posted
The height of the Champa Empire was in about the 9th century. It gradually declined from there to about the 15th century. Therefore, the destruction of the Champa Kingdom by Chinese NORTHERN WHITE ASIANS is not an example of ANCIENT white racism in Asia. It is an example recent imperial Chinese expansion.
Yes China has bullied its neighbors in Asia over time but most of that is due to the fact of their numeric superiority and that is what has primarily given them the upper hand. But their features are still primarily due to environmental factors.
However, that said, there are still pockets of black aboriginal type people in Vietnam. Some are called Montagnards but there are others as well. Obviously all of them have not been completely eradicated.
Throughout Southeast Asia there are people that still look like that:
And still the Champa people were not Africans. The technical term is ASIAN Aboriginal or Negrito or simply ASIAN.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug M - It is not ME who is calling them Black OR African. I clearly said that they are NOT Black or African. Those people are CLEARLY of MIXED ancestry, therefore they CANNOT be Black or African - unless they wish to be identified as such. As a matter of fact, it is only YOU, who seems to be making a case about this.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Calling these people Africans is simply Absurd, no matter how black or negrito they look.
And whats more it obscures the fact of Africans who visited,trade,and conduct other business in Asia such as Axumite and other East African traders and military sailors.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand; these people, who were the first to leave Africa, and whose phenotype no longer exists in Africa, are indeed Black, and they so identify themselves.
People keep tripping over the fact that it is the ENVIRONMENT that determines a peoples features including those IN AFRICA. And people worldwide who are TROPICALLY ADAPTED will look similar to Africans who are ALSO tropically adapted. So those populations in Asia and elsewhere who stayed in a tropical environment maintained the features of their African ancestors, while those who moved into extreme northern environments did not. It is that simple. But NEITHER population is no longer African, whether they are COAL BLACK and tropically adapted or not. It doesn't change that both are descended from African migrations, but that was THOUSANDS of years ago.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He, he, So Doug M - Following your convoluted logic. Please tell me, which of these is the American!
Is it this one...
.
Or is it this one?
Doug - with the environment theory stuff, you are approaching the total nonsense territory of Dirkie and Afronut, give it a break.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.
As a longstanding poster here, I can say that for anyone who has read my posts, that this is a simplistic assessment of a variety of issues I've tried to get through. For example, from my standpoint, "they" has to be defined first and foremost, before anyone can reach any meaningful conclusion of a discussion. Furthermore, if the "they" are humans, then technically, as preponderance of tangible genetic material and paleontology show, all humans belong to African lineage genetically. Being one or several steps removed from the most common recent African ancestor does not change this fact. This obviously contradicts your assessment above. Non-Africans are not Africans, not because of the just mentioned fact, but quite simply, because they are not African natives--it is more of socio-political thing than a genetic connection.
Additionally, the continent we call "Asia" is marked by complex demographic events, as is the case for many other landmasses. Some sections of the populations therein descend from more recent episodes than others. Some sections may have recent common ancestry that post-date the proposed successful upper Paleolithic OOA genetic fission of a subset of African gene pool, while others may trace such ancestry to said Paleolithic background. Is the just-mentioned synonymous with "Believe the ancients are the ancestors of the present occupiers."? It is safe to say that while the former doesn't necessary contradict the latter in absolute terms, the former cannot easily be summarized into the latter; for instance, it comes down to the specifics of which populations, which sections within populations, and how ancient is "ancient". There is no single answer to this question.
This still stands:
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"?
Remember, avoidance of answers to questions that seek clarity of one's own terms and stated-position is really a sign of inability to defend oneself. Of course, one is free to care or not care about their own credibility, but don't expect to be taken seriously by others. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Non-Africans are not Africans, not because of the just mentioned fact, but quite simply, because they are not African natives--it is more of socio-political thing than a genetic connection.
Ps - to break this down further, it is social in the sense, that populations which have had chance to biologically interact with one another, will likely share more TMRCAs across the populations in question than said populations would to more geographically distant populations. It is also political in the sense, that while "Africa" is a geopolitical term, TMRCAs of African origin had and have spilled over to other territories; yet segments of populations who carry this in non-African regions, are perceived as non-Africans. Undoubtedly, the social component of being African is hampered by both real geographic barriers [aka isolation by distance, deserts, oceans and seas] and those created by political constraints -- like say, military enforcements of human-made political-borders.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread only makes sense when you look at these asians as what they are. Black Asians. Not Africans and not Afro-mixed.
Mike I understand where you are coming from with your pics, but maybe the reason why those pics have broad features has to do with the style of painting. You can't just look at a mask or a statue and say so and so were Africans. If thats the case, then allot of Ancient Kemet statues would not be considered African.
Also thanks Doug for the nice pics of Dark skinned Asians. Simply beautiful. Also no nudity just the way I like my pics.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This paper scroll is from my neighbourhood museum Matter of fact the mongol invasion happend in my city in my neighbourhood,this is a Japanese scroll and just like the Chinese scroll it shows black Asians firmly intergrated in the community but numerically inferior amongst the Mongols..while the Japanese are uniformaly lite-skinned..so looks to me that the blacks were not exterminated they simply intermarried. Just like the Khampers and others that Doug posted. Remember this^ is not a Chinese scroll like the two posted on the previous page. Chinese paper scrolls All the above are culturally different from say him. Malik Ambar who was African and fighting the Mongol Khans in India that may have included Black Asian folks from above. Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
[Brada writes about the black presence in the Far East]
so looks to me that the blacks were not exterminated they simply intermarried.
[Marc writes] There was a combination of genocide in the Far East as well as enslavement and relegating blacks to inferior positions and neighborhoods. I agree with you, they weren't all exterminated.
During the 1800s the official Japanese government's policy was to rather force intermarriage with Japanese and Ainu, for instance (the Ainu being, by appearance, African).
In China, as well there was not complete extermination and I've said several times before that if you gave many Chinese woolly or wiry hair, you couldn't tell them from any black person living in Harlem save the oblong eye but many blacks and the Kholsan as well have that feature. So, they really would completely blend in.
Brada. You are in Japan. Here is what (by phenotype) Africans (the Ainu) looked like about a century ago:
posted
King - Your responses are getting to sound a lot like Afronuts above.
Could you please post one of those pictures of an ancient Egyptian who DOESN'T look like an Egyptian - Please.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
People keep tripping over the fact that it is the ENVIRONMENT that determines a peoples features including those IN AFRICA. And people worldwide who are TROPICALLY ADAPTED will look similar to Africans who are ALSO tropically adapted. So those populations in Asia and elsewhere who stayed in a tropical environment maintained the features of their African ancestors, while those who moved into extreme northern environments did not. It is that simple. But NEITHER population is no longer African, whether they are COAL BLACK and tropically adapted or not. It doesn't change that both are descended from African migrations, but that was THOUSANDS of years ago.
.
Thank you for making my point Doug M;
For you see, This is ALSO an African American
Which of the two would you say is the original or the more authentic??
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: bump...
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: Jesus f'ing Christ! Have you fcukers no shame?!
Do these people look Black?!
Year: 1870
You guys are some serious as*holes! The lengths you will go to with your psychosis!
RE-READ the thread stupid. Understand and observe the argument. By now you should very well see proof of "Black People" that are aboriginal to ASIA. The issue at question is when pictures such as THIS:
Are shown are they depicting Recent Africans as some would like to think, or the Indigenous Black people of Asia as other would like to think.
Why do you even open you mouth when you never know what the hell is going on? How do YOU interpret the image as you can CLEARLY see one person is VERY different from the other.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Thank you for making my point Doug M;
For you see, This is ALSO an African American
Which of the two would you say is the original or the more authentic??
Ehhhh I don't think she would be identified as an African American, as her mother was Irish American and her father was Venezuelan and African American, and she grew up with the Irish American mother...
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quote: Her mother was Irish American and her father was of Afro-Venezuelan and African American descent;
MindoverMatter718 - I know that you and Doug don't like to hear this; But a Black Venezuelan is just as authentically a Black American as a Black U.S.citizen. And just as authentically Black as say - a Nigerian.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
MindoverMatter718 and Doug - I know that you guys will miss the connection, so I will explain it.
Miriah is CALLED an AfroAmerican; But she is REALLY a hybrid of European (by way of Central Asia) and an African.
The "Modern" South Asian is CALLED an Asian; But they are REALLY (a very recent) hybrid of Chinese and African.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Quote: Her mother was Irish American and her father was of Afro-Venezuelan and African American descent;
MindoverMatter718 - I know that you and Doug don't like to hear this; But a Black Venezuelan is just as authentically a Black American as a Black U.S.citizen. And just as authentically Black as say - a Nigerian.
No Mike, what you mean to say is that they're every amount as African descended as an African American or Nigerian of course, not that they're African American or Nigerian though.
An African from Venezuela is just that, a Venezuelan, he speaks Spanish and has a Venezuelan culture, as there are many people in south America and the Spanish speaking Caribbean countries who are of African descent, like say a Dominican, Puerto Rican or Cuban may be African no doubt about it, but they're not African Americans when they enter the U.S.A., they're still Dominicans, Puerto Ricans and Cubans and possess different cultures...and most likely will identify with people from their respective country that speak the same language and have the same culture before an African American even though he may be a white Dominican, Puerto Rican or Cuban...
A Jamaican is not African American either Mike, he's Jamaican, a Haitian is not African American he's Haitian and so on... they also have their own culture and dialect...understand?
When all of the above mentioned come to America although being African are still considered from, and identify with their home countries. They don't become African Americans.
Mariah Carey and older brother Morgan Carey same parents, oh how African American they are huh... Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dumb uneducated Afrofool, I already addressed such an issue. E. Afrikan slaves were brought to China during the Tang dynasty. Any freeman Black in China was more than likely a moslem negro.
quote:Originally posted by astenb:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: bump...
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: Jesus f'ing Christ! Have you fcukers no shame?!
Do these people look Black?!
Year: 1870
You guys are some serious as*holes! The lengths you will go to with your psychosis!
RE-READ the thread stupid. Understand and observe the argument. By now you should very well see proof of "Black People" that are aboriginal to ASIA. The issue at question is when pictures such as THIS:
Are shown are they depicting Recent Africans as some would like to think, or the Indigenous Black people of Asia as other would like to think.
Why do you even open you mouth when you never know what the hell is going on? How do YOU interpret the image as you can CLEARLY see one person is VERY different from the other.
posted
No need to guess what they look like I am talking about the Aniu of course they tends to be hairy and some what dark..but i wouldn't call any of them Black by any streach.. the Aniu who lives in Northern Japan are a reletively newly colonized people like the Okinawans...and these guys played at an event I produced a couple of years ago.really down to earth cool folks..they say the Japanese like to take of nature but they let nature take of them. Oki Dub Ainu Band
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: MindoverMatter718 - I think you misunderstand; I am NOT claiming that she is African American - I believe that is HER self identification.
To me, she is as you are; simply Mutts.
I've never heard her identify as an African American at all, and yes YOU actually did say she was an African American in response to Doug when he posted a picture of an African American woman claiming Mariah Carey was an African American as well.
You also said since her father was Venezuelan of African descent that he is every bit as African American as a some odd generation African American citizen which is false...
Btw Mike everyone knows you're white Mike, and there's nothing wrong with that so stop perpetrating the fraud....
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mindlessone - If SHE calls herself African American (a description that is all over the media), then WHAT am I to call her, if not by the title that she claims?? Common courtesy.
Yes an African from Venezuela is still an African - regardless of what the U.S. government says.
Yes - White as Snow - couldn't you tell?
Those with half a brain - don't start; sometimes the only way to get kids to shut-up is to agree with them.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clint EastWood - Damn Boy, so at what point does a person become White, if just a speck of Black blood makes them Black?
Are you one of those lonely Niggers who wants to claim everyone as Black, even when they DON'T want to be Black?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- 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 |
posted
I any event Mariah Is waay liter than any of the pics of Black Asians above
Deal wid dis a self discribed black man..who could pass for one of Mike's Turks.. Adam Clayton Powell JR
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^You know, Bleaching cream was invented for lonely people like you.
I would never ever want to be white. I thank GOD everyday I wake up to see my tall, DARK, handsome self in my glistening mirrors, regardless of all these black and white DEVILS that sorround me.
Sorry if I've offended anyone but TruthHurts! Posts: 368 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^When people of "Mixed race" claim themselves as Black, I accept them as such. When they don't, I don't.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: No need to guess what they look like I am talking about the Aniu of course they tends to be hairy and some what dark..but i wouldn't call any of them Black by any streach.. the Aniu who lives in Northern Japan are a reletively newly colonized people like the Okinawans...and these guys played at an event I produced a couple of years ago.really down to earth cool folks..they say the Japanese like to take of nature but they let nature take of them. Oki Dub Ainu Band
Brada-Anansi - You don't have to SWALLOW everything that is feed to you!
A little scholarly reserve is ALWAYS called for.
The Jomon entered Japan at about 33,000 B.C. But even accepting Wikis 14,000 B.C.
The Chinese "Yayoi" people entered Japan at 350 B.C.
For the sake of argument, I will accept that the Ainu descend from the Jomon.
So do you see how your statement....
Quote: "the Ainu who lives in Northern Japan are a relatively newly colonized people like the Okinawans."
Makes NO sense??
Do you really think that the Ainu lived in that LITTLE Overpopulated country for 2,000 years, undisturbed by the Chinese who were taking over their land?Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Hint - the Japanese, like the Chinese, view themselves as White. And as such, they exhibit the SAME racist traits, including the lies and bullsh1t, as their European fellows.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
AFRO NUTTIN the below has go notthing with slaves or Muslem traders they were Black Asians found on the main-land during that time as a matter o facts these gentlemen were not Chinese they are Mongols and their presence dose not cancel out any Slave or Muslem traders from Africa..and NO!! not all the African traders were Muslems as Axum sent their traders to that area.and they were Christians. Royals or high ranking personages notthing slavish or Muslem about these guys. as different from this^ at a much later period in history.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
During the Muromachi period (1336–1573), the Japanese created a settlement at the south of the Oshima peninsula. As more people moved to the settlement to avoid battles, disputes arose between the Japanese and the Ainu. The disputes eventually developed into a rebellion. Takeda Nobuhiro killed the Ainu leader, Koshamain,[1] and defeated the rebellion in 1457. Nobuhiro's descendants became the rulers of the Matsumae-han, which ruled the south of Ezochi until the end of the Edo period in 1868.
Matsumae-han's economy relied upon trade with the Ainu. The Matsumae family was granted exclusive trading rights with the Ainu in the Azuchi-Momoyama and Edo periods (1568–1868). During the Meiji Restoration, the Tokugawa Shogunate realized there was a need to prepare northern defenses against a possible Russian invasion and took over control of most of Ezochi. The Shogunate made the plight of the Ainu slightly easier, but did not change the overall form of rule.
Hokkaidō was known as Ezochi until the Meiji Restoration. Shortly after the Boshin War in 1868, a group of Tokugawa loyalists led by Enomoto Takeaki proclaimed the island's independence as the Republic of Ezo, but the rebellion was crushed in May 1869 Like i said reletivly recent. colonization of Ainu lands..They had free range upon till over most of their lands untill 1860ts wiki source:
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Doug M your saying that even if you look African and have dark skin and many other factors that come into effect that make them African.There not African?..really if Africans are the first humans on this planet earth then that would mean that there African right no matter what..Because people dont's pop out of no were so those people that you called Asians are in fact natives and are of African decent no matter what.
In the sense if they went to race base country they would be African not Asian by just of stereotype's..
-------------------- Were is the truth at.Why all the lies it's better not to lie and change others history because sooner or later you'll pay the price... Posts: 29 | From: Earth | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheTruthHurts: So Doug M your saying that even if you look African and have dark skin and many other factors that come into effect that make them African.There not African?..
What he is saying is in fact essentially correct, they're non Africans just like Europeans and Native Americans are non Africans yet descend from Africans.
Oceanics I.e., Melanesians and Australians cluster genetically with mainland Asia, before Africans since Oceanic's carry ancestral genes to Asians which became non African after migrating OOA (out of Africa).
Oceanic's then cluster with Africans phenotypically I.e cranio-facial structure because Africa of course is the homeland of anatomically modern humans and hence certain Africans are ancestral to Oceanic's, Asians, and Europeans alike!
Oceanic's cluster phenotypically with Africans because after migrating out of Africa along the coast of south Asia, they (Oceanic's) continued to reside in a tropical environment like Africa and maintained said tropical features as noted resembling the earliest modern humans 60kya from Africa, but just like Europeans they are no longer Africans.
Early Asians, Europeans etc...all resembled Africans as do Oceanic's today, there would not have been much of a difference in the tropical phenotype amongst early humans who left Africa (as noted amongst Oceanic's) if they (early humans) didn't move into northern latitudes.
So if you're going to call Oceanic's African, then Europeans, Native Americans etc....are also Africans, which in all reality is true since all non Africans are basically Africans under the skin, and there would be no non Africans if Africans didn't leave the continent.....
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clint EastWood: Mariah Carey is a self-defined Black woman and "WE" don't have any problem with it.
She contributes to our legacy beautifully and gracefully.
Of course Mariah is going to say publicly she doesn't have a problem with her Black heritage - Dah! Privately is a different issue. It's politically expedient for Nutty Mariah Carey to allegedly self-define herself as a Black woman. Mariah has made a lot of money off of Black people. If Mariah didn't have a Black fan base, or didn't make money from Black people, she would never mention her Black heritage. Mariah may be nutty but she's not stupid.
Posts: 191 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Mindlessone - If SHE calls herself African American (a description that is all over the media), then WHAT am I to call her, if not by the title that she claims?? Common courtesy.
Never heard her claim to be African American, dunce...
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Yes an African from Venezuela is still an African - regardless of what the U.S. government says.
Yes he is African but not African American.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Yes - White as Snow - couldn't you tell?
Not too obscure....
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Those with half a brain - don't start; sometimes the only way to get kids to shut-up is to agree with them.
Perhaps you have no brain?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Doug M - It is not ME who is calling them Black OR African. I clearly said that they are NOT Black or African. Those people are CLEARLY of MIXED ancestry , therefore they CANNOT be Black or African - unless they wish to be identified as such. As a matter of fact, it is only YOU, who seems to be making a case about this.
The problem with your theory is that genetics disproves you, the Asians in question are not recently mixed with Africans, they are more genetically distinct from Africans than are Europeans, you can sit here all day and argue with eyeball guessing games but is there genetic evidence to give your story any value?
Nope none at all, sorry Mike! Show me some African Y-dna and Mtdna markers in these Asian individuals now or stay shut!!
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there not Africans but are descent of Africans.Then who were there father's and mother's before them DNA can be wrong as you should know and is not 100% percent correct so .I take a lot of that stuff with a gain of salt and these people have to be more related to African then Europeans by default DNA or no DNA.Because like you and many have said (OOA) and (OOA) means modern humans .Which means travel but if there was indeed a another set of Africans or humans that have African features but are not .DNA wise related to Ancient Africans then that would disprove this event(But there is none).So that would mean that they are indeed of African heritage and are indeed highly related to Africans because there is OOA (Modern Humans) and are the base of all dark Skinned people also African Featured people and are indeed African..
But that is my opinion and i meant be wrong but there's a high chance of be being both..But then again there should be not arguments on this matter because there African or Dark Skin Modern Human's with Stereotypical Features ..
-------------------- Were is the truth at.Why all the lies it's better not to lie and change others history because sooner or later you'll pay the price... Posts: 29 | From: Earth | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also how do Europeans look like African's or Early Africans for that matter ? explain..
Also the European or Caucasoid people are a young modern humans.But the Oceanic's like the Melanesian and Australians and native Asians types are older then the Europeans and are more likely to be consider African or of African descent then there Europeans brother's ..(I use that term lightly)
-------------------- Were is the truth at.Why all the lies it's better not to lie and change others history because sooner or later you'll pay the price... Posts: 29 | From: Earth | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic