posted
Doug's view is that whites are the oppressors so that "white" should be specific to them. It's a political definition.
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Doug you may not like me but regardless Mike often alters history as he sees fit. He just goes in and changes things. problem is he does it on his website, passes it off as history and his stuff is wide spread amoung black folk. Sure he will speak against oppressive white folk but at the same time when you're not looking he'll sneak in and remove the African element out of African American history. Ironically when he has his chest puffed out about 'lying albinos' he is at the same time brain washed by white supremacy to be ashamed of his Africaness. He takes the African out of history and posts it on his website which he passes off as black history, miseducating the youth. So while it may look like he's supporting the idea of indigenous blacks of American he's doing his motive is that they are not African, in actuality maroons, people of African descent who freed themselves
You will find him in his fantasy land where he's a European noble
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^He,he,he; Damn lioness, how did you get so stupid? Don't you know that I always keep data at my fingertips?
Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World by Walter A. Neves* and Mark Hubbe
Stupid bitch: please note where the first North Americans were located - Seminole territory!
Stupid Bitch: Note how they are described.
The earliest South Americans tend to be more similar to present Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans (narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses).
Stupid Bitch - What's that you were saying about ESCAPED SLAVES???
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Clearly all of the above are in fact "WHITE" people because they have little or "NO" melanin. But because the Albinos of Dravidians insist on being considered separate people, the whole thing is screwed up.
No Mike you stupid dumb a$$ those people are NOT White and never will be. The negro albino is still Black,the Asian albino is still a Mongol, that Dravidian albino is still a Dravidian not White. We will not accept your Albinos & the albinos of other races as one of us. We Whites are the only White race , we are NOT Albinos nor are we Dravidians, nor do we come from Central Asia. Yes I will continue to bust you White people hating ass & expose you to my people so they don't fall for your lies. I already busted you for being the maker of that video you have on your site (that you claim a White person made lol) about Whites being Albinos and your claiming to be White in it so my people would accept it. Not only that but you thanked your own self in on of your videos on your ancienthistorian1 channel lol. Just admit that you are a fraud, a phoney, hate Whites/& Asians, a thief, a liar, a Black racist.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Damn Doxie, that's quite a mouthful. But as I told you, I don't hate White people (Albinos), I love them. Okay, maybe love is a little too strong. I like White people (Albinos) very much. Err, I like White people (Albinos) more than I like Monkeys???
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Why do they have to be mixed? Don't you know that there are native blacks in Asia with straight hair?..
Yes, but the Aeta were not one of them. I'm telling you as someone familiar with that region of the world that 'pure' Aeta do not have such features. I have already provided pictures of what 'pure' Aeta look like and they look stereotypically 'Negrito'. Those Aeta with straight or hair and slanted eyes are admixed.
Aboriginal blacks with straight hair or wavy hair are found in the mainland.
quote:..Don't you know the original Malays had straight hair and were black?
If by 'Malays' you mean the aborigines of Malaysia, then yes. These are different from the 'Malay' proper who originated further north.
quote:What about all the blacks in the Pacific with straight hair and not to mention the people from Australia...
What about them? I don't deny their existence, my point is that Aeta of the Philippines were stereotypically 'Negrito'.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Why do they have to be mixed? Don't you know that there are native blacks in Asia with straight hair?..
Yes, but the Aeta were not one of them. I'm telling you as someone familiar with that region of the world that 'pure' Aeta do not have such features. I have already provided pictures of what 'pure' Aeta look like and they look stereotypically 'Negrito'. Those Aeta with straight or hair and slanted eyes are admixed.
Aboriginal blacks with straight hair or wavy hair are found in the mainland.
quote:..Don't you know the original Malays had straight hair and were black?
If by 'Malays' you mean the aborigines of Malaysia, then yes. These are different from the 'Malay' proper who originated further north.
quote:What about all the blacks in the Pacific with straight hair and not to mention the people from Australia...
What about them? I don't deny their existence, my point is that Aeta of the Philippines were stereotypically 'Negrito'.
So if you admit that many blacks in Asia have had straight hair going back thousands of years as aboriginal populations then why do you claim these women are "mixed"? My point is that the black population of the Philippines was killed off, mixed with Chinese or Europeans and isolated in remote areas. Hence those "Aeta" you see today are simply the remaining pockets of the "pure" black aboriginal type both straight haired and curly haired as both types were present in the islands since many thousands of years ago. So Aeta today is just an umbrella term for any black aboriginal type, not just the negrito.
And as for Malay, it always meant black or brown skinned South Asian. It NEVER meant northern light skinned Asian. That nonsense came later after the indigenous south Asians started mixing with Northern Chinese types. Go to any south Asian nation today and it is mostly ruled by Chinese or Mestizos(mixed native and Chinese/European) while the indigenous blacks are on the bottom as in the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Burma and so on...
quote: Malays were once referred as "Kun-lun people" in various Chinese records. Kunlun was originally referring to a fabled mountain range that was believed to span parts of Tibet and India. It was used by the Chinese as reference to black, wavy-haired barbarians of the mountains and jungles from the remote part of geographically known world. The Champas and Khmers were called Kunlun people by the Chinese before the term being applied to the Malays or more accurately Austronesians as a whole. In 750, Jianzhen (688–765) noticed the presence of many "Brahmans, Persians and Kunluns in Canton". The Book of Tang reported that "every year, Kunlun merchants come in their ships with valuable goods to trade with the Chinese"
In his 1775 doctoral dissertation titled De generis humani varietate nativa (On the Natural Varieties of Mankind), Blumenbach outlined four main human races by skin color, namely Caucasian (white), Ethiopian (black), Native American (red), and Mongolian (yellow).
By 1795, Blumenbach added another race called 'Malay' which he considered to be a subcategory of both the Ethiopian and Mongoloid races. The Malay race were those of a "brown color, from olive and a clear mahogany to the darkest clove or chestnut brown." Blumenbach expanded the term "Malay" to include the native inhabitants of the Marianas, the Philippines, the Malukus, Sundas, Indochina, as well as Pacific Islands such as Tahitians. He considered a Tahitian skull he had received to be the missing link; showing the transition between the "primary" race, the Caucasians, and the "degenerate" race, the Negroids.
Blumenbach writes:
Malay variety. Tawny-coloured; hair black, soft, curly, thick and plentiful; head moderately narrowed; forehead slightly swelling; nose full, rather wide, as it were diffuse, end thick; mouth large. upper jaw somewhat prominent with the parts of the face when seen in profile, sufficiently prominent and distinct from each other. This last variety includes the islanders of the Pacific Ocean, together with the inhabitants of the Marianne, the Philippine, the Molucca and the Sunda Islands, and of the Malayan peninsula. I wish to call it the Malay, because the majority of the men of this variety, especially those who inhabit the Indian islands close to the Malacca peninsula, as well as the Sandwich, the Society, and the Friendly Islanders, and also the Malambi of Madagascar down to the inhabitants of Easter Island, use the Malay idiom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_race So like I said, most of that crap about Malays is based on pure European race science and eugenics. All the original so-called "Malays" are simply black south Asians with straight hair. And it is the remnants of these historic blacks that you see in the photos of 100+ years ago, before they were almost completely wiped out. Note that the Chinese even noted the blacks of the Himalayas. So much for your "mongols".
Again all of these terms are designed to obscure and cover up the true origins of these peoples which ultimately is from Africa. That is why they had to eradicate and replace the native blacks and create "new" races from the offspring of mixed parents as part of a systematic program of Eugenics, which the Europeans practiced almost everywhere they colonized. If they can make up races and claim that these populations have features unique and distinct to themselves then they can claim these people are not related to the ancient African blacks who settled these areas, which is precisely what they tried to do.
Trust me, there is a reason why you see so many "black looking" folks from many parts of South Asia in old 100+ year old photos that are no longer there today and it is because they have been wiped out on purpose. A lot of it having to do with white European racism and preaching that in order for a society to modernize they had to get rid of their black populations, especially after the Europeans conquered and created their corporate plantations there..... Colonial companies were always engines of white supremacy allowing the Europeans to move populations around and force groups to mix in order to attain a "white" standard of beauty and progress. And if you read the history of South Asia: Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Burma, Vietnam, all of them had large black populations. These people were not isolated in remote villages and they were not "savages" they were the primary population: the priests, the kings, the queens, the villagers, the singers, the artists, the warriors and so forth. But after white folks, they are only left in pockets as outcasts. Those who want to live with everyone else had to assimilate and become mulattoes...
And for the rest of the clowns, I guess straight hair on black folks means they are mixed? So blacks from India are mixed? Mixed with who? And why are they so black if they are mixed, why did they only aquire the straight hair and facial features and not the light skin if they are so mixed? Because they aren't mixed. Black Indians are part of the same ancient aboriginal population of Asia as the Australian aborigine. But nobody claims the aborigine as mixed and they have straight hair. So who is kidding who? And note the difference between the aborigines of Australia and the Aborigines of Papua. Totally different looking people..... But some black folks don't understand that black populations are historically the most diverse in features on the planet and it is from that diversity in features that all other populations ultimately originate. Not the other way around. White populations got their features from their ancient black aboriginal ancestors.
posted
Thailand burma etc.. was not conqured by whites,so how whites influenced asians to kill of the blacks there? Let me guess,it always the whites pulling the strings,nobody else has a brain. Wrong thinking.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thailand was the only country not colonized. However, they lost large parts of their lands to the British and French.
The first to colonize parts of South Asia were the Spanish and Portuguese, followed by the Dutch and then English and French.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Regardless of whether you Albinos accept it or not, people without melanin (or skin pigmentation) are White! The other name for that condition is Albinism!
So idiot, are you saying that just because they are all Mongols, then the females cannot be White?
That is pure asinine European hubris and nonsense. Get it through your heads, you are simply pigmentless Albinos, just like the rest.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Note that the constant wars in Southern Asia (even if you don't know about them) are what has done a lot to wipe out this diversity. Burma is a good example.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: yes Mike, the female Koreans here are "albinos"
fvcking retard
Lioness, like many Albinos you try to confuse the issues so as to give yourselves deniability as regards to your Albinism. But I will not allow you to get away with it!
These are all Albinos:
Do you notice that they have different skin shades? Yet they are all still Albinos, just like you.
BTW - I wondered why there was so many Dravidian Albinos (Europeans) like yourself. It seems that you people simply make more "Pure" Albinos than everyone else.
Parvez family from Coventry - there are 16 Albinos in the family.
posted
Lioness - CLEARLY all of the people above are Mongols.
Yet some of them are very dark, and some of them are just as Albino as any European.
Proof positive that "Normal" Humans, regardless of feature type are Blacks. Those without pigmentation, regardless of feature type, are Albinos or near Albino mulattoes.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes. Doug believes 'whites' have the most physical diversity (I mean look - they have epicanthic fold, wide noses, wooly hair [see the other photos you posted], and facial flatness now, but also wavy hair, thin noses).
Doug fighting 'eurocentrism' but is claiming 'whites' are the most physically diverse? Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:people without melanin (or skin pigmentation) are White!
quote:Those without pigmentation, regardless of feature type, are Albinos [Whites]
So 'whites' then have the most physical diversity on the planet?
Look at the above 'whites' they have the full scope of physical features from thin to wide noses, prognathism, epicanthic fold, facial flatness, all hair textures...
Mike & Doug why aren't you at Stormfront?
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
what Doug doesn't unerstand is that according to Mike no matter how dark a person is if they have straight hair that is a sign of mulattoism and that such persons are not true blacks
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So if you admit that many blacks in Asia have had straight hair going back thousands of years as aboriginal populations then why do you claim these women are "mixed"?
Because they ARE! Why do you make many assumptions and argue with me who is actually FROM that region and more familiar about it than you??!
I'm telling you the fact that the black aboriginals of that region don't have long straight hair or epicanthic (slanted) eyes unless they are mixed. Pure Aetas are round eyed and have short kinky or frizzy hair.
quote:My point is that the black population of the Philippines was killed off, mixed with Chinese or Europeans and isolated in remote areas. Hence those "Aeta" you see today are simply the remaining pockets of the "pure" black aboriginal type both straight haired and curly haired as both types were present in the islands since many thousands of years ago. So Aeta today is just an umbrella term for any black aboriginal type, not just the negrito.
What you say is blatantly wrong. The Aeta were not killed off but were pushed into more isolated regions. The mixing was largely with mainstream Malay Filipinos NOT Chinese or Europeans who came way after! Those girls in the picture do NOT represent pure Aetas not only due to their obvious mixed features but also the clothing they wear.
quote:And as for Malay, it always meant black or brown skinned South Asian. It NEVER meant northern light skinned Asian. That nonsense came later after the indigenous south Asians started mixing with Northern Chinese types. Go to any south Asian nation today and it is mostly ruled by Chinese or Mestizos(mixed native and Chinese/European) while the indigenous blacks are on the bottom as in the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Burma and so on...
There seems to be confusion on the word 'Malay'. The aboriginal peoples of Malaysia and southeast Asia called themselves by a variety of names like Bateng, Semang, Mani, or Asli. The non-black Austronesian speaking Southeast Asians such as mainstream Filipinos like myself are 'Malay' people who originated further north likely in China. Our ancestors came down and assimilate and/or mixed with aboriginals who had thriving neolithic cultures. This took place thousands of years ago in the late neolithic to chalcolithic NOT 'recently'. After the Malays, came a variety of peoples from further north with lighter skin like the Tai peoples etc. These reecent immigrants from north Asia are easily recognized by fair or pale skin.
quote:Malays were once referred as "Kun-lun people" in various Chinese records. Kunlun was originally referring to a fabled mountain range that was believed to span parts of Tibet and India. It was used by the Chinese as reference to black, wavy-haired barbarians of the mountains and jungles from the remote part of geographically known world. The Champas and Khmers were called Kunlun people by the Chinese before the term being applied to the Malays or more accurately Austronesians as a whole. In 750, Jianzhen (688–765) noticed the presence of many "Brahmans, Persians and Kunluns in Canton". The Book of Tang reported that "every year, Kunlun merchants come in their ships with valuable goods to trade with the Chinese"
In his 1775 doctoral dissertation titled De generis humani varietate nativa (On the Natural Varieties of Mankind), Blumenbach outlined four main human races by skin color, namely Caucasian (white), Ethiopian (black), Native American (red), and Mongolian (yellow).
By 1795, Blumenbach added another race called 'Malay' which he considered to be a subcategory of both the Ethiopian and Mongoloid races. The Malay race were those of a "brown color, from olive and a clear mahogany to the darkest clove or chestnut brown." Blumenbach expanded the term "Malay" to include the native inhabitants of the Marianas, the Philippines, the Malukus, Sundas, Indochina, as well as Pacific Islands such as Tahitians. He considered a Tahitian skull he had received to be the missing link; showing the transition between the "primary" race, the Caucasians, and the "degenerate" race, the Negroids.
Blumenbach writes:
Malay variety. Tawny-coloured; hair black, soft, curly, thick and plentiful; head moderately narrowed; forehead slightly swelling; nose full, rather wide, as it were diffuse, end thick; mouth large. upper jaw somewhat prominent with the parts of the face when seen in profile, sufficiently prominent and distinct from each other. This last variety includes the islanders of the Pacific Ocean, together with the inhabitants of the Marianne, the Philippine, the Molucca and the Sunda Islands, and of the Malayan peninsula. I wish to call it the Malay, because the majority of the men of this variety, especially those who inhabit the Indian islands close to the Malacca peninsula, as well as the Sandwich, the Society, and the Friendly Islanders, and also the Malambi of Madagascar down to the inhabitants of Easter Island, use the Malay idiom.
So like I said, most of that crap about Malays is based on pure European race science and eugenics. All the original so-called "Malays" are simply black south Asians with straight hair. And it is the remnants of these historic blacks that you see in the photos of 100+ years ago, before they were almost completely wiped out. Note that the Chinese even noted the blacks of the Himalayas. So much for your "mongols".
Yes, which is exactly why I use the word 'Malay' in its original context as an ethnic or cultural designation NOT a racial one! The same goes for the word 'Mongol'!! The Champa and Funan are other examples of the ancient black centers in Southeast Asia.
quote:Again all of these terms are designed to obscure and cover up the true origins of these peoples which ultimately is from Africa. That is why they had to eradicate and replace the native blacks and create "new" races from the offspring of mixed parents as part of a systematic program of Eugenics, which the Europeans practiced almost everywhere they colonized. If they can make up races and claim that these populations have features unique and distinct to themselves then they can claim these people are not related to the ancient African blacks who settled these areas, which is precisely what they tried to do.
This makes no sense. The African origins of these black people are the same as for all non-black peoples in Eurasia. There was no cover up or obfuscation of African origins.
quote:Trust me, there is a reason why you see so many "black looking" folks from many parts of South Asia in old 100+ year old photos that are no longer there today and it is because they have been wiped out on purpose. A lot of it having to do with white European racism and preaching that in order for a society to modernize they had to get rid of their black populations, especially after the Europeans conquered and created their corporate plantations there..... Colonial companies were always engines of white supremacy allowing the Europeans to move populations around and force groups to mix in order to attain a "white" standard of beauty and progress. And if you read the history of South Asia: Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Burma, Vietnam, all of them had large black populations. These people were not isolated in remote villages and they were not "savages" they were the primary population: the priests, the kings, the queens, the villagers, the singers, the artists, the warriors and so forth. But after white folks, they are only left in pockets as outcasts. Those who want to live with everyone else had to assimilate and become mulattoes...
There was no mass genocide of black indigenes in Southeast Asia. Most were either pushed into more rural areas OR enslaved or mixed by incoming invaders. This is why the Semang people of Malaysia are called 'Sakkai' meaning 'slave' in Thai language because the Thai enslaved them.
quote:And for the rest of the clowns, I guess straight hair on black folks means they are mixed? So blacks from India are mixed? Mixed with who? And why are they so black if they are mixed, why did they only aquire the straight hair and facial features and not the light skin if they are so mixed? Because they aren't mixed. Black Indians are part of the same ancient aboriginal population of Asia as the Australian aborigine. But nobody claims the aborigine as mixed and they have straight hair. So who is kidding who? And note the difference between the aborigines of Australia and the Aborigines of Papua. Totally different looking people..... But some black folks don't understand that black populations are historically the most diverse in features on the planet and it is from that diversity in features that all other populations ultimately originate. Not the other way around. White populations got their features from their ancient black aboriginal ancestors.
You are beginning to sound like Lyinass with these jumps to conclusion and taking things out of context. I never said that just because a black person has straight hair they are mixed. My point is about the Aetas specifically because straight hair and slanted eyes are NOT part of their features. I'm telling you as a fact because I know Aeta people and I know mainstream Filipinos who mixed with them. YES there are blacks in Asia with wavy or straight hair but these are other populations NOT the Aetas. And yes I know that non-black Asians and even white Europeans and everyone else descend from blacks.
What's your point?? You seem to be attacking nothing but imaginary strawmen. Blacks are aboriginal to the tropics and ancestral to all populations but that does not change anything I said about the Aeta.
Non-mixed Aeta
Admixed Aeta
People who actually KNOW about the Aeta know the difference.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: people without melanin (or skin pigmentation) are White! Those without pigmentation, regardless of feature type, are Albinos [Whites] So 'whites' then have the most physical diversity on the planet?
Look at the above 'whites' they have the full scope of physical features from thin to wide noses, prognathism, epicanthic fold, facial flatness, all hair textures...
He,he,he:
Yes Cass, you finally have me, see what facing the truth can do for you?
Once you understand what being "White" really is, and what it truly means, then indeed the realities of the world take on new meaning.
So yes, Whites do indeed encompass all of the worlds Humans, but so do Blacks, the tie breaker is how do you want to treat the condition of the "P" gene.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are beginning to sound like Lyinass with these jumps to conclusion and taking things out of context. I never said that just because a black person has straight hair they are mixed. My point is about the Aetas specifically because straight hair and slanted eyes are NOT part of their features. I'm telling you as a fact because I know Aeta people and I know mainstream Filipinos who mixed with them. YES there are blacks in Asia with wavy or straight hair but these are other populations NOT the Aetas. And yes I know that non-black Asians and even white Europeans and everyone else descend from blacks.
What's your point?? You seem to be attacking nothing but imaginary strawmen. Blacks are aboriginal to the tropics and ancestral to all populations but that does not change anything I said about the Aeta.
Non-mixed Aeta
Admixed Aeta
People who actually KNOW about the Aeta know the difference.
You contradict yourself Djehuti. I said that ALL of the BLACK aboriginals of the Philippines are grouped together as outcasts under the term Aeta whether they are actually AETA (negrito, meaning short with curly hair ) or not.
My point is that the MAJORITY of the BLACK people that Europeans encountered 200-300 years ago in the Phillipines were NOT Aeta. They were NATIVE STRAIGHT HAIRED BLACK ASIAN people and they said it clearly in their own words.
I understood your point. Your point is that the aboriginal population that YOU claim most Philippine people descend from was a SEPARATE population of people with epicanthic folds and straight hair who were NOT black and somehow a SEPARATE aboriginal group from the aboriginal blacks of Asia. You are simply following the white European model of the history of the Philippines which is false. And it was the whites, most specifically the Americans who had a whole LOT to do with wiping out the native straight haired black populations of the Philippines using their Eugenics argument that these people were ignorant savages. Look at your history book and stop denying the facts.
All I am saying is that ALL of the native blacks of the Philippines are now lumped together as Aeta, because they are black, whether they have straight hair or whether they have curly hair. And no, it is not necessarily because they are mixed. I am not saying that there is no such thing as a mixed Aeta. What I am saying is that those mixed Aeta LOOK MIXED with lighter skin and other features which are indicative of mixture. Showing me group of coal black people and claiming they are mixed just because they have epicanthic folds is BS. There are blacks in Africa and all over South Asia with epicanthic folds and high cheekbones. Where do you think those features originated? Mongolia? NO.
2 Simple questions to ponder. Are there any other black aboriginal populations of the Philippines other than the Aeta? And if not then who were all the blacks that the Americans under William Mckinley were determined to wipe out? Aetas?
Answer that question and you will show what I am talking about.
Like I said before, who was it that took pictures of and wrote about the blacks they found in Asia? Who were the avowed racists? And who were in the process of subjugating blacks as part of their idea of "manifest destiny"? And it is these SAME PEOPLE who created the history books and made up all the LIES about the history of Asia to make it more WHITE. These images make it clear what they thought the origins of many Asian populations was.... And it was these same people who made it their job to ETHNICALLY CLEANSE these people to remove all traces of blackness..... THAT is why those blacks from old photos in most of South Asia aren't there any more. What is the point of even trying to deny the obvious?
quote: One of the most banal and brutal manifestations of racial exterminism was U.S. soldiers’ imagination of the war as hunting. The Manila occupation and early conventional warfare had frustrated U.S. soldiers’ martial masculinity; the metaphor of the hunt made war, at last, into masculine self-fulfillment. [96] All at once, a language of hunting animalized Filipinos, made sense of guerrilla war to American troops, and joined them in manly fraternity. “I don’t know when the thing will let out,” wrote Louis Hubbard one week into the war, “and don’t care as we are having lots of excitement. It makes me think of killing jack rabbits.” [97] Earl Pearsall jotted in his diary on the third day of the war that “[o]ur boys kept them on the run and shot them down like rabbits.” [98] John F. Bright described one advance near San Juan Bridge: “As we advanced they would jump up like rabbits only a few feet from us, dead game ready to sell their lives as dearly as possible, but we shot them down before they could do any damage.” [99]
Racial terms explicitly linked hunting to exterminism. “There is no question that our men do ‘shoot niggers’ somewhat in the sporting spirit,” admitted Wells. “It is lots of sport to hunt these black devils,” wrote Louis Hubbard just three weeks into the war. [100] Private George Osborn of the 6th Infantry wrote home from Negros on January 15, 1900: “Just back from the fight. Killed 22 niggers captured 29 rifels [sic] and 1 shotgun and I tell you it was a fight… we just shot the niggers like a hunter would rabbits…” [101] In April 1899, Lieutenant Tefler wrote from Marilao that night-time scouting raids were his men’s only relief from the boredom of guarding a railroad, that it was “great fun for the men to go on ‘nigger hunts.’” [102] Racial-exterminist sentiment of this kind was not uncommon in U.S. soldiers’ songs, diaries and letters. It was at the very center of the most popular of the U.S. army’s marching songs, which marked the Filipino population as a whole as the enemy and made killing Filipinos the only means to their “civilization.”
Damn, damn, damn the Filipino Pock-marked khakiac ladrone; Underneath the starry flag Civilize him with a Krag, And return us to our own beloved home. [103]
One Nebraskan soldier boasted to his parents of his comrades’ bold, aggressive fighting spirit, restrained only by officers’ reticence. “If they would turn the boys loose,” he wrote, “there wouldn’t be a nigger left in Manila twelve hours after.” [104] Henry Hackthorn explained to his family that the war, which he regretted, had been avoidable but “the niggers got in a hurry.” “We would kill all in sight if we could only receive the necessary orders,” he wrote. [105] A dramatic monologue entitled “The Sentry” written and published by a U.S. soldier, features a sympathetic portrayal of a lonely U.S. sentry on watch-duty. “If I catch one of those bolo-men slinking around me, I’ll just plug the son-of-a-gun full of holes,” he says, just before he is treacherously killed. “I hate the very sight of their black hides.” [106] Eggenberger reported happily in March 1900 that Macabebes had killed 130 “ladrones” without one escape. “[L]et the good work go on we will have the damn bug eaters sivilized [sic] if we have to bury them to do it,” he wrote. [107] The year before, he had casually urged his family to have an old friend write to him. “[T]ell him if he don’t rite [sic] to me when i get back i will take him for a nigger and bombard him, tell him no Amegoes (friends) will go then, ha ha.” [108] A war of “no amigos” was a war without surrender.
Race and Atrocity
Just as imperialists had mobilized racial ideologies to defend the war’s ends, so too was race made to defend its means, undermining moral and legal claims against American soldiers accused of “marked severities” in the halls of U.S. governance, in press debates and in courts-martial. [109] When Senate hearings between January and June 1902 raised the question of U.S. atrocities, the U.S. Army’s defenders repeatedly held that abuses were rare; that where they occurred they were swiftly and thoroughly punished; and that testimony to the contrary was characterized by partisan and cowardly—possibly traitorous--exaggeration. But racial arguments, in at least three varieties, were central to the administration’s defense.
The first variant claimed that the Filipinos’ guerrilla war, as “savage” war, was entirely outside the moral and legal standards and strictures of “civilized” war. Those who adopted guerrilla war, it was argued, surrendered all claims to bounded violence and mercy from their opponent. Captain John H. Parker employed this line of argument in a November 1900 letter to President Roosevelt complaining that the U.S. Army should not “attempt to meet a half civilized foe… with the same methods devised for civilized warfare against people of our own race, country and blood.” [110] This point was also made at Senate hearings in 1902, when General Hughes described the burning of entire towns by advancing U.S. troops to Senator Rawlins as a means of "punishment," and Rawlins inquired: "But is that within the ordinary rules of civilized warfare?..." General Hughes replied succinctly: "These people are not civilized."
I would also like to point out that there is no evidence that "Negritoes" or the Aetas if you want to call them that, took any large scale part in the war of the Philippines. They were primarily limited to the remote areas of the Islands. So what BLACKS are these Americans referring to? It most certainly was NOT the Aetas.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. There are black Peruvians and White East Asians. It is called science .. [/qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by xyyman: .North Asians are lighter than Europeans...isn't that a bitch.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] A
BTW there are some very black people in Peru(of course).
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Yes. There are black Peruvians and White East Asians. It is called science .. [QUOTE]Originally posted by xyyman: .North Asians are lighter than Europeans...isn't that a bitch.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: A
BTW there are some very black people in Peru(of course).
Actually it is called biological diversity due to environmental adaptation. Science is the process of studying it and understanding how it works and manifests itself on a biological level.
But you must remember that when white folks weren't writing science in the 18th and 19th century. They were writing racist propaganda to omit and cover up the fact that as a species humans ultimately originate in a tropical environment which makes black skin among humans the the aboriginal state of ALL human populations no matter where they are on the planet. THAT is what the whites are trying SO hard to destroy and cover up because THEY want to be PRIME human which they cannot be because they only just got here not even 10,000 years ago. (Of course "they" were here as humans but they weren't white).
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug M - Thank you for posting on the Uros of Peru, I had never heard of them before.
In reading their Wiki some interesting things were said:
The Uros are a pre-Incan people who live on forty-two self-fashioned floating islands in Lake Titicaca Puno, Peru and Bolivia.
I wonder what they mean by that, the culture before the Inca was The Sicán (800-1375) A.D, and that was a society of farmers, ceramic artisans, fishermen, and metalworkers. They built brick (adobe) platform mounds for ceremonial and funerary purposes. Like their Moche precursors, the people of Sicán built monumental temples and palaces, where rituals and funerals demanded splendid paraphernalia.
The Uros descend from a millennial town that, according to legends, are "pukinas" who speak Uro or Pukina and that believe they are the owners of the lake and water. Uros used to say that they have black blood because they did not feel the cold. Also they call themselves "Lupihaques" (Sons of The Sun). Nowadays, Uros do not speak the Uro language, nor practice their old beliefs but keep some old customs.
The purpose of the island settlements was originally defensive, and if a threat arose they could be moved. The largest island retains a watchtower almost entirely constructed of reeds.
The Uros traded with the Aymara tribe on the mainland, intermarrying with them and eventually abandoning the Uro language for that of the Aymara. About 500 years ago they lost their original language. When conquered by the Inca empire, they had to pay taxes to them, and often were made slaves.
posted
The hypothesis that humans have a single origin (monogenesis) was published in Charles Darwin's Descent of Man (1871).[2] The concept was speculative until the 1980s, when it was corroborated by a study of present-day mitochondrial DNA, combined with evidence based on physical anthropology of archaic specimens.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The hypothesis that humans have a single origin (monogenesis) was published in Charles Darwin's Descent of Man (1871).[2] The concept was speculative until the 1980s, when it was corroborated by a study of present-day mitochondrial DNA, combined with evidence based on physical anthropology of archaic specimens.
No lioness, that is NOT what the science says, there was NO Adam, and there was NO Eve.
posted
Original Filipinos that the Americans were fighting at the turn of the 20th century (little short straight haired Chinese looking blacks.) This is your so called "Malay race". Straight haired short black folks. As opposed to curly haired short black folks. They are simply two different types of aboriginal blacks in South Asia. They aren't a separate "race".
More of these kinds of images can be found in many research collections in the Philippines and America. One good collection is the William Eastman collection, as below:
posted
The history that Doug presented is a hellaova lot more interesting than comparing phenotype for one African Americans took part in that conflict and yes they were the famed Buffalo soldiers some defected because of the raw anti black racism meted out against the Filipino populous who they equate with blacks of whatever origins. Captain David Fagen
quote: Within the organization of the "World Serrada Escrima Federation" there is a special division set aside that is strictly devoted to historical research within the field of combative martial arts. The following story centers around an almost untold story about one of the most celebrated "African/American" soldiers who fought on the side of the courageous Filipino revolutionaries during the American occupation in the Philippines. "General Fagen" as many of his loyal Filipino troops called him, was one of the most effective & one of the most masterful African American jungle guerrilla warfare fighter's & military strategist that had ever set foot on Filipino soil.
quote:The densely forested area around the Rio de la Pampanga River was a scene of great bloodshed. Dozens of Filipinos lay dead, massacred by the advancing US forces. It was August 1899, when Filipino Insurrectos under Gen. Maximino Hizon were making a futile stand against the vastly superior American army. In a few weeks, Hizon would be captured. He would be replaced by another Pampango general, Jose Alejandrino. Alejandrino would regroup his almost decimated forces and head toward Mount Arayat, for another bloody confrontation with the Americans. In the lull of battle, Alejandrino meets a “Black” American defector, Cpl. David Fagen. A highly skilled guerrilla fighter (he was a veteran in Cuba during the Spanish-American War of 1898), Fagen would raise havoc with his former comrades in the US army. For the next two years, his actions would give hope to the losing “Filipino cause.”
quote: An incredible story? Yes. And it all happened during the Philippine-American War of 1899-1902. Fagen was one of the 7,000 “Black American” soldiers sent to the Philippines to secure the islands for the United States. Originally called “Buffalo Soldiers,” a monicker given by the American-Indians because of their combat prowess and bravery, four regiments of “Black American” soldiers were sent: the 9th and 10th cavalry, and the 23rd and 24th infantry regiments. Fagen belonged to the 24th. In June 1899, Fagen’s regiment was sent to Central Luzon to fight the Insurrectos.
During the course of the battle, two factors would change Fagen’s perspective of the war. First, his constant quarrel with his superiors. Second, the “racist” manner in which the Americans conducted the war, oftentimes calling Filipino soldiers racial slurs like “niggers,” “black devils” and “gugus.”
On Nov. 17, 1899, Fagen defected to the side of the Insurrectos. On Sept. 6, 1900, he was promoted from corporal to captain by his commanding officer, General Alejandrino. “Captain Fagen” would clash with the American army at least eight times, from Aug. 30, 1900 to Jan. 12, 1901 (twice against Frederick Funston, the fabled general who captured Aguinaldo). His most famous action was the daring capture of an American steam launch on the Rio Grande de la Pampanga River. Along with 150 of his men, Fagen seized its cargo of guns and disappeared swiftly into the dense forest before American reinforcements could arrive. It was after this episode that he was referred to as “General Fagen” by the New York Times.
posted
there is also racism that is particular to being used against Asians. For example aginaisnt Chinese immigrants in the 1900s. "yellow peril" etc
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug M is using the Afrocentric Trojan Horse again.
"The word/term "black" or "Black" (capitalized). Afrocentrics will use this term ad nauseum when describing dark skin people. They have run that term to the ground, so much so that people have become aware of this. It is actually the preeminent trojan horse these fvckers use; it is their trojan horse of choice.
I neglected to mention "why" Black is a trojan horse. The word has become a colloquial term to denote the African Negro of sub sahara. In the lingua franca of the commoner, when one hears the word "Black," one will naturally associate it with the African Negro of sub sahara. This is most advantageous for the Afrocentrist as will plainly be seen.
The untrained ear of the uneducated only knows the colloquial definition. The term "Black" acts as a back door and it is this back door entrance to history that these loons will rush though their Trojan horse.
Many indigenous dark skinned people have a glorious past [not Negroids]. Many of these indigenous people happen to be people of color or dark people. Afrocentrists will only refer to these people as "black." If they can get you to accept them placing that term [black] on those people, they can hijack the history; they can tie African Negroes into the history, by way of the term "Black."
Why not merely use the term "Dark" when describing people of color outside sub sahara? You will never get a straight answer from these Afroloons. They will obfuscate or try to drown you in a sea of words. I experienced this at the hands of one resident loon at EgyptSearch.com who wrote a miserably crafted, lengthy missive on the reality of a "black phene." Unfortunately for him, I was not as gullible as the dumb, death and blind crowd he was so accustomed to. I rejected what was patently absurd; other dark skinned people are a distinct set of people or different races from African negroes who happen to have color. The two groups are NOT one!"
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Original Filipinos that the Americans were fighting at the turn of the 20th century (little short straight haired Chinese looking blacks.) This is your so called "Malay race". Straight haired short black folks. As opposed to curly haired short black folks. They are simply two different types of aboriginal blacks in South Asia. They aren't a separate "race".
More of these kinds of images can be found in many research collections in the Philippines and America. One good collection is the William Eastman collection, as below:
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: The history that Doug presented is a hellaova lot more interesting than comparing phenotype for one African Americans took part in that conflict and yes they were the famed Buffalo soldiers some defected because of the raw anti black racism meted out against the Filipino populous who they equate with blacks of whatever origins. Captain David Fagen
quote: Within the organization of the "World Serrada Escrima Federation" there is a special division set aside that is strictly devoted to historical research within the field of combative martial arts. The following story centers around an almost untold story about one of the most celebrated "African/American" soldiers who fought on the side of the courageous Filipino revolutionaries during the American occupation in the Philippines. "General Fagen" as many of his loyal Filipino troops called him, was one of the most effective & one of the most masterful African American jungle guerrilla warfare fighter's & military strategist that had ever set foot on Filipino soil.
quote:The densely forested area around the Rio de la Pampanga River was a scene of great bloodshed. Dozens of Filipinos lay dead, massacred by the advancing US forces. It was August 1899, when Filipino Insurrectos under Gen. Maximino Hizon were making a futile stand against the vastly superior American army. In a few weeks, Hizon would be captured. He would be replaced by another Pampango general, Jose Alejandrino. Alejandrino would regroup his almost decimated forces and head toward Mount Arayat, for another bloody confrontation with the Americans. In the lull of battle, Alejandrino meets a “Black” American defector, Cpl. David Fagen. A highly skilled guerrilla fighter (he was a veteran in Cuba during the Spanish-American War of 1898), Fagen would raise havoc with his former comrades in the US army. For the next two years, his actions would give hope to the losing “Filipino cause.”
quote: An incredible story? Yes. And it all happened during the Philippine-American War of 1899-1902. Fagen was one of the 7,000 “Black American” soldiers sent to the Philippines to secure the islands for the United States. Originally called “Buffalo Soldiers,” a monicker given by the American-Indians because of their combat prowess and bravery, four regiments of “Black American” soldiers were sent: the 9th and 10th cavalry, and the 23rd and 24th infantry regiments. Fagen belonged to the 24th. In June 1899, Fagen’s regiment was sent to Central Luzon to fight the Insurrectos.
During the course of the battle, two factors would change Fagen’s perspective of the war. First, his constant quarrel with his superiors. Second, the “racist” manner in which the Americans conducted the war, oftentimes calling Filipino soldiers racial slurs like “niggers,” “black devils” and “gugus.”
On Nov. 17, 1899, Fagen defected to the side of the Insurrectos. On Sept. 6, 1900, he was promoted from corporal to captain by his commanding officer, General Alejandrino. “Captain Fagen” would clash with the American army at least eight times, from Aug. 30, 1900 to Jan. 12, 1901 (twice against Frederick Funston, the fabled general who captured Aguinaldo). His most famous action was the daring capture of an American steam launch on the Rio Grande de la Pampanga River. Along with 150 of his men, Fagen seized its cargo of guns and disappeared swiftly into the dense forest before American reinforcements could arrive. It was after this episode that he was referred to as “General Fagen” by the New York Times.
Thanks Brada. A lot of people in Asia and elsewhere have bought into the lies and propaganda of white racists wholesale and this is why you see the attitudes you see today towards the facts. Some claim the original Filipinos were "non black" aboriginals from South China but all of this contradicts the written accounts and pictorial evidence from just 100 years ago, not to mention the accounts of Magellan of the "black armies" swarming down to meet him in the Islands.
But that is because the population today has had 100 years of American racism taught to them (starting the racist William McKinley). They have been taught in American built schools and indoctrinated to believe in the lies of the conqueror to the point where they have the same mindset of the conqueror and insult themselves and their own history in the process.
That is how you can have a T.V. program called Nita Negrita with a girl in black face playing a mixed African American/Filipino person facing ridicule from her classmates.....
And there is also a history of Sino-assimilation as well where everything south Asian gets portrayed as Chinese in origin when it isn't primarily because of the wealth and power of the Chinese in most South Asian populations.
Some vids of the so called "non black" original Filipinos.
quote: Abe Ignacio said he couldn't believe his eyes when he saw the century-old illustration for sale on eBay.
The cover of an 1899 issue of Judge magazine shows President William McKinley scrubbing a Filipino child saying, "Oh, you dirty boy!" The caption reads: "The Filipino's First Bath."
Ignacio of San Leandro bought the rare image and others from the era that are now part of a Berkeley exhibit of depictions of Filipinos in mainstream media -- as savages to be civilized by the United States as part of the colonization of the Philippines.
"It's revisiting a terrible period that most historians have ignored," said Ignacio, who works as a Federal Express driver and has collected about 400 images from that period since the late 1980s. "It's important to show that there was a very ugly side to America's rise as a world power."
"Colored: Black n' White," at exhibit at Pusod, a community arts and environmental center, includes drawings, editorial cartoons, photos and news clips from prominent magazines and newspapers that covered the U.S. annexation of the Philippines in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It was put together by Ignacio, his wife, Helen Toribio, who is a college instructor, and Jorge Emmanuel, an environmental scientist.
The Philippines had declared its independence from Spain in 1898 when the archipelago was ceded to the United States for $20 million. Filipino revolutionaries rejected the U.S. colonial regime, but their resistance was suppressed in a bloody war of conquest that claimed at least 250,000 lives, mostly Filipino civilians.
To justify the use of military force in the Philippines, many pro- annexation politicians, writers and artists portrayed the Filipinos as primitive, childlike and incapable of governing themselves.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Thanks Brada. A lot of people in Asia and elsewhere have bought into the lies and propaganda of white racists wholesale and this is why you see the attitudes you see today towards the facts. Some claim the original Filipinos were "non black" aboriginals from South China but all of this contradicts the written accounts and pictorial evidence from just 100 years ago, not to mention the accounts of Magellan of the "black armies" swarming down to meet him in the Islands.
But that is because the population today has had 100 years of American racism taught to them (starting the racist William McKinley). They have been taught in American built schools and indoctrinated to believe in the lies of the conqueror to the point where they have the same mindset of the conqueror and insult themselves and their own history in the process.
That is how you can have a T.V. program called Nita Negrita with a girl in black face playing a mixed African American/Filipino person facing ridicule from her classmates.....
And there is also a history of Sino-assimilation as well where everything south Asian gets portrayed as Chinese in origin when it isn't primarily because of the wealth and power of the Chinese in most South Asian populations.
Hate to keep harping on it, but the late comers are the issue.
This cute little pink mongol Filipino girl is in no way related to original Filipinos.
Like THESE original people:
But as shown by Djehuti and "Near-White" mulattoes in the Philippines, North Africa, the middle-east and Arabia; these Mulattoes are no longer willing to be what they are: Mulattoes! Now the want to be considered "ORIGINAL" people. As we all know, such monumental lying is emblematic of Albinos, so obviously these Mulattoes are much closer to their Albino parentage.
Just look how these mulatto monkeys try to please their Albino Gods.
This cute little pink mongol Filipino girl is in no way related to original Filipinos.
Ethnic Chinese sailed around the Philippine Islands from the 9th century onward and frequently interacted with the local Filipinos. Chinese and Filipino interactions initially commenced as bartering and item exchanges done on Chinese sampans. This is evidenced by a collection of Chinese artifacts found throughout Philippine waters, dating back right up to the 10th century.
Many Chinese subsequently created settlements in Luzon and in the Visayas, some of which became the biggest and most powerful barangays, or city-states in the Philippines. Many datus, rajahs, and Lakans (indigenous rulers) in the Philippines were themselves a product of the intermarriage between the Chinese merchant=settlers and the local Filipinos. They eventually formed the group which is to be called Principalia during the Spanish period, and were given privileges by the Spanish colonial authorities.
Contact with the Philippine islands began when Japanese traders/merchants first settled in the archipelago during the 12th century AD.The Japanese population in the Philippines has since included descendants of Japanese Catholics and other Japanese Christians who fled from the religious persecution imposed by the Tokugawa shogunate during the Edo period and settled during the colonial period from the 17th century until the 19th century.
Many of the Japanese men intermarried with Filipino women (including those of mixed or unmixed Spanish and Chinese descent), thus forming the new Japanese mestizo community.The recent Japanese Filipinos are descendants of 1980s and 1990s Japanese settlers usually businesspeople, most of whom are men, and (mostly female) locals. Many are children of thousands of overseas Filipino workers, who went to Japan mostly as entertainers.
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: ^OMG Jehuti is one fuching liar!
An indo-sino house boy claiming to be ancient Kings of Malayas!
Where is his lying indo-chinese lying ass to defend his talk about ancient Malaya this and that...
The Philippines is a microcosm of race relations in many parts of the world. The "Near-White" Mulattoes in the Philippines (descendants of Chinese and Japanese traders/merchants who first settled in the archipelago starting at about the 12th century A.D. and interbred with the original Black People): Are like the Mulattoes in North Africa, the Middle-east and Arabia. These Mulattoes are no longer willing to be what they are: Mulattoes! Now they want to be considered "ORIGINAL" people. (As we know, such monumental lying is emblematic of Albinos, so obviously these Mulattoes are much closer to their Albino parentage). Filipino television mirrors the racial confusion and mores of the Filipino people, in that those closest to the Albinos (both oriental and occidental) try to, and often succeed, in getting the darker, more standard Mulattoes, to identify with them instead of the original Filipinos.
To this end, Filipino writer Agnes Gagelonia - Uligan, created a television show for GMA Network of the Philippines called "Nita Negrita" The story revolves around a Filipino/African-American girl named Nita (Barbie Forteza). Her mother is Filipina and her father is African-American Filipino. At an early age, she was separated from her mother and was raised at an orphanage. With her (dark) complexion, she is always being teased and humiliated.
posted
Funny thing I notice is that as you back to photos 100 years or more ago, the more you run into black folks among them.....
Some groups mentioned: black yi, miao, mongols, manchu, etc... and quite often you see a pattern where the ethic group is split into 'black' and 'white' subgroups, where the meaning is obvious. So going as far back in time as you want in even mainland Chinese history there have been black people recognized and identified among the populations there.
quote: Many of the Yi in Liangshan and northwestern Yunnan practiced a complicated form of slavery. People were split into the nuohuo or Black Yi (nobles), qunuo or White Yi (commoners) ..... During Sui and Tang dynasty, the local aborigines of present-day Yunnan and Liangshan were distinguished by Chinese Han as Wuman (Chinese: meaning black barbarian) and Baiman (Chinese: meaning white barbarian)
Black mongols/tibetans... here is an example from a video about the dalai lama. Scroll to the 1:08:30 mark and you will see a few in the streets of Tibet(modern video, no question these are black mongols/tibetans): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=322SFh6d3iA
One of the photographers to take pictures in old China was Auguste Francois. His pictures from the time are priceless..... Of course those who want to deny the ancient blacks of Asia (not just negritos) have good reason. The black folks don't want to admit that there has been a genocidal and eugenics based agenda against blacks in many parts of the world over the last few hundred years or more(so they need to get their sh!t together else people will be asking what happened to them just like the blacks in old b/w photos). And the rest just want to hide it and cover it up. BTW, if you look up Cham dancing in Tibet you will see dancers with fierce black masks..... Those are basically from the Cham people of South Asia, the "little blacks".... or Khamites.... http://www.gokunming.com/en/blog/item/595/auguste_franois_yin_xiaojun_and_kunming_at_the_end_of_the_qing_dynasty
quote: In retirement, he wrote texts elucidating his images. François's work has been an invaluable means of documenting China's state palaces in the last decade of the empire. His photography is the earliest, largest and most extensive and complete collection of photographs documenting Chinese society at the end of the Qing Dynasty. Armed with what was then state-of-the-art photographic and cinematic equipment, François traveled extensively throughout southern China and eventually followed the Yangtze from Yunnan to its terminus in Shanghai. His photographs are some of the earliest and most thorough photographic records of China and the motion pictures he took are thought to be the earliest motion pictures taken in China.
But you must also understand that China has had a policy of assimilation since the Qing dynasty which has allowed for intermarriage of Chinese populations into many ethnic groups. This has made many modern ethnic groups less diverse than they were 100 years ago, with the black faces now either mixed out of existence or kept in isolation or censored to the outside world. And this goes both within China proper and in many parts of South Asia. To the point where many south Asians identify more with the Chinese phenotype than the native "aboriginal" phenotype.
Mike your albino theorizing aint working. The albino in theis picture is just as "original" as thae dark skinned man. The come form the same place, have the same ancestry
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Mike your albino theorizing aint working. The albino in theis picture is just as "original" as thae dark skinned man. The come form the same place, have the same ancestry
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug have posted some pretty interesting links with a wealth of new info for us to look into and you respond with the same picture spam of Albino vs non Albino..come on Lioness get into the meat of what he posted will ya??
Yes Doug I found especially the tall old Black man at the end of the vid is reminiscent of the Black Mongolian below
Interesting and yet appalling was the Yi system of slavery based of bloodlines and color and the Black being the nobles. Below is a discussion from one of the links
quote:Nuohuo," meaning "black Yi," was the highest rank of society. Being the slave-owning class, Nuohuo made up 7 per cent of the total population. The black Yis controlled people of the other three ranks to varying degrees, and owned 60 to 70 per cent of the arable land and a large amount of other means of production. The black Yis were born aristocrats, claiming their blood to be "noble" and "pure," and forbidding marriages with people of the other three ranks. They despised physical labour, lived by exploiting the other ranks and ruled the slaves by force.
"Qunuo," meaning "white Yi," was the highest rank of the ruled and made up 50 per cent of the population. This rank was an appendage to the black Yis personally and, as subjects under the slave system, they enjoyed relative independence economically and could control "Ajia" and "Xiaxi" who were inferior to them. "Qunuo" lived within the areas governed by the black Yi slave owners, had no freedom of migration, nor could they leave the areas without the permission of their masters. They had no complete right of ownership when disposing of their own property, but were subjected to restrictions by their masters. They had to pay some fees to their masters when they wanted to sell their land. The property of a dead person who had no offspring went to his master. Though the black Yi slave owners could not kill, sell or buy Qunuo at will, they could transfer or present as a gift the power of control over Qunuo. They could even give away Qunuo as the compensation for persons they had killed and use Qunuo as stakes. So, Qunuo had no complete personality of their own, though they were not slaves.
"Ajia" made up one third of the population, being rigidly bound to black Yi or Qunuo slaveowners, who could freely sell, buy and kill them.
"Xiaxi" was the lowest rank, accounting for 10 per cent of the population. They had no property, personal rights or freedom, and were regarded as "talking tools." They lived in damp and dark corners in their masters' houses, and at night had to curl up with domestic animal to keep warm. Supervised by masters, Xiaxi did heavy housework and farm work all the year round. They wore rags and tattered sheepskins, and lived on wild roots and leftovers. Slave owners inflicted all sorts of torture on those who were rebellious, fettered them with iron chains and wooden shackles to prevent them from escaping. Like domestic animals, Xiaxi could be freely disposed of as chattels, ordered about, insulted, beaten up, bought and sold, or killed as sacrifices to gods.
quote:If Laos is the only country that still distinguishes ethnic Laotians from Laotian nationals in general, then please explain why Thai people use ethnic Chinese and Laotian to represent Thai media instead of their own Siamese people? Obviously, ethnic Laotians and Chinese do not look like Siamese of Thailand so evidently Thailand is also aware of its multi-ethnic population. The difference is that Thailand is ashamed of its own Siamese people because of their dark Thai complexion in favor of lighter-skinned ethnic Laotians and Chinese.
This line of discussion is also reminiscent of multiple discussions we have here about folks of African decent.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic