posted
^ and here we go again with kalonjiboy still arguing for the veracity of his definition of Afrocentricity (flip side of Eurocentrism, equals racist nonfactual scholarship) even as he claims it has no fixed definition. why? seeking attention? lol
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike and Clyde are about as Afrocentric as it gets. (essentialism)
This alone shows how dumb you are.
When something can be: ''as (..insert word..) as it gets'',
it implies that there is variation BY DEFINITION.
This is nowhere near saying that Afrocentrism in it's entirety is represented by Mikey or that the term allows no variation.
I'm done arguing with you, anyone can see how dumb you are. You just take things out of their contexts and think that you can then tell the person who said it, what they meant. The words speak for themselves, just like your constant quotes from me with their context omitted speak volumes about the attention seeking bitch inside you.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by anguishofbeing: ^ and here we go again with kalonjiboy still arguing for the veracity of his definition of Afrocentricity (flip side of Eurocentrism,
So me subscribing to one definition of Afrocentrism, equals denying that others exist? You are full of ****.
quote: Originally posted by anguishofbeing: even as he claims it has no fixed definition.
^What a dumbass You really can't distinguish between multiple and none, can you?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Thats why you came back again below. Yet another flip flop! LOL!
quote:You are full of ****.
Temper temper. Dont blame me for your fock ups.
Again, no one is "distorting" your confused anti-Afrocentric ramblings. Simply put, you are a dishonest little troll. Example below:
quote:When something can be: ''as (..insert word..) as it gets'',
it implies that there is variation BY DEFINITION.
BS. When you argued that Mike and Clyde are about as Afrocentric as it gets you were/are arguing in essence that it is **characterized** by lunatic fringe nonfactual scholarship. Afrocentricity is X. This is the sole purpose of your back and forth with great jew for four pointless (if you think it has no fixed meaning) pages. Cursing will not take away from your flip flipping. Its there for all to see. Deal with it.
quote:So me subscribing to one definition of Afrocentrism, equals denying that others exist?
If you think it can be X (your position) and non X, at the same time, why the fock are you arguing with great jew for four pages?! Why try to convince him it is X, if it can be both?!!! LOL!
quote: Originally posted by anguishofbeing: BS. When you argued that Mike and Clyde are about as Afrocentric as it gets you were/are arguing in essence that it is **characterized** by lunatic fringe nonfactual scholarship. Afrocentricity is X.
Let's review for this Attention whore:
quote: Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Ok, but some might argue that Mike and Winters aren't Afrocentics.
My response:
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: How would they do that? With what arguments? I think they (Mike and Clyde) are about as Afrocentric as it gets.
It is clear by me replying to your argument, with perplexity, that I'm saying that they're the extreme type, rather than me saying that they are the sole representatives or them having a monopoly on the word.
The latter interpretation doesn't even fit the context, the way I formulated my perplexity, nor does it fit the words that I used, you fvcking dummy.
quote: Originally posted by anguishofbeing: If you think it can be X (your position) and non X, at the same time, why the fock are you arguing with great jew for four pages?! Why try to convince him it is X, if it can be both?!!! LOL!
cannot be both
TO EVERYONE ELSE, SINCE ANGIE IS TOO DUMB, OR JUST SAVING FACE:
Obviously, the word ''Afrocentricity is not a new phenomenon regarding the existence of commotion about what should be included in a given worldview. Me acknowledging the existence of alTakruri's definition (afrocentricity excludes hyper diffusionalist black scholars), is in no way a contradiction of me subscribing to another definition, or grouping of scholars and positions that predate Asante's dictation. Nor is it evidence of me alternating between having a relative conceptualisation vs having a concrete conceptualisation
The reason for the 4 threads is because alTakruri and Angelina's attention seeking azz deny the existence of Afrocentric work that conflicts with Asantes definition.
So yes, there is a justified reason for the duration of this thread.
Note how he distorts what these 4 pages were about, like he always does.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
All you have left is projection and face saving illogical mumbo jumbo. But I like this piece of bullshyt right here: "Me *acknowledging* the *existence* of alTakruri's definition"
LOL! so all your back and forth arguing and insults with Great Jew was just about you "acknowledging" the "existence" of his definition?! It had nothing to do with you challenging it in *defense* of yours? LOLOL
Give me a break you face saving clown! LOL!
Recap: you argued for essentialism (Afrocentrism is X and this is true) as well as relativism (no one has a correct definition) all at the same time simply because you are a flip flopping ignoramus. Nothing more, nothing less.
quote:I'm saying that they're the extreme type
No, thats saying you see them as the core of the whole thing (as Afrocentric as it gets), they essentially define the term, they are **characteristic** of the movement. You self defeating donkey. lol
quote: The reason for the 4 threads is because alTakruri and Angelina's attention seeking azz deny the existence of Afrocentric work that conflicts with Asantes definition.
And why would you be trying to convince others of this anyway if there is no correct definition of the term as you say? And why do you think it is "Afrocentric work" anyway if you say there can be no correct definition of the term? Who is Afrocentric? Van Setima and Rogers or Gates and Keita? You say no for latter, others say yes. You cant say they are wrong, you already said the term has no correct definition and you cant say they are not Afrocentric because they don't define themselves as such since you lump Diop et al. as Afrocentric when they didn't even define themselves as such. So why do you not see Keita as Afrocentric? Is it because it has a true definition (Afrocentric = Mike and Winters, nonfactual, fringe sloppy scholarship)? LOL
Do you not see your whole exercise made no focking sense at all? LOL
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by anguishofbeing: And why would you be trying to convince others of this anyway if there is no correct definition of the term as you say?
quote: Originally posted by anguishofbeing: well as relativism (no one has a correct definition
MY ACTUAL WORDS:
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: The distinction made by Altakruri to rid ‘’Afrocentrism’’ of its assumptions that were typical of it’s time are in vein, since ‘’Afrocentrism’’ is not the property of Asante, that he or anyone else can dictate that their interpretation should be the correct one.
Clearly not saying that there is NO definition, but that he has no right to enforce his own definition of it onto what it started out as:
A hyperdiffusionalist wordview that sought to selfservingly appropriate African and extra African history to their own, solely because of them (Extra Africans) being or appearing black, to empower black people, or equally often their own fragile egos, and counter the then dominating eurocentric worldview.
ANGELINAS DISTORTIONS:
No, thats saying you see them as the core of the whole thing (as Afrocentric as it gets), they essentially define the term, they are **characteristic** of the movement.
MY ACTUAL WORDS:
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: Note that Jari has a point about ''Africa centric'' vs ''black centric'', but most Afro-centrics don't make that distinction. They group ALL black peoples together and applaud their accomplishments as a triumph for the entire ''black race'', which is, among other things, characteristic of Afrocentrism.
MORE DISTORTIONS
quote: Originally posted by anguishofbeing: if you say there can be no correct definition of the term?
quote: Originally posted by anguishofbeing: you already said the term has no correct definition
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by anguishofbeing: even as he claims it has no fixed definition.
^What a dumbass You really can't distinguish between multiple and none, can you?
posted
Since I still own Sex and Race vol.1 I can go and read and have an accurate fuller context than the few sentences you took from the 100 Amazing Facts about the Negro pamphlet. You may want to borrow S & R from a library so you yourself can see what approach Rogers (an autodidact) uses in his books.
Failing that in the very quote under examination Rogers defines what he means by Ethiopians where he writes "Ethiopians, that is, Negroes." Also if he meant the particular nation he would've used Ethiopia.
Of course you know OOA as developed the past three decades was not known in the 1940s.
Nonetheless the anthropology of the time did postulate origins and time depths of the 'races' they identified.
Just as Blumenbach centuries ago held all 'races' degenerated from his Caucasian 'race' by the 20th century many anthropologists presumed priority for their Ethiopian/negro/black 'race.'
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I don't take this quote, presumably from 100 Amazing Facts about the Negro, to mean that a nation 'Ethiopia' was responsible. The 'Negro,' if for millenia the only human on earth, must be responsible for "first idea of right and wrong" "thus laying the basis of religion and all true culture and civilization."
A tad pompous? Mayhap. But consider the opinion of the 'Negro' held as gospel in that era. I commend Rogers for dropping a weight on the other pan of the scale and so tilting toward balance.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
[i]"Ethiopians, that is, Negroes, gave the world the first idea of right and wrong and thus laid the basis of religion and all true culture and civilization." --Joel Augustus Rogers
Can you demonstrate that JA Rogers was aware and subscribed to the OOA model? Why would you rely on your own interpretation now, instead of researching and getting to the root of things like you did a few posts ago?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
how come everybody else quotes somebody and then replies below but alTakruri puts the extra effort in to put his reply above? why is this? nose in the air?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Failing that in the very quote under examination Rogers defines what he means by Ethiopians where he writes "Ethiopians, that is, Negroes."
That is not necessarily true He does this all the time
The Grimaldi, a Negro race, lived in europe as late as 12,000 years ago. Two complete Grimaldi skeletons are in the Musuem of Monaco, near Monte Carlo. Abundant traces of their culture have been unearthed in Southern and Central Europe.
Elam, a mighty Negro civilization of Persia, flourished about 2900 BC and is perhaps older than Egypt or Ethopia.
Cheops, a Negro, built the Great Pyramid,
I KNOW he is talking about a nation because this claim is nothing new. It's remarkably similar to [ancient] claims that are postulated by 21st centure Loons who claim that Osiris or Cush or whatever mythical character they can get they hands on civilised the world.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Also if he meant the particular nation he would've used Ethiopia.
LOL. Are you serious?
"Ethiopians, that is, Negroes.
Listen, I'm not into playing tug of wars with sources, they speak for themselves pretty much. I don't think I implied that he was talking about the modern nation of Ethiopia, nor do I think it matters. He was clearly talking about a nation, whether it was ancient Lower Sudan, ancient Upper Sudan, or Abyssinia.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Nonetheless the anthropology of the time did postulate origins and time depths of the 'races' they identified.
And this is relevant because? You tried to give a modern explanation of Rogers claims, by putting it in a OOA context, when said context wasn't even a majority view back then, much less can it be proven that he was a part of this minority ''speculation''. If you can't provide any clues from his work that he subscribed to the first humans being black, and subsequently populating the world, your speculation amounts to nothing.
You're started off good by researching, and getting to the root of things, but now you're just speculating.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Anguishofbeing: If Asante or anyone else cannot dictate that their interpretation should be the correct one, *who* are we left with to define the term?
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: Clearly not saying that there is NO definition, but that he has no right to enforce his own definition of it onto what it started out as:
A hyperdiffusionalist wordview that sought to selfservingly appropriate African and extra African history to their own, solely because of them (Extra Africans) being or appearing black, to empower black people, or equally often their own fragile egos, and counter the then dominating eurocentric worldview.
Do you have tunnel vision?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: but that he has no right to enforce his own definition of it onto what it started out as:
A hyperdiffusionalist [sic] wordview [sic]
First off how was "Afrocentrism" a "hyperdiffusionalist" worldview in its early days? [3 marks] Name these "Afrocentrics" that did this in the early days and explain why they are to be considered "Afrocentrics". [4 marks]
Source your answers please.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
After you constant distortions, do you think I going to demonstrate anything?
What it boils down to:
You and alTakruri write off Clyde Winters as not being representative of the positions of the actual scholars. I actually went out of my way to go through the trouble of posting J.A. Roger quotes that suggest otherwise, namely, that Clyde winters is basing his views on the scholars that I have mentioned in this thread.
These, and his (Clyde) own sources went on deaf ears, besides alTakruri's misleading attempts to put them in a different context. Given these two responses to my and his earlier posts, you'd have to be out of your ever loving mind to think that I'm going to post more examples.
"Ethiopians, that is, Negroes, gave the world the first idea of right and wrong and thus laid the basis of religion and all true culture and civilization." --Joel Augustus Rogers
The Ganges, the sacred river of India, is named after an Ethiopian king of that name who conquered Asia as far as this river... --Joel Augustus Rogers
The Negro was the first artist. The oldest drawings and carvings yet discovered were executed by the Negro people 15,000 years ago in Southern France, Northern Spain, Palestine, South Africa, and India. The drawings are on rocks, the carvings on bone, basalt and ivory. --Joel Augustus Rogers
Elam, a mighty Negro civilization of Persia, flourished about 2900 BC and is perhaps older than Egypt or Ethopia. --Joel Augustus Rogers
The Bible really originated in Ancient Egypt, where the population according to Herodotus and Aristotle, was black. Here the Jews recieved almost all of their early culture. --Joel Augustus Rogers
posted
oh jesus christ, must we go through this shyt again? stop running bitch answer the questions:
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: but that he has no right to enforce his own definition of it onto what it started out as:
A hyperdiffusionalist [sic] wordview [sic]
First off how was "Afrocentrism" a "hyperdiffusionalist" worldview in its early days? [3 marks] Name these "Afrocentrics" that did this in the early days and explain why they are to be considered "Afrocentrics". [4 marks]
posted
The thing is I've read Rogers' books and pamphlets before while you have just now discovered one of his pamphlets online. Experience and familiarity does make a difference between a sophisticated wild ass guess and grounded speculation, which this is neither.
You misconceive, or rather fabricate me, saying Rogers is talking OoA. Admitting unsurety of blacks originating from which of the Indian Ocean shore lands in no way detracts from the stated fact that blacks were first.
quote: Nevertheless, truth is at its best when tossed among error, ridicule, and ignorance. It always emerges stronger. Out of the clashings of sense and nonsense uttered by the divines and the scholars, the truth has emerged so strongly, so triumphantly, that the man who denies it today is regarded as a freak. This is that Man has a common ancestor ... that man originated in the tropics, ...
Illustration IVa. Left: Reconstruction of the Rhodesian Man with the original skull. Lived probably hundreds of thousands of years ago, and was, perhaps, the ancestor of the Grimaldi race of Europe and Africa.
The skull was found at Broken Hill, Rhodesia, almost in the heart of Africa ...
Centre: Cro-Magnon, or Aurignacian Man, with the original skull found in southern France. Like the Grimaldi he was probably a descendant of Rhodesian Man.
Increasingly it is being said in the most informed scientific circles that the Negro was the ancestor of the human race. Henry Fairfield Osborn, late head of the American Museum of Natural History, who had himself, a strong tinge of white fanaticism, said, "Negroid stock is even more ancient than Caucasian or Mongolian man."(2) Griffith Taylor says, "A major prin- ciple of ecology tells us that the Negrito was therefore the earliest to develop of the five races."(3) Professor W. K. Gregory, in the illustrated frontpiece of his book "Our Face from Fish to Man." gives the Tasmanian Negro as the first man. Rene Verneau, head of the Paleontological Institute of Paris, says, "Recent discoveries seem to indicate that the Negro element preceeded the White and Yellow everywhere."(4) Griffith Taylor adds in support that the Negritos, or little Negroes, were the first in Europe after the Neanderthal, a near human Negroid type, and that the Negritos "introduced" their culture "all over the world." The original color of man was "black" he says.
(2) Man Rises to Parnassus, p. 201. Princeton, NJ, 1928 ___Men of the Old Stone Age, pp. 262, 278-79, 1918. (3) Environment and Race, p. 230. London, 1927. ___Environment and Nation, p. 87. Chicago 1936. (4) Huxley Memorial Lecture for 1924, p. 20
J. A. Rogers Sex and Race: Negro - Caucasian mixing in all Ages and all Lands New York: J. A. Rogers, 1941 pp 25c, 26, 28b.
From the above quotes we can see that regardless of any uncertainty Rogers may have expressed about origination of the "present Negro race of Africa," for him the human race originates there. At the worst he is merely indecisive if the "present Negro race of Africa" is aboriginal or, in our current terminology, a back migration.
Again I say of course you know OoA as developed the past three decades was not known in the 1940s when Rogers penned the above. Nonetheless monogenesis and polygenesis theories were circulating and Rogers was a monogenesist holding Africa and a black people from Africa were primary and spread from Africa to other places.
You started off bad, parroting polemic Eurocentrics, but progressed to superficially reading one of the black scholars you trashed. Maybe you will proceed further and remove their blinders to examine texts "objectively" instead of with negative bias prejudice.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Nonetheless the anthropology of the time did postulate origins and time depths of the 'races' they identified.
And this is relevant because? You tried to give a modern explanation of Rogers claims, by putting it in a OOA context, when said context wasn't even a majority view back then, much less can it be proven that he was a part of this minority ''speculation''. If you can't provide any clues from his work that he subscribed to the first humans being black, and subsequently populating the world, your speculation amounts to nothing.
You're started off good by researching, and getting to the root of things, but now you're just speculating.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Griffith Taylor adds in support that the Negritos, or little Negroes, were the first in Europe after the Neanderthal, a near human Negroid type,
Very interesting statement. Neanderthals were DARK?
Posts: 1819 | From: odesco baba | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You knew that because maybe you read the entire quote in context which you then reserved uncited for yourself.
I took Ethiopian as a generic which you countered by saying it was a specific. After having to track down your source myself, since even though requested you refused to share, I have discovered you were correct. Rogers meant a particular nation -- in this case Kush.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Failing that in the very quote under examination Rogers defines what he means by Ethiopians where he writes "Ethiopians, that is, Negroes."
I KNOW he is talking about a nation
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: You knew that because maybe you read the entire quote in context which you then reserved uncited for yourself.
No, I know that because my reading of that excerpt makes more sense that your forced interpretation. I urged everyone to do a search on the net to disprove what I'm saying about these scholars, and provided these quotes as material to start out with, so if there is anything you did not know about these excerpts, it's because you was too busy defending him and yourself.
"Ethiopians, that is, Negroes, gave the world the first idea of right and wrong and thus laid the basis of religion and all true culture and civilization." --Joel Augustus Rogers
I don't know about you but it's pretty clear. The only picture these words conjure up is an actual migration from mid-holocene Africa (civilisation & religion) to actually school the ignorant rest of the world. If he meant it the way you interpreted it, it seizes to be an accomplisment for modern blacks. Prehistoric Africans, or at least the ones that partook in our establishment, are everybody's ancestors, as are their accomplisments. There is also no Upper Paleolithic civilisation, to make sense of your interpretation. Your interpretation just makes him look dumb and ignorant.
Don't speculate that I knew it all along because it's getting hotter under your feet. I didn't bother reading every quote, I took what I could find on my Harddisk and posted it here. If I read it all, shitt, it would probably be a whole lot more head scratching going on by you and Angelina.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri The thing is I've read Rogers' books and pamphlets before while you have just now discovered one of his pamphlets online.
Still haven't learned to lay off the speculation after where it brought you with your fanciful interpretation?
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri You started off bad, parroting polemic Eurocentrics, but progressed to superficially reading one of the black scholars you trashed. Maybe you will proceed further and remove their blinders to examine texts "objectively" instead of with negative bias prejudice.
Says the person who couldn't, or better yet, didn't want to see what was right before his eyes:
"Ethiopians, that is, Negroes, gave the world the first idea of right and wrong and thus laid the basis of religion and all true culture and civilization." --Joel Augustus Rogers
None of the highlighted manifestations, in the sense that they are used by Rogers, originate in the Upper Paleolithic.
Like I said, the excerpt in question resembles ancient myths that are circulating to this day in Afrocentric circles, with a little bit of common sense, you could've figured it out that the quote originated from the same theme. But nooooo, you had to defend, speculate and avoid the inevitable. Go ahead then, but don't blame/accuse me with your rediculous assertions.
"They [the Ethiopians] say also that the Egyptians are colonists sent out by the Ethiopians, Osiris ["King of Kings and God of Gods"] having been the leader of the colony" -Diodorus Siculus
"they add that the Egyptians have received from them, as from authors and their ancestors, the greater part of their laws." -Diodorus Siculus
"The earliest civilization was higher than that of the later dynasties. Its purer art represents an "Old Race" that fills all the background of the pre-historic ages. It colonized the first civilized centers of the primitive world. The ancients called this pioneer ram which lit the torch of art and science, Cushite Ethiopians, the founders of primeval cities and civilized life." -Drusilla Houston
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri You misconceive, or rather fabricate me, saying Rogers is talking OoA. Admitting unsurety of blacks originating from which of the Indian Ocean shore lands in no way detracts from the stated fact that blacks were first.
You are slow, aren't you?
You said:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: The 'Negro,' if for millenia the only human on earth, must be responsible for "first idea of right and wrong" "thus laying the basis of religion and all true culture and civilization."
Combined with the excerpt:
"Ethiopians, that is, Negroes, gave the world the first idea of right and wrong and thus laid the basis of religion and all true culture and civilization." --Joel Augustus Rogers
It has to involve some sort of migration out of Africa. There is no other factual migration outside of Africa that can account for Rogers his global expedition:
''gave the world.''Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Go read the thread, or leave. Judging by you co-signing a possibility that is already resolved shows that you just butted in, with absolutely no idea of what is discussed here.
Nobody disagrees that black people, including Africans were once dubbed Ethiopians by a certain group of people.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: ^Go read the thread, or leave. Judging by you co-signing a possibility that is already resolved shows that you just butted in, with absolutely no idea of what is discussed here.
Nobody disagrees that black people, including Africans were once dubbed Ethiopians by a certain group of people.
I wasn't co-signing and I was reading quickly....I had only picked up that one sentence, and I was actually editing to clarify after seeing what I missed that "if one was to read that sentence alone w/o the rest of it, one could easily read it either way. (and then what is up there now) then I said **** it and just edited it to what I have now...
so fuk off w/ the unnecessary drama b/c I wasn't cosigning and I wasn't saying anyone disagreed that they were once referred to as such....just that keeping that in mind one could lose context...pull your balls from round your neck and breath man...or get some p**y or something...dam....
htp
I won't bother to be the second person here to tell yuh bout yuh rass name yuh tek up fe yuhself...male guinep yuh...guh labbajuice yuh gyal.....
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by TruthAndRights I had only picked up that one sentence
Exactly. So read the thread and learn what the discussion is about, woman.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: ^Go read the thread, or leave.
bitch how the fock did you get to be telling others to read or leave when you cant back up your own shyt? lol!
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
How cute, Angelina is coming to her rescue. She doesn't need it though, judging by her tomboyish typical ghetto reaction she is more masculine than you. LOL.
You have no place criticising black men, when you obviously don't know how to act. Take a couple of breaths, fix up your ugly ways, and learn some lady etiquette.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: How cute, Angelina is coming to her rescue. She doesn't need it though, judging by her tomboyish typical ghetto reaction she is more masculine than you. LOL.
You have no place criticising black men, when you obviously don't know how to act. Take a couple of breaths, fix up your ugly ways, and learn some lady etiquette.
Less ad hominem. More cited sources. Less distraction. More focus.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
You tried to give a modern explanation of Rogers claims, by putting it in a OOA context, when said context wasn't even a majority view back then, much less can it be proven that he was a part of this minority ''speculation''. If you can't provide any clues from his work that he subscribed to the first humans being black, and subsequently populating the world, your speculation amounts to nothing.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri You misconceive, or rather fabricate me, saying Rogers is talking OoA. Admitting unsurety of blacks originating from which of the Indian Ocean shore lands in no way detracts from the stated fact that blacks were first.
You are slow, aren't you?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This proves you wrong without me calling you names or use of other distracting roorag you employ to cover your, er, um, ... error.
quote: Nevertheless, truth is at its best when tossed among error, ridicule, and ignorance. It always emerges stronger. Out of the clashings of sense and nonsense uttered by the divines and the scholars, the truth has emerged so strongly, so triumphantly, that the man who denies it today is regarded as a freak. This is that Man has a common ancestor ... that man originated in the tropics, ...
Illustration IVa. Left: Reconstruction of the Rhodesian Man with the original skull. Lived probably hundreds of thousands of years ago, and was, perhaps, the ancestor of the Grimaldi race of Europe and Africa.
The skull was found at Broken Hill, Rhodesia, almost in the heart of Africa ...
Centre: Cro-Magnon, or Aurignacian Man, with the original skull found in southern France. Like the Grimaldi he was probably a descendant of Rhodesian Man.
Increasingly it is being said in the most informed scientific circles that the Negro was the ancestor of the human race. Henry Fairfield Osborn, late head of the American Museum of Natural History, who had himself, a strong tinge of white fanaticism, said, "Negroid stock is even more ancient than Caucasian or Mongolian man."(2) Griffith Taylor says, "A major prin- ciple of ecology tells us that the Negrito was therefore the earliest to develop of the five races."(3) Professor W. K. Gregory, in the illustrated frontpiece of his book "Our Face from Fish to Man." gives the Tasmanian Negro as the first man. Rene Verneau, head of the Paleontological Institute of Paris, says, "Recent discoveries seem to indicate that the Negro element preceeded the White and Yellow everywhere."(4) Griffith Taylor adds in support that the Negritos, or little Negroes, were the first in Europe after the Neanderthal, a near human Negroid type, and that the Negritos "introduced" their culture "all over the world." The original color of man was "black" he says.
(2) Man Rises to Parnassus, p. 201. Princeton, NJ, 1928 ___Men of the Old Stone Age, pp. 262, 278-79, 1918. (3) Environment and Race, p. 230. London, 1927. ___Environment and Nation, p. 87. Chicago 1936. (4) Huxley Memorial Lecture for 1924, p. 20
J. A. Rogers Sex and Race: Negro - Caucasian mixing in all Ages and all Lands New York: J. A. Rogers, 1941 pp 25c, 26, 28b.
From the above quotes we can see that regardless of any uncertainty Rogers may have expressed about origination of the "present Negro race of Africa," for him the human race originates there. At the worst he is merely indecisive if the "present Negro race of Africa" is aboriginal or, in our current terminology, a back migration.
Again I say of course you know OoA as developed the past three decades was not known in the 1940s when Rogers penned the above. Nonetheless monogenesis and polygenesis theories were circulating and Rogers was a monogenesist holding Africa and a black people from Africa were primary and spread from Africa to other places.
Kalonji trying to find anything to stick on Rogers, whom he sees as "Afrocentric" but consistently fails to tell us why. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: From the above quotes we can see that regardless of any uncertainty Rogers may have expressed about origination of the "present Negro race of Africa," for him the human race originates there.
You cited that piece to substantiate that your interpretation of Rogers's migrating Ethiopians were meant by him as Paleolithic, rather than Holocene era. Given that you have been proven horribly wrong with your fancifull interpretation, why do you keep posting it?
You then respond to non existing content, by citing the following part of my post, As if your post actually adresses the bolded part:
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: ... OOA context, when said context wasn't even a majority view back then, much less can it be proven that he was a part of this minority ''speculation''.
Of course you already know it doesn't, since you said:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Again I say of course you know OoA as developed the past three decades was not known in the 1940s when Rogers penned the above.
Who do you think you are fooling? I asked you to demonstrate that Rogers subscribed to OOA, as your interpretation of the excerpt I posted necessarily requires (see below). I did not say Rogers was ignorant about the earliest humans being black. You take credit for posting quotes when your quotes don't even adress me, how desperate and self promotional.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: You said:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: The 'Negro,' if for millenia the only human on earth, must be responsible for "first idea of right and wrong" "thus laying the basis of religion and all true culture and civilization."
Combined with the excerpt: "Ethiopians, that is, Negroes, gave the world the first idea of right and wrong and thus laid the basis of religion and all true culture and civilization." --Joel Augustus Rogers It has to involve some sort of migration out of Africa. There is no other factual migration outside of Africa that can account for Rogers his global expedition: ''gave the world.''
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: This proves you wrong without me calling you names or use of other distracting roorag
COMPARE:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: The thing is I've read Rogers' books and pamphlets before while you have just now discovered one of his pamphlets online.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: You misconceive, or rather fabricate me, saying Rogers is talking OoA.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: You knew that because maybe you read the entire quote in context which you then reserved uncited for yourself.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: We all see you think blacks cannot be scholars unless they reguritate what white scholars' work and refrain from independent thinking.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: (and on top of that you admit to prefering Eurocentrism over Afrocentrism).
THIS PEOPLE, IS WHAT THEY CALL BLIND SPOTS
Pronin and her co-authors explained to subjects the better-than-average effect, the halo effect, self-serving bias and many other cognitive biases. According to the better-than-average bias, specifically, people are likely to see themselves as inaccurately "better than average" for possible positive traits and "less than average" for negative traits. When subsequently asked how biased they themselves were, subjects rated themselves as being much less subject to the biases described than the average person.
posted
Despite typical distracting face saving debater fluff you were proven wrong when you said
quote: ... much less can it be proven that he was 1- a part of this minority ''speculation''.
If you can't provide any clues from his work that he subscribed to 2 - the first humans being black, and 3 - subsequently populating the world,
From his own properly cited works we have shown Rogers subscribed to the unity of the human race which derived from an African homo which spread to other regions.
What's so hard about admitting your assessment of Rogers was inaccurate in this instance? When I tracked down that one quote of yours from 100 Amazing Facts about the Negro and read it in full context I immediately confessed my error.
It's not about personalities being right or wrong. It's about verifying or disconfirming facts and increasing the knowledge. At least for me that's what it's about.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I did not say Rogers was ignorant about the earliest humans being black.
Ah, but you did and will now will exercise rhetorical gymnastics to explain away how
quote: you can't provide any clues from his work that he subscribed to the first humans being black,
really doesn't mean
quote: Rogers was ignorant about the earliest humans being black.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
alTakruri's bitch made attempts to distort my posts:
quote: Originally distorted by alTakruri: you can't provide any clues from his work that he subscribed to the first humans being black,.
The complete quote
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: If you can't provide any clues from his work that he subscribed to the first humans being black, and subsequently populating the world, your speculation amounts to nothing.
So yes, I was not lying when I said:
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: I did not say Rogers was ignorant about the earliest humans being black.
You're just salty that I've destroyed your positions countless times.
WRONG ON ALL COUNTS SO FAR Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: This proves you wrong without me calling you names or use of other distracting roorag
THIS PEOPLE, IS WHAT THEY CALL BLIND SPOTS
Pronin and her co-authors explained to subjects the better-than-average effect, the halo effect, self-serving bias and many other cognitive biases. According to the better-than-average bias, specifically, people are likely to see themselves as inaccurately "better than average" for possible positive traits and "less than average" for negative traits. When subsequently asked how biased they themselves were, subjects rated themselves as being much less subject to the biases described than the average person.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: It's not about personalities being right or wrong. It's about verifying or disconfirming facts and increasing the knowledge. At least for me that's what it's about.
You are nothing but a lying little bitch, in your lying little head it IS about personalities being right or wrong, and you have just proven it by going back to my post, and manipulating my words in such a way that it looked like I did say that. If you actually went through all that trouble knowing I did not say that (as is visible from how you doctored my post), your plea about being solely interested in the truth mean nothing.
You admitted you were wrong because you WERE wrong, and it could be demonstrated by simply referring back to his writings. You figured you might as well admit it before someone else beated you to it. There is nothing honorable in admitting you are wrong, because the truth doesn't depend on you admitting it. You were simply wrong in me saying I can't back up my claims. Then you were wrong in trying to put that Rogers excerpt in a OOA context.
You have shown me you don't deserve to be spoken to in a normal tone, after so audaciously distorting my posts. You don't deserve the other documentation you damn near begged me to post, after you have just confirmed my suspicions that you were just going to doctor them as well.
without the face saving Greenspanian copout excuse "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: It's not about personalities being right or wrong. It's about verifying or disconfirming facts and increasing the knowledge. At least for me that's what it's about.
You are nothing but a lying little bitch, in your lying little head it IS about personalities being right or wrong, and you have just proven it by going back to my post, and manipulating my words in such a way that it looked like I did say that. If you actually went through all that trouble knowing I did not say that (as is visible from how you doctored my post), your plea about being solely interested in the truth mean nothing.
You admitted you were wrong because you WERE wrong, and it could be demonstrated by simply referring back to his writings. You figured you might as well admit it before someone else beated you to it. There is nothing honorable in admitting you are wrong, because the truth doesn't depend on you admitting it. You were simply wrong in me saying I can't back up my claims. Then you were wrong in trying to put that Rogers excerpt in a OOA context.
You have shown me you don't deserve to be spoken to in a normal tone, after so audaciously distorting my posts. You don't deserve the other documentation you damn near begged me to post, after you have just confirmed my suspicions that you were just going to doctor them as well.
Bitch made false pretense having bum
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
without the face saving Greenspanian copout excuse "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Your laughter fails to hide your fear to any but yourself. Ridicule and name calling aren't the lowest forms of argument, they're no argument at all, and indicative of impotence.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are nothing but a liar, who manipulates and distorts, just like your girlfriend Angie.
You can stop replying to me because I'm done with you. Like I said, you don't deserve to be talked to in a normal tone, so to keep from talking to you in the uncivilised tones that you deserve, I'm calling it a day. Truth doesn't depend on you accepting it. When you get your head out of Asante's behind, you'll know whatsup.
I had you leaning back three times, if not more. I'm content.
without the face saving Greenspanian copout excuse "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Your laughter fails to hide your fear to any but yourself. Ridicule and name calling aren't the lowest forms of argument, they're no argument at all, and indicative of impotence.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic