posted
This is Question is only for those like me who are seeking the truth in history, and not an agenda. I was on Youtube and I saw a video discussing the origins of China were created by Africans. I then remembered various postings about Black Vikings, Blacks Greece, and Black Rome. I found this disconcerting because if Im not mistaken it seems that there are some that seek to perpetrate the same lies as Eurocentrics. What is an affective way to address this issue. I also want to know, am I missing something?
Posts: 163 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first people of Asia were aboriginal populations similar to those found elsewhere in Asia today. That is an undisputed fact. The question is how many of these darker skinned types were around during the first Chinese dynasties? I don't know but it was certainly more than zero. The problem is that some people call them Africans as opposed to aboriginal Asians or Indians and so forth who were and are well known in Asia.
Aborigine does not equal African.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The first people of Asia were aboriginal populations similar to those found elsewhere in Asia today. That is an undisputed fact. The question is how many of these darker skinned types were around during the first Chinese dynasties? I don't know but it was certainly more than zero. The problem is that some people call them Africans as opposed to aboriginal Asians or Indians and so forth who were and are well known in Asia.
Aborigine does not equal African.
Doug - You have to be kidding. How could the current populations of Asia closely resemble the "ORIGINAL" populations when we KNOW from ARTIFACTS and scientific STUDIES, not your say-so, that those ORIGINAL people were AFRICANS, and the CURRENT people are HYBRIDS of a Hybrid: i.e. Blacks and Mongols who are themselves Hybrids of Mongol Blacks and Whites from Central Asia!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Discourse should begin with defining terms. If the object of a definition fits the adjectives used to identify it, then, it is a good, workable definition.
I, for one, use African not as 99% of people do; most use it geographically meaning all the population within the continent is African, all outside aren't.
This overlooks the fact that lands now called the Middle East, Europe, Asia, once had populations exactly like those in today's Africa. Those lands could have been called greater Africa:
I don't use a geographical definition. I use a physical definition where an African is someone, color aside, who has some combination of woolly/wiry hair, a full nose, and full mouth. At the bottom of this page, I give a more complete definition of "African."
Not using color (as it is so contentious and also unnecessary as other physical differences are good enough), how are Africans physically differentiated from whites and Asians? Whites typically have narrow noses and straight hair; Asians/Monguls, oblong eyes and straight hair. Africans don't.
Someone may not be happy with a physical definition for African but they CANNOT say (by the definition used) that the following people are anything but African as they fit the definition.
They may wish the definition away, but they must, if they are logical and objective, concede it is a legitimate definition and those who fit it are African:
Actually, there are huge populations in China this very day who have the full lips and nose of a black/African/Negro and if they had woolly hair would pass for black/African/Negro. That was the original population before Monguls arrived with Ghengis and Kubla Khan during the European Middle Ages and gained hegemony.
A more complete definition of African:
THE THREE GREAT RACES AND THEIR MERGERS: The three great races are the Mongul, the White, and African. Until near 2300 BC, they were completely isolated from each other but since have mixed creating new sub-races as in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. The present work focuses not on the sub-races or Mongul or White but African. And, why? Much has been written about the others but the African is usually passed-over as being but a yawn; an insignificant footnote to history. Especially when contributions to civilization are concerned. There is, thus, an information vacuum or information gap. Here the attempt is made to bridge that gap.
THE LOOK OF THE AFRICAN: Let's omit color. Color aside, how are Africans distinguished: especially as art subjects and in ancient rock drawings, stone figurine, and human remains from 5000 years ago and earlier? African-looking people are the focus of this site. Not all will agree, but some Africans will be found with wavy hair. Others have curly hair. Sometimes, Africans have straight hair as the Afro-American U.S. Secretary of State, Donna Rice (these cases the result of miscegenation from the days of slavery and after).
Still, on one hand, Africans are people who typically have or are inclined to have (not "must" have) a "head like pure wool" as the Son of Man was described in Daniel 7:9; and have a full nose, and full mouth. Yet, the figurine of the Pygmy may be shown as steatophygous. The Kung or Bushman is very slender and has delicate facial features, not broad. Prognasthism (a projecting lower jaw) may exist. African human remains show skulls that are long rather than round; although it may come as a surprise the Khoisan (Bushman) has a round skull and it was they in prehistoric Mesopotamia, Sudan, and Egypt.
Compare the first column of original Africans to the second column of redone counterfeits. Part of the confusion why people don't know the African nature of the past is the deliberate efforts to, literally, re-tool and white-wash history.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aboriginal Asians are Asians even though they ultimately came from Africa thousands of years ago. They are Asians and have features similar to other Asians and Asian features developed FROM THEM. The ONLY way there could be a "hybrid" or "mixing" is if there were OTHER PEOPLE in Asia with DIFFERENT FEATURES BEFORE the original Aboriginal populations from Africa. There weren't. ALL those features in Asia and everywhere else developed among the Aboriginal populations of the world, before light skin was even present.
posted
If all the genetic information released thus far is true then. . . the logical conclusion is there is no such thing as RACE. This is supported by the phenotype of these Asian statues.
Some of these people may be classified as AA here in the US but they are not clsoely related to people of the African continent. They may look "negroid". They left the continent close to 50 kya. They may have MANY of the characteristics of being classified as "negros" but they are NOT.
Which support the theory/fact there is no race.
Sorry Mike et al.
If they are African then everyone is an African. . .including Europeans you know. . .those people from the Steppes. (pause) Just kidding about the Steppes.
If we go far back enough we are all Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Aboriginal Asians are Asians even though they ultimately came from Africa thousands of years ago.. . . . Philippines:
!!!!!!!!
There really troubling thing is trying to understand what happened. The further back in history we go these civilization seem more "negroid" albiet not African. But yet today these negroid peopel are virtually gone. We see that in India, Taiwan, Japan, China, Sothern Europe, even is the new Americas.
eg the modern Northern Indian, Japanese and Chinese are whiter and less negroid than their pre-decessors. ie their founders.
We spent a lot of time understanding what happened in Africa and it's satellite (Europe).
What happened in Middle and East Asia? Where did these white skinned Asians come from. Was it diet as is the supposed case with Northern Europeans??? Are similarities between northern Chinese and northern Euroepans. ie loss of the tropical body plan (He! He! He!)
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
If all the genetic information released thus far is true then. . . the logical conclusion is there is no such thing as RACE. This is supported by the phenotype of these Asian statues.
Some of these people may be classified as AA here in the US but they are not clsoely related to people of the African continent. They may look "negroid". They left the continent close to 50 kya. They may have MANY of the characteristics of being classified as "negros" but they are NOT.
In one segment your comment suggests rejection of racialist dogma, but in another, it suggests tacit acceptance of this dogma. But just for clarification, what characterizes a "negro"; is one only a "negro", if one is African?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
xyyman - I am just playing the hand that I was dealt. I didn't create the concept of races or racism. I didn't create a system of false history, and the falsification of artifacts. I didn't create the system of world relations built on race.
That is ALL the White mans doing. He created it as a way to unify Whites against the more numerous and capable Blacks. And he did very well with it, or didn't you notice that for all intents and purposes, they control the world?
I would suggest that a little more thought go into your positions.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I reject the recialist theory. But. . .these people ie Asians are not genetically similar to me although they look like me. ie 'Negroid/African". There is no other logical conclusion.
In other words Negroid does not equate to African which is the perception of some of my fellow Afrocentrist.
Modern Africans(about 4kya) did not leave the continent and went about building civilizations throughout the world. These people only "looked" like me.
But as I asked. . . what happened? why the recent shift in dominance by light skinned people. ie China, Japan, Taiwan, India and Europe.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
positions? No need to re-hash they Asians are not black?? thread. but St Tigray should check out that thread.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Yes, I reject the recialist theory. But. . .these people ie Asians are not genetically similar to me although they look like me. ie 'Negroid/African". There is no other logical conclusion.
In other words Negroid does not equate to African which is the perception of some of my fellow Afrocentrist.
Modern Africans(about 4kya) did not leave the continent and went about building civilizations throughout the world. These people only "looked" like me.
But as I asked. . . what happened? why the recent shift in dominance by light skinned people. ie China, Japan, Taiwan, India and Europe.
xyyman - Sorry to say; but you wouldn't know logic if it slapped you in the face.
Could you Pleeese tell me what this quote means, and who told you so. i.e. what does "genetically similar" mean, and how do you know it?
"these people ie Asians are not genetically similar to me although they look like me."Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Afronuts are doing far worse than the eurocentrists have ever done. Afronuts are attempting to afrikanize all history. Eventually the Afronuts will afrikanize europe. Wait a sec... they already have with their wild claim that vikings, nords, etc... were all Afrikans LOL!!!
quote:Originally posted by StTigray: This is Question is only for those like me who are seeking the truth in history, and not an agenda. I was on Youtube and I saw a video discussing the origins of China were created by Africans. I then remembered various postings about Black Vikings, Blacks Greece, and Black Rome. I found this disconcerting because if Im not mistaken it seems that there are some that seek to perpetrate the same lies as Eurocentrics. What is an affective way to address this issue. I also want to know, am I missing something?
posted
xyyman - Has it Dawned on you, that you have fallen for the oldest trick in the book. The White man says - Who you gonna believe, ME (in this case my White definitions of genetics and genetic relationships), or your OWN lying eyes. He he - Sucker!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Mike/Explorer - it is very simple. These "negro" looking ancient looking Asians are .. . .that. Negroid looking asians. They may resemble me . .. on the surface. . . .but apparently, based on their genetic lineage they are VERY distantly related to me.
I use the term "negroid" to generate a phenotype in the readers mind. ie to get a picture/message across. This is the popular term although incorrect.
So. If, If, If the genetic data presented by these Europeans and. . . .Asians are true then these ancient Asians are NOT negroid ie not closely related to Africans. NOT black in the conventiional sense.
Sucker. . maybe. But I have to rely on the scientific data presented by . . .white people.. . .and Asians. . .now.
This does not negate the fact that AE are also negroid, maybe even some of the southern Europeans.
Looking at the Estrucans pics, you posted and Fayoum (Romans)painting . . .these people were obviously "negroid". The meso_Americans were also negroid vis-a-vis Austrialians.
So, Afro-centrists are at least a lot more valid than Euro-centrist. ALL these people are "negroid" in the conventional sense. But are they closely related, genetically, to recent/modern African.. . . NO!!!!!!!!! (ie Ancient Asians, Dravidians, meso-americans)
My understand is the even the nordic Euros are more closely related to us.
Shi1t man! The Soutern Euros are R1b and e3b - one step away from R1 Africans etc
Which throws "race" flat on it's face.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
If you believe that ANY black phillipinos were sampled in any mainstream genetic studies, you're having a bubble. Mainstream genetic studies use sampling methods to suit an agenda... if they started sampling blacks in the Phillipines, Vietnam, Mongol, not to mention Egypt, Libya, Arabia etc... it would throw all of their genetic "evidence" out of balanace. Hence in mainstream genetic studies blacks outside of Africa are never sampled, because they are falsely classified as immigrants as opposed to indigenous... hence the black world presence is academia's best kept secret...
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: xyyman - Has it Dawned on you, that you have fallen for the oldest trick in the book. The White man says - Who you gonna believe, ME (in this case my White definitions of genetics and genetic relationships), or your OWN lying eyes. He he - Sucker!
There really troubling thing is trying to understand what happened. The further back in history we go these civilization seem more "negroid" albiet not African. But yet today these negroid peopel are virtually gone. We see that in India, Taiwan, Japan, China, Sothern Europe, even is the new Americas.
eg the modern Northern Indian, Japanese and Chinese are whiter and less negroid than their pre-decessors. ie their founders.
We spent a lot of time understanding what happened in Africa and it's satellite (Europe).
What happened in Middle and East Asia? Where did these white skinned Asians come from. Was it diet as is the supposed case with Northern Europeans??? Are similarities between northern Chinese and northern Euroepans. ie loss of the tropical body plan (He! He! He!)
The people know there history well. The Chinese came from the mountains after 1500BC.
As the Zhou they conquered China and made the Blacks into slaves or murdered them. They are recorded in Chinese history as Qiang slaves. They were also called Li Min 'black people'.
The modern Northern Indian, Japanese and Chinese are "whiter" and less negroid than their pre-decessors, because they are not descendants of the first Blacks to settle East Asia, or the African Blacks who entered China from the West in their Chariots and boats in serach of metals and adventure.
The Southern Indians are "Africans". The archaeolofy make it clear that the Dravidians are descendants of the C-Group people and they speak languages genetically related to Niger-Congo languages.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: But as I asked. . . what happened? why the recent shift in dominance by light skinned people. ie China, Japan, Taiwan, India and Europe.
posted
Leading world victims of skin cancer; Whites. Second place goes to; Asians.
Hispanic and blacks skin cancer rates, worldwide are in the noise. Skin cancer occurs when the victim is NOT environmentally adapted to the environment's UV index.
Therefore, Asia/Eurasia were first populated by normal AND albino Africans.
Race, is a myth. The world is comprised of only three groups of humans. Melanated, defectives (Albino), and admixed, yet they are all African.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But of course you'd come up w/ that most idiotic theory. It is the only way you can Trojan horse your way into the history and culture of all non white peoples. Since you lack your own history, you use pseudo history and science to hijack others. Since when was the world divided into two; melanated and deficient? WTF or how the fvck is light skin deficient in northern latitudes? What a fcuking idiot you are. Such a insignificant and not well travelled person you are to think the world is nothing but a tropic Afronutopia.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Leading world victims of skin cancer; Whites. Second place goes to; Asians.
Hispanic and blacks skin cancer rates, worldwide are in the noise.
Therefore, Asia was first populated by normal AND albino Africans.
Race, is a myth. The world is comprised of only three groups of humans. Melanated, defectives, and admixed.
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: But of course you'd come up w/ that most idiotic theory. It is the only way you can Trojan horse your way into the history and culture of all non white peoples. Since you lack your own history, you use pseudo history and science to hijack others. Since when was the world divided into two; melanated and deficient? WTF or how the fvck is light skin deficient in northern latitudes? What a fcuking idiot you are. Such a insignificant and not well travelled person you are to think the world is nothing but a tropic Afronutopia.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Leading world victims of skin cancer; Whites. Second place goes to; Asians.
Hispanic and blacks skin cancer rates, worldwide are in the noise.
Therefore, Asia was first populated by normal AND albino Africans.
Race, is a myth. The world is comprised of only three groups of humans. Melanated, defectives, and admixed.
Albinism affects not only the body, but also the mind, from inception. It's scientifically proven, a lack of sufficient melanin in the reproductive stage wires the brain abnormally. Therefore, a skewed sense of reality (history) may appear "normal" to a mis-wired entity.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe this is over my head but my initial question was not answered, where can I take a stand because I feel that inadvertently we are edging into an arena where, we are making enemies among those who would otherwise not be our enemies, and we are doing the same type of poor academics that whites have done not only with our culture but many others. I am saying that this question needs to be defined, it is way tooo open ended.
Posts: 163 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that is the case than you sir have a lot of explaining to do. How do you explain the white man colonizing the entire globe?
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: But of course you'd come up w/ that most idiotic theory. It is the only way you can Trojan horse your way into the history and culture of all non white peoples. Since you lack your own history, you use pseudo history and science to hijack others. Since when was the world divided into two; melanated and deficient? WTF or how the fvck is light skin deficient in northern latitudes? What a fcuking idiot you are. Such a insignificant and not well travelled person you are to think the world is nothing but a tropic Afronutopia.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Leading world victims of skin cancer; Whites. Second place goes to; Asians.
Hispanic and blacks skin cancer rates, worldwide are in the noise.
Therefore, Asia was first populated by normal AND albino Africans.
Race, is a myth. The world is comprised of only three groups of humans. Melanated, defectives, and admixed.
Albinism affects not only the body, but also the mind, from inception. It's scientifically proven, a lack of sufficient melanin in the reproductive stage wires the brain abnormally. Therefore, a skewed sense of reality (history) may appear "normal" to a mis-wired entity.
posted
Yea, it's called alienating one self. You can thank your afronut colleagues for alienating us from the rest of the non-white world. Of all people, native americans are up in arms at what afrocentrists are doing (hijacking their history). You'd think if anyone who could empathize with the Black man, it would be the natives. Well guess what? You can kiss that goodbye! Non-white people, whether natives or asians or latinos, have 10 fold more respect for Whites than Blacks. You can thank Youtube for broadcasting what is actually a fringe group (afronutters) into house around the world. Unfortunately Youtube has the effect of making something insignificant larger than life. People around the world see Blacks, specifically Afrikan Americans, as leaches and culture vultures. Truly a shame.
quote:Originally posted by StTigray: Maybe this is over my head but my initial question was not answered, where can I take a stand because I feel that inadvertently we are edging into an arena where, we are making enemies among those who would otherwise not be our enemies, and we are doing the same type of poor academics that whites have done not only with our culture but many others. I am saying that this question needs to be defined, it is way tooo open ended.
posted
Children and toys are inseperable. Have you read "Atlas Shrugged" ?
Get it on Amazon marketplace from seller named "HorizonBooks". You get best price!
-------------------- Are we going somewhere or are you going to keep annoying me with your boring lectures professor-warrior?? Posts: 368 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by StTigray: Maybe this is over my head but my initial question was not answered, where can I take a stand because I feel that inadvertently we are edging into an arena where, we are making enemies among those who would otherwise not be our enemies, and we are doing the same type of poor academics that whites have done not only with our culture but many others. I am saying that this question needs to be defined, it is way tooo open ended.
This is a public forum, so of course you are going to get all sorts of points of view. It is up to you to determine what you want to believe and what you don't. However, some "Afrocentrics" are not the basis of the historic hatred for black people. That hatred is based on peoples own warped views and prejudices and nothing else.
Go do your own research and study history for yourself if you are concerned about "distortions" from any particular group of people. Then you can understand the truth for yourself and not have to depend on others to give it to you.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: If that is the case than you sir have a lot of explaining to do. How do you explain the white man colonizing the entire globe?
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: But of course you'd come up w/ that most idiotic theory. It is the only way you can Trojan horse your way into the history and culture of all non white peoples. Since you lack your own history, you use pseudo history and science to hijack others. Since when was the world divided into two; melanated and deficient? WTF or how the fvck is light skin deficient in northern latitudes? What a fcuking idiot you are. Such a insignificant and not well travelled person you are to think the world is nothing but a tropic Afronutopia.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Leading world victims of skin cancer; Whites. Second place goes to; Asians.
Hispanic and blacks skin cancer rates, worldwide are in the noise.
Therefore, Asia was first populated by normal AND albino Africans.
Race, is a myth. The world is comprised of only three groups of humans. Melanated, defectives, and admixed.
Albinism affects not only the body, but also the mind, from inception. It's scientifically proven, a lack of sufficient melanin in the reproductive stage wires the brain abnormally. Therefore, a skewed sense of reality (history) may appear "normal" to a mis-wired entity.
Killer sharks rule the oceans, but their success has very little to do with their intelligence. Rather, their position is attributed moreso to their evolution to nature born killers. What point are you attempting to promote?
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by StTigray: Maybe this is over my head but my initial question was not answered, where can I take a stand because I feel that inadvertently we are edging into an arena where, we are making enemies among those who would otherwise not be our enemies, and we are doing the same type of poor academics that whites have done not only with our culture but many others. I am saying that this question needs to be defined, it is way tooo open ended.
Stick around a while, try reading older threads, that go back at least a year or so....and you will be able to distinguish the fringe pseudos, from those who actually practice an unbiased approach to history on this forum.
Not everyone on this board -as you can see- claims that all civilizations around the world were started by Africans until "whites" came and murdered all the indigenous "black" people in Europe, China, the Americas etc...
In a way the fringe pseudos who do promote this give "whites" too much credit IMO.
A lot of the misunderstandings and bizarre claims basically stem from the lack of knowledge and understanding of bio-anthropology and when it comes to the Out Of Africa (OOA) theory .
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
If it were that simple, you wouldn't be contradicting yourself. You first profess to reject racialist dogma, and then go onto apply it. Does that make sense to you? How is that simple?
quote: These "negro" looking ancient looking Asians are .. . .that. Negroid looking asians. They may resemble me . .. on the surface. . . .but apparently, based on their genetic lineage they are VERY distantly related to me.
I use the term "negroid" to generate a phenotype in the readers mind. ie to get a picture/message across. This is the popular term although incorrect.
You are essentially treating "negro" as a race, since you say that the so-called Asians are "negroid" but they aren't "negro"; yet you fail to define what it is, that is supposed to characterize a "negro". If "negro" is just a phenotype, then why did you bring up the issue of "genetic distinction"? And if "negro" is just a phenotype, and said Asians are "negroid", then why can't they just be simply "negro", since after all, they are "negroid" by your standards? Still think the matter is as simple as you say it is?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys - Speaking for myself, as just one Black man.
Fuch you - I am not here seeking allies against the White man. I am here seeking truth and speaking truth, as best I know it, nothing more and nothing less.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sooo what are you saying? Whites have a higher evolution that enables them to subdue others? You know like BIG FISH EAT LITTLE FISH, Big Shark eat little gupper, it's called the circle of life. Me think you should have NEVER used that analogy.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: If that is the case than you sir have a lot of explaining to do. How do you explain the white man colonizing the entire globe?
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: But of course you'd come up w/ that most idiotic theory. It is the only way you can Trojan horse your way into the history and culture of all non white peoples. Since you lack your own history, you use pseudo history and science to hijack others. Since when was the world divided into two; melanated and deficient? WTF or how the fvck is light skin deficient in northern latitudes? What a fcuking idiot you are. Such a insignificant and not well travelled person you are to think the world is nothing but a tropic Afronutopia.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Leading world victims of skin cancer; Whites. Second place goes to; Asians.
Hispanic and blacks skin cancer rates, worldwide are in the noise.
Therefore, Asia was first populated by normal AND albino Africans.
Race, is a myth. The world is comprised of only three groups of humans. Melanated, defectives, and admixed.
Albinism affects not only the body, but also the mind, from inception. It's scientifically proven, a lack of sufficient melanin in the reproductive stage wires the brain abnormally. Therefore, a skewed sense of reality (history) may appear "normal" to a mis-wired entity.
Killer sharks rule the oceans, but their success has very little to do with their intelligence. Rather, their position is attributed moreso to their evolution to nature born killers. What point are you attempting to promote?
posted
You are ISOLATED. Thank God people like you are a fringe!
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Guys - Speaking for myself, as just one Black man.
Fuch you - I am not here seeking allies against the White man. I am here seeking truth and speaking truth, as best I know it, nothing more and nothing less.
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: Sooo what are you saying? Whites have a higher evolution that enables them to subdue others? You know like BIG FISH EAT LITTLE FISH, Big Shark eat little gupper, it's called the circle of life. Me think you should have NEVER used that analogy.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: If that is the case than you sir have a lot of explaining to do. How do you explain the white man colonizing the entire globe?
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: But of course you'd come up w/ that most idiotic theory. It is the only way you can Trojan horse your way into the history and culture of all non white peoples. Since you lack your own history, you use pseudo history and science to hijack others. Since when was the world divided into two; melanated and deficient? WTF or how the fvck is light skin deficient in northern latitudes? What a fcuking idiot you are. Such a insignificant and not well travelled person you are to think the world is nothing but a tropic Afronutopia.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Leading world victims of skin cancer; Whites. Second place goes to; Asians.
Hispanic and blacks skin cancer rates, worldwide are in the noise.
Therefore, Asia was first populated by normal AND albino Africans.
Race, is a myth. The world is comprised of only three groups of humans. Melanated, defectives, and admixed.
Albinism affects not only the body, but also the mind, from inception. It's scientifically proven, a lack of sufficient melanin in the reproductive stage wires the brain abnormally. Therefore, a skewed sense of reality (history) may appear "normal" to a mis-wired entity.
Killer sharks rule the oceans, but their success has very little to do with their intelligence. Rather, their position is attributed moreso to their evolution to nature born killers. What point are you attempting to promote?
No, not a HIGHER evolution, but rather a different perverted evolution. As perverted as their defective DNA. All cultures kill, but not all enjoy the act of killing as much as the descendents of the African Albino.
Yes, the analogy is appropriate. Although sharks are on top of the food chain, they are basically dumb and would kill and consume until there was nothing left. The trade-off for their killer instinct is they are too dumb to not kill their way into their own extinction. Rome is dead, and so is Rome II.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: The trade-off for their killer instinct is they are too dumb to not kill their way into their own extinction.
Gee, I wouldn't say that, sharks been around since dinosaurs genius.....
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wrong, as usual 40-90. Ancient sharks were as close to modern sharks as monkeys are to modern man.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Perverted evolution"? LOL. You are waste. You lack a scientific mind. YOU LOSE.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: Sooo what are you saying? Whites have a higher evolution that enables them to subdue others? You know like BIG FISH EAT LITTLE FISH, Big Shark eat little gupper, it's called the circle of life. Me think you should have NEVER used that analogy.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: If that is the case than you sir have a lot of explaining to do. How do you explain the white man colonizing the entire globe?
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: But of course you'd come up w/ that most idiotic theory. It is the only way you can Trojan horse your way into the history and culture of all non white peoples. Since you lack your own history, you use pseudo history and science to hijack others. Since when was the world divided into two; melanated and deficient? WTF or how the fvck is light skin deficient in northern latitudes? What a fcuking idiot you are. Such a insignificant and not well travelled person you are to think the world is nothing but a tropic Afronutopia.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Leading world victims of skin cancer; Whites. Second place goes to; Asians.
Hispanic and blacks skin cancer rates, worldwide are in the noise.
Therefore, Asia was first populated by normal AND albino Africans.
Race, is a myth. The world is comprised of only three groups of humans. Melanated, defectives, and admixed.
Albinism affects not only the body, but also the mind, from inception. It's scientifically proven, a lack of sufficient melanin in the reproductive stage wires the brain abnormally. Therefore, a skewed sense of reality (history) may appear "normal" to a mis-wired entity.
Killer sharks rule the oceans, but their success has very little to do with their intelligence. Rather, their position is attributed moreso to their evolution to nature born killers. What point are you attempting to promote?
No, not a HIGHER evolution, but rather a different perverted evolution. As perverted as their defective DNA. All cultures kill, but not all enjoy the act of killing as much as the descendents of the African Albino.
Yes, the analogy is appropriate. Although sharks are on top of the food chain, they are basically dumb and would kill and consume until there was nothing left. The trade-off for their killer instinct is they are too dumb to not kill their way into their own extinction. Rome is dead, and so is Rome II.
Maybe this is over my head but my initial question was not answered, where can I take a stand because I feel that inadvertently we are edging into an arena where, we are making enemies among those who would otherwise not be our enemies, and we are doing the same type of poor academics that whites have done not only with our culture but many others. I am saying that this question needs to be defined, it is way tooo open ended.
No offense intended here, but your assessment starts from a faulty premise, if not ambiguous, because "we" suggests all bears the guilt or responsibility for what you are proposing; I highly doubt that is an accurate assessment of the status quo.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
[Doug writes] Aboriginal Asians are Asians even though they ultimately came from Africa thousands of years ago. They are Asians and have features similar to other Asians and Asian features developed FROM THEM.
quote: [Doug writes] Aboriginal Asians are Asians even though they ultimately came from Africa thousands of years ago. They are Asians and have features similar to other Asians and Asian features developed FROM THEM.
Thus we have in Africa them: Who could pass for black Asians
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: [Doug writes] Aboriginal Asians are Asians even though they ultimately came from Africa thousands of years ago. They are Asians and have features similar to other Asians and Asian features developed FROM THEM.
Thus we have in Africa them: Who could pass for black Asians The Asians even appears a tad darker IMO.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
For those who say people who have negroid features outside of Africa aren't African but aborigines of different sorts and names I say as I've said a thousand times, yours is a geographical definition.
If we use a physical definition for African being those with some combination of to woolly or wiry hair and full facial features, then they are African. Both in appearance and ultimate origination.
WHY THE DEMAND TO CALL PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF AFRICA WHO FIT A PHYSICAL DEFINITION FOR AFRICAN ABORIGINE? WHY NOT CALL THEM AFRICAN?
WHY CALL SUCH ABORIGINES ABORIGINE RATHER THAN AFRICAN? WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?
IT SEEMS THERE IS PHOBIA CONNECTED WITH THE NAME AFRICAN. THESE CONTINUAL, ENDLESS ARGUMENTS COMING FROM SO MANY QUARTERS AGAINST CALLING PEOPLE AFRICAN IS INTERESTING TO SAY THE LEAST.
posted
Clyde. Straight hair comes from aboriginal black Asians, not RACE MIXING. The first people on earth with straight hair, brown hair, black hair, blonde hair and any other kind of hair is .... black aboriginal people. Likewise, the first people with round eyes, 'slanted' eyes, thin noses and thin lips are also aboriginal black people. Those features among black aboriginal types DO NOT come from "race mixing".
If blacks are aboriginal to ALL PARTS of the planet then THERE WERE NO OTHER HUMANS TO MIX WITH. Those features therefore ALL DERIVE from aboriginal black populations. The ONLY kind of mixing that has occurred is due to the later lighter skinned populations mixing with those who are still tropically adapted. But BOTH populations all got their features from the same aboriginal founding groups. The only difference is that those who stayed in tropical environments retained their dark skin while others in the north did not.
Just like there is no one type of black African there is no one type of black person world wide.
Aboriginal populations all over the world have different features that have developed over thousands of years. And from them you get most of the features you see world wide.
There is a tremendous amount of differences between human features across Africa, hence there is no one type of black African and outside Africa the same is also true. It has nothing to do with Africa per se as opposed to the environment and random physical variation.
The Aboriginal people of India, South Asia, the Pacific, New Guinea and Australia do NOT look like Africans. You can easily pick them out in a series of anonymous photos of black people from across the planet. So trying to pretend that all those people are "Africans" is purely an exercise in nonsense. Yes, there are SOME Africans with features similar to those populations, yet because Africa is SO DIVERSE to begin with and because of the local environmental adaptation, you are not going to find WHOLE populations that match the features of black populations world wide. NONE of those people are Africans. Black does not equal African just like aboriginal does not equal African. The aboriginal blacks in Asia are just that ASIANS. They are not blacks who sailed to Asia a few thousand years ago. Similarly the aboriginal black populations of the Pacific, South Asia and the Americas are a result of population movements out of Africa from over 50,000 years ago. They are not Africans who just got there yesterday.
Calling these aboriginal people Africans is tantamount to calling all people worldwide populations white or black Africans. They are genetically and phenotypically closer to the people in their respective areas than they are to Africans. Yes the aboriginal populations worldwide are proof of the out of Africa migrations of all humans, but they did not get there yesterday and they are therefore not Africans in any contemporary sense.
You simply are trying to claim black skin as a marker meaning African, when it doesn't.
Yes Chinese people originally came from Africa like everyone else, but they are still Chinese:
Calling all these people Africans is to disrespect the patterns of history and culture of all these populations.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There shouldn't be any confusion you question has been answered in this thread.
There is essentially two school of thought.
1. All negroid "looking" people should be called African. . .wherever they are found. Thus those ancient Asians(and meso-America) statues etc are . . .African.
and
2. These ancient Asians pieces are NOT african although they fit the modern/Stereotypical/"conventional" view of negro. Genetical the Aborigenee test farthest from continental Africans.. . .and us decendants (AA). Hense Explorer question: what are negro traits . . . which I think is pretty evident.
I will take a leap and say ALL on this board agree that they are black skinned indegenous people. The conflict is should they be classified as African/negro or non-African/non-negro.
Even Afronutslayer agrees they are black skinned indegenous people. . .right???
quote:Originally posted by StTigray: This is Question is only for those like me who are seeking the truth in history, and not an agenda. I was on Youtube and I saw a video discussing the origins of China were created by Africans. I then remembered various postings about Black Vikings, Blacks Greece, and Black Rome. I found this disconcerting because if Im not mistaken it seems that there are some that seek to perpetrate the same lies as Eurocentrics. What is an affective way to address this issue. I also want to know, am I missing something?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You saying light skinned people are pre-disposed(genetically) to . . .murder and carnage. Is light skinned synominous to extermination? This is evident in China, Europe, India, Americas (pre-historic).
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: But as I asked. . . what happened? why the recent shift in dominance by light skinned people. ie China, Japan, Taiwan, India and Europe.
They killed the Blacks off of course.
.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic