Firstly, which groups are "negroes" and which are not. Likewise with "negroids"? or Put it another way: which groups are "negroids" that are not "negroes" and vice versa. You implied earlier that "negroes" are limited to Africans, while Asians are "negroids". Do you still hold that view?
For clarification: Is the above an accurate estimation of your post below:
Originally posted by xyyman:
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.
...@ 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.Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
No Response - Am I to assume then that you are a DJ disciple, and believe that it is something that MAGICALLY happen?
But of course you must know that if it MAGICALLY happened, it couldn't have MAGICALLY happened in Europe as they claim, because the skeletal record in Europe - pre-White invasion circa 1,200 B.C. - is ONLY of Black people!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Am I to take it then, that your position really has no foundation, it was merely a knee-jerk response to a position that you saw as anti-White.
That, because your regard for the White man is such that any claim that you see as pejorative to him, must be dismissed as nonsense, out-of-hand. Have I covered it all?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't spend all day on this site bro. I work for the MAN for a living.
If you followed Marc's thread "Whites are new to Europe" also based on the unfolding genetic evidence posted by Evergreen and Explorer. Including the comment I made to Explorer about he is "catching on".
The SlC45A(?) gene originated above the 48th parallel due to UV pressures. According to e3b1c1(?) and Explorer this is marker found waaaay up north so .. . . . . . with hg-I. Plus hg-I are distantly related to hg-R1b. Do the math. Hitler may of had a point.
-------------------- 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
xyyman - Maybe you should spend just a LITTLE more time here, especially if you want to give opinions that are worth a damn.
SLC45A2 gene
Membrane-associated transporter protein is a protein that in humans is encoded by the SLC45A2 gene.
The protein encoded by this gene encodes a melanocyte differentiation antigen that is expressed in a high percentage of melanoma cell lines. A similar sequence gene in medaka, 'B,' encodes a transporter that mediates melanin synthesis. Mutations in this gene are a cause of oculocutaneous albinism type 4.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
xyyman - Your thinking cap is obviously not working, so I will break it down for you.
This is your Gods position on his provenance.
POLYMORPHISM: Genetic variations in SLC45A2 are associated with variation in skin/hair/eye pigmentation type 5 (SHEP5) [MIM:227240]. Hair, eye and skin pigmentation are among the most visible examples of human phenotypic variation, with a broad normal range that is subject to substantial geographic stratification. In the case of skin, individuals tend to have lighter pigmentation with increasing distance from the equator. By contrast, the majority of variation in human eye and hair color is found among individuals of European ancestry, with most other human populations fixed for brown eyes and black hair.
But there is a big problem with your Gods position on his provenance. ALL of the evidence DISPROVES it.
If this were true....
In the case of skin, individuals tend to have lighter pigmentation with increasing distance from the equator.
Then how would you explain This???
Romania - 35,000 B.C.
(After 10,000 years in the North he is STILL BLACK!).
Ukraine - 34,000 B.C.
(After 11,000 years in the North he is STILL BLACK!).
Russia - 26,000 B.C.
(After 19,000 years in the North he is STILL BLACK!).
Bulgaria 4,600 B.C.
(After 39,000 years in the North he is STILL BLACK!).
{forum Idiots, please check the skull type before saying something stupid.}
BTW xyyman, where are the corresponding WHITE skeletons?Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^For the totally clueless; the timeframe for time in the north, is based upon Grimaldi entering Europe at 45,000 B.C. AND the fact that the Africans going to North Asia through Southern Asia would have reached the North by at least 45,000 B.C.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do have to rely on my ”God”, as you put it, to get my scientific information. I am not, going to get into a pissing match. So I will let that ”god’ comment slide. The bottom line is the gene that causes white skin(SLCA45?) is different to what causes Albinism. And I believe with Asians it may be a different gene altogether. Nature finds a way.
Albinos and Leucoderms may suffer from the same desease caused by too much sunlight. But the latest scientific data points to the origin being in Scandinavian countries among hg-I. The epicenter of the white skin is the regions where Hitler said pure white race can be found. ”Selective sweep” occured about 3000ya which correlates to Marc’s premise.
-------------------- 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
Whoa there wise one, I thought hg-R was the defining White haplogroup, where did Scandinavian and hg-I come from?
(In the interest of fairness, that is bullsh1t and I am setting a trap for you, so be careful what you come back with).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Hint-2 The guy with the Gold adorned skeleton was hg-I, the others pictured were likely also hg-I. See how nice I am?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
(Assuming that everyone knows how to parse the bullsh1t from White material, and inject data from other sources).
Haplogroup I is a branch of haplogroup F*. According to current theories, Haplogroup I first arrived in Europe around 20,000-25,000 years ago from the Middle East. It is believed to be associated with the Gravettian culture.
(example of White bullsh1t: Gravettian culture is Grimaldi culture, he entered Europe at 45,000 B.C.).
The highest frequency of the I Haplogroup can be found in Scandinavian and Croatian populations. This lends support to the hypothesis that the Adriatic region of modern-day Croatia served as a refuge for northern populations during the last glacial maximum. The hypothesis states that after the LGM there was a migration from the north east by the people whose offspring today form a significant portion of the Scandinavian populations. These groups seem to be the ancestors of about 38% of modern day Croats (75% of Bosnian Croats).
There are also indications that this haplogroup is tied to the Celtic culture. The spread of the I group in western Europe could be consistent with the Celtic expansion that occurred in the mid-first millennium BC.
Kinda proves that the Celts were Black, doesn't it.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: point is . . .for some negroes=negritos=negroid=black====AFRICAN.
If that is your belief then the answer to the topic starter(st. Tigray) question is YES.
Africans(indegenous) built these statues and monuments approx 1500 years ago in Asia. They were eventually replaced/exterminated by Leucoderms from Northern Asia.
Now the other view is - did Africans from the Africans continent leave Africa and build these monuments. . .according to Dr. Winters YES to Indus and Olmecs. He sites linguistic, archeology and some genetics (C group). there were undoubtedly Africans leaving Africa around that time. See Brada's ics/post.
Please stop trying to play impartial observer in order to present your own nonsense points of View....
Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China, the Maya civilizations or the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific. The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired.
That is simply retarded.
Indigenous natives of these areas, many of whom WERE BLACK built these civilizations.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I don't spend all day on this site bro. I work for the MAN for a living.
There is nothing wrong with making a living. But the fact is that this is old stuff that has been gone over several times.
You either missed it, or chose to ignore it. Either way, you had the temerity to refer to my position as nonsense.
My positions are based on research and careful thought. If you are going to refer to one of my positions as nonsense, then you are going to need to back it up. As you can see, I have no trouble backing up my positions.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Doug. (will post on hg-I later Mike, if someone doesn't beat me to it. But check out the 50+page thread).
"Nonsense" point of view, maybe. The only point of view I emphaticaly posted on is. . . .I supported Marc on his premise "Whites are new to Europe". The genetic data coming out is now supporting my nonsense point of view that HG-I is the group that developed the white skin. This gene developed during the LGM probably through genetic bottleneck ie isolation via diet/lack of UV. From there the gene spread south into the rest of Europe. I beleive the paper said "selective sweep" occured around 1500BC.
Point is just as Melanese/Austialians may look similar to mainland Africans but are genetically very distant. The data is now coming out that HG-I and hg-R1b/a may be also genetically distant although they look very similar. That is MY nonsense point of veiw.
And as I did Explorer, let me spoon feed you.. . .looks like you missed it also.
To SOME people (I am on the fence with this)negroes=negritos=negroid=black====AFRICAN. Therefore IF you hold that point of view, YES, Africans built these ancient monuments.
IF you do NOT hold that point of view then Africans did NOT build these ancient monuments.
Both group agree that black people built these monuments. The debate is what they should be classified as... . .
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
[Doug writes]: Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China, the Maya civilizations or the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific. The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired..
[Marc writes]: You are a delusional racist to deny an existant reality. You can't stand the word African used in a context your racist self can't stomach.
Here is the definition of definition:
A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a term (a word or phrase). Terms have different meanings in different contexts. A stipulative definition explains the speaker's immediate intentional meaning.
Here is my stipulative explanation of the word "African."
African: A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
You hate that word African, don't you? If you can have your foot on a black neck, then you are happy. You don't want a black man to stare you down or look down upon you.
By my definition, these are whites (Joke. They’re not white) Africans worldwide who've engineered civilizations. e.g. the Maya:
posted
Doug M quote: "Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China, the Maya civilizations or the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific. The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired.
That is simply retarded."
I'm not sure of this is a case of semantics or not.
Doug M - perhaps we would all have a better understanding of your position, if you clearly defined these non-African Blacks. i.e. Who are they, how did they get where they are, when did they get where they are, where did they come from, who are their relatives.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Thats what really annoys me about the some of the ignorance that passes for scholarship in this group. 90% of the time people post pictures of when they have NO knowledge about the origin's of the people whose pictures they post. They just type a 'keyword' into google images and look for the phenotype that supports their argument. It can't be taken seriously as they have not even had a conversation with the subject so have no idea where the hell they come from or where come from migration-wise, culturally. The other 10% are posts like this that jump to ill-thought erroneous conclusions based on the 1 phenotype that supports their argument: As much as I DON'T agree with the assertion that straight hair comes from European admixture, I equally DO NOT agree with the assertion that ALL mixed race people end up looking phenotypically like 'Kid' or 'Barrack' Obama!
Errr wrong, there was no random Google search as I posted an individual that I knew had a white parent and black parent to show that just because one has a white parent doesn't mean the child will come out with straight hair as Marc tries to explain the Australian Aborigines hair being due to admixture with whites. I went straight to his pic I.e., Kid from "Kid and play", and since the discussion has been about Australian aborigines with straighter hair I also posted an aborigine, do you understand that? Dunce
Btw, where did I or anyone say "ALL" mixed race people end up looking like "Kid" or Obama? When they don't even look alike anyway? Lol
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
And as I did Explorer, let me spoon feed you.. . .looks like you missed it also.
To SOME people (I am on the fence with this)negroes=negritos=negroid=black====AFRICAN. Therefore IF you hold that point of view, YES, Africans built these ancient monuments...
You've "spoon-fed" me that nonsense a of number times. I am looking for the answer that actually answers what is being asked. Please re-read what I asked you in the last post, as I assume English is your first language, not the second or third.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
[Doug writes]: Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China, the Maya civilizations or the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific. The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired..
[Marc writes]: You are a delusional racist to deny an existant reality. You can't stand the word African used in a context your racist self can't stomach.
Here is the definition of definition:
A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a term (a word or phrase). Terms have different meanings in different contexts. A stipulative definition explains the speaker's immediate intentional meaning.
Here is my stipulative explanation of the word "African."
African: A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
You hate that word African, don't you? If you can have your foot on a black neck, then you are happy. You don't want a black man to stare you down or look down upon you.
By my definition, these are whites (Joke. They’re not white) Africans worldwide who've engineered civilizations. e.g. the Maya:
Phenotype does not make people African. Being African is a world view, self identity, culture and ethnic/national term of identity as well as a biological ancestry. People who ARE African don't all self identify as the same ethnic/national identity. People in the former African slave DIASPORA don't all identify as African even though they are clearly descended from Africa. Yet you keep throwing around African for people, cultures and histories separated by HUGE gaps of time and space as if they all had a common identity and culture as African when they didn't. They did not.
And the fundamental reason you do this is because you really want to claim that all black populations outside of Africa are recent migrants FROM Africa who went elsewhere and founded civilizations when this generally is NOT the case. It is true in some cases, but in many cases it is not. Moorish Spain is one example where it is true. Southern Arabia is another example where it is true. Even Southern Mesopotamia is an example where it is true. However, going to India, South Asia, the Pacific and the Americas it is generally NOT true. Those civilizations were primarily founded by natives who were not Africans, even if they were black and had kinky hair.
The ancient Hawaiians were not Africans. The people of New Guinea are not Africans and neither are the people of the Melanesian islands. Yes the are related phenotypically to ancient aboriginal populations that left Africa many thousands of years ago, but that does not make them Africans culturally, linguistically, nationally or socially in any other sense. But don't take my word for it, ask the black Fijians if they are Africans. Ask the Aborigines if they are Africans. YOU keep trying to insert labels that these people do not identify with which is presenting a false view of reality.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Current native Americans (and others) that you posted above are obviously hybrid people and everyone knows it.
Australian aboriginals, regardless of what they call themselves ARE Africans, because there is no evidence of admixture with any other people. i.e. no evidence of change since they left Africa.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
African: A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair.[/b]
I wouldn't call them African as their hair is specifically straight.
I wouldn't call them African but I sure as heck would call you an African-hater. A possible KKK guy.
You get spooked when you hear the word African. Booo!
. .
[Doug writes]: Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China, the Maya civilizations or the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific. The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired..
[Marc writes]: You are a delusional racist to deny an existant reality. You can't stand the word African used in a context your racist self can't stomach.
Here is the definition of definition:
A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a term (a word or phrase). Terms have different meanings in different contexts. A stipulative definition explains the speaker's immediate intentional meaning.
Here is my stipulative explanation of the word "African."
African: A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
[Doug writes]: Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China
[Marc writes]: Yeah. Right. These guys are Martians.
Yo, Doug. Where is the picture of the naked aborigine woman sitting in dirt and squalor with the blond-haired son?
Would you show the picture of a naked white woman sitting in dirt and squalor?
The black people of the world, why, they should sing your praises to the gods you are so pure, so righteous, so right on in your stunning intellect and razor-sharp analysis of indigenous blacks of the world.
Where do we find our indigenous whites? What can you say, oh great one, about them?
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
BRAVO! You do understand that, inverting your argument, posting a picture of 'Kid' doesn't prove that a child of mix heritage cannot be born with straight hair, as I know many that DO have straight hair! So your picture proves nothing! Understand that, DUNCE!
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Errr wrong, there was no random Google search as I posted an individual that I knew had a white parent and black parent to show that just because one has a white parent doesn't mean the child will come out with straight hair...
African: A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair.[/b]
I wouldn't call them African as their hair is specifically straight.
I wouldn't call them African but I sure as heck would call you an African-hater. A possible KKK guy.
You get spooked when you hear the word African. Booo!
. .
[Doug writes]: Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China, the Maya civilizations or the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific. The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired..
[Marc writes]: You are a delusional racist to deny an existant reality. You can't stand the word African used in a context your racist self can't stomach.
Here is the definition of definition:
A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a term (a word or phrase). Terms have different meanings in different contexts. A stipulative definition explains the speaker's immediate intentional meaning.
Here is my stipulative explanation of the word "African."
African: A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
[Doug writes]: Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China
[Marc writes]: Yeah. Right. These guys are Martians.
[Doug writes]: The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired..
[Marc writes]: You are a delusional racist to deny an existant reality.
Hey Doug. Are Frenchmen not caucasian but white aborigines?
. .
Marc, the point I am making is that you are delusional. The only reason you want to call these people world wide Africans is because you want everyone to believe that they JUST GOT THERE a few thousand years ago. The point I am making is that they DID NOT just get there a few thousand years ago and that they are ABORIGINAL meaning descendants of the FIRST people to arrive over 10,000 years ago. That distinction is critical because it defines a time and space continuum that is critical to understand their history and culture. They are not Africans just because they have black skin. Black Skin is an environmental issue not an African issue. Africa is a landmass that sits on the equator and hence has an enviroment that produces black skin. But that same environment exists world wide and is why many other populations who have NOT been in Africa for over 50,000 years still have black skin. Africa is a label that was created by Europeans within the last 1000 years. The word itself did not exist 3000 years ago. Therefore, trying to use this word as a label descriptive of something other than a label to describe the PEOPLE and DIRECT DESCENDANTS of the continent of Africa is strictly nonsense. The indigenous people of the Pacific are pacific people FIRST AND FOREMOST. Their history and culture is there and their identity is there. Africa is not the basis of their identity. The same goes for the aboriginal populations of the Americas and Asia as well. Calling these people Africans as if they all share the same identity, history, language, culture, world view, nationality and ethnicity is simply INCORRECT. And this is for those populations in Asia and elsewhere who truly are and were black.
Not only that, you also contradict your own self by saying blacks world wide are Africans if they have a certain look, but then CONTRADICT yourself by posting images of ancient people and calling them Africans when they DONT have the feature YOU SAID were required to be African. In fact, you cant even prove they were black to begin with.
Yes Marc, there were blacks in ancient China. But all of them were not blacks and there are STILL Chinese who aren't black with features EXACTLY like those above. So are they AFRICANS?
posted
Here is something interesting I came across while reseraching HG-I. Are they more susceptible to AIDS?
"" Y-DNA haplogroup I has been researched in connection with HIV and AIDS progression. The research resulted in the finding that haplogroup I in general, and no specific subclade, had accelerated progression (in Y haplogroup I individuals) from HIV to AIDS. Suppression therapy also had a diminished effect on such individuals.""
SOURCE Association of Y chromosome haplogroup I with HIV progression, and HAART outcome". Hum. Genet.
@ Mike I will post on Hg-I soon.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Yes Marc, there were blacks in ancient China. But all of them were not blacks and there are STILL Chinese who aren't black with features EXACTLY like those above. So are they AFRICANS?
[Marc writes]
I am not going to play this silly game with you posing pictures of people you know I will say are not Africans as they don't fit the definition I made.
By the way. The second picture of the man with the deformed mouth and teeth. Would you post a picture of a white person like that?
. .
[Doug writes]: Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China, the Maya civilizations or the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific. The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired..
[Marc writes]: You are a delusional racist to deny an existant reality. You can't stand the word African used in a context your racist self can't stomach.
Here is the definition of definition:
A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a term (a word or phrase). Terms have different meanings in different contexts. A stipulative definition explains the speaker's immediate intentional meaning.
Here is my stipulative explanation of the word "African."
African: A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
[Doug writes]: Africans(indigenous) did not build the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific
[Marc writes]: Yeah. Right. These guys are from the battle ship Galactica.
[Dr. Winters writes]: The Indus Valley civilization was founded by Dravidian speaking people who came from Africa. This is supported by the archaeological evidence.
The Dravidians were very recent to India. They were part of the C-Group people.
[Marc writes]: Look at the archeological evidence below and also compare pictures 3 and 4 from Africa and the Indus Valley above where the hair styles are identical:
Yo Doug. Those people up in Ontario. They ain’t Caucasian but aboriginal whites from France?
Doug. I heard you are going to win the Nobel Peace Prize for your acts of great nobility showing destitute aborigines thrown into their plight by your relatives who stole their land but whom you have brought a liberty of sorts to because of all your flickr shots.
I heard they going to make a statue of you too, larger than and placed next to the Statue of Liberty for the inroads you’ve in single-handedly as a white guy (or are you an aboriginal white, too?) re-classifiying the black peoples of the world.
Shazamms. Me take me hat off to you.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: point is . . .for some negroes=negritos=negroid=black====AFRICAN.
If that is your belief then the answer to the topic starter(st. Tigray) question is YES.
Africans(indegenous) built these statues and monuments approx 1500 years ago in Asia. They were eventually replaced/exterminated by Leucoderms from Northern Asia.
Now the other view is - did Africans from the Africans continent leave Africa and build these monuments. . .according to Dr. Winters YES to Indus and Olmecs. He sites linguistic, archeology and some genetics (C group). there were undoubtedly Africans leaving Africa around that time. See Brada's ics/post.
Please stop trying to play impartial observer in order to present your own nonsense points of View....
Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China, the Maya civilizations or the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific. The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired.
That is simply retarded.
Indigenous natives of these areas, many of whom WERE BLACK built these civilizations.
Doug
You sound illogical, pathetic and clueless. Sorry but this is pure garbage you are spoutng.
Lion!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kaizen: ^ Pathetic, yes. Without a doubt.
But clueless and illogical? Hell no. Defininitely not illogical.
Oh, by all means illogical. The man is making a circular argument, appealling to emotions and unwaranted authorities, playing to the gallery, then seeking to set up a straw man.
Look, the dude breached every rule of arguments and formal logic. He is a dunce!
He should be sent to the dog-house like his pal Rashole.
Lion!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: BRAVO! You do understand that, inverting your argument, posting a picture of 'Kid' doesn't prove that a child of mix heritage cannot be born with straight hair, as I know many that DO have straight hair! So your picture proves nothing! Understand that, DUNCE!
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Errr wrong, there was no random Google search as I posted an individual that I knew had a white parent and black parent to show that just because one has a white parent doesn't mean the child will come out with straight hair...
Perhaps you're having flashbacks from when I last intellectually whooped your a55 but get over it, your point in this thread about me posting a random picture was not only false but irrelevant and you got caught out there again.
You made up your own argument about mixed kids being able to come out with straight hair...and so what? lol That wasn't my point, I didn't post "Kids" pic to make an argument that mixed kids don't or can't come out with straight hair.
But rather the point was that just because one is mixed with white doesn't mean they will come out with straight hair, you halfwited dunce!!
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Yes Marc, there were blacks in ancient China. But all of them were not blacks and there are STILL Chinese who aren't black with features EXACTLY like those above. So are they AFRICANS?
[Marc writes]
I am not going to play this silly game with you posing pictures of people you know I will say are not Africans as they don't fit the definition I made.
By the way. The second picture of the man with the deformed mouth and teeth. Would you post a picture of a white person like that?
. .
[Doug writes]: Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China, the Maya civilizations or the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific. The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired..
[Marc writes]: You are a delusional racist to deny an existant reality. You can't stand the word African used in a context your racist self can't stomach.
Here is the definition of definition:
A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a term (a word or phrase). Terms have different meanings in different contexts. A stipulative definition explains the speaker's immediate intentional meaning.
Here is my stipulative explanation of the word "African."
African: A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
[Doug writes]: Africans(indigenous) did not build the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific
[Marc writes]: Yeah. Right. These guys are from the battle ship Galactica.
[Dr. Winters writes]: The Indus Valley civilization was founded by Dravidian speaking people who came from Africa. This is supported by the archaeological evidence.
The Dravidians were very recent to India. They were part of the C-Group people.
[Marc writes]: Look at the archeological evidence below and also compare pictures 3 and 4 from Africa and the Indus Valley above where the hair styles are identical:
Yo Doug. Those people up in Ontario. They ain’t Caucasian but aboriginal whites from France?
Doug. I heard you are going to win the Nobel Peace Prize for your acts of great nobility showing destitute aborigines thrown into their plight by your relatives who stole their land but whom you have brought a liberty of sorts to because of all your flickr shots.
I heard they going to make a statue of you too, larger than and placed next to the Statue of Liberty for the inroads you’ve in single-handedly as a white guy (or are you an aboriginal white, too?) re-classifiying the black peoples of the world.
Shazamms. Me take me hat off to you.
. .
I posted pictures of people in China matching the features of the SO CALLED black Chinese person that you posted. You simply don't want to admit that your specious arguments about labeling people as Africans with certain features is empty and meaningless. It does not thing to describe the FACTS about the distribution, features, culture or identity of many different black populations world wide. You simply want to use the label African as a way to avoid the critical research required to prove the presence of various populations world wide who were black. And in fact your African label actually would cause a lot of black populations that did exist to be EXCLUDED because you are stuck on meaningless labels as opposed to critical core facts. Not to mention you are identifying people as African that aren't/weren't even black to begin with based on flimsy illogical evidence. Case in point, that statue is black because the paint came off. There is nothing about that statue that PROVES the people portrayed were black in any way. Not only that, but that statue has none of the features YOU call African to begin with, yet that doesn't stop you from making your usual absurd posts.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
you are identifying people as African that aren't/weren't even black to begin with based on flimsy illogical evidence. Case in point, that statue is black because the paint came off. There is nothing about that statue that PROVES the people portrayed were black in any way.
[Marc writes] Did I say they were black? No. No. No.
[Dougie Boy writes]:
I posted pictures of people in China matching the features of the SO CALLED black Chinese person that you posted. You simply don't want to admit that your specious arguments about labeling people as Africans with certain features is empty and meaningless.
[Marc writes] Thou shant put words into my mouth, Dougie Boy. And, I didn't make any post about SO CALLED black Chinese. You did. Didn't you know that?
Gee Willikers. For the sixth time I gotta repeat why I use the term African as you haven't gotten it yet. The trials we must go through in life.
Doug. You are really boring. The hoops you make me jump through you should be ashamed with yourself. The crosses we are called upon to bear are things sometimes not bargained for. Well. What the heck.
Hey Doug. Remember this exchange?
[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 be African.
If they look Negroid, would you call them Russian? Me thinks not.
Hey Doug. Are you a white aboriginal?
Caoi.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"intellectually whooped".... woah... is that what you did?! Someone is certainly suffering from delusions of grandeur! MoM, the only reason that I ceased to post in that thread is because unlike the prepubescent immature professional arguers like yourself who assume that pejorative banter and emoticon posting is a sign of superiority, I prefer to make my point and move on. Your inability to make rational and logical statements was enough for me to cease posting... my free time is more important to me than winning a debate with forum junkie. Another example being this thread: My initial post and follow-up post are more than logicial enough for those with half a brain to follow... but you being the pedantic attention seeker that you are will try to drag it out into another pointless argument to and fro. Please yourself, frankly, I haven't got the time. Your picture of 'kid' proves nothing, and the points that you make are rarely, if ever insightful beyond spam forwarding what you have read elsewhere. Keep posting google pics and making random conclusions based on them. Not impressed MoM. Not in the slightest. This is my last reply to you, so if you're going to rebut, make it count. ta ta.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: BRAVO! You do understand that, inverting your argument, posting a picture of 'Kid' doesn't prove that a child of mix heritage cannot be born with straight hair, as I know many that DO have straight hair! So your picture proves nothing! Understand that, DUNCE!
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Errr wrong, there was no random Google search as I posted an individual that I knew had a white parent and black parent to show that just because one has a white parent doesn't mean the child will come out with straight hair...
Perhaps you're having flashbacks from when I last intellectually whooped your a55 but get over it, your point in this thread about me posting a random picture was not only false but irrelevant and you got caught out there again.
You made up your own argument about mixed kids being able to come out with straight hair...and so what? lol That wasn't my point, I didn't post "Kids" pic to make an argument that mixed kids don't or can't come out with straight hair.
But rather the point was that just because one is mixed with white doesn't mean they will come out with straight hair, you halfwited dunce!!
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: "intellectually whooped".... woah... is that what you did?! Someone is certainly suffering from delusions of grandeur! MoM, the only reason that I ceased to post in that thread is because unlike the prepubescent immature professional arguers like yourself who assume that pejorative banter and emoticon posting is a sign of superiority, I prefer to make my point and move on. Your inability to make rational and logical statements was enough for me to cease posting... my free time is more important to me than winning a debate with forum junkie. Another example being this thread: My initial post and follow-up post are more than logicial enough for those with half a brain to follow... but you being the pedantic attention seeker that you are will try to drag it out into another pointless argument to and fro. Please yourself, frankly, I haven't got the time.
I'm pretty sure that you're slow, because your post was irrelevant to the point I was making. I said nothing about mixed kids not being able to come out with straighter hair, did I? Nope, I don't believe I did, so you make no sense as usual, too bad so sad...now go run along child!
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Your picture of 'kid' proves nothing, and the points that you make are rarely, if ever insightful beyond spam forwarding what you have read elsewhere.
Of course it proves my point as Doug also noted to you. It shows Marc that just because one has white admixture doesn't mean they'll come out with straight hair as Marc believes is the cause for Australian aborigines hair...understand?
Btw you must have me confused if you think I spam forward something I read elsewhere...mind showing me where I did or do this? If you can.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Keep posting google pics and making random conclusions based on them.
You clown, for the last time it wasn't a random search. I know who "Kid" is and I know he has a white and black parent what don't you understand about that?
Dunce! So how am I making random conclusions? Do tell...do you know something about "Kid" that I said wrong, if so let's hear it!!
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Narmer Menes wrote: ----------------------------- my free time is more important to me than winning a debate with forum junkie. -----------------------------
You are certainly right about MindoverMatter718. He posts under so many different accounts it makes peoples heads spin.
He also posts under a psychotic alias known as "The Explorer".
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
you are identifying people as African that aren't/weren't even black to begin with based on flimsy illogical evidence. Case in point, that statue is black because the paint came off. There is nothing about that statue that PROVES the people portrayed were black in any way.
[Marc writes] Did I say they were black? No. No. No.
[Dougie Boy writes]:
I posted pictures of people in China matching the features of the SO CALLED black Chinese person that you posted. You simply don't want to admit that your specious arguments about labeling people as Africans with certain features is empty and meaningless.
[Marc writes] Thou shant put words into my mouth, Dougie Boy. And, I didn't make any post about SO CALLED black Chinese. You did. Didn't you know that?
Gee Willikers. For the sixth time I gotta repeat why I use the term African as you haven't gotten it yet. The trials we must go through in life.
Doug. You are really boring. The hoops you make me jump through you should be ashamed with yourself. The crosses we are called upon to bear are things sometimes not bargained for. Well. What the heck.
Hey Doug. Remember this exchange?
[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 be African.
If they look Negroid, would you call them Russian? Me thinks not.
Hey Doug. Are you a white aboriginal?
Caoi.
. .
Marc stop playing games. You are the one who says Africans look negroid. This is a stereotype that does not match reality. All Africans don't look alike and they all don't have stereotypical "negroid" features. Therefore "negroid" does not equal African. You are regurgitating white stereotypical concepts and trying to use it as a source of black pride which is silly. Just as all black Africans don't have "negroid" features, neither do all blacks outside of Africa. Therefore "negroid" does not equal black (as some people with "negroid" features are no black) and neither equals African as some blacks with stereotypical "negroid" features are not African.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: . . Doug. I am not playing games. We've learned about black aborigines from you and I'd like to know if you are a white aboriginal.
. .
White aboriginal is a contradiction in terms. It is like saying white black person.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
If there are black aboriginals there are white aboriginals. Contradiction in terms? Not, say I. Are you a white aboriginal?
Like, I mean, it's no double standard thing. Black aboriginals but not white. You are just being modest. Go ahead and say you're a white aboriginal. No one will laugh at you. I promise.
Say. You posted a picture of an aboriginal Australian woman sitting naked in dirt and squalor. Would you show a naked white woman sitting in dirt and squalor?
Like I say, while flickr pictures are fine, give the lady back her land from the whites that took it if you really want to do something good. It's not like I got a gripe with flickr pics.
Doug. Don't get spooked and throw up, but ... AFRICAN! Booo!
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: Aboriginal: Ancestral, from nowhere else but that very land...
Blacks around the world are the aboriginal people of Africa that settled out into other parts of the world.
In other words, all aboriginal peoples of the earth are Africans.
Why is that such a difficult concept?
Formal Logic/ Deduction:
If X is Y and Y is X
then X and Y are the same!
Aboriginal blacks in Asia who have been there have been there as long as 50,000 years or more. They are no longer Africans in a geographic, cultural or linguistic sense.
They are Asians and other Asians derive from them. ALL humans come from Africa, therefore either ALL humans are Africans or only Africans are. Yes aboriginal populations world wide maintain many features associated with the first OOA migrants, but features does not make one African. Africa is a continent and therefore a term of geography. Calling someone African only means they originate in the continent of Africa. Seeing as aboriginal populations have been OUTSIDE of Africa for over 50,000 years, then this means that ALL humans are Africans as they all originate in Africa from the same time frame.
I don't call these people Africans because it implies a CONTINUOUS, DIRECT and CONSCIOUS connection between Africa. For example, Europeans in the world are Europeans because they have a continuous conscious direct connection to Europe in their culture, languages, art and lifestyles. Not to mention they also share a biological ancestry in Europe that is maintained through travel and intermarriage. Of course, this is a result of the colonial expansion over the last 500 years.
Aboriginal populations do not have a continuous conscious direct connection to Africa. Aboriginal Australians were CUT OFF from other populations for thousands of years. There is nothing in their culture, language or anything else that is tied directly to Africa. These aboriginal populations around the world have largely not been directly connected to Africa in terms of travel or trade for tens of thousands of years. So even though they are the remnants of the first populations out of Africa, they aren't Africans any longer. Therefore, if you can call aboriginal populations who have not been in Africa for thousands of years Africans, then all humans are Africans because they all originate in Africa thousands of years ago.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I'm pretty sure that you're slow, because your post was irrelevant to the point I was making. I said nothing about mixed kids not being able to come out with straighter hair, did I? Nope, I don't believe I did, so you make no sense as usual, too bad so sad...now go run along child!
Printer-friendly view of this topic