posted
''Real Caucasians are red haired, pale skinned with freckles.'' ========
That only fits the description of certain groups within the Caucasoid race. The main sub-races are Mediterraneanoid and Nordic (or Aryan). Most Caucasoids today are a mixture of both these sub-races and the indigenous Mediterraneanoids are virtually now extinct (you can only find them in parts of Cornwall, England, the Basque Country between France and Spain and isolated parts of the Caucasus).
Anthropological peer reviewed journals still continue to use these sub-race terms.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The word Caucasian itself first came in usage to define the white peoples of Georgia noted for their beauty:
Blacks in contrast are ugly -
All afrocentrics on this forum are in denial. Their racism against whites which fills these threads is nothing more than their insecurity and envy.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
How folks react to you in soceity does not define anthropological race.
What are you talking about I was responding to this comment you made..
And just for the record people in the Western world are more accustomed to the image of a west African type as representing the Black man, whereas Whites are seen everywhere and tend to be predominantly dark haired with probably less than half having light eyes.
In any case, Horn Africans don't look like you. So on what basis then are you both the same race..
Please be consistant, you made the claim that "The Western World" sees the West African as a representation of the black man, when the evidence says otherwise. Majority of the "Starving African" image comes from Ethiopia, the Lip plate Ethiopian are HOA, and the recent savage image of Africa are Somali Pirates.
HOAs are seen just as savage and backward in the West until the discussion turns to Lalibella, Mogidishu, Geez. Axum, and the Ethiopian and HOA Language and genetics being related to A. Egyptians, then suddenly people want to start claiming these Starving Lip Plated Africans as "Caucasian".
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: And while I can't see calling East Africans Caucasians, there is something to be said for their difference in appaearance mostly Horn Africna not so much Kenyans or Sudanese etc. Personally I consider them all Black because to be practical, I feel that they have more in common with other Africans on many levels. But if some Anthropogists decides to classify them as a distinct race based on their physical differences, I don't necessarily think that would be invalid. For as subjectiuve as the notion of race is, phenotypical diffrences is what it is all based on, after all.
HOA's come in different phenotypes and sizes. Most look no different than the typical West African except those living on the Highlands.
Also many slaves were taken from the East Coast of Africa as well as Madagascar so yes, many of them DO look like us, and many A.A have East African blood running in our veins.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
"True Caucasians", so I suppose those Europeans with the thin lips are Fake Caucasians. LOL
By the way, there exists among populations of the Caucasus frequencies of African derived lineages such as mt M1 derived lineages. This may have to do with historical reports by the Greeks about the Colchians having African ancestry as due to their black African appearance.
You say full lips is not uncommon among True Caucasians but neither is wooly hair!
And let's not get into steatopygia.
quote:Full lips were and remain the norm in Egypt, yet some ancient Egyptian images show narrow ones.
posted
It's rather hilarious. I remember DaHoslips mentioning how ancient Egyptians have full lips but the lips are not "fleshy" like a black person's. This was the same bogus argument used by racist anthropologist back then who claimed Egyptians were not "negro" because their lips were full but not everted and were thus "Mediterranean". Suffice to say, these same anthropologists included Beja, Nubians, and Ethiopians as "Mediterraneans" as well.
But here is for Egyptians not having fleshy lips.
He complains about the Tut reconstruction made by a forensic team for Discovery Channel having lips that are too fleshy as if such a trait would be inaccurate for an Egyptian.
Yet here is a reconstruction of Akhenaten..
It is in profile view but it looks very similar to this statue of him..
And here is a reconstruction of the KV35 Younger Lady who is Akhenaten's sister..
Obviously fleshy lips runs in the family as such a trait is common among Egyptians in the first place! Now the fool tries to associate the trait with Europeans of the Caucasus and Mediterranean! LOL
By the way, that he ignored my post about Caucasian and Greek communities in modern Egypt is not at all surprising. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You on the other hand have very little to connect you with ancient Egyptians and Eastern Africans except for the broad term "African".
^^Complete bullshiit. Both ancient Egyptians, East Africans and West Africans are tropically adapted Africans and derive from the tropical zone, and are linked via Haplogroup E. In both cranial and limb proportion studies, tropical Africans cluster much more closely with Egyptians than your beloved Europeans. DNA shows the same pattern. The cultural links have already been detailed below. And as for languages, Africa has several but so what? India has hundreds of languages but you are still calling them Indian. Asia has hundreds of languages as well, from Turkey, to the Phillipines to China, but no one denies them being Asian. Why though when it comes to Africa, you apply a racist double standard that denies the Africanity of various peoples? You are no different from the hypocrite Rahotep.
Narrow noses are not adaptive to hot or tropical climates. ^^Complete nonsense, and several references have been given showing you simply don't know what you are talking about.
Also many horn African have a genetic signature that is distinct from other Africans which would indicate some mixture from western Asia.
^Simplistic nonsense. A varying genetic signature means just that- another African variant. We all know that Horners have some outside gene flow from Arabs, Italians etc in recent centuries, but FUNDAMENTALLY a distinct variation does not necessarily signify any "race mix."
In any case, Horn Africans don't look like you. So on what basis then are you both the same race.. just because you both orginate from an arbritarily drawn chunk of land called Africa?
^There is plenty of basis -- genetic, environmental, and cultural elements to show the fundamental unity of the African peoples, whether they be from the Horn or elsewhere. The genetics are shown by Haplogroup E, the PN2 transition and numerous other elements discussed often here at ES. The environmnetal is shown in that Horners are part of the tropical zone and are thus tropically adapted Africans just like their brethren in West, South, Central, North (excluding certain Arabized coastal regions- bu including North African areas like Chad, Mali or the Sudan) or east Africa. The cultural is seen in artifacts, religion, certain political forms etc (the king as rainmaker, regicide, aminal gods etc etc.) There are just beginning examples, that provide plenty of "basis"..
And your notion of Horn Africans "looking like me" is bogus. Africans vary in their looks just like other populations. They don't all look alike as your racist model would have it.
Note, I'm not saying that HOAs are not Blacks. But in Anthropolgy, phenotypical differences are the distinguishing marks of so called races, not Haplogroups, culture, language or place of origin. To say you and Horn Africans are both Africans is one thing, but to hold that folks should see you both as the same and somehow interchangeable is something else entirely. Just sayin
^If as you say phenotypical differences are markers of so called races, why do you lump dark-skinned, Indian peoples' some with broad noses like the Dravidians, with pale skinned narrow featured white blondes from northern Europe into a 'Caucasoid' race? Using your own approach, phenotypically they should be assigned to the black race. You contradict yourself. Here you say we should go by phenotype, yet when the Horner phenotype shows black, you start to wriggle and waffle. Why the double standard?
Based on the credible evidence you have presented so far, if you "just sayin" you are saying nonsense...
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
rahotep, myself and several others are still waiting for the afrocentrics to explain why the earliest pre-dynastic mummies are straight red or blonde haired if they were negroid.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: this they pay for...smh....
I've asked the resident 'white' boys in a few other threads, they keep talking bout Black Women this and that...however, WHY do 'white' women do this to themSelves (I mean, the examples are endless)
That's a bloke, which is the scary thing (Pete Burns)
Before and after:
Yuck! I thought that was stubble on his chin! LOL And his new lips are not only more full but everted! A bizarre look for a white person in general man or woman.
quote:I don't know why he wanted to do that to himself. I don't understand why anyone would do this to themself either:
Specific cultural patterns of beauty is the reason. Lip plates are also worn by men of the South American Suya people.
Each culture has their own bizarre views of beauty from the crippling bound feet of Chinese women to the less extreme but still painful high heels of Western women. Not too long ago white women were wearing corsets that squeezed their internal organs. Now they are getting implants in their breasts
quote:It's not exactly unknown for a black woman to attempt to become more white-looking, meanwhile...
It sure is not! We know such black women are psychologically affected by culturally dominant i.e. White ideals of beauty. Such ideals have also adversely affected Asian women as well with many Asian women bleaching their skin and in the case of East Asians getting rounder eyes through surgery.
The question is what the hell is the excuse for white women themselves who tan their bodies and inject their lips and now buttocks?? Is this some sort of subconscious desire to look black? If so, how come when blacks have never been culturally dominant in the West??
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
''This may have to do with historical reports by the Greeks about the Colchians having African ancestry as due to their black African appearance.'' ===
Another lie.
The Colchains were white skinned, and even blonde.
Apollonius of Rhodes in his Argonautica describes Medea, the daughter of King Aeetes of Colchis as blonde (Argonautica, III. 829):
''Now soon as ever the maiden saw the light of dawn, with her hands she gathered up her long blonde locks which were floating round her shoulders in careless disarray''
In verse 30 of Euripides' Medea, Medea is described as having a white skinned neck: ''she is silent unless perchance to turn her snow-white neck and weep to herself for her dear father and her country and her ancestral house'', in verse 920 also when Jason adresses Medea she is described as white cheeked: ''You there, why do you dampen your eyes with pale tears and turn your white cheek away, and why are you not pleased to hear these words from me?''
Medea was a native Colchian and the daughter of the King of Colchis.
The colchians were not black.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
''The question is what the hell is the excuse for white women themselves who tan their bodies and inject their lips and now buttocks?? Is this some sort of subconscious desire to look black? If so, how come when blacks have never been culturally dominant in the West??'' =====
No one wants to look black. Black features are ugly and hated hence all black females attempt to straighten their hair and look like white females.
Chris rock did a documentary on how black women in america spend billions on their hair to straighen it so they can look like white woman. Chris rock's own daughter told him afro/wooly hair is ugly and she wants long straight hair like white girls her age.
The fact is all black females want straight hair like whites - and there is a billion dollar industry.
In contrast there is no billion dollar industry created by white woman to look black.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ''Real Caucasians are red haired, pale skinned with freckles.'' ========
That only fits the description of certain groups within the Caucasoid race. The main sub-races are Mediterraneanoid and Nordic (or Aryan). Most Caucasoids today are a mixture of both these sub-races and the indigenous Mediterraneanoids are virtually now extinct (you can only find them in parts of Cornwall, England, the Basque Country between France and Spain and isolated parts of the Caucasus).
Anthropological peer reviewed journals still continue to use these sub-race terms.
Cornish people who could probably pass for Egyptians:
All of these, I would venture to suggest, have lips.
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ''Real Caucasians are red haired, pale skinned with freckles.'' ========
That only fits the description of certain groups within the Caucasoid race. The main sub-races are Mediterraneanoid and Nordic (or Aryan). Most Caucasoids today are a mixture of both these sub-races and the indigenous Mediterraneanoids are virtually now extinct (you can only find them in parts of Cornwall, England, the Basque Country between France and Spain and isolated parts of the Caucasus).
Anthropological peer reviewed journals still continue to use these sub-race terms.
Cornish people who could probably pass for Egyptians:
All of these, I would venture to suggest, have lips.
Real Caucasians are red haired, pale skinned with freckles with thin to NO lips. And males are very hairy.
All the other attempts are baseless nonsense.
Now tell me what haplotype does the real "negroe" carry. The woman you kept showing with high prognathism. What haplo does she predomantly carry?
Show the world how stupid you are. So we can have a good laugh.
Nordics are not Arians/ Aryans. That's just another nazi fantasy you cling onto.
Iranians are the Arians/ Aryans.
Mediterraneanoid? More ridiculous nonsense!
And what you forget to venture is the haplotype of those different races you are showing. They all differ, don't look alike and are simple not of the same race. This is clear.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Among the earliest peoples described as red haired include certain Russian tribes and the Thracians, but red hair was never a primary feature of Caucasians. That said I doubt you get natural red heads who were not Caucasians, and various members of the Egyptian 19th dynasty appear to have been exactly that. Ramesses' natural red hair is mentioned in his biography by Egyptologist Joyce Tyldesley, (p. 15) who cites the scientific analysis of his hair roots carried out by Balout and Roubert. This has not been debunked. Several different labs working independently returned the same results.
South Americans were, it seems, disposed to invent lip plates independently, for reasons best known to themselves. The odd white 'modern primitive' may also go in for that sort of thing, but I doubt you'll ever see a whole village of them.
The original cacuasians are and were red haired, pale skinned with freckles.
And once again you have exposed yourself on the racist and bais argument of independently / parallel inventions.
And the whole village argument is rubbish too, since we are speaking of very small populations/ tribes. Who flimsy compared to major tribes.
And your outdated argument has been debunked already, as has been stated previously. There are Africans with natural red hair, which developed independently and local. But nazi dimwits such as yourself don't know. Comprise this with all the other recent data, I have posted, you are left in the dust.
You even try to steal reptiles features.
I know I'm up against an idiot who has nothing sensible to say when I get called a nazi simply for casting doubt on the fantasy of black Egypt. I have made no insinuations about a master race, I have only pointed out obvious differences. Afrocentrists and those who deny the modern Egyptians their own ancestors, these are the racists. Idiots who think melanin makes them the only true HUE-man beings, whereas this common pigment is found in plants, creepy-crawlies and mollusks as well!
Nazi indeed. Are you mad? How do you make the leap from recognizing difference to committing genocide? My grandparents had bombs dropped on them by the Nazis. I come from the country that stood up against the Nazi Germans and the fascist Italians longer and more resolutely than any other nation. What country was Haille Selassie's refuge when the Fascists were stomping all over Ethiopia, meanwhile? Whose army liberated Belsen?
There is nothing racist about doubting whether the people of cenral east Africa ever had any contact with the Amazonian Indians, just because they both ruin their faces in the same manner. Modern whites in the west aren't the only ones who go in for such excesses of self-mutilation, either.
If you think true caucasians have to be thin lipped, pale skinned and red haired, that is your definition, not mine, but then what do you make of these ladies: Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
Among the earliest peoples described as red haired include certain Russian tribes and the Thracians, but red hair was never a primary feature of Caucasians. That said I doubt you get natural red heads who were not Caucasians, and various members of the Egyptian 19th dynasty appear to have been exactly that. Ramesses' natural red hair is mentioned in his biography by Egyptologist Joyce Tyldesley, (p. 15) who cites the scientific analysis of his hair roots carried out by Balout and Roubert. This has not been debunked. Several different labs working independently returned the same results.
South Americans were, it seems, disposed to invent lip plates independently, for reasons best known to themselves. The odd white 'modern primitive' may also go in for that sort of thing, but I doubt you'll ever see a whole village of them.
The original cacuasians are and were red haired, pale skinned with freckles.
And once again you have exposed yourself on the racist and bais argument of independently / parallel inventions.
And the whole village argument is rubbish too, since we are speaking of very small populations/ tribes. Who flimsy compared to major tribes.
And your outdated argument has been debunked already, as has been stated previously. There are Africans with natural red hair, which developed independently and local. But nazi dimwits such as yourself don't know. Comprise this with all the other recent data, I have posted, you are left in the dust.
You even try to steal reptiles features.
I know I'm up against an idiot who has nothing sensible to say when I get called a nazi simply for casting doubt on the fantasy of black Egypt. I have made no insinuations about a master race, I have only pointed out obvious differences. Afrocentrists and those who deny the modern Egyptians their own ancestors, these are the racists. Idiots who think melanin makes them the only true HUE-man beings, whereas this common pigment is found in plants, creepy-crawlies and mollusks as well!
Nazi indeed. Are you mad? How do you make the leap from recognizing difference to committing genocide? My grandparents had bombs dropped on them by the Nazis. I come from the country that stood up against the Nazi Germans and the fascist Italians longer and more resolutely than any other nation. What country was Haille Selassie's refuge when the Fascists were stomping all over Ethiopia, meanwhile? Whose army liberated Belsen?
There is nothing racist about doubting whether the people of cenral east Africa ever had any contact with the Amazonian Indians, just because they both ruin their faces in the same manner. Modern whites in the west aren't the only ones who go in for such excesses of self-mutilation, either.
If you think true caucasians have to be thin lipped, pale skinned and red haired, that is your definition, not mine, but then what do you make of these ladies:
Real Caucasians are red haired, pale skinned with freckles, thin to NO lips.
That white-history website, it is better than comedy central. When I need a good laugh, I'll visit that. Ancient Egyptians came from the South, known as Badarians, Sahelians / Saharans. Those are not cacuasian ladies, those are African Northeast -African mythical drawings! This flys over your studip nazi head.
I take the cake,
Hi babe, play with my rings and kiss my thin lips, muah.
I am bad by myself.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
"True Caucasians", so I suppose those Europeans with the thin lips are Fake Caucasians. LOL
By the way, there exists among populations of the Caucasus frequencies of African derived lineages such as mt M1 derived lineages. This may have to do with historical reports by the Greeks about the Colchians having African ancestry as due to their black African appearance.
You say full lips is not uncommon among True Caucasians but neither is wooly hair!
And let's not get into steatopygia.
quote:Full lips were and remain the norm in Egypt, yet some ancient Egyptian images show narrow ones.
By the way, we all know the seated scribe had paint that was originally much darker (black). As for his features.
hold on now...sorry but while it's fact that Kim Kardashian had plastic surgery to enhance her lips, it's still up in the air as to whether she PAID for that batty or whether she was BORN with it....lol...
quote: Her father was a third generation Armenian American and her mother is of Dutch and Scottish descent.[2] Her paternal great-grandparents immigrated to Los Angeles from historic Armenia (then part of the Ottoman Empire, now in Turkey). Her last name in Armenian (spelled Քարտաշեան in Armenian) means "son of a stonemason."
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Oh well, I didn't really want to continue here so I deleted my post but whatever
quote:I understand that but at the end of the day we must agree on some solid phenotypical parameters which define each race.
No we don't. NO population from the same geographic region forms a cluster that is based on craniometric data.
quote:notice many Afrocentrics will constanly claim, when tasked to explain the light complected North Africans or Berbers, that Blacks are diverse and have a vareity of phenoptypes which supposedly would included fair haired light eyed Berbers. So which is it?
There is actually a very strong case to be made that light skin isn't indigenous to Africa. But I agree that the Berbers are predominately African.
quote:And just for the record people in the Western world are more accustomed to the image of a west African type as representing the Black man, whereas Whites are seen everywhere and tend to be predominantly dark haired with probably less than half having light eyes. I mean are not folks like Goegre Clooney or Sean Connery common fare? But someone like Iman is not.
What I wrote earlier:
This isn't true at all. You see Somalis, Ethiopians and other East Africans all taken for "black" people by western standards. Any individual of African descent with dark skin pigmentation is generally taken to be black. It has nothing to do with features in my experience.
quote:I beg to differ. Lower Egypt saw continuous input from the Hyksos to semitic migrants even the Bible attets to this. Not to mention genetics. There is some haplogroup J that predates Islam and Haplogroup T which was common in anceint comes from a back migration out of Western Asia.
That's what I said, go read again. Gene flow was restricted to lower Egypt. But predynastic Lower Egyptians still had tropical limb proportions that separated them from Near Easterners.
The Bible isn't all that reliable, is it?
as for Haplogroup T and J, you are correct that they probably have a Neolithic origin. But the frequencies were definitely affected by recent gene flow and drift
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.
“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.
The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.
Petty squabbles cause empty pews Roman road leads South to a brighter future Paedophile sues Catholic Church
Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.
But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.
The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.
In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.
They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.
The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”
They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.
“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”
Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us and on our children”, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had “tragic consequences” in encouraging hatred and persecution. “The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.”
As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.
Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.
The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”
In their foreword to the teaching document, the two most senior Catholics of the land, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Edinburgh, explain its context.
They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value, what can be trusted and what is really true.
The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. “We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new.”
A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word. The Breakout Trust raised £200,000 to make the 30-minute animated film, It’s a Boy. Steve Legg, head of the charity, said: “There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly.
That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching.”
BELIEVE IT OR NOT
UNTRUE
Genesis ii, 21-22
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man
Genesis iii, 16
God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
Matthew xxvii, 25
The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.”
Revelation xix,20
And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: How folks react to you in soceity does not define anthropological race.
What are you talking about I was responding to this comment you made..
And just for the record people in the Western world are more accustomed to the image of a west African type as representing the Black man, whereas Whites are seen everywhere and tend to be predominantly dark haired with probably less than half having light eyes.
In any case, Horn Africans don't look like you. So on what basis then are you both the same race..
Please be consistant, you made the claim that "The Western World" sees the West African as a representation of the black man, when the evidence says otherwise. Majority of the "Starving African" image comes from Ethiopia, the Lip plate Ethiopian are HOA, and the recent savage image of Africa are Somali Pirates.
HOAs are seen just as savage and backward in the West until the discussion turns to Lalibella, Mogidishu, Geez. Axum, and the Ethiopian and HOA Language and genetics being related to A. Egyptians, then suddenly people want to start claiming these Starving Lip Plated Africans as "Caucasian".
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: And while I can't see calling East Africans Caucasians, there is something to be said for their difference in appaearance mostly Horn Africna not so much Kenyans or Sudanese etc. Personally I consider them all Black because to be practical, I feel that they have more in common with other Africans on many levels. But if some Anthropogists decides to classify them as a distinct race based on their physical differences, I don't necessarily think that would be invalid. For as subjectiuve as the notion of race is, phenotypical diffrences is what it is all based on, after all.
HOA's come in different phenotypes and sizes. Most look no different than the typical West African except those living on the Highlands.
Also many slaves were taken from the East Coast of Africa as well as Madagascar so yes, many of them DO look like us, and many A.A have East African blood running in our veins.
Adding up to this, Sahalians/ Saharan tribes are predominantly nomadic. They at times moved from East-, Northeast to West Africa as well and vice versa. Some of them are known as Chadic. Chadics are Afrasian speakers. I understand you know this. But I had to put this in.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: No one wants to look black. Black features are ugly and hated hence all black females attempt to straighten their hair and look like white females.
Chris rock did a documentary on how black women in america spend billions on their hair to straighen it so they can look like white woman. Chris rock's own daughter told him afro/wooly hair is ugly and she wants long straight hair like white girls her age.
The fact is all black females want straight hair like whites - and there is a billion dollar industry.
The key word above is 'ALL"...FACT/TRUTH is that not ALL Black Women want straight hair and/or want to look like 'white' women...and I am telling you this as a Black Woman who has never once had her hair straightened, and who loves and was raised to love my beautiful dark skin...
regardless, still doesn't take away from the fact that more than enough 'white' women risk sun poisoning and/or melanoma to darken their skin and pay nuff money to give themselves features that African women/women of African descent are naturally born with...
LOTS of 'white' women pay to get perms in their hair to make it curly or wavy or thick...rather than just love their own Natural lank stringy hair they were born with (not that all are born with such hair)
While there are plenty of MISguided Black Men running around chasing behind 'white women skirts, I happen to know there is NO shortage of Black Men who feel that 'white' women are the bottom of the barrel and have no interest (and have literally stated such, lol)...there is also no shortage of Black Men who will use 'white' women for a d*ck warmer, but when it comes to children and family/marriage it will be a Black Woman for them...
As a Self-Aware, Conscious and Self-Loving Afro-Caribbean Woman, I could give a rat's ass what you or any other 'white' person think about Black People- your ASSPINIONS do not count and are meaningless...and remember, you came here engaging with US, we are not over yonder attempting to engage with you.....you 'white' people just can't help yourSelves, just have to see what Black folks are up to, lolol
quote: Let Malcolm X wrap up for me:
"Who taught you to hate the color of your skin? Who taught you to hate the texture of your hair? Who taught you to hate the shape of your nose and the shape of your lips? Who taught you to hate yourself from the top of your head to the soles of your feet? Who taught you to hate your own kind? Who taught you to hate the race that you belong to so much so that you don’t want to be around each other? You know. Before you come asking Mr. Muhammad does he teach hate, you should ask yourself who taught you to hate being what God made you."
Black People are waking up, some a lil more slowly than others....
Nuff said.
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Oh well, I didn't really want to continue here so I deleted my post but whatever
quote:I understand that but at the end of the day we must agree on some solid phenotypical parameters which define each race.
No we don't. NO population from the same geographic region forms a cluster that is based on craniometric data.
quote:notice many Afrocentrics will constanly claim, when tasked to explain the light complected North Africans or Berbers, that Blacks are diverse and have a vareity of phenoptypes which supposedly would included fair haired light eyed Berbers. So which is it?
There is actually a very strong case to be made that light skin isn't indigenous to Africa. But I agree that the Berbers are predominately African.
quote:And just for the record people in the Western world are more accustomed to the image of a west African type as representing the Black man, whereas Whites are seen everywhere and tend to be predominantly dark haired with probably less than half having light eyes. I mean are not folks like Goegre Clooney or Sean Connery common fare? But someone like Iman is not.
What I wrote earlier:
This isn't true at all. You see Somalis, Ethiopians and other East Africans all taken for "black" people by western standards. Any individual of African descent with dark skin pigmentation is generally taken to be black. It has nothing to do with features in my experience.
quote:I beg to differ. Lower Egypt saw continuous input from the Hyksos to semitic migrants even the Bible attets to this. Not to mention genetics. There is some haplogroup J that predates Islam and Haplogroup T which was common in anceint comes from a back migration out of Western Asia.
That's what I said, go read again. Gene flow was restricted to lower Egypt. But predynastic Lower Egyptians still had tropical limb proportions that separated them from Near Easterners.
The Bible isn't all that reliable, is it?
as for Haplogroup T and J, you are correct that they probably have a Neolithic origin. But the frequencies were definitely affected by recent gene flow and drift
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.
“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.
The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.
Petty squabbles cause empty pews Roman road leads South to a brighter future Paedophile sues Catholic Church
Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.
But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.
The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.
In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.
They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.
The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”
They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.
“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”
Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us and on our children”, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had “tragic consequences” in encouraging hatred and persecution. “The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.”
As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.
Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.
The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”
In their foreword to the teaching document, the two most senior Catholics of the land, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Edinburgh, explain its context.
They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value, what can be trusted and what is really true.
The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. “We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new.”
A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word. The Breakout Trust raised £200,000 to make the 30-minute animated film, It’s a Boy. Steve Legg, head of the charity, said: “There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly.
That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching.”
BELIEVE IT OR NOT
UNTRUE
Genesis ii, 21-22
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man
Genesis iii, 16
God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
Matthew xxvii, 25
The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.”
Revelation xix,20
And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”
I am not going to even join this bible reasoning ting...cah JAH know if I eva get started take for instance, the book of Genesis and the two different stories of Creation one of them, JAH mek man/woman first before the other living creations (ie, birds, animals, fish); the other, JAH mek man/woman last/after the other living creations; one, JAH create both man and woman from the dust in the ground; the other, woman came from man's rib....
we sposed to choose right?
Nobody answer that PLEASE.. yeah, mek I stay far from the reLIEgious reasoning iyah...lol..
quote: Actually, that's not in the Bible
By John Blake, CNN
(CNN) – NFL legend Mike Ditka was giving a news conference one day after being fired as the coach of the Chicago Bears when he decided to quote the Bible.
“Scripture tells you that all things shall pass,” a choked-up Ditka said after leading his team to only five wins during the previous season. “This, too, shall pass.”
Ditka fumbled his biblical citation, though. The phrase “This, too, shall pass” doesn’t appear in the Bible. Ditka was quoting a phantom scripture that sounds like it belongs in the Bible, but look closer and it’s not there.
Ditka’s biblical blunder is as common as preachers delivering long-winded public prayers. The Bible may be the most revered book in America, but it’s also one of the most misquoted. Politicians, motivational speakers, coaches - all types of people - quote passages that actually have no place in the Bible, religious scholars say.
These phantom passages include:
“God helps those who help themselves.”
“Spare the rod, spoil the child.”
And there is this often-cited paraphrase: Satan tempted Eve to eat the forbidden apple in the Garden of Eden.
None of those passages appear in the Bible, and one is actually anti-biblical, scholars say.
But people rarely challenge them because biblical ignorance is so pervasive that it even reaches groups of people who should know better, says Steve Bouma-Prediger, a religion professor at Hope College in Holland, Michigan.
“In my college religion classes, I sometimes quote 2 Hesitations 4:3 (‘There are no internal combustion engines in heaven’),” Bouma-Prediger says. “I wait to see if anyone realizes that there is no such book in the Bible and therefore no such verse.
“Only a few catch on.”
Few catch on because they don’t want to - people prefer knowing biblical passages that reinforce their pre-existing beliefs, a Bible professor says.
“Most people who profess a deep love of the Bible have never actually read the book,” says Rabbi Rami Shapiro, who once had to persuade a student in his Bible class at Middle Tennessee State University that the saying “this dog won’t hunt” doesn’t appear in the Book of Proverbs.
“They have memorized parts of texts that they can string together to prove the biblical basis for whatever it is they believe in,” he says, “but they ignore the vast majority of the text."
Phantom biblical passages work in mysterious ways
Ignorance isn’t the only cause for phantom Bible verses. Confusion is another.
Some of the most popular faux verses are pithy paraphrases of biblical concepts or bits of folk wisdom.
Consider these two:
“God works in mysterious ways.”
“Cleanliness is next to Godliness.”
Both sound as if they are taken from the Bible, but they’re not. The first is a paraphrase of a 19th century hymn by the English poet William Cowper (“God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform).
The “cleanliness” passage was coined by John Wesley, the 18th century evangelist who founded Methodism, says Thomas Kidd, a history professor at Baylor University in Texas.
“No matter if John Wesley or someone else came up with a wise saying - if it sounds proverbish, people figure it must come from the Bible,” Kidd says.
Our fondness for the short and tweet-worthy may also explain our fondness for phantom biblical phrases. The pseudo-verses function like theological tweets: They’re pithy summarizations of biblical concepts.
“Spare the rod, spoil the child” falls into that category. It’s a popular verse - and painful for many kids. Could some enterprising kid avoid the rod by pointing out to his mother that it's not in the Bible?
It’s doubtful. Her possible retort: The popular saying is a distillation of Proverbs 13:24: “The one who withholds [or spares] the rod is one who hates his son.”
Another saying that sounds Bible-worthy: “Pride goes before a fall.” But its approximation, Proverbs 16:18, is actually written: “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”
There are some phantom biblical verses for which no excuse can be offered. The speaker goofed.
That’s what Bruce Wells, a theology professor, thinks happened to Ditka, the former NFL coach, when he strayed from the gridiron to biblical commentary during his 1993 press conference in Chicago.
Wells watched Ditka’s biblical blunder on local television when he lived in Chicago. After Ditka cited the mysterious passage, reporters scrambled unsuccessfully the next day to find the biblical source.
They should have consulted Wells, who is now director of the ancient studies program at Saint Joseph’s University in Pennsylvania. Wells says Ditka’s error probably came from a peculiar feature of the King James Bible.
“My hunch on the Ditka quote is that it comes from a quirk of the King James translation,” Wells says. “Ancient Hebrew had a particular way of saying things like, ‘and the next thing that happened was…’ The King James translators of the Old Testament consistently rendered this as ‘and it came to pass.’ ’’
When phantom Bible passages turn dangerous
People may get verses wrong, but they also mangle plenty of well-known biblical stories as well.
Two examples: The scripture never says a whale swallowed Jonah, the Old Testament prophet, nor did any New Testament passages say that three wise men visited baby Jesus, scholars say.
Those details may seem minor, but scholars say one popular phantom Bible story stands above the rest: The Genesis story about the fall of humanity.
Most people know the popular version - Satan in the guise of a serpent tempts Eve to pick the forbidden apple from the Tree of Life. It’s been downhill ever since.
But the story in the book of Genesis never places Satan in the Garden of Eden.
“Genesis mentions nothing but a serpent,” says Kevin Dunn, chair of the department of religion at Tufts University in Massachusetts.
“Not only does the text not mention Satan, the very idea of Satan as a devilish tempter postdates the composition of the Garden of Eden story by at least 500 years,” Dunn says.
Getting biblical scriptures and stories wrong may not seem significant, but it can become dangerous, one scholar says.
Most people have heard this one: “God helps those that help themselves.” It’s another phantom scripture that appears nowhere in the Bible, but many people think it does. It's actually attributed to Benjamin Franklin, one of the nation's founding fathers.
The passage is popular in part because it is a reflection of cherished American values: individual liberty and self-reliance, says Sidnie White Crawford, a religious studies scholar at the University of Nebraska.
Yet that passage contradicts the biblical definition of goodness: defining one’s worth by what one does for others, like the poor and the outcast, Crawford says.
Crawford cites a scripture from Leviticus that tells people that when they harvest the land, they should leave some “for the poor and the alien” (Leviticus 19:9-10), and another passage from Deuteronomy that declares that people should not be “tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor.”
“We often infect the Bible with our own values and morals, not asking what the Bible’s values and morals really are,” Crawford says.
Where do these phantom passages come from?
It’s easy to blame the spread of phantom biblical passages on pervasive biblical illiteracy. But the causes are varied and go back centuries.
Some of the guilty parties are anonymous, lost to history. They are artists and storytellers who over the years embellished biblical stories and passages with their own twists.
If, say, you were an anonymous artist painting the Garden of Eden during the Renaissance, why not portray the serpent as the devil to give some punch to your creation? And if you’re a preacher telling a story about Jonah, doesn’t it just sound better to say that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, not a “great fish”?
Others blame the spread of phantom Bible passages on King James, or more specifically the declining popularity of the King James translation of the Bible.
That translation, which marks 400 years of existence this year, had a near monopoly on the Bible market as recently as 50 years ago, says Douglas Jacobsen, a professor of church history and theology at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.
“If you quoted the Bible and got it wrong then, people were more likely to notice because there was only one text,” he says. “Today, so many different translations are used that almost no one can tell for sure if something supposedly from the Bible is being quoted accurately or not.”
Others blame the spread of phantom biblical verses on Martin Luther, the German monk who ignited the Protestant Reformation, the massive “protest” against the excesses of the Roman Catholic Church that led to the formation of Protestant church denominations.
“It is a great Protestant tradition for anyone - milkmaid, cobbler, or innkeeper - to be able to pick up the Bible and read for herself. No need for a highly trained scholar or cleric to walk a lay person through the text,” says Craig Hazen, director of the Christian Apologetics program at Biola University in Southern California.
But often the milkmaid, the cobbler - and the NFL coach - start creating biblical passages without the guidance of biblical experts, he says.
“You can see this manifest today in living room Bible studies across North America where lovely Christian people, with no training whatsoever, drink decaf, eat brownies and ask each other, ‘What does this text mean to you?’’’ Hazen says.
“Not only do they get the interpretation wrong, but very often end up quoting verses that really aren’t there.”
posted
rahotep, myself and several others are still waiting for the afrocentrics to explain why the earliest pre-dynastic mummies are straight red or blonde haired if they were negroid.
^^You have already been debunked on this score, and the genetic diversity of Africa can and has produced a variety of hair colors. Trying to divert attention by trotting out the old debunked "Ginger" race claim will not work. It has already been exposed on ES as shown below. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000286
Aside from hair turning yellow, red or brown due to oxidation of pigments in ancient graves, African populations routinely produce blond or reddish hair, a not surprising outcome given Africa's genetic diversity.
Switching screen names to divert attention will not help. What's taking you so long in producing your true white blond, blue-eyed, white-skinned ancient Egyptians?
[QUOTE]: [i]"As Brothwell and Spearman (‘63) point out, reddish-brown ancient hair is usually the result of partial oxidation of the melanin pigment... Brothwell and Spearman (’63) noted genuinely blond ancient Egyptian samples using reflectance spectrophotometry. Blondism, especially in young children, is common in many darkhaired populations (e.g., Australian, Melanesian), and is still found in some Nubian villages.." -- Analysis of Hair Samples of Mummies from Semna.. AJPA 1978
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously I don't believe the wild claims in the Bible, but that a Levite could be mistaken for an Egyptian is a mundane claim. The Jews would have known perfectly well what Egyptians looked like.
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:The question is what the hell is the excuse for white women themselves who tan their bodies and inject their lips and now buttocks?? Is this some sort of subconscious desire to look black? If so, how come when blacks have never been culturally dominant in the West??
I have asked this question several times in various threads over the last week or more, and just as when you ask it, and when others ask it, no matter how many times, notice how the duncebat claffy 'white' bwoys always do the same thing- dance around the ting, neva ansa, just bring up Black Women again.
As 'white' men, they should be focused on their own 'white' women and what is ailing them...especially if they are proud 'white' men who love and cherish their own women/people/race....not focusing on Black Women/Black People and what is ailing them....leave that for Black People to focus and work on....
BUT....as we know, they have a fixation with Black People and just can't stay away....
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: @ Djehuti-
quote:The question is what the hell is the excuse for white women themselves who tan their bodies and inject their lips and now buttocks?? Is this some sort of subconscious desire to look black? If so, how come when blacks have never been culturally dominant in the West??
I have asked this question several times in various threads over the last week or more, and just as when you ask it, and when others ask it, no matter how many times, notice how the duncebat claffy 'white' bwoys always do the same thing- dance around the ting, neva ansa, just bring up Black Women again.
As 'white' men, they should be focused on their own 'white' women and what is ailing them...especially if they are proud 'white' men who love and cherish their own women/people/race....not focusing on Black Women/Black People and what is ailing them....leave that for Black People to focus and work on....
BUT....as we know, they have a fixation with Black People and just can't stay away....
Tanning became fashionable among white people only in recent times, when it was indicative of the ability to afford holidays in places like this:
hence a status symbol. In the olden days, white skin was desirable as it indicated that one didn't have to work outside like a common peasant. Therefore paleness was a status symbol. Tudor aristocrats powdered their faces to make themselves look even whiter.
Full lips are seen as sexy and sensual in women because more blood goes to the lips when they are aroused. They become fuller and darker in colour. This is why full, red lips are considered feminine and attractive, nothing to do with a latent desire to look black.
As for buttocks, that's a mystery to me. Probably owes a lot to J-Lo.
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egpytians looked like Northindians said Ancient Greeks.
Arrian, Anabasis, Book 8:
The appearance of the inhabitants, too, is not so far different in India and Ethiopia; the southern Indians resemble the Ethiopians a good deal, and, are black of countenance, and their hair black also, only they are not as snub-nosed or so woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; but the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians in appearance.
---
When Gypsies arrived in Europe (who are from Northindia) they were thought to be Egyptians. The Word Gypsy derrives from Egyptian.
So probably the Egyptians were a ancient Dravidian people like the Elamites and Summerians who called themselfes "Black Heads".
Posts: 109 | Registered: Mar 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Oh well, I didn't really want to continue here so I deleted my post but whatever
quote:I understand that but at the end of the day we must agree on some solid phenotypical parameters which define each race.
No we don't. NO population from the same geographic region forms a cluster that is based on craniometric data.
quote:notice many Afrocentrics will constanly claim, when tasked to explain the light complected North Africans or Berbers, that Blacks are diverse and have a vareity of phenoptypes which supposedly would included fair haired light eyed Berbers. So which is it?
There is actually a very strong case to be made that light skin isn't indigenous to Africa. But I agree that the Berbers are predominately African.
quote:And just for the record people in the Western world are more accustomed to the image of a west African type as representing the Black man, whereas Whites are seen everywhere and tend to be predominantly dark haired with probably less than half having light eyes. I mean are not folks like Goegre Clooney or Sean Connery common fare? But someone like Iman is not.
What I wrote earlier:
This isn't true at all. You see Somalis, Ethiopians and other East Africans all taken for "black" people by western standards. Any individual of African descent with dark skin pigmentation is generally taken to be black. It has nothing to do with features in my experience.
quote:I beg to differ. Lower Egypt saw continuous input from the Hyksos to semitic migrants even the Bible attets to this. Not to mention genetics. There is some haplogroup J that predates Islam and Haplogroup T which was common in anceint comes from a back migration out of Western Asia.
That's what I said, go read again. Gene flow was restricted to lower Egypt. But predynastic Lower Egyptians still had tropical limb proportions that separated them from Near Easterners.
The Bible isn't all that reliable, is it?
as for Haplogroup T and J, you are correct that they probably have a Neolithic origin. But the frequencies were definitely affected by recent gene flow and drift
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.
“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.
The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.
Petty squabbles cause empty pews Roman road leads South to a brighter future Paedophile sues Catholic Church
Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.
But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.
The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.
In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.
They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.
The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”
They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.
“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”
Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us and on our children”, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had “tragic consequences” in encouraging hatred and persecution. “The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.”
As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.
Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.
The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”
In their foreword to the teaching document, the two most senior Catholics of the land, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Edinburgh, explain its context.
They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value, what can be trusted and what is really true.
The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. “We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new.”
A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word. The Breakout Trust raised £200,000 to make the 30-minute animated film, It’s a Boy. Steve Legg, head of the charity, said: “There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly.
That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching.”
BELIEVE IT OR NOT
UNTRUE
Genesis ii, 21-22
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man
Genesis iii, 16
God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
Matthew xxvii, 25
The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.”
Revelation xix,20
And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”
My reference to the Bible was not with regard to the virgin birth or bodily resurrection but the mention of Semites migrating to Egypt in time of famine..something we know to have occured. Egyptians made frequent mention "Asiatics" living in their midsts, especially in the Delta region.
Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ''You have already been debunked on this score, and the genetic diversity of Africa can and has produced a variety of hair colors'' ====
More denial.
Negroids don't have long straight red or blonde hair.
Good luck finding a negro with hair like this -
compare to what negroes look like -
Please get in reality.
Your nazi bible written by your lord, Carton Coon, states that she is the true negroid, so my question to you is what haplotype does she carry?
In modern-day Carlton Coon ideology is laughable and outdated for many reasons. The only one following this are xenophobic neo nazi like parties. So thanks for this confirmation.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The mummies show straight-wavy hair and Caucasoid texture. Ramses II was a natural straight-wavy red head with leucoderm skin. Tiye was described as auburn-brownish. The mummies exhibit mostly straight-wavy hair types. None have negroid type hair excepting Maiherpri and he was Nubian. So if the mummies were negroid, the logic follows they should at least exhibit some similarity to Maiherpri. But they don't.
The Afrocentrics cannot point us to an ancient tribe of natural blond, red or brunet straight-wavy haired negroids with Caucasoid features much less a modern tribe.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: The word Caucasian itself first came in usage to define the white peoples of Georgia noted for their beauty:
Blacks in contrast are ugly -
All afrocentrics on this forum are in denial. Their racism against whites which fills these threads is nothing more than their insecurity and envy.
That is the underlining basis of their position. They hate white people so much they deny whites their very existence and place in history! They require internet bullying and afrocentrism to give their lives some meaning.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged |
In modern-day Carlton Coon ideology is laughable and outdated for many reasons. The only one following this are xenophobic neo nazi like parties. So thanks for this confirmation. [/QB]
Afrocentric ideology is laughable. Don't pretend Afrocentrics don't use Coon when it's convenient.
"An enormous intellectual vigor allowed him to follow up hypotheses without becoming wedded to them. Never a writer of small papers, he looked for the larger significance. It may be said that Coon's major contributions to science were the fruitful formulations that followed from his assimilation and organization of massive amounts of information.
Carleton Coon's The Races of Europe (1939) began as a revision of W. Z. Ripley's 1900 work but ended as a new opus that used every scrap of published information on living populations and prehistoric human remains -- and much recorded history besides. Though some of Coon's hypotheses seem dubious today, they allowed him to structure a mass of material in a way that remains impressive. This book was reprinted some years later and is still regarded as a valuable source of data.
After holding several serious ailments at bay for some years, Carl died on June 3, 1981, at his West Gloucester home, shortly before his seventy-seventh birthday. His brilliance left a lasting mark on a generation of anthropologists.
quote:Real Caucasians are red haired, pale skinned with freckles with thin to NO lips. And males are very hairy.
Your attempt is baseless nonsense! What is this nonsense based on? What is the Norwegian white with black hair, brown eyes? A negroid? You are sick.
"The mummy of a young Amarna prince, which was discovered in an annex of the tomb of Amenhotep II, sports a very long, luxuriant side-lock of hair...Strangely enough, this young prince was not only "hairy," but his hair was also a ruddy-brown color - Ralph Ellis (Tempest and Exodus)
Fits your "real Caucasoid" description.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged |
insecurity and self-hatred. Most afrocentrics on this forum are self-hating blacks who envy whites because of their physical diversity (blonde, red, auburn, brown hair etc). This is why the afrocentric clowns are now claiming any white person with brown or dark hair is a negro. It's laughable. Don't take their trolling seriously though.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Egpytians looked like Northindians said Ancient Greeks.
Arrian, Anabasis, Book 8:
The appearance of the inhabitants, too, is not so far different in India and Ethiopia; the southern Indians resemble the Ethiopians a good deal, and, are black of countenance, and their hair black also, only they are not as snub-nosed or so woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; but the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians in appearance.
---
When Gypsies arrived in Europe (who are from Northindia) they were thought to be Egyptians. The Word Gypsy derrives from Egyptian.
So probably the Egyptians were a ancient Dravidian people like the Elamites and Summerians who called themselfes "Black Heads".
Why would you compare Egyptians to non-Africans who received substantial African gene flow and/or looked like Africans themselves? Egyptians resembled southern Africans. Southern Iranians (Elamites) clustered with Africans (south Africans I believe) in Hanihara's craniometric study (1996) and the Greeks received significant African gene flow. So how does it make any sense in your mind to make that comparison? Since you seem like a member here to learn, I will depart with this quote:
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Im quite sure egyptians werent sub-saharan africans
egyptian art depicting four races (asiatic,white,egyptian and african)..
The first are RETH, the second are AAMU, the third are NEHESU, and the fourth are THEMEHU. The RETH are Egyptians, the AAMU are dwellers in the deserts to the east and north-east of Egypt, the NEHESU are the black races, and the THEMEHU are the fair-skinned Libyans.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Mar 2011
| IP: Logged |
^Anyways, I refuse to join this useless discussion. This merely warranted correction as you seem confused, also that repro you posted is fake. This one is more accurate in depicting the actual tomb scene, which shows them grouped in fours.
^Eurocentrists always post that same version of the "mural of races" that you posted because of the faded, light-brown coloring of the Egyptians. Too bad it doesn't reflect reality as much as another artists biased rendering.
Peace.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
i found it on wikipedia but yeah.....there is a difference in your pictures too between the egyptian race and the black races both in colour (brown-black) and in face shape....the egyptians have colour and face and colour of gypsies
Posts: 109 | Registered: Mar 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I don't care about your opinion. The Egyptians had the greatest biological/morphological affinity to southern Africans and the Nile Valley WAS populated by sub-Saharan Africans in the Mesolithic era. If you want to ignore the scientific evidence in favor of your own bias then go right ahead.
Even the ancient Egyptians said they had common descent with the Nehesu
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackTiger: i found it on wikipedia but yeah.....there is a difference in your pictures too between the egyptian race and the black races both in colour (brown-black) and in face shape....the egyptians have colour and face and colour of gypsies
My sister is even lighter than the Egyptians posted in my repro and I'm Black but no where near as Black as how the southerners are depicted. African people vary in color. Also, re-read my post because I've edited it. In any event, you have your opinion and are entitled to it, maybe others won't mind schooling you a bit.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
probably egyptians thought all humans are descendant of the same God, i doubt they wanted to point out a specific relationship between them and the NEHESU at least i cant read it out of the text. The Bible also teaches all humans descendent from Adam and Eve, right?
its not only the colour, the egyptians have completely different face
Posts: 109 | Registered: Mar 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The mummy hair has been explained and debunked many times. Here it is again for newbies:
The cross-section of a hair shaft is measured with an instrument called a trichometer. From this you can get measurements for the minimum and maximum diameter of a hair The minimum measurement is then divided by the maximum and then multiplied by a hundred. This produces an index. A survey of the scientific literature produces the following breakdown:
San, Southern African 55.00 Zulu, Southern African 55.00 Sub-Saharan Africa 60.00 Tasmanian (Black) 64.70 Australian (Black) 68.00 Western European 71.20 Asian Indian 73.00 Navajo American 77.00 Chinese 82.60
In the early 1970s, the Czech anthropologist Eugen Strouhal examined pre-dynastic Egyptian skulls at Cambridge University. He sent some samples of the hair to the Institute of Anthropology at Charles University, Prague, to be analyzed. The hair samples were described as varying in texture from "wavy" to "curly" and in colour from "light brown" to "black". Strouhal summarized the results of the analysis:
"The outline of the cross-sections of the hairs was flattened, with indices ranging from 35 to 65. These peculiarities also show the Negroid inference among the Badarians (pre-dynastic Egyptians)."
The term "Negroid influence" suggests intermixture, but as the table suggests this hair is more "Negroid" than the San and the Zulu samples, currently the most Negroid hair in existence!
In another study, hair samples from ten 18th-25th dynasty individuals produced an average index of 51! As far back as 1877, Dr. Pruner-Bey analyzed six ancient Egyptian hair samples. Their average index of 64.4 was similar to the Tasmanians who lie at the periphery of the African-haired populations.
A team of Italian anthropologists published their research in the Journal of Human Evolution in 1972 and 1980. They measured two samples consisting of 26 individuals from pre-dynastic, 12th dynasty and 18th dynasty mummies. They produced a mean index of 66.50.
From your source. Two British anthropologists, Brothwell and Spearman, have found evidence of cortex keratin oxidation in ancient Egyptian hair. They held that the mummification process was responsible, because of the strong alkaline substance used. This resulted in the yellowing and browning of hair as well as the straightening effect.
And yet here is a Nubian mummy. Notice she is well preserved and there is no yellowing or straightneing of the hair.
Compare with Ramses II. Not only is his hair different but so are his facial features.
The natural inclination would be to assume the two examples represent different races.
No, I don't think that most Egyptians had nappy hair.
Why would you compare Egyptians to non-Africans who received substantial African gene flow and/or looked like Africans themselves? Egyptians resembled southern Africans. Southern Iranians (Elamites) clustered with Africans (south Africans I believe) in Hanihara's craniometric study (1996) and the Greeks received significant African gene flow. So how does it make any sense in your mind to make that comparison?
Dude the ancients mentioned Northern India. Do you know what folks in Northern India look like??
Strabo (64 BC - AD 24), Geography 15.1.13:
Here are more ancient quotes.
"As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in colour, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Aegyptians."
Marcus Manilius (1st century AD), Astronomica 4.724: "The Ethiopians stain the world and depict a race of men steeped in darkness; less sun-burnt are the natives of India; the land of Egypt, flooded by the Nile, darkens bodies more mildly owing to the inundation of its fields: it it a country nearer to us and its moderate climate imparts a medium tone."
Since you seem like a member here to learn, I will depart with this quote:
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)
And I don't deny that folks in Southern Egypt would be more Black being closer to Nubians. Northern Egyptians were more Middle Eastern.
And stop using the word African as if it'ssynonymous with Black, cause it isn't.
-------------------- In the vast pasture of life you're bound to step in some truth. Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really couldnt care less, just my feeling says its rude and injust what afro-centrists do stealing history "Black Vikings, Black Egyptians, Black European Nobles" etc. etc. etc. As if the whole world were negroe, thats supremacist childish stuff. I feel the same about white people claiming ancient aryans were whites. i mean i let you have the egyptians as blacks because they were forebearer of civilization but what about the reall egyptians in egypt? its like they are somehow introducers
Posts: 109 | Registered: Mar 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackTiger were there Black nobels in Europe at anytime?. Black Egyptians well that speaks for itself
Intruders well what do you call Assyrian conquest Persian conquest Greek conquest Roman conquest Arab conquest Turkish conquest French conquest British conquest and at no time non of these folks fuk any native women to produce off-springs? Black Vikings??? ain't got jack to say about that The whole world as Negro? no most here don't beleive that but if you are talking about a certain phenotype as in broad featured and dark skinned then those folks lived all over the globe till today.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic