posted
Another view is don't believe in any faith or be agnostic.
The nile valley faiths like ancient egypt like lamin said and i will add too the nubian faith etc.. and the yoruba,akan faiths etc.. are more complex,peaceful etc.. are the true and only faiths for black africans or those of black african origin.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wrong,i am not white,but you are. You are not really afro-centric or african-centred.
I am pro-african and i am looking out for the best interest of those of african origin. You are not.
Note-the original natives of arabia were black however called arabians,not arabs,and the canaanites or the original natives of israel were black.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ya, you sound confused enough to be African: Or Appalachian.
But try this, instead of protecting the "best interest of those of African origin". Just find the evidences and facts, and then follow them. That will take you to the truth. The truth does not protect anyone, it just is.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Any tribe that attacks another to grab their resources and women are imperialists on the scale they are able to be.
Such attacks into West Asia were always retaliatory. Cheikh Anta Diop elaborates on this point in "African Origin of Civilization" in his reference to Pharaoh Amenhotep III--who in retaliation to West Asian attacks pushed far into West Asia in retaliation.
In About 1540 BC, Egyptian pharaohs reasserted their control over Lower Nubia. Nonetheless, for more than a century Egypt and Kush fought fierce battles. Finally the war ended with the defeat of Kush in about 1460 BC.5 Sometime after 1500 BC the kingdom of Kerma was weakened and the Egyptians succeeded in controling Upper Nubia, and of course Lower Nubia.
_____________________________
but my remark was about tribal warfare in general going down to small tribes only consisiting of a few hundred people. Some of the warfare that they engae in, raiding other villages could be considered the ame as imperialism in intent but on a smaller scale, tribal warfare
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Firewall I know you are Afrocentric. I read your great thread and post on Nubia and African cities modern architecture.
On the Hebrew Firewall keep an open mind because classical writers like Tacitus, Eusibius, Diodorus considered the Hebrew to be descendant of Ethiopian and Egyptian therefore black.
There are million of black Hebrew in Africa like the Lemba, the Falasha, part of the Igbo, part of the Yoruba, some Ghanean, some Ugandan that claimed there ancestors come from West Asia.
The Kongo, the Ngala, the Bateke, the Bamileke states they are the original Hebrew who migrated to central/South Africa.One of their greatest proof the so call bantu language they are speaking is close to Hebrew if it is not the original Hebrew.Some of them recreated the state of Judea in Africa.
I believe them but I have to do more research on those African population to trace their migration route from West Asia to Africa. Eurocentric history is alway changing when native population tell their history.A history reader, researcher and student have to keep an open mind.
posted
lamin what is your opinion if someone were to suggest that atheism is the best course for Africans?
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Atheism or to put it better, "a-religiosity"--in the sense of not paying attention to religion or prayer--works in countries where solutions to human problems are provided by people themselves and people are mature intellectually and morally.
Problems such as health problems, job problems, social problems that result in pervasive crime, wealth problems, education problems, infrastructural problems, etc.
Thus, given the situation in places like Africa, India, South and Central America, etc. atheism will not stand a chance of catching on. First, people will have to realise that the solution to human problems is not prayer or "leaving everything in the hands of God" but solutions provided by the people themselves in rational way.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mena7: Firewall I know you are Afrocentric. I read your great thread and post on Nubia and African cities modern architecture.
On the Hebrew Firewall keep an open mind because classical writers like Tacitus, Eusibius, Diodorus considered the Hebrew to be descendant of Ethiopian and Egyptian therefore black.
There are million of black Hebrew in Africa like the Lemba, the Falasha, part of the Igbo, part of the Yoruba, some Ghanean, some Ugandan that claimed there ancestors come from West Asia.
The Kongo, the Ngala, the Bateke, the Bamileke states they are the original Hebrew who migrated to central/South Africa.One of their greatest proof the so call bantu language they are speaking is close to Hebrew if it is not the original Hebrew.Some of them recreated the state of Judea in Africa.
I believe them but I have to do more research on those African population to trace their migration route from West Asia to Africa. Eurocentric history is alway changing when native population tell their history.A history reader, researcher and student have to keep an open mind.
I can't AGREE. Mena7 the hebrew thing is not ours,they are not originally of black african origin.
Some of the Lemba have some hebrew dna but that's because hebrews intermarried with some of the population,but the rest do have any hebrew dna,and all are just just converts same thing with many or some of Falashas in ethiopia.The falashas are converts.
Has for the other african groups,i do not believe they are of hebrew origin.
Influences is one thing,being apart of the hebrew group is another.
They are africans,not hebrews,some of those african folks in those AFRICAN groups YOU MENTION maybe had some influences from the hebrews, maybe,just like the hebrews in turn were influence by africans of the nile vally and blacks and other groups in asia.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somethings in this books was incorrect but alot of things were correct and this is correct.
Now you know were i get my view from on this issue combined with other things i read.
Book Chancellor-Williams-Destruction-of-Black-Civilization
Organizing a Race for Action p.357 Algeria, Tunis, Morocco, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and the Holy Land of Islam saudi Arabia. Now anyone~ who is even moderately acquainted with the history of the Arab slave trade for the past two thousand years would know that, as A result, there are not only millions of mulattoes throughout the Arab States. but countless thousands of jet·black Africans whose ancestors were born there also. All speak Arabic, are Muslims, and consider themselves Arabs for exactly the same reasons-as emphasized before-that blacks born in the United States consider themselves Americans. One can very readily understand why those Negroes who wish to escape Black or African identity are pushing for an identity of color with their kind in those countries where they are "white and therefore, in a class distinctly'' superior to the Still enslaved or subordinated Blacks still living there. And they have every' right, natural and OtherWise', to follow their own inclinations.
Indeed, the race would experience the joyful relief that comes with a new birth of freedom if this particular group would stop trying to operate in both the white and Black worlds, stop Straddling the fence and get down decisively on the side of its choice. They will never do this, of course, because they. enjoy the same double advantage of a most famous ancestor, Leo Africanus who, when pressed in Rome to say whether he considered himself African or white, replied that he shifted to whatever side it was expedient to be on from time to time. "When the Africans are on top, I am an African," he said. This class of mixed bloods will always be an embarrassing threat to the other millions who, although also of mixed blood, are wholly African in spirit and pride. These latter are the Adam Cayton Powells of the race who are not only' above suspicion, but are regarded by the Black masses as inseparably their own.
That a "little learning is a dangerous thing" is also indictated among the relatively few who preach about Jews being a "black people," Joseph and Mary being "black" and Jesus Christ-also "black" etc. . A group of American Negroes recently went to Israel, claiming that they were the "original" Jews, the "Lost Tribe of Israel," and that, therefore, the Country belonged them. Move ments of this kind would not deserve even a sentence here if they were not indicative of the frustrations and confusion, and the frantic pulling in different directions which further bind the race
in chains difficult to break. They are mental chains as well as blinders, Now the confusion about"Black Jews" DERIVES from the same historic developments which have been explained about white and Black Arabs---exactly the same'. For we have shown that Jews were in Africa from the earliest times and that Africans ....·were in Palestine from the earliest times. And just as the Jews ruled in African Egypt for several centuries, so have the Africans ruled over Palestine for several centuries. But, unlike the Arabs, the Jews never engaged in the general enslavement of Blacks. In cases of warfare either side might Capture segments of the population to be marched off to work in the victorious nation, a notable instance being the jewish captivity in Egypt and their later emancipation and return under the leadership of Moses. Not only did many Coloured Jews cross the red Sea with Moses, but doubtless many converted jet-black Jews such as the wife of the Lawgiver himself. Furthermore, as in the case of the Arabs, we often confuse race with religion. The people we call"Jews" indiscriminately are Hebrews by race and jews by religion. Anyone could be a Jew, but not a Hebrew, The Hebrews and the Arabs are both while Semitic peoples, and no number of offsprings by non-Hebrews and non.Arabs, or adherents to either religion will ever change this absolute fact. After all those centuries of racial mixing there was nothing unusual about the appearance of great Coloured leaders in Palestine or anywhere else in Asia, including from time to time their rise to kingship in Israel, Syria (Aram). Mesopotamia ETC.
But the white Jews (Hebrews) and white Arabs remain exactly what they always were--white; and this is why (and who pretends not to know It?) that there is a racial crisis today in Israel between the ruling while Jews and the Coloured Jews who have migrated there from the above mentioned lands. These the Coloured adherents of Judaism from Arab countries, but who never became Muslims, It will be going overboard to drown if we follow fanatics in attempting to "blackize" everything and everybody that suit their fancy. It is quite useless and unnecessary to try to make either Jesus christ or the Prophet Mohammad "Black" or even "Coloured." However, the most important point to be noted in reference to the American Negro group. the "Lost Tribe of Israel" which landed there only to be rejected, is that it illustrates dramatically all that
has been presented in these pages about those groups within the African race that are trying hard to escape from it, seeking their identity with a white people--any white people. And we have said, "Let them go!" The only thing we object to, and will fight to the end, is the attempt to program the whole race again on a march away from itself or allow them to remain as leaders of the same people from which they wish to flee.
8. Finally, another major obstacle to unity and progress that is hardly ever openly discussed ------
To read more get the book or download it
Note- Alot of those Coloureds the author is talking about above would be considered brown caucasians,meaning they are just whites with heavy black admixture or heavy enough i guess.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Atheism or to put it better, "a-religiosity"--in the sense of not paying attention to religion or prayer--works in countries where solutions to human problems are provided by people themselves and people are mature intellectually and morally.
Problems such as health problems, job problems, social problems that result in pervasive crime, wealth problems, education problems, infrastructural problems, etc.
Thus, given the situation in places like Africa, India, South and Central America, etc. atheism will not stand a chance of catching on. First, people will have to realise that the solution to human problems is not prayer or "leaving everything in the hands of God" but solutions provided by the people themselves in rational way.
This is not entirely true. Religion despite some of the problems it causes also does a lot work to solve society ills. Acts such as charity and community work is perpetuated and furthered by religious institutions. In fact, studies show countries that are more religious tend to produce more selfless people who give more to charity and do more not only for their community but other communities. This is in stark contrast to many 'secular' countries especially in Europe where folks tend to be more selfish and not do as much for others. This is not to say atheists are this way but this goes even for secularists nations where the majority profess a religion.
In my view there has to be a balance between secularism and religiosity. Too much of one or the other spells bad news.
Posts: 26247 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Religion despite some of the problems it causes also does a lot work to solve society ills. Acts such as charity and community work is perpetuated and furthered by religious institutions. In fact, studies show countries that are more religious tend to produce more selfless people who give more to charity and do more not only for their community but other communities. This is in stark contrast to many 'secular' countries especially in Europe where folks tend to be more selfish and not do as much for others. This is not to say atheists are this way but this goes even for secularists nations where the majority profess a religion.
In my view there has to be a balance between secularism and religiosity. Too much of one or the other spells bad news.
What an idiot!
Charity is NOT selfless, it provides the giver with a sense of superiority - moral and material. It also acts to keep the receiver in need, as it never solves, and never attempts to solve, the base problem.
You know the saying:
Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish, he feeds himself for a lifetime.
Advanced societies don't need to give to charity because they try to remove the need for charity - free medical, free education, etc.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the strictly per capita basis the secular nations of Scandinavia are the biggest charity donors in the world. On a per capita basis they are also the biggest receivers of political and economic refugees.
OK, there NGOs like Christian Aid operating in Africa but their "aid" is politically motivated--geared to reel in converts--and their managers live very plush and comfy lives. Just a way to export some capital and win new friends and converts.
What about Native Americans and Native Canadians on their reservations how do they fit into the religion-charity business?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Furthermore, as in the case of the Arabs, we often confuse race with religion. The people we call"Jews" indiscriminately are Hebrews by race and jews by religion. Anyone could be a Jew, but not a Hebrew, The Hebrews and the Arabs are both white Semitic peoples, and no number of offsprings by non-Hebrews and non Arabs, or adherents to either religion will ever change this absolute fact. After all those centuries of racial mixing there was nothing unusual about the appearance of great Coloured leaders in Palestine or anywhere else in Asia, including from time to time their rise to kingship in Israel,Syria (Aram). Mesopotamia ETC.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wrong,you are vansertimaverified latest reincarnation,not me.I SPEAK THE TRUTH,LIKE IT OR NOT. I was for awhile now always aware of folks like mike,but i did say much about that when i came here,but this below has made clear what type of folks like mike is.
Mike has been brainwashed like some blacks to believe that persians were black,greeks were black,romans were blacks etc.. The material above is true,not brain-dead and that's why blacks like him will never make any real progrees.
You identity is with whites,not blacks.
quote- It will be going overboard to drown if we follow fanatics in attempting to "blackize" everything and everybody that suit their fancy. It is quite useless and unnecessary to try to make either Jesus christ or the Prophet Mohammad "Black" or even "Coloured." However, the most important point to be noted in reference to the American Negro group. the "Lost Tribe of Israel" which landed there only to be rejected, is that it illustrates dramatically all that has been presented in these pages about those groups within the African race that are trying hard to escape from it, seeking their identity with a white people--any white people. And we have said, "Let them go!" The only thing we object to, and will fight to the end, is the attempt to program the whole race again on a march away from itself or allow them to remain as leaders of the same people from which they wish to flee.
Note- Mike maybe is not black at all,who knows,and who really cares,but folks like him should not be allowed to get in the way of black progress and unity.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
JHC like many blacks were and still are misinformed about Islam. He has or had no clue about the racist ideas of various Muslim Scholars similar to that of later white Christian Europeans
He has no idea that blacks became the default slave in the East when the Turks and Europeans made a deal to not enslave each other.
He has no idea the contrbution of Muwalladun, that is Christians and Jews in every Muslim Historical Empire, including Andalus, in the sciences and art.
Islam is a deception. JHC and many other blacks are duped.
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Here is a interesting post about what John Henrik Clarke said about Islam vs Christianity.
He seems to think Christianity is worse,and i think i know why,and he may have a point.
Anyway he believe both are bad for africans anyway.
This quote was from a thread talking about religion/he is replying to a person
A black guy • a month ago
I'm trying to find where you quoted John Henrik Clarke... Don't you know that John Henrik Clarke says that Christianity is the White man's religion? He is tons harder on Christianity than on Islam. He said
that if you held a gun to his head and forced him to choose between Islam and Christianity, he would choose Islam every time....
Oh by the way,Christianity,Islam and Judaism are white created religions and are hebrew centric and arab centric,and no amount of spin is going to change those facts.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
quote- But the white Jews (Hebrews) and white Arabs remain exactly what they always were--white; and this is why (and who pretends not to know It?) that there is a racial crisis today in Israel between the ruling white Jews and the Coloured Jews who have migrated there from the above mentioned lands.
Note- Alot of those Coloureds the author is talking about above would be considered brown caucasians,meaning they are just whites with heavy black admixture or heavy enough i guess.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: quote- But the white Jews (Hebrews) and white Arabs remain exactly what they always were--white; and this is why (and who pretends not to know It?) that there is a racial crisis today in Israel between the ruling white Jews and the Coloured Jews who have migrated there from the above mentioned lands.
Note- Alot of those Coloureds the author is talking about above would be considered brown caucasians,meaning they are just whites with heavy black admixture or heavy enough i guess.
I know this thread is old, but I just have to intervene on this one post. Firewall, when touching on the “racial” characteristic of regions such as the Middle East in “Ancient” times, you have to be very careful to not view it through the lens of every aspect of the modern world, where the cultures, ethnicities, languages, and also the genetic profile have changed and is continuing to change. The Ancient Hebrews and Ancient/Medieval Arabs were not White nor were they just mostly like their multi-racial descendants. It’s not that simple to state that some were White, some were Black, but the majority were mixed, your dealing with timeframes that occurred differently from one another and not at the same time. In fact, the last population to even be notable for their racial heterogeneity would be indigenous Arabians, who were the last people to experience demographic changes.
A portrait of two Kindite Arabs
Fragment of a mural depicting a Arab King of the Kingdom of Kindah
A Byzantine depiction of Ummayyads leader Maslama ibn Abdal- Malik with his Arabian warriors
Some Quotes from Islamic writers:
“The Zanj say that God did not make them black in order to disfigure them; rather it is their environment that made them so. The best evidence of this is that there are black tribes among the Arabs, such as the Banu Sulaim bin Mansur, and that all the peoples settled in the Harra, besides the Banu Sulaim are black.” Abu Uthman Al-Jahiz of Iraq 9th century A.D.
“The Arabs used to take pride in their brown and black complexion (al-sumra wa al-sawād) and they had a distaste for a white and fair complexion (al-ḥumra wa al-shaqra), and they used to say that such was the complexion of the non-Arabs.” Ibn Abi al-Hadid 13th c. citing the 9th century Al-Mubarrad in Sharh nahj al-balaghah, V:56.
“…the predominant complexion of the Arabs is dark brownish black and that of the non-Arabs is white.” Ibn Mandour (14th Century) Lisaan al-Arab IV:209
Here are some links that speak about the Arabs race:
A fresco in Jerusalem, depicting Biblical character Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac
Anthropological review on the remains from the city of Lachish
The excavation uncovered a mass of human bones, which was estimated to form the remains of fifteen hundred individuals....Remains of 695 skulls were brought to London by the British expedition...Curiously, the crania indicate a close resemblance to the population of Egypt at this time...'the relationships found suggest that the population of the town in 700 B.C. was entirely, or almost entirely, of Rgyptian origin...' They show further, that the population of Lakish was probably derived from Upper Egypt...If so, this indeed is a conclusion of far-reaching implication.
Keep in mind that classifications such as “Mediterranean” are vague and carries with it many inconsistencies. Phenotypic diversity have no need for “racial” mixture and is a natural phenomenon among many indigenous populations.
For example, here is a Negev Bedouin from the tribe of Jahaleen, in Palestine note that the man carry extremely distinct features and is dark skinned. The man by the way was over 107 years old and the picture was taken in 2014.
posted
I notice in this thread the common error of ascribing too much meaning to the bogus "racial" categories "white" and "black".
Anyone darker than Trump is "black" to some people.
As for the topic, Zionism is not a religious movement! Nor is it religiously based. It is ethnic. It is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. There are Jews in Israel who are JEWS but religiously Christian, Buddhist, atheist and other things, in addition to Judaic. "Jewish" is an ethnic identity, not a religious marker.
If the Kurds want their territory independent, we cannot reduce this to an "Islamic" tendency. It is an ethnic Kurdish tendency, and likewise Zionism for the Jews.
-------------------- Nican Tlaca Posts: 139 | From: Piedmont, Virginia | Registered: Jan 2020
| IP: Logged |
Baalberith
Ungodly and Satanic Entity
Member # 23079
quote: I notice in this thread the common error of ascribing too much meaning to the bogus "racial" categories "white" and "black".
Anyone darker than Trump is "black" to some people
It isn’t erroneous for people to use “White” or “Black”, in such a basic manner, per se. Just established a appropriate context for those categories, for example my definition for someone who is “Black” is someone who is a undecided subset of Mankind that is “tropically” or “semi-tropically” adapted, independent of any genetic make up or place of origin, while my definition of someone who is “White”, is a variation of Mankind that is also undecided and not limited to your genetic makeup or simply your origin, but unlike my definition for “Black”, only possesses features first defined by the mainstream, which is a contradiction especially since East Asians are phenotypically distinct and fair skinned, along with the complex issue of the one dropped rule, which indicate that anyone with recent “Black” ancestors is deemed Black, which is basically another example of a problematic situation in defining race.
Posts: 331 | From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2019
| IP: Logged |
quote: I notice in this thread the common error of ascribing too much meaning to the bogus "racial" categories "white" and "black".
Anyone darker than Trump is "black" to some people
It isn’t erroneous for people to use “White” or “Black”, in such a basic manner, per se. Just established a appropriate context for those categories, for example my definition for someone who is “Black” is someone who is a undecided subset of Mankind that is “tropically” or “semi-tropically” adapted, independent of any genetic make up or place of origin, while my definition of someone who is “White”, is a variation of Mankind that is also undecided and not limited to your genetic makeup or simply your origin, but unlike my definition for “Black”, only possesses features first defined by the mainstream, which is a contradiction especially since East Asians are phenotypically distinct and fair skinned, along with the complex issue of the one dropped rule, which indicate that anyone with recent “Black” ancestors is deemed Black, which is basically another example of a problematic situation in defining race.
Yes, it is all problematic. By your definition, you're including as "black" people who are not related, simply because they're in the tropics! That is not a coherent group in terms of anything but skin color, which really is a trivial human trait.
This nonsense was first established by Euroimperialists who made up the entire "race" notion, and the notion of "white" and "non-white" simply to rationalize their abuse of non-European peoples. They defined "non-white" as inferior, less civilized, etc., and so oh no the Euros aren't exploiting and robbing people worldwide, they're "civilizing" them.
For us to still use these terms is to validate that Eurocentric error and evil! There is no verifiable separation of the so-called "whites" from the rest of humanity. As you said, there are people just as light as most Europeans in northeastern Eurasia, and so which other criterion do we use in defining "white" people? Skull configurations? By that metric, very dark southern Indians would be "white". And so on...
In the USA I realize we have 2 ethnic groups who've lost most of their ancestral cultures, and so we lump them together as "whites" and "blacks". This distinction was codified in Virginia in the 17th century in order to disrupt solidarity between Euro and Afro-descended workers, and to facilitate the enslavement of the Africans. Prior to that, in the 13 Colonies, there was a time when most of the slaves were "white"!
The fact is, there is no such thing as a "white race" nor a "black race". It's all bull dooky. We're stuck now in the USA calling each other "black" and "white" because the 2 groups have no other ethnic identity, which is pathetic, really.
-------------------- Nican Tlaca Posts: 139 | From: Piedmont, Virginia | Registered: Jan 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote: I notice in this thread the common error of ascribing too much meaning to the bogus "racial" categories "white" and "black".
Anyone darker than Trump is "black" to some people
It isn’t erroneous for people to use “White” or “Black”, in such a basic manner, per se. Just established a appropriate context for those categories, for example my definition for someone who is “Black” is someone who is a undecided subset of Mankind that is “tropically” or “semi-tropically” adapted, independent of any genetic make up or place of origin, while my definition of someone who is “White”, is a variation of Mankind that is also undecided and not limited to your genetic makeup or simply your origin, but unlike my definition for “Black”, only possesses features first defined by the mainstream, which is a contradiction especially since East Asians are phenotypically distinct and fair skinned, along with the complex issue of the one dropped rule, which indicate that anyone with recent “Black” ancestors is deemed Black, which is basically another example of a problematic situation in defining race.
Yes, it is all problematic. By your definition, you're including as "black" people who are not related, simply because they're in the tropics! That is not a coherent group in terms of anything but skin color, which really is a trivial human trait.
This nonsense was first established by Euroimperialists who made up the entire "race" notion, and the notion of "white" and "non-white" simply to rationalize their abuse of non-European peoples. They defined "non-white" as inferior, less civilized, etc., and so oh no the Euros aren't exploiting and robbing people worldwide, they're "civilizing" them.
For us to still use these terms is to validate that Eurocentric error and evil! There is no verifiable separation of the so-called "whites" from the rest of humanity. As you said, there are people just as light as most Europeans in northeastern Eurasia, and so which other criterion do we use in defining "white" people? Skull configurations? By that metric, very dark southern Indians would be "white". And so on...
In the USA I realize we have 2 ethnic groups who've lost most of their ancestral cultures, and so we lump them together as "whites" and "blacks". This distinction was codified in Virginia in the 17th century in order to disrupt solidarity between Euro and Afro-descended workers, and to facilitate the enslavement of the Africans. Prior to that, in the 13 Colonies, there was a time when most of the slaves were "white"!
The fact is, there is no such thing as a "white race" nor a "black race". It's all bull dooky. We're stuck now in the USA calling each other "black" and "white" because the 2 groups have no other ethnic identity, which is pathetic, really.
-------------------- Nican Tlaca Posts: 139 | From: Piedmont, Virginia | Registered: Jan 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote: I notice in this thread the common error of ascribing too much meaning to the bogus "racial" categories "white" and "black".
Anyone darker than Trump is "black" to some people
It isn’t erroneous for people to use “White” or “Black”, in such a basic manner, per se. Just established a appropriate context for those categories, for example my definition for someone who is “Black” is someone who is a undecided subset of Mankind that is “tropically” or “semi-tropically” adapted, independent of any genetic make up or place of origin, while my definition of someone who is “White”, is a variation of Mankind that is also undecided and not limited to your genetic makeup or simply your origin, but unlike my definition for “Black”, only possesses features first defined by the mainstream, which is a contradiction especially since East Asians are phenotypically distinct and fair skinned, along with the complex issue of the one dropped rule, which indicate that anyone with recent “Black” ancestors is deemed Black, which is basically another example of a problematic situation in defining race.
Yes, it is all problematic. By your definition, you're including as "black" people who are not related, simply because they're in the tropics! That is not a coherent group in terms of anything but skin color, which really is a trivial human trait.
This nonsense was first established by Euroimperialists who made up the entire "race" notion, and the notion of "white" and "non-white" simply to rationalize their abuse of non-European peoples. They defined "non-white" as inferior, less civilized, etc., and so oh no the Euros aren't exploiting and robbing people worldwide, they're "civilizing" them.
For us to still use these terms is to validate that Eurocentric error and evil! There is no verifiable separation of the so-called "whites" from the rest of humanity. As you said, there are people just as light as most Europeans in northeastern Eurasia, and so which other criterion do we use in defining "white" people? Skull configurations? By that metric, very dark southern Indians would be "white". And so on...
In the USA I realize we have 2 ethnic groups who've lost most of their ancestral cultures, and so we lump them together as "whites" and "blacks". This distinction was codified in Virginia in the 17th century in order to disrupt solidarity between Euro and Afro-descended workers, and to facilitate the enslavement of the Africans. Prior to that, in the 13 Colonies, there was a time when most of the slaves were "white"!
The fact is, there is no such thing as a "white race" nor a "black race". It's all bull dooky. We're stuck now in the USA calling each other "black" and "white" because the 2 groups have no other ethnic identity, which is pathetic, really.
I partly agree, because it's complicated.
Some images of ancient populations who lived at the Levant during that time.
quote: “Populations for which the ancient Caucasus genomes are best ancestral approximations include those of the Southern Caucasus and interestingly, South and Central Asia. Western Europe tends to be a mix of early farmers and western/eastern hunter-gatherers while Middle Eastern genomes are described as a mix of early farmers and Africans.
[…]
Caucasus hunter-gatherer contribution to subsequent populations. We next explored the extent to which Bichon and CHG contributed to contemporary populations using outgroup f3(African; modern, ancient) statistics, which measure the shared genetic history between an ancient genome and a modern population since they diverged from an African outgroup.
Discussion
Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia. WHG, on the other hand, are likely the descendants of a wave that expanded further into Europe. The separation of these populations is one that stretches back before the Holocene, as indicated by local continuity through the Late Palaeolithic/Mesolithic boundary and deep coalescence estimates, which date to around the LGM and earlier.”
~Jones, E. R., G. Gonzalez-Fortes, S. Connell, V. Siska, A. Eriksson, R. Martiniano, R. L. McLaughlin, et al. 2015. Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians.” Nature Communications 6 (1): 8912. doi:10.1038/ncomms9912. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9912.Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic