posted
"It really does look like the indigenous West European hunter gatherers had this striking combination of dark skin and blue eyes that doesn't exist any more," Prof Reich told BBC News.
posted
Albinos are such silly people, in the link that you posted, they say that this is a reconstruction showing the dark skin and blue eyes of a 7,000-year-old hunter from northern Spain.
BUT HOW CAN YOU MAKE A "RECONSTRUCTION" FROM DNA????
He,he,he,he:
Of course the answer is that you CAN'T!!!!
Psss - here is what Europeans looked like when you use their actual skulls for the RECONSTRUCTION.
THEN THEY GO ON TO SAY:
"It really does look like the indigenous West European hunter gatherers had this striking combination of dark skin and blue eyes that doesn't exist any more," Prof Reich told BBC News.
Once again, Albino fantasy.
They like the concept of "NEW" Humans as a bullsh1t explanation for their Whiteness:
He,he,he:
We're not albinos, we're just White!
Sorry White folks, the phenotype of Modern Humans (US), is about 400,000 years old or more.
THIS IS WHAT A BLACK SKINNED, BLUE-EYED HUMAN LOOKS LIKE!
posted
The problem is that the Albinos don't just make bullsh1t drawings, they actively try to falsify history. And in that effort, they routinely create fake artifacts, such as statues, paintings, coins, drawings, etc.
Here is a Civil War falsification that I recently found.
posted
The 7,000 year old skeleton found in Europe had the ancestral alleles on all skin pigmentation gene loci just like Africans and unlike modern Europeans who have derived alleles at a couple of skin pigmentation gene loci.The skeleton of the male individual belonged to Y chromosome haplogroup C6.
Posts: 121 | From: Guyana | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ponsford: The 7,000 year old skeleton found in Europe had the ancestral alleles on all skin pigmentation gene loci just like Africans and unlike modern Europeans who have derived alleles at a couple of skin pigmentation gene loci.The skeleton of the male individual belonged to Y chromosome haplogroup C6.
I have not seen the dna results, can you cite your source?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still trying to pawn off that photoshopped pic as being that of a Blue eyed Black person eh Mikey. You stupid Anti-White, Wanna kill Whitey, Wanna harm White children, Black racist, Black supremacist pos demon. Why don't you and your ilk (Ironfaggot, Ponsford, Xyyboy, Clyde, Zarahan, TrollPatrol, Narmer, Bonampak, King, Kikuyu, Doug M, Jantavanta) just admit it, you hate Whites so much that you want to rob us of what belongs to us. You hate us so that you want to rob us of our history, our heritage, our homeland, our pride & our knowledge of self. You want us knowing not who we are, where we come from, who our ancestors are, having no pride & no knowledge of self. You would also have us believe that we are not human, are inferior, have no where on earth we belong, no right to exist, & no right to our own self determination.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Only Mtdna is cited in the study - it's haplogroup U5b2c1.
NOTABLE QUOTE:
Figure 2 - Ancestral variants around the SLC45A2 (rs16891982, above) and SLC24A5 (rs1426654,below) pigmentation genes in the Mesolithic genome. The SNPs around the two diagnostic variants (red arrows) in these two genes were analysed. The resulting haplotype comprises neighbouring SNPs that are also absent in modern Europeans (CEU) (n5=112) but present in Yorubans (YRI) (n5=113). This pattern confirms that the La Brana 1 sample is older than the positive-selection event in these regions. Blue, ancestral; red, derived.
The claim of Y-haplogroup C6 is from Dienekes. I don't know if it's true or not.
posted
^The La Brana skeleton's haplogroup was reported as Mtdna U5: (the same as 12,700 year old Cheddar Man in England, and some in the 3,000 year old Lichtenstein Cave in Lower Saxony, Germany).
If Dienekes is correct that La Brana is Y-dna C6. it relates La Brana in Spain to Australian aborigines, the Lani and Dani people of Western New Guinea (100% & 92%), as well as many other Pacific Islanders and Asians.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Albinos are such silly people, in the link that you posted, they say that this is a reconstruction showing the dark skin and blue eyes of a 7,000-year-old hunter from northern Spain.
BUT HOW CAN YOU MAKE A "RECONSTRUCTION" FROM DNA????
stop being an idiot, the reconstruction is based on this La Brana skull >
Psss - here is what Europeans looked like when you use their actual skulls for the RECONSTRUCTION.
^^^ the above reconstruction is based on the below skull "Oase 2" >>
.
both reconstructions are based on skulls and as we can plainly see the skulls look different
obviously they are going to look different because the La Brana skull at top is 7,000 years old from Spain and the lower skull, Oase 2 is 40,000 years old from Romania
How many times must I school your dumb ass on this?
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Albinos are such silly people, in the link that you posted, they say that this is a reconstruction showing the dark skin and blue eyes of a 7,000-year-old hunter from northern Spain.
BUT HOW CAN YOU MAKE A "RECONSTRUCTION" FROM DNA????
stop being an idiot, the reconstruction is based on this La Brana skull >
Psss - here is what Europeans looked like when you use their actual skulls for the RECONSTRUCTION.
^^^ the above reconstruction is based on the below skull "Oase 2" >>
.
both reconstructions are based on skulls and as we can plainly see the skulls look different
obviously they are going to look different because the La Brana skull at top is 7,000 years old from Spain and the lower skull, Oase 2 is 40,000 years old from Romania
How many times must I school your dumb ass on this?
The Europeanization of La Brana is not based on the actual skull. Below is a comparison of the Oase and La Brana skulls.
It is obvious that the LaBrana skull and the Oase skull are identical in the nasal index.
Look at the so called reconstructed La Brana skull. The artist has narrowed the nasal index of the "reconstructed" skull to make it appear more modern European.
The Oase skull given its measurement is clearly negroid.
LaBrana man probably looked like this.
The La Brana skull is 7,000 years old and comes from Spain, Oase 2 is 40,000 years old from Romania. The skulls are identical. They show continuity of the Negro type in Europe between 40k to 7k years ago.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: BUT HOW CAN YOU MAKE A "RECONSTRUCTION" FROM DNA????
He,he,he,he:
Of course the answer is that you CAN'T!!!!
I was very correct in saying that, the Albino drawing is just another Albino lie.
The fact is that YOU CAN NOT do a Forensic Facial Reconstruction by "DRAWING" it!
Making a facial reconstruction can "ONLY" be done by a doctor of physical and forensic anthropology with extensive training in anatomy (both medical and artistic). These facial reproductions draw on the science behind the morphology (shape) of the face as well as a knowledge of materials. Reconstructions start with a SKULL (or mold) and includes laboriously using "shaped" clay to fill-in Muscles and tissue on the skull until complete.
There are many videos and "How to's" on the subject.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Europeanization of La Brana is not based on the actual skull. Below is a comparison of the Oase and La Brana skulls.
It is obvious that the LaBrana skull and the Oase skull are identical in the nasal index.
Look at the so called reconstructed La Brana skull. The artist has narrowed the nasal index of the "reconstructed" skull to make it appear more modern European.
The La Brana skull is 7,000 years old and comes from Spain, Oase 2 is 40,000 years old from Romania. The skulls are identical. They show continuity of the Negro type in Europe between 40k to 7k years ago.
.
^^Clyde, please correct this if possible The upper left skull in the above set of 5 is Loschbour's skull from Luxembourg you have marked it as the La Brana skull
Also what you have marked "Reconstructed Le Brana skull" is a photo of the actual La Brana skull. There is no reconstruction of the skull, only photos of the real skull and drawings based on it
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Europeanization of La Brana is not based on the actual skull. Below is a comparison of the Oase and La Brana skulls.
It is obvious that the LaBrana skull and the Oase skull are identical in the nasal index.
Look at the so called reconstructed La Brana skull. The artist has narrowed the nasal index of the "reconstructed" skull to make it appear more modern European.
The La Brana skull is 7,000 years old and comes from Spain, Oase 2 is 40,000 years old from Romania. The skulls are identical. They show continuity of the Negro type in Europe between 40k to 7k years ago.
.
^^Clyde, please correct this if possible The upper left skull in the above set of 5 is Loschbour's skull from Luxembourg you have marked it as the La Brana skull
Also what you have marked "Reconstructed Le Brana skull" is a photo of the actual La Brana skull. There is no reconstruction of the skull, only photos of the real skull and drawings based on it
Below are pictures of the actual La Brana skull and the reconstructed La Brana skull.
You can note that the skull and jaw were not connected and the nasal opening is much larger on the original skull than the mock up of the skull placed besides the drawing of the "Europeanized" La Brana skull.
Note how in the skull mock up the jaw is connected to the rest of the skull, and LaBrana man is smilimg. You can see from the original photos when the skeleton of LaBrana was found there was no smile.
The drawing of LaBrana man as noted by Mike is a fake. The Loschbour and Oase skulls make it clear that the hunter-gatherer and farming populations of ancient Europe were negro / Sub-Saharan African-not Caucasian.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Europeanization of La Brana is not based on the actual skull. Below is a comparison of the Oase and La Brana skulls.
It is obvious that the LaBrana skull and the Oase skull are identical in the nasal index.
Look at the so called reconstructed La Brana skull. The artist has narrowed the nasal index of the "reconstructed" skull to make it appear more modern European.
The La Brana skull is 7,000 years old and comes from Spain, Oase 2 is 40,000 years old from Romania. The skulls are identical. They show continuity of the Negro type in Europe between 40k to 7k years ago.
.
^^Clyde, please correct this if possible The upper left skull in the above set of 5 is Loschbour's skull from Luxembourg you have marked it as the La Brana skull
Also what you have marked "Reconstructed Le Brana skull" is a photo of the actual La Brana skull. There is no reconstruction of the skull, only photos of the real skull and drawings based on it
Thank You.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike & Clyde. You stupid Anti-White, Wanna kill Whitey, Wanna harm White children, Black racist, Black supremacist pos demons. Why don't you and your ilk (Ironfaggot, Ponsford, Xyyboy,Zarahan, TrollPatrol, Narmer, Bonampak, King, Kikuyu, Doug M, Jantavanta) just admit it, you hate Whites so much that you want to rob us of what belongs to us. You hate us so that you want to rob us of our history, our heritage, our homeland, our pride & our knowledge of self. You want us knowing not who we are, where we come from, who our ancestors are, having no pride & no knowledge of self. You would also have us believe that we are not human, are inferior, have no where on earth we belong, no right to exist, & no right to our own self determination. If you want your own history then go find it IN AFRICA, that is where it is & leave other people's alone.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Photoshopped pics again Ironfaggot. You stupid Anti-White, Wanna kill Whitey, Wanna harm White children, Black racist, Black supremacist pos demon. Why don't you and your Anti-White,Kill Whitey, Black racist ilk (Mike,Clyde, Ponsford, Xyyboy,Zarahan, TrollPatrol, Narmer, Bonampak, King, Kikuyu, Doug M, Jantavanta) just admit it, you hate Whites so much that you want to rob us of what belongs to us. You hate us so that you want to rob us of our history, our heritage, our homeland, our pride & our knowledge of self. You want us knowing not who we are, where we come from, who our ancestors are, having no pride & no knowledge of self. You would also have us believe that we are not human, are inferior, have no where on earth we belong, no right to exist, & no right to our own self determination. If you want your own history then go find it IN AFRICA, that is where it is & leave other people's alone. The question I ask is why? Why don't you want Whites to know who we are? Why don't you want Whites to know where we come from? Why don't you want Whites to know who our ancestors are? Why don't you want us having any pride as a people? Why don't you want Whites having knowledge of self? Why don't you want Whites to have our own self determination? Why do you want Whites to think we have no place on earth we belong (IE No homeland)? Why do you want White children to think they are inferior non-humans?
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ironfaggot now you resort to using a pic of an obviously mixed race dude that is obviously photoshopped as well. Come on can't any of you Whitey hating, Kill Whitey, Exterminate Whitey Black racist Black supremacist morons answer my questions?? I'm waiting.
Mike?
Clyde?
Xyyboy?
Zarahan?
Narmer?
Ironfaggot?
any other Whitey haters want to try to answer my questions?
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brown eyes are ancestral while blue eyes are recent mutations about 10,000years ago.Brown eyes are more susceptible to cataracts while blue eyes are more susceptible to macula degeneration.
Posts: 121 | From: Guyana | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Raph asks: Why don't you want Whites to know who we are?
Lion replies; You are not whites, you are pinks, that is who you really are. Doubt me go look at your pink nose in the mirror. Now know yourself.
Raph asks: Why don't you want Whites to know where we come from?
Lion responds: Pinks were first born in Africa and India and then sent to Central Asia by the Ancient Moorish Empire due to their unstable thinking and mannerism...
Raph asks: Why don't you want Whites to know who our ancestors are?
Lion replies: Pinks know their ancestors but refuse to acknowledge them. That is why you all are atheists, and Aryan fake Christians ... Professor Yakubu? Does that ring a bell?
Raph asks: Why don't you want us having any pride as a people?
Lion responds: Pink men like you need more lessons in humility and less in pride. Look at what you have done to the world in less than 150 years of your economic eminence?
Raph asks: Why don't you want Whites having knowledge of self?
Lion replies: You will have self knowledge when you realize that you are pink and not white.
Raph asks: Why don't you want Whites to have our own self determination?
Lion replies: Pinks are the determiners of other nations destiny today by grace of their past robbery and pillage in the temple of nations. It is over, even Scotland wants to leave your boat...
Raph asks: Why do you want Whites to think we have no place on earth we belong (IE No homeland)?
Lion replies: Pinks have a home in Central Asia. The Ancient Egyptian Moorish Emperor also gave you a land called Russia land of the reds (skin)neck people, and Albania, the land of Albinos.
Raph asks: Why do you want White children to think they are inferior non-humans?
Lion replies: Pinks are not inferior by any means. They are just far more wicked!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike may find this interesting. Black Europeans? I am still trying to get my head around what they are inferring. It seems like some African Americans and Euro Americans arrived in the Americas at the same time/Ship. And later a new set of Africans arrived, Maybe through the trans-Atlantic trade.
------- From the new 23andme study
Admixture dating To estimate the timeframe of admixture events, we test a simple two-event, three population admixture model using TRACTS44. We use a grid-search optimization to find four optimal parameters for the times of two admixture events and the proportions of admixture. We are limited to simple admixture models due to the computationally intensive grid search, as we were unable to obtain likelihoood convergence using any of the built-in optimizers. The model tested is as follows: two populations admix t1 generations ago, with proportion frac1 and 1 − frac1 respectively. A third population later mixes in t2 generations ago, with proportion frac2. Both our ancestry segments and prior results supported a model with an earlier date of Native American admixture44, 26. We estimated likelihoods over plausible grid of admixture times and fractions for African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans to estimate dates of initial Native American and European admixture and subsequent African admixture. For European Americans, we find the best fit of Native/European admixture at about 12 generations ago, with African admixture at 4 generations ago. In African Americans, our dates are similar, with initial admixture 12 generations ago, and African admixture 6 generations ago, consistent with other admixture inference methods dating African American admixture. Lastly, our grid search finds dates for Latino admixture suggesting Native/European occurred about 11 generations ago and later African admixture 7 generations ago.
---
Maybe someone can explain what they mean to us?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems like they are suprised with the amount of African admixture is modern Euro-Americans. And they assume it is NOT ancient ie Muhr and pre-Moor.
Maybe someone can investigate this further?
BTW- Mike and Lion the La Brana thing is old news there are about 3 threads on this forum about him and other ancient Europeans. Keep up.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems like there were many “free” blacks at the start of colonization of the Americas.. So Mike may have a point. Mike why don’t you post that mathematical model you posted some time ago. You said the numbers don’t add up.
More from the study---Quote: Our results suggest that the early US history, beginning in the 17th century (or around 12 generations ago), may have been a time of many population interactions resulting in admixture.
Perhaps most importantly, however, our results reveal the impact of centuries of admixture in the US thereby undermining the use of cultural labels that group individuals into discrete nonoverlapping bins in biomedical contexts “which cannot be adequately represented by ARBITRARY ‘race/color’ categories”52.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Mike may find this interesting. Black Europeans? I am still trying to get my head around what they are inferring. It seems like some African Americans and Euro Americans arrived in the Americas at the same time/Ship. And later a new set of Africans arrived, Maybe through the trans-Atlantic trade.
------- From the new 23andme study
Admixture dating To estimate the timeframe of admixture events, we test a simple two-event, three population admixture model using TRACTS44. We use a grid-search optimization to find four optimal parameters for the times of two admixture events and the proportions of admixture. We are limited to simple admixture models due to the computationally intensive grid search, as we were unable to obtain likelihoood convergence using any of the built-in optimizers. The model tested is as follows: two populations admix t1 generations ago, with proportion frac1 and 1 − frac1 respectively. A third population later mixes in t2 generations ago, with proportion frac2. Both our ancestry segments and prior results supported a model with an earlier date of Native American admixture44, 26. We estimated likelihoods over plausible grid of admixture times and fractions for African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans to estimate dates of initial Native American and European admixture and subsequent African admixture. For European Americans, we find the best fit of Native/European admixture at about 12 generations ago, with African admixture at 4 generations ago. In African Americans, our dates are similar, with initial admixture 12 generations ago, and African admixture 6 generations ago, consistent with other admixture inference methods dating African American admixture. Lastly, our grid search finds dates for Latino admixture suggesting Native/European occurred about 11 generations ago and later African admixture 7 generations ago.
---
Maybe someone can explain what they mean to us?
The new 23andme study figures are now explanable. The research on ES has made it clear that there were already Black Indian tribes in the Americas when Europeans came to the Americas, and Black-Europeans accompanied them to America. The the new 23andme study break down of admixture is explained by the reality of the Black experience in the Americas. Researchers are surprised because they believe that Black people only arrived here as slaves. Afro-American history has to be rewritten to reflect the true history of Black and African people in North America.
posted
That reminds me of that thread Brada created on ESR. It looks like Africans were in the Americas before modern Europeans ....or at least as free bLack men before chattel slavery..
I am working on other threads now so I don't have the time to dig into 23andme's figures and charts.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: That reminds me of that thread Brada created on ESR. It looks like Africans were in the Americas before modern Europeans ....or at least as free bLack men before chattel slavery..
I am working on other threads now so I don't have the time to dig into 23andme's figures and charts.
Correct we discussed this issue at Egyptsearch. See:
African ancestry in European Americans is NOT likely to be driven by survey errors as the number of European Americans with African ancestry is 10 times larger than our estimates of survey errors. Furthermore, the ancestry profiles of self-reported European Americans with African ancestry are distinct from all other cohorts: their African ancestry is much lower than for a random sample of African Americans, and the majority of these individuals do not carry any appreciable amount of Native American ancestry, distinguishing their ancestry profiles from Latinos (see Figure S1C). A potential source of bias in our estimates is from errors in the ancestry inference algorithm. To show that our estimates are NOT the result of ancestry composition errors or biases, we validated the estimates of low levels of African ancestry in European Americans using an independent admixture inference method that is not model-based76. We also compared to previously published 1000 Genomes Project consensus estimates77. Another line of evidence supporting the detected ancestry in European Americans in the US is that we observe a substantially lower occurence of Native American and African ancestry in individuals who self-report four grandparents born in the same European country. Lastly, the segments of the inferred African and Native American are uniformly distributed across the genome. The segment lengths follow a similar distribution to segments in Latinos and African Americans, and using our admixture dating, we find that these introgressed segments likely arose from admixture within the last 20 generations, which likely took place within the Americas. These lines of evidence suggest that Native American and African segments represent true segments of Native American and African introgression that were introduced after the transcontinental migrations beginning in the 1500’s.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
African ancestry in European Americans is NOT likely to be driven by survey errors as the number of European Americans with African ancestry is 10 times larger than our estimates of survey errors. Furthermore, the ancestry profiles of self-reported European Americans with African ancestry are distinct from all other cohorts: their African ancestry is much lower than for a random sample of African Americans, and the majority of these individuals do not carry any appreciable amount of Native American ancestry, distinguishing their ancestry profiles from Latinos (see Figure S1C). A potential source of bias in our estimates is from errors in the ancestry inference algorithm. To show that our estimates are NOT the result of ancestry composition errors or biases, we validated the estimates of low levels of African ancestry in European Americans using an independent admixture inference method that is not model-based76. We also compared to previously published 1000 Genomes Project consensus estimates77. Another line of evidence supporting the detected ancestry in European Americans in the US is that we observe a substantially lower occurence of Native American and African ancestry in individuals who self-report four grandparents born in the same European country. Lastly, the segments of the inferred African and Native American are uniformly distributed across the genome. The segment lengths follow a similar distribution to segments in Latinos and African Americans, and using our admixture dating, we find that these introgressed segments likely arose from admixture within the last 20 generations, which likely took place within the Americas. These lines of evidence suggest that Native American and African segments represent true segments of Native American and African introgression that were introduced after the transcontinental migrations beginning in the 1500’s.
Their conclusion is based on the fact they believe all Blacks came here as slaves. Many whites carry African genes because of the large mulattoe population that existed in America due to Blacks and whites mixing.
These light skinned Blacks probably eventually passed as whites and joined the caucasian group over time as their children became lighter.
posted
Caucasian=Euro-Americans. But it seems like that is what they are saying....That not all AFRAMS forefathers came over as slaves. Very intesreting. But I agree history, as written, is full of lies.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Caucasian=Euro-Americans. But it seems like that is what they are saying....That not all AFRAMS forefathers came over as slaves. Very intesreting. But I agree history, as written, is full of lies.
That's not what the're saying. In the quote you posted it clearly says the mixture occured recently.
They wrote
quote:
These lines of evidence suggest that Native American and African segments represent true segments of Native American and African introgression that were introduced after the transcontinental migrations beginning in the 1500’s.
posted
Clyde Mr. Whites aren't human if a person has any non-White blood in them they are NOT White no matter how White they look.
Why don't you anti-White, Whitey hating, Wanna kill Whitey,,wanna exterminate Whitey, wanna harm White children, Black racist, Black supremacist morons answer my questions?
Why don't you want Whites to know who we are?
Why don't you want Whites to know where we come from?
Why don't you want Whites to know who our ancestors are?
Why don't you want us having any pride as a people?
Why don't you want Whites having knowledge of self?
Why don't you want Whites to have our own self determination?
Why do you want Whites to think we have no place on earth we belong (IE No homeland)?
Why do you want White children to think they are inferior non-humans?
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DHDoxies: Photoshopped pics again Ironfaggot. You stupid Anti-White, Wanna kill Whitey, Wanna harm White children, Black racist, Black supremacist pos demon. Why don't you and your Anti-White,Kill Whitey, Black racist ilk (Mike,Clyde, Ponsford, Xyyboy,Zarahan, TrollPatrol, Narmer, Bonampak, King, Kikuyu, Doug M, Jantavanta) just admit it, you hate Whites so much that you want to rob us of what belongs to us. You hate us so that you want to rob us of our history, our heritage, our homeland, our pride & our knowledge of self. You want us knowing not who we are, where we come from, who our ancestors are, having no pride & no knowledge of self. You would also have us believe that we are not human, are inferior, have no where on earth we belong, no right to exist, & no right to our own self determination. If you want your own history then go find it IN AFRICA, that is where it is & leave other people's alone. The question I ask is why? Why don't you want Whites to know who we are? Why don't you want Whites to know where we come from? Why don't you want Whites to know who our ancestors are? Why don't you want us having any pride as a people? Why don't you want Whites having knowledge of self? Why don't you want Whites to have our own self determination? Why do you want Whites to think we have no place on earth we belong (IE No homeland)? Why do you want White children to think they are inferior non-humans?
posted
Ralphie is a bit retarded that is why he rants like that. We have been humouring him on this site for too long now... Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fourty2tribes I know its hard for your Whitey hating mind to comprehend but what I posted is not just a rant, its the truth. I see many others say the same as I say photoshopped. How about you try to answer my questions?
Ironfaggot, cut the crap, I'm smarter than you are Black racist goon. My name is NOT nor has it ever been Ralph, I am NOT nor have I ever been male, I AM and have always been female.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DHDoxies: Clyde Mr. Whites aren't human if a person has any non-White blood in them they are NOT White no matter how White they look.
Doxie/Trish/Ralph, can you help me define this "non-white blood" thing. Exactly what is "white" blood, and how does it defer from Ashkenazi blood? Is it the colour, type, white/red cell ratio, or what?
I'm not hating on whites. Just trying to recognize your blood if I happen to see it. That way the next time I see some blood on the street I can safely say; "Oh, some white person was bleeding here".
posted
Not sure if the numbers add up. But they are saying there were heavy mating going on between Blacks and whites at the beginning of colonization. To verify if it was "a lovefest" vs "rape-fest" someone needs to check the African male lineage in the "whites". Plus there were TWO episodes of introgression. ]
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Caucasian=Euro-Americans. But it seems like that is what they are saying....That not all AFRAMS forefathers came over as slaves. Very intesreting. But I agree history, as written, is full of lies.
That's not what the're saying. In the quote you posted it clearly says the mixture occured recently.
They wrote
quote:
These lines of evidence suggest that Native American and African segments represent true segments of Native American and African introgression that were introduced after the transcontinental migrations beginning in the 1500’s.
.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DHDoxies: Fourty2tribes I know its hard for your Whitey hating mind to comprehend but what I posted is not just a rant, its the truth. I see many others say the same as I say photoshopped. How about you try to answer my questions?
It's too late for pride and a knowledge of self. Insecurities and ignorance have already gone too far in defacing and lying about history. When you are ignorant it doesnt matter if you are proud or humble. We dont teach world history so the ignorance isnt going anywhere. White folks are still making movies like this in 2014...
You are going to be ignorant of your history and everyone elses. It doesn't matter if you are a humble or a proud idiot you are still an idiot. I guess a humble idiot is easier to stomach.
Some generations are just lost. Not totally but in certain areas. When it comes to history this generation of white folks will not be enlightened without something miraculous. Its social economic engineering. This is how insane it is. Do an image search for "hieroglyph face". If you post here you know that there are forum where people debate the race of the Egyptians for 30 pages.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DHDoxies: blah blah blah....
Ironfaggot, cut the crap, I'm smarter than you are Black racist goon. My name is NOT nor has it ever been Ralph, I am NOT nor have I ever been male, I AM and have always been female.
See what I mean??
This man is nuts...lol! Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DHDoxies: Clyde Mr. Whites aren't human if a person has any non-White blood in them they are NOT White no matter how White they look.
...
quote:Originally posted by DHDoxies:
quote::
quote:Originally posted by DHDoxies: ...
Yes I am a mutt, mostly white with a bit of Amerindian. That doesn't mean that I can't stand up for my White side. Fact of the matter is I'd come closer to being accepted by Whites than anyone else. When Mexicans (Central Amerinidans) look at me they see gringa(White girl), when Native Americans look at me they see pale face, when Blacks look at me they see cracka, honkey, White devil, when Jews look at me they see shiska.
He is nutsss!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Not sure if the numbers add up. But they are saying there were heavy mating going on between Blacks and whites at the beginning of colonization. To verify if it was "a lovefest" vs "rape-fest" someone needs to check the African male lineage in the "whites". Plus there were TWO episodes of introgression.
xyyman - Do you ever read anything other than nonsense studies that you don't understand?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
] 
Printer-friendly view of this topic