Sea People” Invasions.
The Sea People were The Peleset and Tjeker (Minoans) of Crete, they would later be known as the “Philistines” after they had settled in Southern Canaan. Over time, this area became known by a form of their name “Palestine”. The Lukka who may have come from the Lycian region of Anatolia, The Ekwesh and Denen who seem to be identified with the original (Black) Greeks, The Shardana (Sherden) who may be associated with Sardinia, The Teresh (Tursha or Tyrshenoi), the Tyrrhenians - the Greek name for the Etruscans, and The Shekelesh (Sicilians?).
As I say, Whites started invading Europe at about 1,200 B.C. As their numbers grew, and the original Black people of Europe found that they couldn’t cope with them. They tried to find new homes, this led them to join forces with the Libyans and try to invade Egypt.
From Wiki
King Merneptah
Merneptah led a victorious six-hour battle against a combined Libyan and Sea People force at the city of Perire, probably located on the western edge of the Delta. His account of this campaign against the Sea Peoples and Libu is described in prose on a wall beside the sixth pylon at Karnak, which states:
"[Beginning of the victory that his majesty achieved in the land of Libya] -i, Ekwesh, Teresh, Lukka, Sherden, Shekelesh, Northerners coming from all lands." Later in the inscription Merneptah receives news of the attack: "... the third season, saying: 'The wretched, fallen chief of Libya, Meryre, son of Ded, has fallen upon the country of Tehenu with his bowmen--Sherden, Shekelesh, Ekwesh, Lukka, Teresh, Taking the best of every warrior and every man of war of his country. He has brought his wife and his children--leaders of the camp, and he has reached the western boundary in the fields of Perire.'"
In the Athribis Stele, in the garden of Cairo Museum, it states "His majesty was enraged at their report, like a lion", assembled his court and gave a rousing speech. Later he dreamed he saw Ptah handing him a sword and saying "Take thou (it) and banish thou the fearful heart from thee." When the bowmen went forth, says the inscription, "Amun was with them as a shield." After six hours the surviving Nine Bows threw down their weapons, abandoned their baggage and dependents, and ran for their lives. Merneptah states that he defeated the invasion, killing 6,000 soldiers and taking 9,000 prisoners. To be sure of the numbers, among other things, he took the penises of all uncircumcised enemy dead and the hands of all the circumcised, from which history learns that the Ekwesh were circumcised, a fact causing some to doubt they were Greek.
Now lets go to Ramesses III. (these battles are documented at Medinet Habu Temple)
It is in the eight year of the reign of Ramesses III, (about 1160 B.C.) that the Sea People once again attack Egypt, but this time, their group includes displaced people from all the nations and Islands of Southern Europe and the Mediterranean.
After having stayed for a time in Anatolia, the Sea People apparently traveled over land to the Egyptian border. The Sea People had with them their women and children, together with their possessions piled high on ox-carts, it is clear that they were looking for a new home. They also employed a sea fleet that apparently stayed in contract with those on land. Ramesses dispatched squads of soldiers at once to the eastern Egyptian frontier at Djahy, (southern Canaan, perhaps the Egyptian garrison in the Gaza strip), with orders to stand firm at any cost until the main Egyptian army arrived.
Once deployed, the Egyptian army then had little trouble in slaying these enemies. However, there was still the sea fleet to consider, as the Sea Peoples fleet headed for the mouth of one of the eastern arms of the Nile, they were met by the Egyptian fleet. In a brilliant tactical maneuver, the Egyptian fleet worked the Sea Peoples' boats towards shore, where land based Egyptian archers were waiting to pour volley after volley of arrows into the enemy ships, while at the same time, Egyptian marine archers, standing on the decks of their ships, also fired in unison. Thus, Ramesses III defeats the Sea people and they are turned away.
A few important things to add here:
The Sea People eventually wound up in Anatolia. Though Ramesses III won, he did allow the Peleset and Tjeker (Minoans) of Crete, later be known as the “Philistines” to settle in Southern Canaan. Some others were allowed to settle in the Delta, and serve as “Mercenaries” in the Egyptian army.
So now for the Black student: lets put these disparate clues together, and uncover true history in the racial context.
The first piece is from Merneptah:
Quote from above: “he took the penises of all uncircumcised enemy dead and the hands of all the circumcised, from which history learns that the Ekwesh were circumcised, a fact causing some to doubt they were Greek.”
(It is assumed that you know that at that time ONLY Blacks were circumcised).
Thus we know that these Greek members of the Sea Peoples were Black!
The next piece is from Ramesses III.
Quote: Some others were allowed to settle in the Delta, and serve as “Mercenaries” in the Egyptian army.
The next piece is from Apries.
Quote: Apries later attempted to protect Libya from incursions by Dorian Greek invaders but his efforts here backfired spectacularly as his forces were mauled by the Greek invaders. When the defeated army returned home, a civil war broke out between the indigenous Egyptian army troops and foreign mercenaries in the Egyptian army.
As you will recall from above; Dorians were one of the White Hellenes tribes.
But for this to really make sense, you need to read the ORIGINAL article (remember what the crackers on Wiki do).
Here is how the ORIGINAL article reads.
Quote: As to king Wahibre, his troubles began after he had sent his Egyptian army to help Libya against the Dorian Greeks, who were attacking their city of Cyrene. In the ensuing battle, the Egyptians were badly beaten, and upon the survivor's return to Egypt, civil war broke out. King Wahibre was blamed for the disaster, this resulted in a confrontation between the regular Egyptian army, and the Greek mercenaries in the Egyptian army.
The defeat at Cyrene, probably only provided an excuse for this revolt, because for some time, Egyptian soldiers had felt that Greek mercenaries were treated better than they, the native Egyptian army. When Wahibre sent his general “Ahmose”, to put down this revolt, Ahmose was instead implored by the Egyptians soldiers to be their leader, a plead which he accepted.
There ensued a battle between the Greek mercenaries, under the command of king Wahibre, and the Egyptians under the command of Ahmose. Wahibre and the Greek mercenaries were defeated, and then Wahibre was captured and killed, Ahmose became king Ahmose II . He has been called the last great Egyptian Pharaoh, this is because the rule of his son, Psamtik III, was very short lived. By the time of Ahmoses death - after a long reign of some 44 years, the Persians had long ago conquered Babylon, and were already at the frontiers of Egypt.
His son "Psamtik III" was eventually captured by the Persians, and Herodotus tells us that the Persian ruler Cambyses, had Ahmose's mummy exhumed and: "subjected to every indignity, such as lashing with whips and the plucking of its hairs, until the executioners were weary. At last, as the corpse had been embalmed and would not fall to pieces under the blows, Cambyses ordered it burnt".
So as you can see there were TWO peoples whom Whites call Greeks (in an effort to confuse you).
The original “circumcised” Black people, who were part of the Sea Peoples invasion and served as MERCENARIES in the Egyptian army. And the White Hellen or Dorian Greeks who invaded North Africa. At the time of king Wahibre, they once again, came into direct conflict.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Read carefully children, you know that if you pop-off with some ignorant sh1t, I will try to hurt your feelings. Any part of it that you think may be untrue, can easily be checked by searching the net. If you have any intelligent questions or comments, or even find a mistake that I made, Lets talk.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Not being talken seriously on this board is a badge of honor. Every text book on history makes you a fraud.
So says the welding instructor from stormfront..
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I say, Whites started invading Europe at about 1,200 B.C. As their numbers grew, and the original Black people of Europe found that they couldn’t cope with them. They tried to find new homes, this led them to join forces with the Libyans and try to invade Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: If you do bother to search the net you will find it all untrue.
Damn TheAmericanPatriot, you really are smart! You read and analyzed and checked, all of that in about 10 mins. WOW!!!
WHITE PEOPLE RULE!!!
P.S. Please do me a favor, Bleach the little ghetto Negro akoben, and take him to Texas with you. As a Black man, he is an embarrassment to me.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
akoben - I see that you don't really understand - probably a reading comprehension problem. But since you apparently can relate to pictures (what a surprise). I will use pictures to explain it to you.
This is good! It depicts a thoughtful Black man.
This is Bad! It depicts someone like you. No brain, no thinking, nothing of any value. Just someone intent on being a buffoon and embarrassing Black people.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Doug, You get more ignorant by the minute. the question was Roman influence on Britain. It might not make them a great civilization but it made them a frickin ROMAN civilization. Ever read a book on Roman Britain in your life? You might try it out. The Brits has a bustling Roman civilization. We were dealing with your stupid idea that modern europe was not created by Rome and Greece.
No the point was that civilization was introduced to Britain from outside Britain and therefore not something they made up on their own. Them being colonized by Rome does not make them Romans. The Romans certainly did not think that. But again, that is you making up stuff.
Posts: 8899 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^Which means that we don't embarrass YOU..
Why do you say that ?
Is it because you're stupid ? Did you really think that was a good come back ?
Posts: 6335 | From: Straight to my heart. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic