quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Interesting post. However the state says 8Kya max.
Even if you go back further in time (say 20,000 BP) when there was negligible frequency rs1426654 and rs16891982 -- Upper Palaeolithic Europeans carried a high frequency of rs1042602, rs2424984, rs642742 and rs12203592 (2/4 of the latter derived alleles are usually always present and a moderate frequency of the others.)
KITLG [rs642742] locus lightens a person’s color by an average of 6 to 7 melanin units. This compares with an overall skin reflectance difference of approximately 30 melanin units between West Africans and Europeans." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2900316/
This is precisely the sort of thing I'm looking for. So rs642742 explains 6 or 7 out of 30 as a percent = 20-23%.
The point I made in that thread is Upper Palaeolithic Europeans would have not been black, but a light brown shade. Most carried rs642742 and that explains up to 23% of the skin pigmentation variation difference between living West Africans and Europeans. This isn't even taking the other three alleles into account, that would probably total 40%. Interestingly I remember Carleton Coon saying something like the skin of Upper Paleolithic Europeans ranged from what is typically observed in Mediterranean populations, to Native Americans.
^ You posted on Mesolithic Europeans (pigmentation alleles):
The interesting part is:
quote:She lacked the derived variant (rs16891982) of the SLC45A2 gene associated with light skin pigmentation but had at least one copy of the derived SLC24A5 allele (rs1426654) associated with the same trait.
—M. Gallego-Llorente, R. Pinhasi et al.
The genetics of an early Neolithic pastoralist from the Zagros, Iran
Btw, I am not sure why you are bringing West Africans into this conversation again?
Anyway:
quote: "Of the remaining 10 common core haplotype groups, all ancestral at rs1426654, eight clearly have their origins in Africa (Figure 3B, Figure 4, and Table S4).
--Victor A. Canfield et al. Molecular Phylogeography of a Human Autosomal Skin Color Locus Under Natural Selection 2013
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
"Interestingly, the ancient Egyptians recorded the Tamahu, which means created white people. Egyptian writings also refer to whites as Typhonians or People of Seth, both meaning “the devils.” After these “white devils” were first released into the Black community of the Near East 6000 years ago, they caused severe strife (modern), thus the Africans rounded them up, stripped them of everything and exiled them to the caves and hills of the Caucasus Mountains. This explains the sudden appearance of white people in this region. To prevent their escaping Africans installed a series of guarded walls blocking all exits along that area from one sea to the other!
who created these people
and why did they create these people?
According the mythology, it was Djoser.
So, white people were created in ancient Egypt, interesting
I didn't say or write that they were created in ancient Egypt. I wrote: According the mythology, it was Djoser. Nowhere did I make any suggestion as you claim. Typical.
Some of this Djoser stuff can be found in the "Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology" by Paul T. Nicholson, Ian Shaw.
Now, have a look and decide for yourself what it implies.
quote:Explain HOW....an entirely GENETICALLY RECESSIVE/essentially albino population is found together like this, because is completely unnatural.
I've already covered this before- white/light pink skin is actually what most primates have and is the "original" pigmentation of humans:
"The earliest members of the hominid lineage probably had a mostly unpigmented or lightly pigmented integument covered with dark black hair, similar to that of the modern chimpanzee." (Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000 "The evolution of human skin coloration")
"When the first hominins (human ancestors) began hunting and gathering on the open savannah, they lost their body hair, likely to keep cool amid the strenuous exercise of their lifestyle. These early humans probably had pale skin, much like humans' closest living relative, the chimpanzee, which is white under its fur." http://www.livescience.com/43674-cancer-skin-color-evolution.html
Firstly...Only the Caucasian descends from the Primate...
You did not answer the question either DEVIL... Explain HOW an ENTIRE genetically recessive (essentially albino) population form in the first place...When did those genetically recessive people enter into the only region that they are known to have out of which is the Caucus...answer DEVIL.
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Note how no other black poster criticizes Akachi for his hard-core racism, calling white people devils, defects, ugly pink-skins with tails, having no history etc. It's only racism if white people post something mildly insensitive against blacks.
The Devil's worst enemies are context, truth, and the Sun.
These things (not people) actually claim to have lived throughout the subtropics and shirtless at that.
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: Akachi is another one of our plants, sent to discredit Afrocentricity.
The "Afrocentrism" on this board is often times sponsored by the Devil (Caucasians) to prevent any real discussion about melaninated people. Hence why there are even non black people (a HUGE percentage) participating in Afrocentric conversation.
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Akachi stop turning the thread to ****.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Don't be self-deceived. Ain't this the one put out the lure and welcome mat to go loopy?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Back in the day some black people would say that white people were an ice people bourne of caves , different from the original black man
Now black people say white people are closet Africans !
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excluding his melanist nonsense, I actually agree with Akachi that white people shouldn't be living in/near the tropics because of the skin cancer risks; White Australians have the highest melanoma skin cancer rate in the world- the reason being is that they're predominantly British by ancestry (English, Scottish, Welsh; roughly 75% of White Australians are Anglo-Celtic, the others also northern European: Dutch, Irish and German), and so have very fair skin.
But then again, would I want all these Aussies to move to Britain, given their ancestral ties? No, we're full up. Also hate their accents.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Excluding his melanist nonsense, I actually agree with Akachi that white people shouldn't be living in/near the tropics because of the skin cancer risks; White Australians have the highest melanoma skin cancer rate in the world- the reason being is that they're predominantly British by ancestry (English, Scottish, Welsh; roughly 75% of White Australians are Anglo-Celtic, the others also northern European: Dutch, Irish and German), and so have very fair skin.
But then again, would I want all these Aussies to move to Britain, given their ancestral ties? No, we're full up. Also hate their accents.
Have you actually been to Australia? Most Australians don't talk like crocodile dundee.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: Firstly...Only the Caucasian descends from the Primate...
You did not answer the question either DEVIL... Explain HOW an ENTIRE genetically recessive (essentially albino) population form in the first place...When did those genetically recessive people enter into the only region that they are known to have out of which is the Caucus...answer DEVIL.
See this is that "Dumb Shyt". Folks reading about science and not really understanding it. You then make up something and end up putting your foot in your own mouth. The Rh positive blood type.......what you exhibit in that monkey image is found mostly in us Black people. Rh Negative peaks in Whites...especially aboriginal whites like Basques. Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least Akachi is open about what Afrocentrism is all about (black racialist politics & hating white people); I have more a problem with those more 'sneaky' Afrocentrics who try to rebrand/repackage Afrocentrism to try to present it as somehow moderate and a respectful ideology, or deny it is Afrocentrism entirely, so they try to play the"I'm objective" card like you have these white "race realists" like Jared Taylor..."i'm not racist, but a racist realist!". Similarly we have all these Afrocentrist posters distancing themselves from Clyde Winters, Akachi etc., when they hold the same core views (pan-Africanism or black racialist politics, ancient Egyptians as black etc.), what's the point in the failed rebrand? Unless you're going to give up the pan-Africanism and "Egyptians were black" theory, you're still an Afronut.
Those few blacks I would label not Afrocentrics are those who (a) recognise population-structure in Africa, so that North Africans don't cluster with populations below the Sahara (opposed to pan-Africanism) and (b) recognise ancient Egyptians were not black in pigmentation. The classical scholar Frank M. Snowden is a good example of this: he recognised population-structure inside Africa (he did not label North Africans as "Negroid") and he also understood Egyptians and Libyans were not black (dark brown) in pigmentation, but light to medium brown - like the skin colour variation observed in north Indians, as opposed to south Indians, who are black. Just google image north vs. south Indian to see the contrast.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: At least Akachi is open about what Afrocentrism is all about (black racialist politics & hating white people); I have more a problem with those more 'sneaky' Afrocentrics who try to rebrand/repackage Afrocentrism to try to present it as somehow moderate and a respectful ideology, or deny it is Afrocentrism entirely, so they try to play the"I'm objective" card like you have these white "race realists" like Jared Taylor..."i'm not racist, but a racist realist!". Similarly we have all these Afrocentrist posters distancing themselves from Clyde Winters, Akachi etc., when they hold the same core views (pan-Africanism or black racialist politics, ancient Egyptians as black etc.), what's the point in the failed rebrand? Unless you're going to give up the pan-Africanism and "Egyptians were black" theory, you're still an Afronut.
Those few blacks I would label not Afrocentrics are those who (a) recognise population-structure in Africa, so that North Africans don't cluster with populations below the Sahara (opposed to pan-Africanism) and (b) recognise ancient Egyptians were not black in pigmentation. The classical scholar Frank M. Snowden is a good example of this: he recognised population-structure inside Africa (he did not label North Africans as "Negroid") and he also understood Egyptians and Libyans were not black (dark brown) in pigmentation, but light to medium brown - like the skin colour variation observed in north Indians, as opposed to south Indians, who are black. Just google image north vs. south Indian to see the contrast.
In other words you would like to pretend that Upper Egyptians (demographically and politically dominant AE) and "Nubians" (Lower "Nubians" in particular) don't stem from a common origin and were virtually identical in the predynastic and dynastic period. Instead you would like people to believe that the ancient Egyptians were a Levantine transplant (with no evidence), and when people reject your thoroughly debunked "Hamitic" race theories, you quite predictably lash out and label them "Afronuts".
Frank Snowden was not an expert in this field and so introducing him into the discussion is laughable. Even he conceded that the ancient Egyptians were mahogany-brown -- the same skin tone that the Lower "Nubians" shared with their sibling population in Upper Egypt. Libyans like the Tuaregs of the Fezzan and the nearby Siwa Berbers in Northern Egypt would also be recognised as 'black'.
Despite all his concessions to Eurocentrics, Frank Snowden was accussed of according the Negro (Kushites) more credit than they actually deserved. He asserted that the ancient Egyptians were mahogany-brown but paradoxically also asserted that they were a white population
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The entire West is based on pan-Europeanism and the valorization of ancient Greece and Rome, so maybe you should start by censuring your Northwestern European elites for so desperately latching onto these Mediterranean civilizations that you ostensibly assert were racially distinct from the Northern European barbarians.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Those few blacks I would label not Afrocentrics are those who (a) recognise population-structure in Africa, so that North Africans don't cluster with populations below the Sahara (opposed to pan-Africanism) and (b) recognise ancient Egyptians were not black in pigmentation. The classical scholar Frank M. Snowden is a good example of this: he recognised population-structure inside Africa (he did not label North Africans as "Negroid") and he also understood Egyptians and Libyans were not black (dark brown) in pigmentation, but light to medium brown - like the skin colour variation observed in north Indians, as opposed to south Indians, who are black. Just google image north vs. south Indian to see the contrast. [/QB]
Thankfully no one cares what you consider afro-centrist/nut/loon/etc as you are possibly the stupidest and most obstinate poster here.
This is exactly the type of bs word/semantic games Swenet talks about with why using black is a problem and especially limiting it to "dark skin" people. You run into Nazis like Cass who move the goalposts as far away as possible while trying to pose a false dichotomy (you're either with him or wrong). Following his rules the vast majority of people of even SSA descent aren't "black", as most Afrodescendents don't reach the range for the darkest colors.
Also considering there absolutely were native Egyptians who'd meet his colorline for black (Tiye, Djoser, Senusret I) maybe itd be better to say the Egyptians were brown AND black.
Oh wait,
"The men of Egypt are mostly BLACK or BROWN with a skinny dessicated look"... -Ammianus Marcellinus, 325-330 A.D. (Book 22)
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
Do you mean to tell me that you didn't know that it's irrelevant that the ancient Egyptians originated and developed in Northeast Africa in tandem with nearly identical populations in Upper Egypt? Populations (Lower "Nubians") that can be 'black' even though they were physically and culturally almost indistinguishable from their kin and kith in Upper Egypt. It's also irrelevant that they spoke a language belonging to a larger phylum that most linguists recognise as having originated in Northeast Africa.
You're a nut for not accepting that ancient Egyptians were a "Eurasian" transplant from the Levant. You're a nut for rejecting the notion that "Hamites" created everything of value in Africa.
It's "racist" to Cass (ironic) to assert that the ancient Egyptians physically and culturally resembled populations that the were ethnically closest to them - the sibling "Nubians" of Upper Egypt.
I suspect that it's only "racist" to Cass because he knows that were it not for the ancient Egyptians... the Minoans and Phoenicians would not have transmitted all that they learned from the ancient Egyptians to the ancient Greeks; Rome conquered the Greeks and got their hands on this pool of knowledge, and when Rome subsequently conquered some of the Northwest Europeans (Brits included) that's when his Germanic ancestors were first introduced to civilization.
It will never be acceptable to these Germanic people that Imhotep (Upper Egyptian) was worshipped as a god of medicine in Rome long after he graced the earth with his brilliance. People that were pioneers in Maths, science, philosophy, architecture, medicine and so on simply can't belong to a Northeast African stock. They have to be a "Eurasian" transplant from the Levant -- the "Hamites" - "dark whites" of Africa.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The hell was I thinking sudaniya??? Shame on me the afronut for even daring to speak on this topic. I need to fall back and let the only objective poster on this forum enforce his ignora- I mean scientific opinion as fact.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: The hell was I thinking sudaniya??? Shame on me the afronut for even daring to speak on this topic. I need to fall back and let the only objective poster on this forum enforce his ignora- I mean scientific opinion as fact.
Bingo, mate! Just ignore Narmer and all the Pharoahs and queens from Upper Egypt and leave it all to Cass - because Europeans have a well earned reputation for being trustworthy. Just ask the native Americans..
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: In other words you would like to pretend that Upper Egyptians (demographically and politically dominant AE) and "Nubians" (Lower "Nubians" in particular) don't stem from a common origin and were virtually identical in the predynastic and dynastic period.
No. Let's use the European example. Generally speaking, while northern Europeans can be distinguished from southern Europeans in their autosomal DNA, the overall genetic difference is very small (Greeks/Swedish: Fst=0.009); its the same for craniometric data. However, there is a significant difference in northern European vs. southern European pigmentation: skin, hair, eyes.
Note the following-
"As we saw above in the case of ecotypes, adaptive genetic differentiation can be maintained between populations by natural selection even where there is significant gene flow between the populations." http://people.oregonstate.edu/~kaplanj/2003-PhilSc-race.pdf
I propose the exact same situation for Egyptians and Nubians. People who are upset by this are idiots who are trying to politicalize terms like "black" and "white" to cover whole continents; why not just recognise the reality that northern Europeans differ significantly to southern Europeans in their pigmentation, like ancient Egyptians did to Nubians? I don't and never have called southern Europeans, "white", they're a pale-brown colour.
Also, Afrocentrists are still running away from the Great Hymn to the Aten:
"The countries of Syria and Nubia, the land of Egypt, Thou settest every man in his place, Thou suppliest their necessities:Everyone has his food, and his time of life is reckoned.Their tongues are separate in speech, And their natures as well; Their skins are distinguished, As thou distinguishest the foreign peoples." Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tell me how you are going to explain the autosomal DNA.
The only actual options are:
1. What Swenet is proposing. 2. Hamiticism.
But the Hamitic model would be arguing for an Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic migration (say 12,000-10,000 BP) from south Levant/Arabia into North Africa, not Neolithic.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tell me how you are going to explain the autosomal DNA.
The only actual options are:
1. What Swenet is proposing. 2. Hamiticism.
But the Hamitic model would be arguing for an Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic migration (say 12,000-10,000 BP) from south Levant/Arabia into North Africa, not Neolithic.
1. which Autosomal DNA? 2. Uh... The ship has sailed in terms of how I interpret the results of this "Leak." and I didn't even need the images or mtDNA to be posted... If you've been reading. 3. Why are you asking questions about uncertainties when you can't even answer a basic question pertaining to what we know as it relates to the OP.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I suspect that it's only "racist" to Cass because he knows that were it not for the ancient Egyptians... the Minoans and Phoenicians would not have transmitted all that they learned from the ancient Egyptians to the ancient Greeks; Rome conquered the Greeks and got their hands on this pool of knowledge, and when Rome subsequently conquered some of the Northwest Europeans (Brits included) that's when his Germanic ancestors were first introduced to civilization.
Northwest Europeans (my ancestors) were basically savages in ancient times, but we excelled ourselves in the last 500 years: industrial revolution, British empire (the largest empire in history), and so on. Below the Sahara, the situation in ancient times was very similar to northern Europe- there was no civilization there. Like you've said in your own posts, the civilizations in Africa were all in the north (Egypt, Nubia etc.)
Northwest Europeans don't cling to a pan-Euro identity because we have our own modern historical accomplishments and there's no self hatred. With Sub-Saharan Africans though its different, they cling to the pan-African identity to latch themselves onto North Africans because they're ashamed of their lack of accomplishments. Modern Sub-Saharan African countries are still poorly developed. To put it bluntly, there was no industrial revolution in the Congo.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: In other words you would like to pretend that Upper Egyptians (demographically and politically dominant AE) and "Nubians" (Lower "Nubians" in particular) don't stem from a common origin and were virtually identical in the predynastic and dynastic period.
No. Let's use the European example. Generally speaking, while northern Europeans can be distinguished from southern Europeans in their autosomal DNA, the overall genetic difference is very small (Greeks/Swedish: Fst=0.009); its the same for craniometric data. However, there is a significant difference in northern European vs. southern European pigmentation: skin, hair, eyes.
Note the following-
"As we saw above in the case of ecotypes, adaptive genetic differentiation can be maintained between populations by natural selection even where there is significant gene flow between the populations." http://people.oregonstate.edu/~kaplanj/2003-PhilSc-race.pdf
I propose the exact same situation for Egyptians and Nubians. People who are upset by this are idiots who are trying to politicalize terms like "black" and "white" to cover whole continents; why not just recognise the reality that northern Europeans differ significantly to southern Europeans in their pigmentation, like ancient Egyptians did to Nubians? I don't and never have called southern Europeans, "white", they're a pale-brown colour.
Also, Afrocentrists are still running away from the Great Hymn to the Aten:
"The countries of Syria and Nubia, the land of Egypt, Thou settest every man in his place, Thou suppliest their necessities:Everyone has his food, and his time of life is reckoned.Their tongues are separate in speech, And their natures as well; Their skins are distinguished, As thou distinguishest the foreign peoples."
Ah, I see, the differences between Lower "Nubians" in Upper Egypt and their closest ethnic relatives (Upper Egyptians) is equivalent to the differences between Southern Europeans and Northern Europeans. Let's just pretend that populations with a common origin and a common culture that developed in the same country concurrently over thousands of years are going to be as distinct from each other as Italians and Norwegians are from each other.
If anyone is running away, it's you, mate. Your pathetic argument has been torn to shreds multiple times and yet you reprise it like a broken record.
I'll just repeat this:
I provided a map of all the kingdoms of ancient Sudan -- kingdoms that were contemporaries of ancient Egypt. The word "Nubian" is applied to all of them and this is where the confusion arises.
There was no kingdom or entity called "Nubia" in ancient times. There were no people (s) called "Nubians". These "Nubians" spoke different languages (belonging to different linguistic groups) and had markedly different physical appearances.
The ancient Egyptians specified the various kingdoms and people of the South and used terms like Kush, Setjau, Wawat, Medjay, Irem, Kaau and so on; some of these people exactly resembled the ancient Egyptians while others looked like the pitch-black Dinka or the Nuba of Kordofan.
Some of Egypt's Southern neighbours [those to the immediate South] very closely resembled the ancient Egyptians. Those further South did not.
"Nubia" is a corruption of the ancient Egyptian word Nubt -- a word for gold. There was a city in Upper Egypt called Nubti, which would have been the original Nubia.
Lower "Nubians" and Puntites from Northeast Sudan or Eritrea were identical to the ancient Egyptians and were both distinct from the "Nubians" much further afield. The "Nubians" in Upper Egypt and Northeast Sudan were ethnically the closest people to the ancient Egyptians in or outside Africa.
These are the people of Punt (modern day Northeast Sudan or the Horn) and they resemble the ancient Egyptians:
And these are ancient Egyptian soldiers and sailors
Upper Egypt has had shared affinities with specific people in 'Nubia' for tens of thousands of years, and this is why specialists understand that 'Nubians' were ethnically the closest people to the ancient Egyptians since the predynastic period.
Eurocentrics [ignorant, dishonest cretins] insist on creating an artificial dichotomy between the people of the South and the ancient Egyptians by presenting the pitch-black ancestors of the "Nuba" and the Dinka as the quintessential "Nubians" while ignoring people that so very closely resembled the ancient Egyptians.
Here's a picture of a black man from Swaziland standing next to a Hematite mine and his skin tone matches the red ochre that we see used to represent the ancient Egyptians. Contrast him to a Dinka, and what he's not black anymore?
There is no evidence that Lower "Nubians" were ever distinguished from Upper Egyptians.
Diodorus Siculus: "The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians `are one of their colonies, which was led into Egypt by Osiris. They claim that at the beginning of the world Egypt was simply a sea but that the Nile, carrying down vast quantities of loam from Ethiopia in its flood waters, finally filled it in and made it part of the continent."
Which is in line with this:
"Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. "(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )
Pseudo Aristotle: "Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively white are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two." [/QB]
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Lower "Nubians" as portrayed by ancient Egyptians:
Kushites portraying themselves
The ancient Egyptians stem from a common origin with the people of the immediate South - people in Upper Egypt and North Sudan.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I suspect that it's only "racist" to Cass because he knows that were it not for the ancient Egyptians... the Minoans and Phoenicians would not have transmitted all that they learned from the ancient Egyptians to the ancient Greeks; Rome conquered the Greeks and got their hands on this pool of knowledge, and when Rome subsequently conquered some of the Northwest Europeans (Brits included) that's when his Germanic ancestors were first introduced to civilization.
Northwest Europeans (my ancestors) were basically savages in ancient times, but we excelled ourselves in the last 500 years: industrial revolution, British empire (the largest empire in history), and so on. Below the Sahara, the situation in ancient times was very similar to northern Europe- there was no civilization there. Like you've said in your own posts, the civilizations in Africa were all in the north (Egypt, Nubia etc.)
Northwest Europeans don't cling to a pan-Euro identity because we have our own modern historical accomplishments and there's no self hatred. With Sub-Saharan Africans though its different, they cling to the pan-African identity to latch themselves onto North Africans because they're ashamed of their lack of accomplishments. Modern Sub-Saharan African countries are still poorly developed. To put it bluntly, there was no industrial revolution in the Congo.
And your delusional enough to believe that you would have developed all of that without the literacy you got from Egypt vis-à-vis Greece and Rome? The Phoenicians got their alphabet from Egyptian writing.
None of what you listed would have been possible without all the essential building blocks of civilization from ancient Egypt.
Would the illiterate Northern European barbarians have achieved anything without philosophy, mathematics, medicine, architecture, chemistry, biology, physics, earth-sciences and more from Egypt and the other civilizations that Europeans have learned from?
There is no West without ancient Greece and Rome. Everything from "your" (Phoenician) alphabet, to philosophy, prosecution of organised violence (war) down to your fashion, is derived from these civilizations and this is emphasised in every western class-room and the films Hollywood churns out. Go ahead, tell your elites that ancient Greece and Rome did not make you or that ancient Egypt did not have a tremendous impact on the intellectual and material development of ancient Greece and Rome.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: [QB]Northwest Europeans (my ancestors) were basically savages in ancient times, but we excelled ourselves in the last 500 years: industrial revolution, British empire (the largest empire in history), and so on.
"Excelled" yourselves...
...Bitch y'all were afforded that technological advancement due to the 700 + year Moorish occupation of southern Europe that lead directly to the "European" Renaissance. Let's break this **** shall we! THESE are your ancestors
^^ These dirty savage nomadic motherfuckas were about a peg above being complete cavemen as they were the last branch from the Caucus. As a result of avoiding being completely obliterated by the Huns they expanded Westward into Western and Central Europe where they went on a rampage and destroyed the Western branch of the only "civilization" in the region Rome. THEY DID NOT REPLACE THAT CIVILIZATION WITH ANOTHER ONE. Instead the African Moors seeing the danger of the uneducated marauding savages now spreading into parts of Northern Africa met them head on kicked their asses and civilized them with ancient Hapi Valley knowledge. Here is what was bestowed upon the Caucasian as a result of their African civilizers.
1. The Spanish occupation by the Moors began in 711 AD when an African army, under their leader Tariq ibn-Ziyad, crossed the Strait of Gibraltar from northern Africa and invaded the Iberian peninsula ‘Andalus' (Spain under the Visigoths).
2. A European scholar sympathetic to the Spaniards remembered the conquest in this way: a. [T]he reins of their (Moors) horses were as fire, their faces black as pitch, their eyes shone like burning candles, their horses were swift as leopards and the riders fiercer than a wolf in a sheepfold at night . . . The noble Goths [the German rulers of Spain to whom Roderick belonged] were broken in an hour, quicker than tongue can tell. Oh luckless Spain! [i] Quoted in Edward Scobie, The Moors and Portugal's Global Expansion, in Golden Age of the Moor, ed Ivan Van Sertima, US, Transaction Publishers, 1992, p.336
3. [I]The Moors, who ruled Spain for 800 years,introduced new scientific techniques to Europe, such as an astrolabe, a device for measuring the position of the stars and planets. Scientific progress in Astronomy, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Geography and Philosophy flourished in Moorish Spain
4. [U]Basil Davidson[/U], one of the most noted historians recognized and declared that there were no lands at that time (the eighth century) "more admired by its neighbours, or more comfortable to live in, than a rich African civilization which took shape in Spain"
5. At its height, Córdova, the heart of Moorish territory in Spain, was the most modern city in Europe. The streets were well-paved, with raised sidewalks for pedestrians. During the night, ten miles of streets were well illuminated by lamps. (This was hundreds of years before there was a paved street in Paris or a street lamp in London.) Cordova had 900 public baths - we are told that a poor Moor would go without bread rather than soap!
6. The Great Mosque of Córdoba (La Mezquita) is still one of the architectural wonders of the world in spite of later Spanish disfigurements. Its low scarlet and gold roof, supported by 1,000 columns of marble, jasper and and porphyry, was lit by thousands of brass and silver lamps which burned perfumed oil.
7. Education was universal in Moorish Spain, available to all, while in Christian Europe ninety-nine percent of the population were illiterate, and even kings could neither read nor write. At that time, Europe had only two universities, the Moors had seventeen great universities! These were located in Almeria, Cordova, Granada, Juen, Malaga, Seville, and Toledo.
8. In the tenth and eleventh centuries, public libraries in Europe were non-existent, while Moorish Spain could boast of more than seventy, of which the one in Cordova housed six hundred thousand manuscripts.
9. Over 4,000 Arabic words and Arabic-derived phrases have been absorbed into the Spanish language. Words beginning with "al," for example, are derived from Arabic. Arabic words such as algebra, alcohol, chemistry, nadir, alkaline, and cipher entered the language. Even words such as checkmate, influenza, typhoon, orange, and cable can be traced back to Arabic origins.
10. The most significant Moorish musician was known as Ziryab (the Blackbird) who arrived in Spain in 822. The Moors introduced earliest versions of several instruments, including the Lute or el oud, the guitar or kithara and the Lyre. Ziryab changed the style of eating by breaking meals into separate courses beginning with soup and ending with desserts.
11. The Moors introduced paper to Europe and Arabic numerals, which replaced the clumsy Roman system.
12. The Moors introduced many new crops including the orange, lemon, peach, apricot, fig, sugar cane, dates, ginger and pomegranate as well as saffron, sugar cane, cotton, silk and rice which remain some of Spain's main products today.
13. The Moorish rulers lived in sumptuous palaces, while the monarchs of Germany, France, and England dwelt in big barns, with no windows and no chimneys, and with only a hole in the roof for the exit of smoke. One such Moorish palace ‘Alhambra' (literally "the red one") in Granada is one of Spain's architectural masterpieces. Alhambra was the seat of Muslim rulers from the 13th century to the end of the 15th century. The Alhambra is a UNESCO World Heritage Site
14. It was through Africa that the new knowledge of China, India, and Arabia reached EuropeThe Moors brought the Compass from China into Europe.
15. The Moors ruled and occupied Lisbon (named "Lashbuna" by the Moors) and the rest of the country until well into the twelfth century. They were finally defeated and driven out by the forces of King Alfonso Henriques. The scene of this battle was the Castelo de Sao Jorge or the 'Castle of St. George.'
That means that EVERY "advancement" the Caucasians learned everything from guns, ships, the compass, language and cleaning their own ass resulted from the Moorish civilizing of Europe.
quote: N Below the Sahara, the situation in ancient times was very similar to northern Europe- there was no civilization there.
Claiming that Niger Congo speaker originated in Western Africa is the Caucasians sad attempt to deny our earlier legacy of ancient civilization along the Hapi River Valley and subsequent areas. The reason WHY there are not ancient civilizations found in African south of the Sahara is because the Africans of that sub region occupied Northern and Eastern Africa until a huge body of them (Niger Congo, Nilotic and Cushitic speakers) migrated south following the destruction and usurpation of the civilization by the Mulattoes and Caucasians during the 6th century B.C.E.
The Nok civilization in Nigeria for example spring up around this time, and it of course follows classic Hapi Valley (and even correlation with ancient non African sites) spiritual traditions and were smelting iron (identical to the method in Kush). This Nok statue displays the classic Hapi Valley crooked baton on his right arm and a hinged flail on the left, which is a symbol authority via Ausar.
quote: Northwest Europeans don't cling to a pan-Euro identity because we have our own modern historical accomplishments and there's no self hatred.
That is because those were separate waves of nomadic Caucasian tribes that occupied those different regions of Europe during different times as well. There is no reason for you all to claim that civilization OR ANY...because you only USURP civilization. If the Caucasians was capable of producing intelligence let alone a civilization ON IT'S OWN then the Caucus which was exclusively genetically recessive would be an archaeological hotbed...BUT IT IS NOT! There was not even a LANGUAGE spoken by your ancestors to communicate with each other. You grunt and groaned.
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Northwest Europeans (my ancestors) were basically savages in ancient times, but we excelled ourselves in the last 500 years: industrial revolution, British empire (the largest empire in history), and so on. Below the Sahara, the situation in ancient times was very similar to northern Europe- there was no civilization there. Like you've said in your own posts, the civilizations in Africa were all in the north (Egypt, Nubia etc.)
Northwest Europeans don't cling to a pan-Euro identity because we have our own modern historical accomplishments and there's no self hatred. With Sub-Saharan Africans though its different, they cling to the pan-African identity to latch themselves onto North Africans because they're ashamed of their lack of accomplishments. Modern Sub-Saharan African countries are still poorly developed. To put it bluntly, there was no industrial revolution in the Congo."
HAHAHAHAHAHHA
This Nazi has gone full retard yall; I'm done sparring with this mental midget.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote: With Sub-Saharan Africans though its different, they cling to the pan-African identity to latch themselves onto North Africans because they're ashamed of their lack of accomplishments.
Listen to this Monkey man people...
This is what we accomplished after our refugee like migration from the Hapi Valley into the interior after the 6th century B.C.E.
and we carried the legacy of greatness into that region.
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: The only photos of people with tails that I have seen are of Tibetans. Possibly they were mutations of Denisovan genes?
The photo seems to be of an Asian boy. Are Caucasians Asians, Akachi?
These are Caucasians.
Yes, East Asians are a partially "mutant" Albinoid. That explains why their behavior can be extremely finicky as well, but is noticeably lesser than that of the pure Devil's (who consistently ranked last in Horus's placement of man)
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
Unlike you, I'm not interested in attacking different groups for the sake of it, however at the same time I'm not a PC liberal. Not all ethnic groups or populations are equal in terms of their historical accomplishments, anyone saying otherwise is ignorant (where's Australian aborigine civilization? ), but here's my point that falsifies you-
Europeans are inferior according to you, but managed to conquer and occupy nearly the whole of Africa in less than 40 years? lol.
quote:In 1870, only 10 percent of Africa was under European control; by 1914 it had increased to 90 percent of the continent.
How was this possible? Your argument economic instability makes no sense, since Europeans didn't control these places before colonising or invading them.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tell me how you are going to explain the autosomal DNA.
The only actual options are:
1. What Swenet is proposing. 2. Hamiticism.
But the Hamitic model would be arguing for an Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic migration (say 12,000-10,000 BP) from south Levant/Arabia into North Africa, not Neolithic.
1. which Autosomal DNA? 2. Uh... The ship has sailed in terms of how I interpret the results of this "Leak." and I didn't even need the images or mtDNA to be posted... If you've been reading. 3. Why are you asking questions about uncertainties when you can't even answer a basic question pertaining to what we know as it relates to the OP.
Cass is all about throwing insults left and right. This is his character, no objective reasoning. I thought he changed, but evidently this is his nature.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Unlike you, I'm not interested in attacking different groups for the sake of it, however at the same time I'm not a PC liberal. Not all ethnic groups or populations are equal in terms of their historical accomplishments, anyone saying otherwise is ignorant (where's Australian aborigine civilization? ), but here's my point that falsifies you-
Europeans are inferior according to you, but managed to conquer and occupy nearly the whole of Africa in less than 40 years? lol.
quote:In 1870, only 10 percent of Africa was under European control; by 1914 it had increased to 90 percent of the continent.
How was this possible? Your argument economic instability makes no sense, since Europeans didn't control these places before colonising or invading them.
Your logic makes no sense as usually.
If a gun is hold against your head, female members in your family are getting raped and your house is getting robbed empty. Does that make you weak and the robbers strong and superior in nature?
quote: Musa Keita I came into power in 1312. When he was crowned, he was given the name Mansa, meaning king. At the time, much of Europe was famished and in the middle of civil wars, but many African kingdoms were thriving."
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: with sticks, British infantry with artillery and rifles...
What's your point?
Only shortly a few centuries therefore, Western Europe only had sticks to fight with. If not for the Roman army conquering most of Europe, most of Europe still would have been backwards, living in Celtic mud-huts as illiterates. The Baroque period had influences from outside of Europe, like Moors.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: and still many do?
But most don't and those that still do willingly choose to do so. These people do know about modern devices.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: How on earth is it white people's fault sub-Saharan African tribes were living primitive as recent as the 19th century, and still many do?
You have your own reality, we know. It was the Scramble for Africa which let to imperialism, neo-colonialism and the exclusion of the African continent in development.
Ancient Africa: How Europeans have it wrong - Kevin MacDonald
Kevin C. MacDonald is Professor of African Archaeology at the UCL Institute of Archaeology where he has taught since completing his PhD at Cambridge in 1994. He has worked in Mali for more than twenty years on field projects ranging from the Late Stone Age to the historic era, principally in the Gourma, Méma, Haute Vallée and Segou regions. His analytical specialities include archaeozoology, ceramics
quote:Originally posted by Cass/:
Why were Zulus running around in loincloth like savages throwing sticks at the British?
Zulus had complex social structure. But now I see where you get your Zulu obsession from. Seen from a cultural anthropological perspective, how is having loincloth savages?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: The only photos of people with tails that I have seen are of Tibetans. Possibly they were mutations of Denisovan genes?
The photo seems to be of an Asian boy. Are Caucasians Asians, Akachi?
These are Caucasians.
Yes, East Asians are a partially "mutant" Albinoid. That explains why their behavior can be extremely finicky as well, but is noticeably lesser than that of the pure Devil's (who consistently ranked last in Horus's placement of man)
I understand the black experience in America and how you feel about certain things, but the whole devils rant is not necessary. Not all whites are the same.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Read my posts in full; I said northwest Europeans were primitive in ancient times. However, by the 18th-19th century they were leading the world in science and technology (industrial & scientific revolution); the British empire was also the largest in history.
-- I don't believe in "hereditarianism" theories about IQ and I've clashed on this topic with so-called 'race realists' for many years; the averages in intelligence between populations are explained by many non-genetic factors. Hence northwest Europeans jumped from dumb, to smart.
This means I don't think sub-Saharan africans will necessarily always have lower average IQ's than north-west Europeans. However, these differences still exist in the present; I'm not an egalitarian that is going to turn around and say "we're all equal" to make people feel better.
Zulus barely clothed, with sticks, British infantry with artillery and rifles...
State your point Devil. You say **** like that without acknowledging how Caucasians were dug from filthy disparity only a couple of centuries earlier by a different set of Niger-Congo speaking Africans. There is nothing filthy about the Zulus, and your comparison is completely false equivalent. The Zulus in contrast with Anglos did not spread DISEASE. The Caucasian cesspools of Western Europe on the other hand are the source of every communicable disease that Westerns receive shots for.
Quite simply the Caucasian was bred in filth and ignorance, and that is in complete contrast with the original melaninated man.
quote: How on earth is it white people's fault sub-Saharan African tribes were living primitive as recent as the 19th century, and still many do?
Describe the part of where it was explained that EVERYTHING that you consider "advanced" that Caucasians have WAS GIVEN TO CAUCASIANS BY AFRICAN MUSLIMS WHO RULED THEM FOR CLOSE TO 800 YEARS that you don't seem to comprehend. The basis of European knowledge came from Africans...on two fronts first the Greeks-Romans and then later on the Moors when they went into Europe. That means that everything that you brag about as European has a basis completely within ancient African knowledge.
quote: Why were Zulus running around in loincloth like savages throwing sticks at the British?
This is a sign that a person does not have a functioning pineal gland. You equate wearing loin clothes in the tropics and sub tropics as inferiority, due tell pasty what are they supposed to wear in that environment. Me PERSONALLY I LOVE walking about in nothing but basketball shorts and flip flops to live in an environment where there is no body shaming and freedom is a relic of heaven in my opinion.
Body shaming came from the little dicks (Caucasians) when they would stand next to the original melaninated man, and their women following natural selection would CHOOSE.
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: The only photos of people with tails that I have seen are of Tibetans. Possibly they were mutations of Denisovan genes?
The photo seems to be of an Asian boy. Are Caucasians Asians, Akachi?
These are Caucasians.
Yes, East Asians are a partially "mutant" Albinoid. That explains why their behavior can be extremely finicky as well, but is noticeably lesser than that of the pure Devil's (who consistently ranked last in Horus's placement of man)
I understand the black experience in America, but the whole devils rant is not necessary.
You know they got on Louis farrakhan was advised to stop calling them Devils after a stint in his career, and this did not sit well with his follower Khalid Muhammad. Khalid Muhammad persisted with his truth that they are Devils, and he was poisoned, while farrakhan is still here. That being said I put a question mark on ANYONE who tells me to water the truth down.
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Read my posts in full; I said northwest Europeans were primitive in ancient times. However, by the 18th-19th century they were leading the world in science and technology (industrial & scientific revolution); the British empire was also the largest in history.
-- I don't believe in "hereditarianism" theories about IQ and I've clashed on this topic with so-called 'race realists' for many years; the averages in intelligence between populations are explained by many non-genetic factors. Hence northwest Europeans jumped from dumb, to smart.
This means I don't think sub-Saharan africans will necessarily always have lower average IQ's than north-west Europeans. However, these differences still exist in the present; I'm not an egalitarian that is going to turn around and say "we're all equal" to make people feel better.
Adam Hampshire, Roger R. Highfield, Beth L. Parkin, Adrian M. Owen. Fractionating Human Intelligence. Neuron, 2012; 76 (6): 1225 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.06.022
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Read my posts in full; I said northwest Europeans were primitive in ancient times. However, by the 18th-19th century they were leading the world in science and technology (industrial & scientific revolution); the British empire was also the largest in history.
-- I don't believe in "hereditarianism" theories about IQ and I've clashed on this topic with so-called 'race realists' for many years; the averages in intelligence between populations are explained by many non-genetic factors. Hence northwest Europeans jumped from dumb, to smart.
This means I don't think sub-Saharan africans will necessarily always have lower average IQ's than north-west Europeans. However, these differences still exist in the present; I'm not an egalitarian that is going to turn around and say "we're all equal" to make people feel better.
Sub-Saharan African countries are far lower IQ than northern European
IQ was described by a person more qualified to speak on it than anyone here (on a BBC documentary actually) simply as the adaptation to modernity....
Therefore when **** in the society finally hits the fan,
These Africans with "low IQ's" will not give a damn because their lives will not be affected. I'd be rocking the loin cloth with them if it gets too serious, and you best believe that one.
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: The only photos of people with tails that I have seen are of Tibetans. Possibly they were mutations of Denisovan genes?
The photo seems to be of an Asian boy. Are Caucasians Asians, Akachi?
Yes, East Asians are a partially "mutant" Albinoid. That explains why their behavior can be extremely finicky as well, but is noticeably lesser than that of the pure Devil's (who consistently ranked last in Horus's placement of man)
I understand the black experience in America, but the whole devils rant is not necessary.
You know they got on Louis farrakhan was advised to stop calling them Devils after a stint in his career, and this did not sit well with his follower Khalid Muhammad. Khalid Muhammad persisted with his truth that they are Devils, and he was poisoned, while farrakhan is still here. That being said I wonder a question mark on ANYONE who tells me to water the truth down.
Not all whites are the same. That is what I am saying. Farakhan explained why they were called devils and at times still can be devils. It has to do with the psychological mindset, retaining to wickedness.
Biologically the white men was crafted from the black man Yacub, right?
But the thing is, you don't base your theory on solid science. It is based on pseudo science and emotions.
This is what beyoku explained to you. But you are stuck in this mentality.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
So again...You have complete confirmation that a story told by a man born in rural Georgia after slavery who became a Mason has been corroborated by modern science decade after decade...
Did y'all forget that of all possible dates for the mutation of an albinoid population the 6,000 year date has been noted at least TWICE within the last two decades by modern science. Now tell me this..does it not intrigue you that the "Biblical" World (as estimated by Christian scholars) is also 6,000 years old? Could the Caucasian be the 6,000 ORDEAL that the original people of the Universe have to cope with in the designated period. The Koran also describes a World that is 6,000 years old. Some Christian scholars (from personal and professional experience) have blatantly in front of Caucasians stated that the Bible is about THEM!
The context to this will blow your mind away if you're too lost.
are you also to forget that this is actually an acknowledged event.
Now from YOU...to prove that what I say is false...give me the migration time frame that Caucasians entered the Caucus. Also explain HOW....an entirely genetically recessive population comes into existence..let alone all huddled up in some wretched ass caves until after 2,000 B.C.E.. With these facts thrown into the equation nothing about the Caucasian appears natural to me.
Now there is also the whole untalked about fact that they DON'T HAVE FUNCTIONALLY PINEAL GLANDS...the window to your soul... EXPLAIN WHY THAT FACT IS IGNORED, especially when grasping as notions that we are all same.
quote:This is what beyoku explained to you. But you are stuck in this mentality.
No No No...This is Beyoku. I can't allow his East African fetishization to dictate the truth as it relates to my people. The cycle of mystification of African genetics that in all truth is ultimately stemming from the obsession of the race of the ancient Egyptian debate is all Beyoku. In regards to dealing with Caucasian delusions I have no time for his rationalizing their lunacy under the guise of having an "intelligent conversation". He doesn't realize that they are DEVILS...it's a trick to get him to talk about BULLSHIT, rather than going for their jugular.
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic