posted
In recent times, skin color has become a bigger factor in the ethnic divisions and wars between various groups. Of course there has always been ethnic conflict and struggle throughout human history, along with political and social struggles. This is not unique to light skinned people. However, it is the Europeans who have elevated the concept of ethnic struggle to a global racial perspective and propagated the worst atrocities in the name of race.
Prior to this ethnic struggle was not simply racial. Asians were fighting Asians, Africans were fighting Africans, Europeans fighting Europeans. And because ethnic differences sometimes included skin color, there were struggles around skin color. However, the PRIMARY reason for the lack of darker skinned populations in most of Asia is environmental. Black skin is not as suited to the northern environments as paler skin. If dark skin was predominant in those areas, they would not have been wiped out. Therefore, it cannot be said that dark skinned populations are missing from Asia purely because of racism. It is no coincidence that the majority of the dark skinned aboriginal populations of Asia are found in tropical environments. Likewise it is also not a coincidence that some of the darkest native Americans are found in the hottest parts of the Americas: The Desert South West, the tropics and so forth. So we cannot blame everything on racism prior to the age of European colonialsm. Most wars prior to this time were primarily between people of the same complexion or features I would think. But again the history prior to the Age of Europeans has been so muddied and distorted that it is hard to get a clear picture of what was happening.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh? I thought the sceintifica data demonstrates that the light skin originated aboce the 48th Parallel(?) ?
+++++++
However, the PRIMARY reason for the lack of darker skinned populations in most of Asia is environmental. (latitude of these Aisan countires??)
+++++ Likewise it is also not a coincidence that some of the darkest native Americans are found in the HOTTEST parts of the Americas:(Latitude??)
-------------------- 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
Yes I agree they are Black skin (not to be confused with the noun - Black, which has been used to denote, for the most part, sub saharaners) and it is this fact that the Afronutters exploit as their Trojan Horse to go in, hijack, and rob other people's history.
Another thing, indigenous'ness does not necessarily imply they are the people who created the civilization on that land. Case in pt. The Americas. It was white skin chinese who built the civilization of their respective land.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: 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?
posted
Not too sure if you are an Afronutter, but if you are this would be my first time actually agreeing with one!
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In recent times, skin color has become a bigger factor in the ethnic divisions and wars between various groups. Of course there has always been ethnic conflict and struggle throughout human history, along with political and social struggles. This is not unique to light skinned people. However, it is the Europeans who have elevated the concept of ethnic struggle to a global racial perspective and propagated the worst atrocities in the name of race.
Prior to this ethnic struggle was not simply racial. Asians were fighting Asians, Africans were fighting Africans, Europeans fighting Europeans. And because ethnic differences sometimes included skin color, there were struggles around skin color. However, the PRIMARY reason for the lack of darker skinned populations in most of Asia is environmental. Black skin is not as suited to the northern environments as paler skin. If dark skin was predominant in those areas, they would not have been wiped out. Therefore, it cannot be said that dark skinned populations are missing from Asia purely because of racism. It is no coincidence that the majority of the dark skinned aboriginal populations of Asia are found in tropical environments. Likewise it is also not a coincidence that some of the darkest native Americans are found in the hottest parts of the Americas: The Desert South West, the tropics and so forth. So we cannot blame everything on racism prior to the age of European colonialsm. Most wars prior to this time were primarily between people of the same complexion or features I would think. But again the history prior to the Age of Europeans has been so muddied and distorted that it is hard to get a clear picture of what was happening.
posted
Not too sure if you are an Afronutter, but if you are this would be my first time actually agreeing with one!
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In recent times, skin color has become a bigger factor in the ethnic divisions and wars between various groups. Of course there has always been ethnic conflict and struggle throughout human history, along with political and social struggles. This is not unique to light skinned people. However, it is the Europeans who have elevated the concept of ethnic struggle to a global racial perspective and propagated the worst atrocities in the name of race.
Prior to this ethnic struggle was not simply racial. Asians were fighting Asians, Africans were fighting Africans, Europeans fighting Europeans. And because ethnic differences sometimes included skin color, there were struggles around skin color. However, the PRIMARY reason for the lack of darker skinned populations in most of Asia is environmental. Black skin is not as suited to the northern environments as paler skin. If dark skin was predominant in those areas, they would not have been wiped out. Therefore, it cannot be said that dark skinned populations are missing from Asia purely because of racism. It is no coincidence that the majority of the dark skinned aboriginal populations of Asia are found in tropical environments. Likewise it is also not a coincidence that some of the darkest native Americans are found in the hottest parts of the Americas: The Desert South West, the tropics and so forth. So we cannot blame everything on racism prior to the age of European colonialsm. Most wars prior to this time were primarily between people of the same complexion or features I would think. But again the history prior to the Age of Europeans has been so muddied and distorted that it is hard to get a clear picture of what was happening.
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: "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.
LOL..I NEVER LOSE. Listen, and learn pup and try not to become defensive.
"Perverted"
To turn from truth, rectitude, or propriety; to divert from a right use, end, or way; to lead astray; to corrupt; To turn another way.Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afro Idiot quote: "Another thing, indigenous'ness does not necessarily imply they are the people who created the civilization on that land. Case in pt. The Americas. It was white skin chinese who built the civilization of their respective land."
Damn boy, you sure are stupid, and every time that I think that you have reached the height of stupidity, you go higher yet - amazing!
Now that I have given you sufficient flattery, please tell us by name, who those white skin Chinese that built America were.
A picture would also be helpful, if you have any.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Huh? I thought the sceintifica data demonstrates that the light skin originated aboce the 48th Parallel(?) ?
+++++++
However, the PRIMARY reason for the lack of darker skinned populations in most of Asia is environmental. (latitude of these Aisan countires??)
+++++ Likewise it is also not a coincidence that some of the darkest native Americans are found in the HOTTEST parts of the Americas:(Latitude??)
Light skin may develop anywhere on earth. Albinism can be found anywhere on the planet occurring in all species of animal and plant. A good question is; when did the 1st Albino species appear in Africa, on earth, and what major event occur to trigger the perversion.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys. In case you did not notice. . . Albinism led to whites. . .give me a break!!!
With this one I think you are in LA LA land!!
You are an engineer/scientist . . . right? Don't let the profession down.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remeber back in the day when I read Van Sertima's "they came before. . ."
I actually believed that "WEEE came before colombus".
Now I know better. Most ancient peoples have the stereotypical negroid features bacause. . . .The first man who came from Africa had these features.
@ Explorer - Prognathism, large strong teeth, thicker lips, black/brown skin, wiry/curly hair, longer limbs, less body hair . . .
Remeber I said "stereotypical". Even the so called Ethiopids carry these traits as are the AE.
These features are NOT typically found in Northern Europe, northern China, Northern India etc.
Many of the statues, paintings from these Ancient people show the people having these stereotypical trait. . .conclusion/question. . . are they Africans? Therein lies the confusion or conflict.
So the question posed by Explorer - "what is a negro" is justified. Similarly - what is an African phenotype?
@ DerKy and Afronutslayer - This is a lot deepr than your nonsense. Brothas are talking here stay out of this.
AE are undoubtedly an indegenous African civilization. Cocoa-sians did not come to Africa.
. . . .This is the same issue ALTK posited in the " Asians are not black" thread.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now I know better. Most ancient peoples have the stereotypical negroid features bacause. . . .The first man who came from Africa had these features.
A real case could could be made for pre Columbian African contacts both ancient and medival but that's for another day.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Afro Idiot quote: "Another thing, indigenous'ness does not necessarily imply they are the people who created the civilization on that land. Case in pt. The Americas. It was white skin chinese who built the civilization of their respective land."
Damn boy, you sure are stupid, and every time that I think that you have reached the height of stupidity, you go higher yet - amazing!
Now that I have given you sufficient flattery, please tell us by name, who those white skin Chinese that built America were.
A picture would also be helpful, if you have any.
I agree. Doug and AfroIdiot just can't understand that certain populations do no like Negroes, Blacks, Africans and etc., and have committed genocide against them on many occasions.
They also don't recognize that the present inhabitants of many regions today are not the original inhabitants. Poor boy, Doug you just don't get it.
posted
Agreed the current populations that are now dominant in these regions DO NOT look like the statues or portraits of these ancient peoples.
The Afrocentrics point - "they look like me. Therefore they are my people". But we are on point with "they look like me".
Question is - are they my people because they look like me?
Southern Europeans - Estruscans (sp?), Pelagascians, Dravidians (Indus civilzations), Meso-Americans . They all look like or resemble modern day Africans and AA. That is a FACT.
But are they? How far back do we go? If we all include all that left the continent then. . . we got to include Europeans. So is there such a thing as a RACE then?
But the really burning question is - WHAT HAPPENED. How come the current dominant inhabitants look DIFFERENT to the ancients? Did the old group evolved or was it a complete overpowering/replacement by the light skinned ones from the north.
Was there enough time for the evolution. If light skin originated from above the 48th Parallel(?) then obviously they are NOT the same people but does that make the original inhabitants . . .African and the new-comers. . . . not African.
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I remeber back in the day when I read Van Sertima's "they came before. . ."
I actually believed that "WEEE came before colombus".
Now I know better. Most ancient peoples have the stereotypical negroid features bacause. . . .The first man who came from Africa had these features.
@ Explorer - Prognathism, large strong teeth, thicker lips, black/brown skin, wiry/curly hair, longer limbs, less body hair . . .
Remeber I said "stereotypical". Even the so called Ethiopids carry these traits as are the AE.
These features are NOT typically found in Northern Europe, northern China, Northern India etc.
Many of the statues, paintings from these Ancient people show the people having these stereotypical trait. . .conclusion/question. . . are they Africans? Therein lies the confusion or conflict.
So the question posed by Explorer - "what is a negro" is justified. Similarly - what is an African phenotype?
@ DerKy and Afronutslayer - This is a lot deepr than your nonsense. Brothas are talking here stay out of this.
AE are undoubtedly an indegenous African civilization. Cocoa-sians did not come to Africa.
. . . .This is the same issue ALTK posited in the " Asians are not black" thread.
Bottom line, all people with dark skin do not possess stereotypical negroid features and never have. That is both in and outside of Africa. So whatever it is you are talking about, it isn't based on facts. All dark skinned people are not African, whether or not they look Negroid or not.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Agreed the current populations that are now dominant in these regions DO NOT look like the statues or portraits of these ancient peoples.
The Afrocentrics point - "they look like me. Therefore they are my people". But we are on point with "they look like me".
Question is - are they my people because they look like me?
Southern Europeans - Estruscans (sp?), Pelagascians, Dravidians (Indus civilzations), Meso-Americans . They all look like or resemble modern day Africans and AA. That is a FACT.
But are they? How far back do we go? If we all include all that left the continent then. . . we got to include Europeans. So is there such a thing as a RACE then?
But the really burning question is - WHAT HAPPENED. How come the current dominant inhabitants look DIFFERENT to the ancients? Did the old group evolved or was it a complete overpowering/replacement by the light skinned ones from the north.
Was there enough time for the evolution. If light skin originated from above the 48th Parallel(?) then obviously they are NOT the same people but does that make the original inhabitants . . .African and the new-comers. . . . not African.
Do all black Africans look like you?
If so, why? If not why not?
Do all blacks world wide look like you?
Yes or no?
What does "look like you mean"? I am sure that MOST black people world wided DO NOT look like you.
Then again, what do you look like?
So again, you are making up standards of measurement for your own made up definition of what constitutes an African with no basis in fact at all.
You may even be white for all we know.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Agreed the current populations that are now dominant in these regions DO NOT look like the statues or portraits of these ancient peoples.
The Afrocentrics point - "they look like me. Therefore they are my people". But we are on point with "they look like me".
Question is - are they my people because they look like me?
Southern Europeans - Estruscans (sp?), Pelagascians, Dravidians (Indus civilzations), Meso-Americans . They all look like or resemble modern day Africans and AA. That is a FACT.
But are they? How far back do we go? If we all include all that left the continent then. . . we got to include Europeans. So is there such a thing as a RACE then?
But the really burning question is - WHAT HAPPENED. How come the current dominant inhabitants look DIFFERENT to the ancients? Did the old group evolved or was it a complete overpowering/replacement by the light skinned ones from the north.
Was there enough time for the evolution. If light skin originated from above the 48th Parallel(?) then obviously they are NOT the same people but does that make the original inhabitants . . .African and the new-comers. . . . not African.
Afrocentric researchers who identify a group of Blacks outside Africa as Africans, do not rely solely on how they look. Afrocentric researchers support their conclusions based on collateral evidence from anthropology, archaeology and linguistics.
For example, we claim Dravidian speakers are Africans because the archaeological, linguistic and anthropological evidence indicates that they were members of the C-Group people. This evidence gives us a date for the appearence of Dravidian speakers in India so we can call these people Africans since their appearence in South Asia is not due to the OOA event 60kya.
We claim the Olmecs are Africans because of similar reasoning:
1) the Olmec appear in Mexico suddenly between 1300-1200 BC
2) the skeletal remains show that they were Africans.
3) they used a common writing systems
4) the ethnonym for the Olmec, Xi (Shi) is of Mande origin
5) the religious and cultural terms of the Maya who got their culture and civilization from the Olmecs, are Mande terms
6) the use of jade to make tools in Africa and Mexico
7) the use of similar ceramics
The evidence is congruent with the iconography which indicates that the Olmec were Africans who spoke a Mande language. As you can see, Afrocentric researchers who write history do not rely solely on color to call a people African outside Africa.
posted
Many non-Blacks do not like African people and ofetn use genocide to eliminate our presence. I have already discussed the Chinese who used the Qiang for sport. Meso-Americans also did not like Africans. Below are pictures from Monte Alban. Monte Alban was an Olmec colonial site until the Zapotec conquered the city. The Zapotec left the following stelas
If you look carefully you will notice that the people in these stelas have their penises flayed or mutilated. This is a clear indication that the Zapotecs hated these Blacks not only because of their civilization and culture they also wanted to make sure that even in death these men could not make more Amerindian babies or children generally.
posted
Eurocentrism is a lie fabricated by White people, in order to create a false history for themselves, one filled with great deeds and accomplishments that really did not involve them. That because no person or people of power, willingly admit their humble origins.
Afrocentrism - is the truthful counter to Eurocentrism. It's function is to return to Africa and Africans the history and accomplishments that rightfully belong there. I don't recall an Afrocentric claiming that Blacks put a man on the moon - though Blacks were doubtlessly involved.
What Afrocentrism is NOT, is about gobbling up everyone and claiming that they are Black. For me personally, the hybrid peoples are whatever they CHOOSE to be. I am not so lonely being Black, that I need everyone else to be Black also.
But that being said, how can anyone claim that the hybrid people EVOLVED to look as they do now? When the evidence is clear that they are the result of admixture between VARIOUS African peoples and phenotypes.
posted
Unfortunately some people feel the best way to combat Eurocentrism is to mimic it.
The fact is that the people most responsible for the reduction in the numbers of blacks world wide are colonial Europeans. There is no evidence that any culture has ever had as much of a dedicated focus on the "black race" as white Europeans. There is no evidence that ANY culture has ever been dedicated to destroying people with black skin as much as Europeans in any part of the globe. This is obvious because blacks were still present in MOST of the places Europeans went outside of Europe.
So the blacks were not killed off before then. Throughout history black populations have not been exclusively on the losing side of wars or hatred. They have sometimes been victors and sometimes been victims, but it is simply not true they have been exclusively "whipping boys" because of black skin. That is simply a retarded view of history. The fact is that Europeans are the most violent of ANY culture EVER to come along both among THEMSELVES and others around the world. And they are the first culture to DEVOTE themselves to ethnic cleansing and genocide world wide. NO other culture can even come close or should even TRY to.
Black folks should simply do what they need to do for themselves and their own survival. Wasting your time slandering whites and trying to be reverse racists is not going to do that.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DougM is the only person talking any sense in this thread.
how can people think that all people with dark skin, or broad features are somehow related to Africans? This is not true.
There are many people all over the world that look like Africans, but are not Africans.
the dumbest thing in this thread is the idea that Africans or other blacks were being hated for there skin color even back in Ancient times. All you people are doing is making Africans eternal victims. Your not proving how great blacks were, really you are degrading Africans and Black people the world over by saying they were killed off by people who hate them without any evidence.
What proof is there that blacks in Asia were killed off for the simple reason that they had Black skin? You people make Blacks seem weak and allways victims. This mentality has to change.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Unfortunately some people feel the best way to combat Eurocentrism is to mimic it.
The fact is that the people most responsible for the reduction in the numbers of blacks world wide are colonial Europeans. There is no evidence that any culture has ever had as much of a dedicated focus on the "black race" as white Europeans. There is no evidence that ANY culture has ever been dedicated to destroying people with black skin as much as Europeans in any part of the globe. This is obvious because blacks were still present in MOST of the places Europeans went outside of Europe.
So the blacks were not killed off before then. Throughout history black populations have not been exclusively on the losing side of wars or hatred. They have sometimes been victors and sometimes been victims, but it is simply not true they have been exclusively "whipping boys" because of black skin. That is simply a retarded view of history. The fact is that Europeans are the most violent of ANY culture EVER to come along both among THEMSELVES and others around the world. And they are the first culture to DEVOTE themselves to ethnic cleansing and genocide world wide. NO other culture can even come close or should even TRY to.
Black folks should simply do what they need to do for themselves and their own survival. Wasting your time slandering whites and trying to be reverse racists is not going to do that.
Haaahaha....you're such a fool. If only you could read Chinese and other languages.
@ Explorer - Prognathism, large strong teeth, thicker lips, black/brown skin, wiry/curly hair, longer limbs, less body hair . . .
Is this what you mean, when you say said Asians are "negroid"? If yes, then what else do they need to have, in order to be--to put it ŕ la your logic--authentically "negro" as opposed to "negroid"?
Furthermore, are you on record, saying that the listed traits above are only confined to Africa?
quote: Remeber I said "stereotypical". Even the so called Ethiopids carry these traits as are the AE.
These features are NOT typically found in Northern Europe, northern China, Northern India etc.
If these "stereotypical" traits are not found in non-Africans and just confined to Africans, then why do you say certain non-Africans [Asians in this case] are "negroid"?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afronuts would have you to believe places like China were once populated by a majority of people with black skin. Of course this is anything but true. They have no other alternative but to convince you of this lie. Otherwise, their pseudo-history goes......POOF!
You see, finding a handful of archeological remains of a black presence in china is not even by a stretch of the imagination enough to claim these ancient chinese were a majority Black. Because that same idiotic logic can be used for the 100 folds more of archeological remains that exist of light skin Chinese.
There is that one little matter omitted from the Afronut's pseudo equation of deception, what the fcuck happened to all those "Black" chinese if indeed chinese people were once Black? And the fcked up part about this crap, it's the same bullshit for all the other places, Afronuts love to claim. The alleged Black ancestry somehow myseriously vanished. So much for the "Dark genes are dominant" science!
quote:what the fcuck happened to all those "Black" chinese if indeed chinese people were once Black?
My guess some migrated some intermarried they eventually got abosrbed and that's the easiest explaination. The important looking fella may or may not be African but he sure was black I am thinking Ambassdor from Africa? But these fellas certainly where black Asians on the mainland Ladies and gentilemen live and in living color I present to you Black Asians from the distant past. Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: Afronuts would have you to believe places like China were once populated by a majority of people with black skin. Of course this is anything but true.
In all actuality Kayanyah a.k.a Afronuthugger (whom I've shut down so many times before) this is the main or shall I say majority view held by unbiased (all points viewed without prejudice) scientific academia and accepted by all credible scholars working in this field of expertise.
Note, that since humanity arose in Africa I.e., that humans were populated by people coming from Africa who of which according to natural laws of science would have, and indeed have been proven to be tropically adapted black Africans (just note Oceanic's, I.e., Melanesians and Australians).
Humans spread out from Africa, and as a consequence after thousands of years and subsequent bottlenecks in the areas they populated adapting to different environmental pressures look as they do today.
Where ever you see an individual who does not resemble an African is result of environmental pressures.
If you don't want to believe it then disprove the already proven analyses pertaining to parenatal markers (Mtdna and Y-dna), then we can talk business, so far nobody has been able to do so, and of course you'll fall short indeed.
No doubt without population genetics to correlatively match with anthropological evidence which proves this undoubtedly over and over, that ultimately anatomically modern humans originated within sub Saharan Africa (I.e, Y-dna and Mtdna wise) we wouldn't know this information at all and would be stuck spouting racialist dogma as some still persist to do to this day.
Go do some of your own original research (albeit I know you won't) on the subject of bio-anthropology, perhaps you'll embarrass yourself less than what you do now.
Of course to you it's the big bad Afro-centrists who run the majority of new age scientific studies published whereas the OOA/RAO (Out of Africa/Recent African Origin), has never been refuted, correct?
Gosh darn all those afro-centric scientists in academia.. huh nut?
Like SOY Keita says the ghosts of the pre-genetic era need to be exorcised!!!
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
[Doug writes] Bottom line, all people with dark skin do not possess stereotypical negroid features and never have. That is both in and outside of Africa. So whatever it is you are talking about, it isn't based on facts. All dark skinned people are not African, whether or not they look Negroid or not.
[Marc writes] Doug. Your writing is non-sequitor. You write, “All dark skinned people are not African, whether or not they look Negroid or not.”
If they look Negroid and the definition of “African” is people who look Negroid, then they are African.
I believe your concept of the geographical African is a colonized, defeated people and this sits well with your notions of white superiority. On the other hand, it creates revulsion to countenance the thought that an a Negroid-looking person isn’t African.
is utter, mindless foolishness.
Keep in mind that many of the people you show with negroid characteristics originated from populations even more Negroid-looking until whites came with racial intermixing and genocide.
The following are examples of ancient Negroid peoples you’d say weren’t African.
6. China, 7. Siberia 8. Aluetian Islands, 9. Croation of Europe 11. Honduran 12. Celt of Spain 13. Mesopotamian
posted
In the Chinese literature the Blacks were called li-min, Kunlung, Ch'iang (Qiang), Yi and Yueh. The founders of the Xia Dynasty and the Shang Dynasties were blacks. These blacks were called Yueh and Qiang. The modern Chinese are descendants of the Zhou. The second Shang Dynasty ( situated at Anyang) was founded by the Yin. As a result this dynasty is called Shang-Yin. The Yin or Oceanic Mongoloid type is associated with the Austronesian speakers ( Kwang-chih Chang, "Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China", Current Anthropology, 5 (1964) pp.359-375 :375). The Austronesian or Oceanic Mongoloid type were called Yin, Feng, Yen, Zhiu Yi and Lun Yi.
In Chinese min=people and li= black (see L. Wieger, Chinese Characters (1915)).The Chinese classics make it clear that the Li min, meant "Black people" not young Chinese or peasant Chinese. In the "Shu King", we read that "In the Canon of Yao, we discover that Yu "…regulated and polished the people of his domain, who all became brightly intelligent. Finally, he united and harmonized the myriad States of the empire; and lo! The black people were transformed". In this passage "min li is used to describe all the people in the Empire, not just the peasants or the young people. In Book II, it was written that Kao yao "…with vigorous activity sowing abroad his virtue, which has decended on the black people, till they cherish him in their hearts". Again the term li min was applied to the people of the empire and not just a particular group.
The term li min means "black people". The term for peasant had nothing to do with li min. The term for peasant comes from the tsung-jen character which is formed by a group of three men usually placed under a sun, signifying that they are working on the farm in the sun. In later periods many Chinese writers began to called the tsung-jen character li min, so as to associate this sign with the ancient designation of the Shang and Xia people who were "black or Oceanic/African people", not yellow people "browned by the sun".
posted
Secondly, archaeological research makes it clear that Negroids were very common to ancient China. F. Weidenreich ( in Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-30) noted that the one of the earliest skulls from north China found in the Upper Cave of Chou-k'ou-tien, was of a Oceanic Negroid/Melanesoid " (p.163).
These blacks were the dominant group in South China. Kwang-chih Chang, writing in the 4th edition of Archaeology of ancient China (1986) wrote that:" by the beginning of the Recent (Holocene) period the population in North China and that in the southwest and in Indochina had become sufficiently differentiated to be designated as Mongoloid and OCEANIC NEGROID races respectively…."(p.64). By the Upper Pleistocene the Negroid type was typified by the Liu-chiang skulls from Yunnan (Chang, 1986, p.69).
Negroid skeletons dating to the early periods of Southern Chinese history have been found in Shangdong, Jiantung, Sichuan, Yunnan, Pearl River delta and Jiangxi especially at the initial sites of Chingliengang (Ch'ing-lien-kang) and Mazhiabang (Ma chia-pang) phases ( see: K.C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University Press:New Haven,1977) p.76) . The Chingliengang culture is often referred to as the Ta-wen-k'ou (Dawenkou) culture of North China. The presence of Negroid skeletal remains at Dawenkou sites make it clear that Negroes were still in the North in addition to South China. The Dawenkou culture predates the Lung-shan culture which is associated with the Xia civilization.
Agreed the current populations that are now dominant in these regions DO NOT look like the statues or portraits of these ancient peoples.
The Afrocentrics point - "they look like me. Therefore they are my people".
Southern Europeans - Estruscans (sp?), Pelagascians, Dravidians (Indus civilzations), Meso-Americans . They all look like or resemble modern day Africans and AA. That is a FACT.
But are they? How far back do we go? If we all include all that left the continent then. . . we got to include Europeans. So is there such a thing as a RACE then?
[Marc writes]: I’m surprised to hear you ask the question. It seems your thinking is diametrically opposed to what it was a year back and earlier where you would argue indeed race does exist.
[Xxyman writes]: But the really burning question is - WHAT HAPPENED. How come the current dominant inhabitants look DIFFERENT to the ancients? Did the old group evolved or was it a complete overpowering/replacement by the light skinned ones from the north.
[Marc writes]: Again I am surprised you ask the question. Again, a year before and earlier, you’d clearly note and recognize that genocide has been committed worldwide.
As whites and Monguls migrated worldwide from mostly after the 5th century AD, they cleansed the lands of the original African/black/Negro inhabitants through genocide and slavery.
Whenever you see golden races, you see the mixture of snow white and jet black. The Spanish, Middle Easterners, Asians, all examples of a figurative jet-black African population which encountered incursive whites and/or Monguls.
[Xxyman writes]: Was there enough time for the evolution. If light skin originated from above the 48th Parallel(?) then obviously they are NOT the same people but does that make the original inhabitants . . .African and the new-comers. . . . not African.
[Marc writes:] Are you joking? Was there enough time for evolution? You have populations in Europe even during the Middle Ages that were black. Are you asking if there was enough time for evoution to change these people in five centuries?
posted
Thanks for clearing that up Mike. Saw it lastnight did not have to respond. Enjoying the game. Don't get it with the NFL. Why Canada.. . .
@ King/Doug - I am asking the question. That is NOT my position. I asking the brothas who make that claim to support it. Dr. Winters just provided some evidence above. That, yes,indeed the Olmecs are recent Affricans, circa 1200BC.
QUOTE: King - I think you missed something in the translation.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: King quote: how can people think that all people with dark skin, or broad features are somehow related to Africans? This is not true.
King - I think you missed something in the translation. We AGREE that they ARE related to Africans.
The argument is to why SOME no longer "look" like Africans.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
So the Northern Indians are genetically different from the Dravidians.
Is there similar differences between the Northern lighter Chinese and the darker southern Asians?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]Afrocentric researchers who identify a group of Blacks outside Africa as Africans, do not rely solely on how they look. Afrocentric researchers support their conclusions based on collateral evidence from anthropology, archaeology and linguistics.
For example, we claim Dravidian speakers are Africans because the archaeological, linguistic and anthropological evidence indicates that they were members of the C-Group people. This evidence gives us a date for the appearence of Dravidian speakers in India so we can call these people Africans since their appearence in South Asia is not due to the OOA event 60kya.
We claim the Olmecs are Africans because of similar reasoning:
1) the Olmec appear in Mexico suddenly between 1300-1200 BC
2) the skeletal remains show that they were Africans.
3) they used a common writing systems
4) the ethnonym for the Olmec, Xi (Shi) is of Mande origin
5) the religious and cultural terms of the Maya who got their culture and civilization from the Olmecs, are Mande terms
6) the use of jade to make tools in Africa and Mexico
7) the use of similar ceramics
The evidence is congruent with the iconography which indicates that the Olmec were Africans who spoke a Mande language. As you can see, Afrocentric researchers who write history do not rely solely on color to call a people African outside Africa.
.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Agreed the current populations that are now dominant in these regions DO NOT look like the statues or portraits of these ancient peoples.
The Afrocentrics point - "they look like me. Therefore they are my people".
Southern Europeans - Estruscans (sp?), Pelagascians, Dravidians (Indus civilzations), Meso-Americans . They all look like or resemble modern day Africans and AA. That is a FACT.
But are they? How far back do we go? If we all include all that left the continent then. . . we got to include Europeans. So is there such a thing as a RACE then?
[Marc writes]: I’m surprised to hear you ask the question. It seems your thinking is diametrically opposed to what it was a year back and earlier where you would argue indeed race does exist.
[Xxyman writes]: But the really burning question is - WHAT HAPPENED. How come the current dominant inhabitants look DIFFERENT to the ancients? Did the old group evolved or was it a complete overpowering/replacement by the light skinned ones from the north.
[Marc writes]: Again I am surprised you ask the question. Again, a year before and earlier, you’d clearly note and recognize that genocide has been committed worldwide.
As whites and Monguls migrated worldwide from mostly after the 5th century AD, they cleansed the lands of the original African/black/Negro inhabitants through genocide and slavery.
Whenever you see golden races, you see the mixture of snow white and jet black. The Spanish, Middle Easterners, Asians, all examples of a figurative jet-black African population which encountered incursive whites and/or Monguls.
[Xxyman writes]: Was there enough time for the evolution. If light skin originated from above the 48th Parallel(?) then obviously they are NOT the same people but does that make the original inhabitants . . .African and the new-comers. . . . not African.
[Marc writes:] Are you joking? Was there enough time for evolution? You have populations in Europe even during the Middle Ages that were black. Are you asking if there was enough time for evoution to change these people in five centuries?
The fact you keep trying to pretend it does is simply your own inability to comprehend reality.
The fact is that ALL humans black or otherwise, ultimately originate in Africa. Therefore, if you are going to claim that the blacks of Asia are Africans then so too are the whites of Asia because they are BOTH the same people.
THAT is the nonsense logic that you and Clyde keep trying to push as if all blacks world wide only got there yesterday and therefore are all recent African transplants, when they aren't.
And to claim that the Africans of middle Ages Europe who were part of African expansions into Europe during the middle Ages proves that all blacks world wide are recent African migrants IS STUPID.
The circumstances by which black populations became a minority in various parts of the world varies. In China there was a population explosion in the North, where black skin is not suited to the environment. This is the PRIMARY reason blacks no longer exist in large numbers there. Yes, China has been an imperial power in Asia for a few thousand years, but they were not just hostile to blacks, they were hostile to Mongols, Koreans, Japanese and many other ethnic groups. Singling out blacks as being somehow uniquely singled out is retarded. Asians have been fighting Asians since forever and the ONLY reason blacks were easily beaten is because of their numerical inferiority to the large numbers of Northerners. If there were 100 million or more black mainland Chinese 2000 years ago, I doubt very seriously they would have been wiped out. But the environment in the north would not have supported such a scenario to begin with. Imperial China had slaves and eunuchs from all parts of Asia, some black but most were other WHITE ASIANS.
But don't get me wrong, I am not claiming that Chinese were never racists or that blacks have not been treated bad in China for being black. I have no doubt that to this day the presence of blacks in Ancient China may be something of a "state secret" in China. What I am saying is that the PRIMARY reason for the numerical inferiority of blacks in mainland Asia is ENVIRONMENTAL more than anything else. And those blacks were still present in parts of China and South Asia up until the arrival of Europeans, which is when the MAJORITY of black South Asians and other Asians were wiped out.
And again, the only people responsible for the systematic purposeful destruction of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of black people world wide is Europeans. NO other culture prior to that has EVER come close.
But even with all of that, there are STILL blacks in Asia and the Americas and they are NOT AFRICANS.
Numerous threads have already been over this many times:
posted
So St. Tigray there you have it. To answer your question:
Several points of view.
Marc/Mike: Anyone who has the stereotypical “negroid features is negroid. Negroid=African. Does matter when they left the continent. Or what their genetic lineage are. Negroid=black. So if you hold that point of view then ALL these artifacts were created by Africans. The strength of that argument is ALL genetic lineage probable looked African up 5Kya.
Clyde: Olmecs, Dravidians, Qiang(?) are recent Africans. They are NOT part of the 50kya (old) OOA migration. Some of these were Africans who recently left the continent and occupied other lands. Dr. Winters cites genetics, and the ability to read ancient scripts. Which many of us can not. Give him the benefit of the doubt
Explorer/KIK: does NOT matter what they look like. Since they don’t belong to African lineage (genetically) then they are not Africans. Believe the ancients are the ancestors of the present occupiers.
Doug: similar to KIK/Explorer. But he doesn’t believe they were aborbed/morphed. They were exterminated.
AfronutSlayer: I am not sure what he is saying. Gabbledegook. Complain! Complain! Bitch bitch! What is your of view, what are you saying? Says he is black but just bitches!! What is you view brotha? What camp do you fall in? can you back it up. You do have a valid question which I asked. What happened?
My view: I am learning. I am trying to put the pieces together in my mind. ALL of us agree the ancients look dis-similar to the present occupiers.
@ Doug – I take offence at being called white. I said who I am many times. Tested E3a via NG genographic project. So. . .West African ancestry. Although I may have a white mother. . . .just kidding about the white mother. LOL. Is Obama black?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xyyman stop trying to be a mouth piece for other people.
Every one on this board is perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. I certainly don't need you to summarize what I said, especially since you don't even get it right to begin with.
Like I said, the best thing for ANYONE to do is to learn for themselves by going to the library or online to libraries and institutions and looking up the facts FOR THEMSELVES. Going to a public forum like this is not going to give you the facts. It will give you various points of view and it is up to you to believe what you want.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So let's flip the switch. . . if Obama's father was white and mother black. We may now have R1b "black" man.
Is he negroid/black/African/Leucoderm/European. Or none of the above?
See where I am going with this. . . .?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
xyyman - Are you seriously expecting a point-of-view from Afroidiot? Come on, he is some dumb-assed kid who gets his jollies saying outrageous things and generally making a fool of himself.
As I thought that I made clear; my interest is a scholarly one. I am interested in tracing mans movements out of Africa, the various crossbreeding machinations along the migration routes, and how these Africans settled the rest of the world.
Then there are the mechanics by which the current, already hybrid people when they arrived in a given area, got there, and their relationship to the Africans who first settled that area. So you see I wish to claim nobody as Black or anything else, I am only interested in finding the truth.
But, finding the truth does require that I occasionally expose racial lies. Since the conversation has turned to Asia, then I will use some Asian examples.
If this obviously African Black man is a Khmer of Cambodia.
Then this Chinese type woman could NOT possibly be a Khmer.
If this obviously African Black man is a Mon of Thailand.
Then this Chinese type woman could NOT possibly be a Mon.
If this obviously African Black man is a Berber.
Then this White type woman could NOT possibly be a Berber.
THE LOOK OF THE AFRICAN: Let's omit color. Color aside, how are Africans distinguished:
And go on to state those physical features.
It is only in the last half year I have started to link African with black and Negro but as a rule I don't as it is too contentious.
You, Doug, or if you wouldn't 99% of white people wouldn't say that pale-skinned Afrikanners, Americans, Australians are not Caucasian because they are not in their homeland of the Russian Steppes but have the audacity and madness to say that even if someone looks like a Negro they are not African.
Pure madness.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Historical deception has played a role in minimizing the presence and role of blacks in Asia and many other parts of the world. And yes blacks world wide are relegated to the bottom rung of the ladder in many places world wide. There is absolutely no disagreement on that.
However, that does not mean that blacks have disappeared from these areas in modern times. What has happened is they have simply been pushed to the bottom, partly due to fairly RECENT migrations of whites and northerners. I wouldn't call that ANCIENT because even 500 years ago black populations were much more independent and powerful than today. In fact many of those statues you are referring to are less than 1000 years old to begin with.
THE LOOK OF THE AFRICAN: Let's omit color. Color aside, how are Africans distinguished:
And go on to state those physical features.
It is only in the last half year I have started to link African with black and Negro but as a rule I don't as it is too contentious.
You, Doug, or if you wouldn't 99% of white people wouldn't say that pale-skinned Afrikanners, Americans, Australians are not Caucasian because they are not in their homeland of the Russian Steppes but have the audacity and madness to say that even if someone looks like a Negro they are not African.
Pure madness.
. .
It is pure madness to compare RECENT (within the last 500 years) white migrants and colonists from Europe world wide with aboriginal black populations that have been in place for many thousands of years.
They are not equivalent in any sense of the word.
Of course they are white Europeans and can and should identify as such, they have a common tie in culture and language to Europe due to their recent exit from Europe.
Aboriginal black populations world wide have different languages, different cultures and identities and features from each other and Africans and therefore have no common tie to identify with as Africans.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug M quote: "Aboriginal black populations world wide have different languages, different cultures and identities and features from each other and Africans and therefore have no common tie to identify with as Africans."
The SAME could be said for AFRICANS in AFRICA!!
Where are you going with that??Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Explorer/KIK: does NOT matter what they look like. Since they don’t belong to African lineage (genetically) then they are not Africans. Believe the ancients are the ancestors of the present occupiers.
xyyman, I think you are missing the substance of my questions, in relation to your comment. I'm asking you, why the so-called "negroid" Asians, as you called them, cannot simply be "negroes"? What is the distinction between "negroids" and "negroes"?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Like I said, the best thing for ANYONE to do is to learn for themselves by going to the library or online to libraries and institutions and looking up the facts FOR THEMSELVES. Going to a public forum like this is not going to give you the facts. It will give you various points of view and it is up to you to believe what you want.
Wherever one goes, be it library, institutions or social networks over the internet [like this forum], there will be different points of view. FACT is determined by weight of evidence in ANY of these avenues.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally don't know what all the fake controversy is about. The "Modern" South Asians lineage is obvious and documented. Here is how it worked in Vietnam.
VIETNAM
.
This...
Plus This...
Equals This...
Some have LESS Black admixture...
And some have MORE Black admixture.
Contrary to what Doug says, these people have NOT inhabited these areas for thousands of years. The current populations are as has been shown, a "Hybrid" people, a blend of the original Black populations plus the incoming Chinese people. Thus they are a "NEW" people - in some cases only about 300 years old.
xyyman - If you still can't understand, then I don't know what else to do or say.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Those people are NOT Black, and they do not claim to be Black. As a matter of fact, perhaps due to White colonization, perhaps not, there is often a tinge of racism to these people.
Tigers choice of a bride was no doubt influenced by his mother (a Thai), that will cost him dearly!
posted
The Blacks of Asia has been in Asia for tens of thousands of years yet they are not Asians..yet some johnny come lately as far as skin and phenotype is concern but very much related to the original Blacks gets to be called Asians? makes no sense.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Unfortunately some people feel the best way to combat Eurocentrism is to mimic it.
The fact is that the people most responsible for the reduction in the numbers of blacks world wide are colonial Europeans. There is no evidence that any culture has ever had as much of a dedicated focus on the "black race" as white Europeans. There is no evidence that ANY culture has ever been dedicated to destroying people with black skin as much as Europeans in any part of the globe. This is obvious because blacks were still present in MOST of the places Europeans went outside of Europe.
So the blacks were not killed off before then. Throughout history black populations have not been exclusively on the losing side of wars or hatred. They have sometimes been victors and sometimes been victims, but it is simply not true they have been exclusively "whipping boys" because of black skin. That is simply a retarded view of history. The fact is that Europeans are the most violent of ANY culture EVER to come along both among THEMSELVES and others around the world. And they are the first culture to DEVOTE themselves to ethnic cleansing and genocide world wide. NO other culture can even come close or should even TRY to.
Black folks should simply do what they need to do for themselves and their own survival. Wasting your time slandering whites and trying to be reverse racists is not going to do that.
I really like what you said in that we should not mimic Eurocentrist to combat them. I really feel that in doing so we have won a great victory the old fashioned way.
Posts: 163 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So St. Tigray there you have it. To answer your question:
Several points of view.
Marc/Mike: Anyone who has the stereotypical “negroid features is negroid. Negroid=African. Does matter when they left the continent. Or what their genetic lineage are. Negroid=black. So if you hold that point of view then ALL these artifacts were created by Africans. The strength of that argument is ALL genetic lineage probable looked African up 5Kya.
Clyde: Olmecs, Dravidians, Qiang(?) are recent Africans. They are NOT part of the 50kya (old) OOA migration. Some of these were Africans who recently left the continent and occupied other lands. Dr. Winters cites genetics, and the ability to read ancient scripts. Which many of us can not. Give him the benefit of the doubt
Explorer/KIK: does NOT matter what they look like. Since they don’t belong to African lineage (genetically) then they are not Africans. Believe the ancients are the ancestors of the present occupiers.
Doug: similar to KIK/Explorer. But he doesn’t believe they were aborbed/morphed. They were exterminated.
AfronutSlayer: I am not sure what he is saying. Gabbledegook. Complain! Complain! Bitch bitch! What is your of view, what are you saying? Says he is black but just bitches!! What is you view brotha? What camp do you fall in? can you back it up. You do have a valid question which I asked. What happened?
My view: I am learning. I am trying to put the pieces together in my mind. ALL of us agree the ancients look dis-similar to the present occupiers.
@ Doug – I take offence at being called white. I said who I am many times. Tested E3a via NG genographic project. So. . .West African ancestry. Although I may have a white mother. . . .just kidding about the white mother. LOL. Is Obama black?
Hilarious!
Thank you some really valid points but I am like you just learning, but concerned about our trajectory in this matter(Claiming and defending African History). I guess I would like us to emulate Martin Luther King, and defeat the Eurocentric in such an honorable yet formidable way that our argument would seem championed by God himself. lol
Posts: 163 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic