posted
I must say, It would be interesting to see how the Afrocentrists react were the pendulum of opinion to swing in favor of the Multiregional theory. If that were to happen, the Afrocentrist would have nothing else to claim as a contribution to humanity. Time will tell as more scientific evidence is revealed.
Posts: 2025 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be but it won't because the facts don't support it. Therefore you have nothing to claim white skin as something special biologically, intellectually, culturally or anything else.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:but it won't because the facts don't support it.
As you know, in science facts are always changing. Don't write it off yet. There are scientists who still hold to the view.
quote: Therefore you have nothing to claim white skin as something special biologically, intellectually, culturally or anything else.
Okay, not sure where this one came from. White skin is an environmental adaptation, just as Black skin is. I don't get your point. Each are special to their respective environment. So what's your beef? Was that some kind of Strawman attempt?
Posts: 2025 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Too bad that all the evidence that keeps coming forth actually obliterates the multi-regional theory huh? Here's one from 2007...representing a final blow for those who support the multi-regional theory!!
New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa
ScienceDaily (July 19, 2007) — New research published in the journal Nature (19 July) has proved the single origin of humans theory by combining studies of global genetic variations in humans with skull measurements across the world. The research, at the University of Cambridge and funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), represents a final blow for supporters of a multiple origins of humans theory.
Competing theories on the origins of anatomically modern humans claim that either humans originated from a single point in Africa and migrated across the world, or different populations independently evolved from homo erectus to home sapiens in different areas.
The Cambridge researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in physical attributes.
Lead researcher, Dr Andrea Manica from the University's Department of Zoology, explained: "The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate. Our genetic research shows the further modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population.
"However, some have used skull data to argue that modern humans originated in multiple spots around the world. We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area in Sub-saharan Africa."
The research team found that genetic diversity decreased in populations the further away from Africa they were - a result of 'bottlenecks' or events that temporarily reduced populations during human migration.They then studied an exceptionally large sample of human skulls. Taking a set of measurements across all the skulls the team showed that not only was variation highest amongst the sample from south eastern Africa but that it did decrease at the same rate as the genetic data the further the skull was away from Africa.
To ensure the validity of their single origin evidence the researchers attempted to use their data to find non-African origins for modern humans. Research Dr Francois Balloux explains: "To test the alternative theory for the origin of modern humans we tried to find an additional, non-African origin. We found this just did not work. Our findings show that humans originated in a single area in Sub-Saharan Africa."
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It would be
You concur.
I concur to what? That it would be interesting if this happened..... but it won't.
What part of this has not happened yet do you not get?
quote:
quote:but it won't because the facts don't support it.
As you know, in science facts are always changing. Don't write it off yet. There are scientists who still hold to the view.
Yes they do change. In fact, it is because they have changed that now they are supporting the out of Africa theory. But it sounds like the issue is that YOU cannot accept it.
quote:
quote: Therefore you have nothing to claim white skin as something special biologically, intellectually, culturally or anything else.
Okay, not sure where this one came from. White skin is an environmental adaptation, just as Black skin is. I don't get your point. Each are special to their respective environment. So what's your beef? Was that some kind of Strawman attempt?
You need to ask yourself what the beef is idiot. Why are YOU so concerned about the African origins of mankind and the need to FIND SOME OTHER theory to explain the development of the human species? YOU brought it up no? If black skin is simply an environmental adaptation, then why do you want to deny it in the first humans unless you feel that there is something 'special' about the origin of mankind that requires some alternative theory other than out of Africa? Does that not imply that you feel it is something "special" that should not be associated with black Africans because you want some skin color other than black to be associated with this "special" biological event? Does that not imply that the biological humans infers some "special" characteristics to the skin color of the first humans? Otherwise why are you so concerned about it, especially as it pertains to black Africans?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Riddle me this... Why are Afrocentrists, such as yourself, emotionally tied to the theory that humanity sprang out of Africa? Are you frightful of the possibility that the multiregional theory is true? Why does that scare you? What vested interest do you have in securing the OOA as the official working theory in Academia? I have a theory why such a matter would bring trepidation to the heart of an Afrocentrist, which I hinted to in my first post to the thread. I believe there is some real deep psychology involved here with the Afrocentrists and their need to defend the OOA at all cost.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Too bad that all the evidence that keeps coming forth actually obliterates the multi-regional theory huh? Here's one from 2007...representing a final blow for those who support the multi-regional theory!!
New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa
ScienceDaily (July 19, 2007) — New research published in the journal Nature (19 July) has proved the single origin of humans theory by combining studies of global genetic variations in humans with skull measurements across the world. The research, at the University of Cambridge and funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), represents a final blow for supporters of a multiple origins of humans theory.
Competing theories on the origins of anatomically modern humans claim that either humans originated from a single point in Africa and migrated across the world, or different populations independently evolved from homo erectus to home sapiens in different areas.
The Cambridge researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in physical attributes.
Lead researcher, Dr Andrea Manica from the University's Department of Zoology, explained: "The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate. Our genetic research shows the further modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population.
"However, some have used skull data to argue that modern humans originated in multiple spots around the world. We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area in Sub-saharan Africa."
The research team found that genetic diversity decreased in populations the further away from Africa they were - a result of 'bottlenecks' or events that temporarily reduced populations during human migration.They then studied an exceptionally large sample of human skulls. Taking a set of measurements across all the skulls the team showed that not only was variation highest amongst the sample from south eastern Africa but that it did decrease at the same rate as the genetic data the further the skull was away from Africa.
To ensure the validity of their single origin evidence the researchers attempted to use their data to find non-African origins for modern humans. Research Dr Francois Balloux explains: "To test the alternative theory for the origin of modern humans we tried to find an additional, non-African origin. We found this just did not work. Our findings show that humans originated in a single area in Sub-Saharan Africa."
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: Riddle me this... Why are Afrocentrists, such as yourself, emotionally tied to the theory that humanity sprang out of Africa? Are you frightful of the possibility that the multiregional theory is true? Why does that scare you? What vested interest do you have in securing the OOA as the official working theory in Academia? I have a theory why such a matter would bring trepidation to the heart of an Afrocentrist, which I hinted to in my first post to the thread. I believe there is some real deep psychology involved here with the Afrocentrists and their need to defend the OOA at all cost.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Too bad that all the evidence that keeps coming forth actually obliterates the multi-regional theory huh? Here's one from 2007...representing a final blow for those who support the multi-regional theory!!
New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa
ScienceDaily (July 19, 2007) — New research published in the journal Nature (19 July) has proved the single origin of humans theory by combining studies of global genetic variations in humans with skull measurements across the world. The research, at the University of Cambridge and funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), represents a final blow for supporters of a multiple origins of humans theory.
Competing theories on the origins of anatomically modern humans claim that either humans originated from a single point in Africa and migrated across the world, or different populations independently evolved from homo erectus to home sapiens in different areas.
The Cambridge researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in physical attributes.
Lead researcher, Dr Andrea Manica from the University's Department of Zoology, explained: "The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate. Our genetic research shows the further modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population.
"However, some have used skull data to argue that modern humans originated in multiple spots around the world. We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area in Sub-saharan Africa."
The research team found that genetic diversity decreased in populations the further away from Africa they were - a result of 'bottlenecks' or events that temporarily reduced populations during human migration.They then studied an exceptionally large sample of human skulls. Taking a set of measurements across all the skulls the team showed that not only was variation highest amongst the sample from south eastern Africa but that it did decrease at the same rate as the genetic data the further the skull was away from Africa.
To ensure the validity of their single origin evidence the researchers attempted to use their data to find non-African origins for modern humans. Research Dr Francois Balloux explains: "To test the alternative theory for the origin of modern humans we tried to find an additional, non-African origin. We found this just did not work. Our findings show that humans originated in a single area in Sub-Saharan Africa."
The only one emotionally tied to it seems to be you since you take the facts that have been provided and continually open new threads and new topics addressing the facts from an EMOTIONAL perspective. As an example this thread, which implicitly states that YOU have an emotional problem with the current scientific acceptance of the Out of Africa theory. Does that not make you emotional about it? Why are you putting your emotional issues on others who accept or concur with these facts unless you have emotional issues with those facts?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue is not so much the OOA theory but the fact the human genome was strictly African for some 70% of its existence.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: Riddle me this... Why are Afrocentrists, such as yourself, emotionally tied to the theory that humanity sprang out of Africa? Are you frightful of the possibility that the multiregional theory is true? Why does that scare you? What vested interest do you have in securing the OOA as the official working theory in Academia?I have a theory why such a matter would bring trepidation to the heart of an Afrocentrist, which I hinted to in my first post to the thread. I believe there is some real deep psychology involved here with the Afrocentrists and their need to defend the OOA at all cost.
Tied to the theory? Sorry if science baffles you but this is the majority view and it's only getting stronger not weaker, which is why its held with high regards by everyone who actually appreciates science.
Listen here dunce, the multi-regional theory is not discredited by Afro-centrists and neither is the OOA theory credited by Afro-centrists. So you make no sense.
Lol, if it were true then so be it, but it's not so there's nothing to be frightened about, I dont run from science as you do.
It does seem though that you're frightened that science keeps confirming the African origin of modern humans huh? I mean you come on here trying to discredit it everyday but to no avail.
Btw what is there to defend when all data is on my side, obviously there's no need to defend OOA when the evidence speaks for itself. lol
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I concur to what? That it would be interesting if this happened..... but it won't.
Why do you say it won't? How long has academia accepted the OOA theory if you don't mind me asking.
quote: What part of this has not happened yet do you not get?
And what part of presenting a "POSSIBILITY" that YOU dont get?
quote: Yes they do change. In fact, it is because they have changed that now they are supporting the out of Africa theory.
And sometimes theories are dropped, revisited, dropped again, as more facts come in. Get it?
quote: But it sounds like the issue is that YOU cannot accept it.
Wrong sir. As of now I operate from the OOA perspective.
quote: You need to ask yourself what the beef is idiot.
Actually, an idiot is someone who comes into a thread with a specific topic and attempts to subvert it with a weak strawman tactic. That my friend, is what you call an idiot.
quote: Why are YOU so concerned about the African origins of mankind and the need to FIND SOME OTHER theory to explain the development of the human species?
Find some other theory? Are you for real or ignorant? Or perhaps you are both. The Multiregional theory exists in academia. Why would I ignore it?
quote: YOU brought it up no? If black skin is simply an environmental adaptation, then why do you want to deny it in the first humans unless you feel that there is something 'special' about the origin of mankind that requires some alternative theory other than out of Africa?
At no time or no where do I deny that early humans in Africa had black skin. The problem is with Afrocentrists who try to seize that for racial-political gain. Black skin is ONLY a part of mankind's evolution. Yet leave it to the Afronuts and you would think that Black skin was the ultimate achievement in the evolution of man.
quote: Does that not imply that you feel it is something "special" that should not be associated with black Africans because you want some skin color other than black to be associated with this "special" biological event?
I believe I explained myself succinctly in my previous post to you. All skin tones are "special" to their relative environment.
quote: Does that not imply that the biological humans infers some "special" characteristics to the skin color of the first humans? Otherwise why are you so concerned about it, especially as it pertains to black Africans?
My beef is not with Black Africans. My beef is with Afrocentrists. Let us not get it twisted buddy.
Posts: 2025 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey turd, at one time majority view was African Blacks were lesser evolved than the rest of the races.
Incase you are not aware, Argumentum ad Populum is a logical fallacy.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: Riddle me this... Why are Afrocentrists, such as yourself, emotionally tied to the theory that humanity sprang out of Africa? Are you frightful of the possibility that the multiregional theory is true? Why does that scare you? What vested interest do you have in securing the OOA as the official working theory in Academia?I have a theory why such a matter would bring trepidation to the heart of an Afrocentrist, which I hinted to in my first post to the thread. I believe there is some real deep psychology involved here with the Afrocentrists and their need to defend the OOA at all cost.
Tied to the theory? Sorry if science baffles you but this is the majority view it and it's only getting stronger not weaker, which is why its held with high regards by everyone who actually appreciates science.
Listen here dunce, the multi-regional theory is not discredited by Afro-centrists and neither is the OOA theory credited by Afro-centrists. So you make no sense.
Lol, if it were true then so be it, but it's not so there's nothing to be frightened about, I dont run from science as you do.
It does seem though that you're frightened that science keeps confirming the African origin of modern humans huh? I mean you come on here trying to discredit it everyday but to no avail.
Btw what is there to defend when all data is on my side, obviously there's no need to defend OOA when the evidence speaks for itself. lol
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: Hey turd, at one time majority view was African Blacks were lesser evolved than the rest of the races.
Hey dimwitted peon this is why you're debunked now go back to your chair in the corner until I tell you to get back up dunce!!
Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in physical attributes.
Lead researcher, Dr Andrea Manica from the University's Department of Zoology, explained: "The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate. Our genetic research shows the further modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population. "However, some have used skull data to argue that modern humans originated in multiple spots around the world. We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area in Sub-saharan Africa."
The research team found that genetic diversity decreased in populations the further away from Africa they were - a result of 'bottlenecks' or events that temporarily reduced populations during human migration. They then studied an exceptionally large sample of human skulls. Taking a set of measurements across all the skulls the team showed that not only was variation highest amongst the sample from south eastern Africa but that it did decrease at the same rate as the genetic data the further the skull was away from Africa.Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe in the scientific beliefs of homo erectus or those other "pre-human-type" creatures theories. I am the only one on ES who believes in the bible, and if I believe the bible to be true then I believe mankind and is multiregional and has been since the beginning.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Multiregionalism is true then Marc W. and others are right and that still leaves you no where.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: It would be but it won't because the facts don't support it.
Doug, how in the WORLD can you say 'it would be' to a retarded statement like.
quote: If that were to happen, the Afrocentrist would have nothing else to claim as a contribution to humanity. Time will tell as more scientific evidence is revealed. this?
Black people are the fathers of music,science, philosophy and mathematics.
[QUOTEToo bad that all the evidence that keeps coming forth actually obliterates the multi-regional theory huh? Here's one from 2007...representing a final blow for those who support the multi-regional theory!!
Brother, I don't see the point in continuing with this pointless discussion. This "debate" has descended into white babble. The whites have no ancient history and that's why they claim every civilization from the Inca to China and Japan was founded by their disgusting kind. It's as simple as that. Their ridiculous claim is that whites could travel all over the world, found every civilization, but fail to do it in Europe itself. These whites have low self-esteem and need to boost it by stealing non-white civilizations and accomplishments. white supremacy is a myth and every non-white that ever came in contact with them labeled them backward barbarian animals. If it weren't for the Black Moors these animals would still be running around beheading each other and burning their "scientists" alive. We should just be happy that our descendants will one day live in a world without whites, who's filth have no bound.
Watch Keita, the foremost authority on Ancient Egypt, in this video answer someone's question bout the Egyptian's being Black. He states they were not White and had tropical limb proportions aka Black.
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: I must say, It would be interesting to see how the Afrocentrists react were the pendulum of opinion to swing in favor of the Multiregional theory. If that were to happen, the Afrocentrist would have nothing else to claim as a contribution to humanity. Time will tell as more scientific evidence is revealed.
That's just downright fallacious. I mean, it may possible that swine excrement can combat HIV if consumed. The probability is near impossible, but the chances are still there. Simply, this is just a case of clutching on straws at a extremely pathological levels.
The evidence suggesting that all humans from outside of Africa are derivatives are overwhelming. That's clear with skeletal evidence, and genetic data. I don't know how legal models operates, but a hypothesis isn't just a mere guess. It requires solid evidence, and based on base that is predicated on majority scholarly consensus.
Saying that, skeletal samples which show that as we move away from present, there is a convergence towards an "African" form. In other words, the first humans have a tropically adapted body plain. That is the case in Asia, Europe, or wherever else. The probability of that being overturned is not only low, but it would be quite irrelevant since that change would've arisen prior to some 200,000 years ago. That would PRIOR to the advent of modern humans. Remember the model or theory suggests that all modern humans have a recent African origin. In other words, after the homo erectus left Africa, a minority suggests that modern humans developed in parallel in multiple regions.
The competing position has been soundly debunked due to the fact that genetic characteristics of humans outside of Africa are derivatives of those within Africa. This isn't just overwhelmingly clear in the study of complexion, but with our autosomal and sex chromosomes. Human variability outside of Africa is essentially based on the molecular base present within African populations. It is the source, in other words, and we all share a recent ancestor. Genetic mutations that developed within Africa, not just with SLC24A5, but Y-DNA Hg CT as well, which is present in all human beings (except for those with African-specific A and B lineages), which suggests that our genetic relationship continues even after the homo erectus species left the African continent. In other words, we all share a common genetic history as anatomically modern humans.
Having laid down my arguments, I ask, what is your fucking point? How does the implications of the MRH (it's a hypothesis, damn it) affect our position? Ancient Egyptians are genetically African and does not share the same parent as Y-DNA Hg F that is the ancestral to the European derivatives. In short, Ancient Egyptians are genetically related to indigenous Africans including 'sub-Saharan' Africans. The same applies to phenotype, because European adaptations are not present in Ancient Egyptian samples. Pale skin isn't indigenous to Africa, Egypt, or the Middle East for that fact and the genetic basis is sound. European complexion is the essentially the absence of African-specific allele. That molecular composition is the base within the African type influences the production of melanin. Now keep in mind that the homo erectus that left Africa WERE tropically adapted, because their development was based within the tropics and pale skin DEVELOPED amongst those that obviously migrated into Northern, low UV regions. It certainly doesn't suggest that pale skin can produce dark skin or some other crack pot hypothesis. These misconceptions is clearly due to the misunderstanding of the scientific foundation that forms the basis of our evolutionary history.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: Hey turd, at one time majority view was African Blacks were lesser evolved than the rest of the races.
Incase you are not aware, Argumentum ad Populum is a logical fallacy.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: Riddle me this... Why are Afrocentrists, such as yourself, emotionally tied to the theory that humanity sprang out of Africa? Are you frightful of the possibility that the multiregional theory is true? Why does that scare you? What vested interest do you have in securing the OOA as the official working theory in Academia?I have a theory why such a matter would bring trepidation to the heart of an Afrocentrist, which I hinted to in my first post to the thread. I believe there is some real deep psychology involved here with the Afrocentrists and their need to defend the OOA at all cost.
Tied to the theory? Sorry if science baffles you but this is the majority view it and it's only getting stronger not weaker, which is why its held with high regards by everyone who actually appreciates science.
Listen here dunce, the multi-regional theory is not discredited by Afro-centrists and neither is the OOA theory credited by Afro-centrists. So you make no sense.
Lol, if it were true then so be it, but it's not so there's nothing to be frightened about, I dont run from science as you do.
It does seem though that you're frightened that science keeps confirming the African origin of modern humans huh? I mean you come on here trying to discredit it everyday but to no avail.
Btw what is there to defend when all data is on my side, obviously there's no need to defend OOA when the evidence speaks for itself. lol
The difference is that there was no basis behind that view. The evidence at that time that Africans formed a lesser race were obviously downright preposterous.
For one, humans of any race can intermix and the offspring will likely successful proliferate. Second, Africans had an intellectual history and it was even acknowledged by European prior to slavery. On top of that, much of this was derived from the Eurocentric branches of anthropology, which were merely propaganda pieces for the white establishment.
It was very faulty. For instance, it depended on the premise that Somalis as part of the white race, while creating this fictional "True Negro" race of "West Africa". Since "Negroes" were the height of inferiority, the human archetype of "perfect" had to be its extrema, which obviously didn't include Southern Europeans.
That population, at that time, had obvious affinities to African populations and that's affirmed by genetics. Europeans had to anachronistically suggest that intellectual composition of the Greeks and Romans was based on their European-specific genes. The irony here is that Southern Europeans looked down at their Northern "barbarian" counterparts. In addition, they acknowledged that Blacks Africans developed civilizations that predate theirs and according to Herodotus (the father of history): the source of their wisdom.
On the other hand, the current consensus is backed by verifiable, empirical evidence as I demonstrated earlier. It is based on the results of technological breakthroughs that has strengthened the position. Genetics and skeletal remains backs the assertion that all modern humans share a most recent common ancestor. That isn't only it, but the study of disease suggests a very common history as well.
It tells us that modern humans share a very recent common history. The idea that somehow similar species developing in parallel being able to somehow able to procreate at similar success rate as within "racial" groups is quite dubious. These types of mating isn't common and infertility is quite common especially amongst the male counterpart. Hybrids of such forms tend to not develop quite successfully outside of artificial settings.
More importantly, I don't see how the alternative position affects our position. The most it would do is suggest that European homo sapien sapiens developed from the African homo erectus, who migrated to Europe. It would imply that Southern Europeans such as Greece are cross-species hybrids. This would not affect the position that dark skin is the original state. The homo erectus were dark skinned, tropically adapted, peoples, and pale skin developed as they entered Europe. I don't see how this would alter our position except for justify the existence "races". I think more familiarity with the topic is really required.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: I don't believe in the scientific beliefs of homo erectus or those other "pre-human-type" creatures theories. I am the only one on ES who believes in the bible, and if I believe the bible to be true then I believe mankind and is multiregional and has been since the beginning.
Afronut, the multi-regional hypothesis doesn't suggest that the genus homo didn't originate from Africa. It suggests that the development of anatomically modern humans occurred in parallel. That is, the homo erectus left Africa, as dark skinned individuals, and developed as pale skinned Europeans within Asia.
I don't remember the Bible speaking much about European people. The cultural and linguistic history of the Bible is heavily tied to Africa. There were no Indo-Europeans in the region, nor Turks, nor Sino-Tibetans at that time. The medium of Abrahmic religions clearly has an African origin suggesting that the population was such. The Ethiopian language, Amharic, is a semitic language and Somalis are more connected to Hebrews than Germans or Swedes.
Technically, the Sinai Peninsula is part of Africa and remember, the text doesn't obey popular geography. The indigenous in this region and much of Southern and West Asia are still dark. The Western experience where light skin or European approximation was a strong requisite for access to immigration is going to severely limit one's understanding. White people have a very limited role in the region.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: I must say, It would be interesting to see how the Afrocentrists react were the pendulum of opinion to swing in favor of the Multiregional theory. If that were to happen, the Afrocentrist would have nothing else to claim as a contribution to humanity. Time will tell as more scientific evidence is revealed.
Salassin stop this nonsense.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: I am the only one on ES who believes in the bible
Amazingly, Charlie Bass also believes in that Jewish fairy tale book. He's a member of the Church of Christ cult.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: I don't believe in the scientific beliefs of homo erectus or those other "pre-human-type" creatures theories. I am the only one on ES who believes in the bible, and if I believe the bible to be true then I believe mankind and is multiregional and has been since the beginning.
I don't remember the Bible speaking much about European people. The cultural and linguistic history of the Bible is heavily tied to Africa. There were no Indo-Europeans in the region, nor Turks, nor Sino-Tibetans at that time. The medium of Abrahmic religions clearly has an African origin suggesting that the population was such. The Ethiopian language, Amharic, is a semitic language and Somalis are more connected to Hebrews than Germans or Swedes.
Technically, the Sinai Peninsula is part of Africa and remember, the text doesn't obey popular geography. The indigenous in this region and much of Southern and West Asia are still dark. The Western experience where light skin or European approximation was a strong requisite for access to immigration is going to severely limit one's understanding. White people have a very limited role in the region.
I don't know how but Africans seemed to spread a religious propaganda so that Hebrews and Greeks and others believed that Africans were blessed by the gods. The ruler of the universe in the Koran refers to itself as "we" and Mohamed called the Abyssinians the "righteous ones" so the gods in Islam also look favorably on Africans
2. Now the Ethiopians, as historians relate, were the first of all men and the proofs of this statement, they say, are manifest. For that they did not come into their land as immigrants from abroad but were natives of it and so justly bear the name of "autochthones" is, they maintain, conceded by practically all men....it is generally held that the sacrifices practiced among the Ethiopians are those which are the most pleasing to heaven. As witness to this they call upon the poet who is perhaps the oldest and certainly the most venerated among the Greeks; for in the Iliad he represents both Zeus and the rest of the gods with him as absent on a visit to Ethiopia to share in the sacrifices and the banquet which were given annually by the Ethiopians for all the gods together:
For Zeus had yesterday to Ocean's bounds Set forth to feast with Ethiopia's faultless men, And he was followed there by all the gods
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: I don't believe in the scientific beliefs of homo erectus or those other "pre-human-type" creatures theories. I am the only one on ES who believes in the bible, and if I believe the bible to be true then I believe mankind and is multiregional and has been since the beginning.
Afronut, the multi-regional hypothesis doesn't suggest that the genus homo didn't originate from Africa. It suggests that the development of anatomically modern humans occurred in parallel. That is, the homo erectus left Africa, as dark skinned individuals, and developed as pale skinned Europeans within Asia.
I don't remember the Bible speaking much about European people. The cultural and linguistic history of the Bible is heavily tied to Africa. There were no Indo-Europeans in the region, nor Turks, nor Sino-Tibetans at that time. The medium of Abrahmic religions clearly has an African origin suggesting that the population was such. The Ethiopian language, Amharic, is a semitic language and Somalis are more connected to Hebrews than Germans or Swedes.
Technically, the Sinai Peninsula is part of Africa and remember, the text doesn't obey popular geography. The indigenous in this region and much of Southern and West Asia are still dark. The Western experience where light skin or European approximation was a strong requisite for access to immigration is going to severely limit one's understanding. White people have a very limited role in the region.
You're spewing emotional afrocentric bullshyt. I don't believe in a "homo-..." anything. Mankind is regional and there has never been pockets of people leaving out of Africa populating the world. Branches that spread out through the world came from Asia more likely from Cushitic background, and "Indo-Europeans" are in the bible. What you don't find in the bible are nappy-headed broad nose, big lip,large skull, short broad-type Africans. The only Africans that are in the Bible are nations of Ham which are heavily populated in the farthest northeast region of Africa. There is no "Africa" in the bible so I wish you people stop claiming black Asians as African or Afro-Asiatic.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: I don't believe in the scientific beliefs of homo erectus or those other "pre-human-type" creatures theories. I am the only one on ES who believes in the bible, and if I believe the bible to be true then I believe mankind and is multiregional and has been since the beginning.
Afronut, the multi-regional hypothesis doesn't suggest that the genus homo didn't originate from Africa. It suggests that the development of anatomically modern humans occurred in parallel. That is, the homo erectus left Africa, as dark skinned individuals, and developed as pale skinned Europeans within Asia.
I don't remember the Bible speaking much about European people. The cultural and linguistic history of the Bible is heavily tied to Africa. There were no Indo-Europeans in the region, nor Turks, nor Sino-Tibetans at that time. The medium of Abrahmic religions clearly has an African origin suggesting that the population was such. The Ethiopian language, Amharic, is a semitic language and Somalis are more connected to Hebrews than Germans or Swedes.
Technically, the Sinai Peninsula is part of Africa and remember, the text doesn't obey popular geography. The indigenous in this region and much of Southern and West Asia are still dark. The Western experience where light skin or European approximation was a strong requisite for access to immigration is going to severely limit one's understanding. White people have a very limited role in the region.
You're spewing emotional afrocentric bullshyt. I don't believe in a "homo-..." anything. Mankind is regional and there has never been pockets of people leaving out of Africa populating the world.
Oh well. Now shut up and go get yourself a liposuction, overweight white women. It seems like you'll continue to push positions that isn't even substantiated. Provide a damn source.
quote:Branches that spread out through the world came from Asia more likely from Cushitic background,
I find this ironic considering I don't look African-American at all. That's readily noticeable by post African-Americans I've met. On the other hand, I approximate rather heavily to East Africans or South Arabians. The difference is that I'm probably lot lighter.
Please don't kid me. How the hell are those populations not related to Africans elsewhere? I doubt people ever mixed me up whites. I've also seen numerous "West Africans" who look identical to Somalis. The Fula people are one, the Tutsis are another.
I don't think anyone is going to suggest these populations aren't black. These groups had more of a role in the Bible than the English or other Northern Europeans, who are just part of that multi-regional language group.
quote: and "Indo-Europeans" are in the bible.
I should clarify: Northern Europeans. The Iranians are mentioned, during the advent of Ezra and Ezekiel, but what about the Swedes? That population didn't even have a direct role prior to that.
Remember the vast majority of Indo-European speakers are people of color. Those in India are just as dark as an African-American in your failed nation. It's obvious that you haven't seen people in much of the Middle East who would as well. I've shown this excerpt and will do it again:
quote:The Egyptians see themselves as essentially sumr, or "dark". However, for all intents and purposes this is a most confusing and contentious term. If an individual is described as asmar, the masculine, or samra, the feminine, they could range in colour from the southern Sudanese ebony or indigo black, a west African chocolate or mahogany black, the various copper and honey-toned Ethiopian and Somali types, to the olive or off-white dark-haired Mediterranean or Middle Eastern-looking type. Link
Notice how they refer to the off-white dark-haired populations (Greeks are nearly exclusively dark-haired, remember) and it'll describe their origin:
quote: At some theoretical level it is understandable that black conjures up images of the ugly, pathetic and wretched in the Egyptian psyche. Egypt has become progressively whiter over the millennia. [...]
Upper class Egyptians, often fairer than their poorer compatriots, invariably look down on lower class Egyptians who tend to be darker in complexion. There is a subtle correlation between lower income and darker complexion. The Egyptian upper classes and elites tend to be noticeably lighter in complexion than their poorer and working class compatriots. "They labour in the sun," is sometimes the cynical explanation.
But, a more accurate explanation would be that Egypt has for thousands of years been ruled by foreign, and lighter-skinned, invaders -- [url]Persians, Greeks, Romans[/url], Arabs, Turks, the French and British.[b] A large section of the pre-revolutionary Egyptian elite could trace their ancestry to Balkan, Caucasian and Turkish roots. Moreover, Napoleon Bonaparte's French expedition was notorious for sowing its seeds in places like the Delta city of Mansoura whose women are reputedly "exceptionally beautiful"; in Egyptian common parlance that means fair-skinned, with light-coloured eyes and hair.
Not only are the poorer classes darker in complexion, but they tend to display more "African" cultural traits. [b]Much of the music they enjoy has rhythmic beats that are reminiscent of those of the music of Africa south of the Sahara, with an emphasis on drums and percussion. The elite tend to favour classical Western-influenced music or Middle Eastern (Turkish and Persian) musical strains dominated by stringed instruments. While the poorer and working classes are more likely to dance spontaneously and with abandon in public, the elites tend to be more restrained. Much clapping and ululation accompanies street parties in low income areas, the elites, in sharp contrast, shun these "baladi" literally "country" traits, suggestive of the African.
quote:What you don't find in the bible are nappy-headed broad nose, big lip,large skull, short broad-type Africans.
You really simplify the people of Africas. Broad noses aren't that uncommon in East Africa or the Middle East. In fact, Dirk posted a picture of an Upper Egypt male who had a broad nose as well. The same goes for full lips which are quite common. Just look at ]Bin Laden or Yasser Arafat for that matter. The tend to slightly thinner (vs Jay-Z), but for the nose, it's broad, but protrudes. And don't tell me how an aquiline nose looks like, because I seem them everyday.
Besides, Africans in the horn typically have curly hair. I don't get where you're nonsense is even coming from. Hair relaxers are used in these communities quite extensively and I see that being the case all the time. It's obvious that your overweight self doesn't even interact with these populations.
quote:The only Africans that are in the Bible are nations of Ham which are heavily populated in the farthest northeast region of Africa. There is no "Africa" in the bible so I wish you people stop claiming black Asians as African or Afro-Asiatic.
The majority of the world's population was concentrated in the "Northeast" regions of Africa. One of the largest West African groups are the Hausa people, who by the way, speak an Afro-Asiatic language. You really need to start reading more.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sub-saharan African is not considered in the bible geneology table. The reason for this is the OT writers did not consider them as part of the human family. In the eyes of the hebrew writers, these people were "Beasts," marked by their lack of writing, codified law, political structure and an organized and well ordered standing army. Basically they were uncivilized. It is during the xtian age, that the geneology of Ham is extended to the far reaches of Africa (of that time). Originally, that was not the case. Ham is originally the father of four specific tribes of people; Egypt, Libya, Nubia and Canaan.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01:
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: I don't believe in the scientific beliefs of homo erectus or those other "pre-human-type" creatures theories. I am the only one on ES who believes in the bible, and if I believe the bible to be true then I believe mankind and is multiregional and has been since the beginning.
Afronut, the multi-regional hypothesis doesn't suggest that the genus homo didn't originate from Africa. It suggests that the development of anatomically modern humans occurred in parallel. That is, the homo erectus left Africa, as dark skinned individuals, and developed as pale skinned Europeans within Asia.
I don't remember the Bible speaking much about European people. The cultural and linguistic history of the Bible is heavily tied to Africa. There were no Indo-Europeans in the region, nor Turks, nor Sino-Tibetans at that time. The medium of Abrahmic religions clearly has an African origin suggesting that the population was such. The Ethiopian language, Amharic, is a semitic language and Somalis are more connected to Hebrews than Germans or Swedes.
Technically, the Sinai Peninsula is part of Africa and remember, the text doesn't obey popular geography. The indigenous in this region and much of Southern and West Asia are still dark. The Western experience where light skin or European approximation was a strong requisite for access to immigration is going to severely limit one's understanding. White people have a very limited role in the region.
You're spewing emotional afrocentric bullshyt. I don't believe in a "homo-..." anything. Mankind is regional and there has never been pockets of people leaving out of Africa populating the world. Branches that spread out through the world came from Asia more likely from Cushitic background, and "Indo-Europeans" are in the bible. What you don't find in the bible are nappy-headed broad nose, big lip,large skull, short broad-type Africans. The only Africans that are in the Bible are nations of Ham which are heavily populated in the farthest northeast region of Africa. There is no "Africa" in the bible so I wish you people stop claiming black Asians as African or Afro-Asiatic.
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: [QB] The sub-saharan African is not considered in the bible geneology table. The reason for this is the OT writers did not consider them as part of the human family. In the eyes of the hebrew writers, these people were "Beasts," marked by their lack of writing, codified law, political structure and an organized and well ordered standing army. Basically they were uncivilized. It is during the xtian age, that the geneology of Ham is extended to the far reaches of Africa (of that time). Originally, that was not the case. Ham is originally the father of four specific tribes of people; Egypt, Libya, Nubia and Canaan.
I don't know what Bible you're reading, but that isn't the case in the Qu'ran nor the Torah. Sub-Saharan Africans is a cultural and socio-political that has an origin in the White supremacist system.
It has no place outside that cultural format. That is because most Afro-Asiatic speakers live below the sub-Saharan, moron. See, this is what happens when you take your Eurocentric bullshit seriously.
Why not start providing academic sources suggesting this nonsense? Overwhelming evidence, as we have shown, demonstrate well that Ancient Egypts are most related to "sub-Saharan" Africans. In addition, the language, writing system, originated south of the Sahara.
You are obviously just project yourself. It was even stated by the Greeks themselves that Northern Europeans were nothing but barbarians. The group has no history in the Bible and does not even share customs with the peoples in the region. There are many "sub-Saharan" Africans that are directly tied to the people living in the Arabian peninsula.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Bible is not a very reliable source. It's not a fallible source, that is, unless we believe that raping women is justifiable if we pay some silvers to the "whore's" father. Let's not be so selective, my friends.
Culture and linguistics, not just genetics, suggest that sub-Saharan peoples are most closely related to Ancient Egyptians and Nubians. This pathological obsession to refer Nubians as Black African one day, and white on the other, is just a sign of intellectual bankruptcy. Make up your damn minds.
The Nubian populations, like the Egyptians, or the Hausa, Somalis, and others in "sub-Saharan" Africa are much closer to the Arabs and Hebrews than Europeans. The major language groups in West Africa include Afro-Asiatic languages so I don't see where this classification comes from.
These populations are Black Africans and denial isn't going to eliminate that fact. Those who brought Arabic into the Middle East were Black Africans as well. The Semetic languages (spoken by the sub-Saharan Amhara peoples) has an origin within the sub-Saharan Horn.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: The sub-saharan African is not considered in the bible geneology table. The reason for this is the OT writers did not consider them as part of the human family. In the eyes of the hebrew writers, these people were "Beasts," marked by their lack of writing, codified law, political structure and an organized and well ordered standing army. Basically they were uncivilized. It is during the xtian age, that the geneology of Ham is extended to the far reaches of Africa (of that time). Originally, that was not the case. Ham is originally the father of four specific tribes of people; Egypt, Libya, Nubia and Canaan.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01:
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: I don't believe in the scientific beliefs of homo erectus or those other "pre-human-type" creatures theories. I am the only one on ES who believes in the bible, and if I believe the bible to be true then I believe mankind and is multiregional and has been since the beginning.
Afronut, the multi-regional hypothesis doesn't suggest that the genus homo didn't originate from Africa. It suggests that the development of anatomically modern humans occurred in parallel. That is, the homo erectus left Africa, as dark skinned individuals, and developed as pale skinned Europeans within Asia.
I don't remember the Bible speaking much about European people. The cultural and linguistic history of the Bible is heavily tied to Africa. There were no Indo-Europeans in the region, nor Turks, nor Sino-Tibetans at that time. The medium of Abrahmic religions clearly has an African origin suggesting that the population was such. The Ethiopian language, Amharic, is a semitic language and Somalis are more connected to Hebrews than Germans or Swedes.
Technically, the Sinai Peninsula is part of Africa and remember, the text doesn't obey popular geography. The indigenous in this region and much of Southern and West Asia are still dark. The Western experience where light skin or European approximation was a strong requisite for access to immigration is going to severely limit one's understanding. White people have a very limited role in the region.
You're spewing emotional afrocentric bullshyt. I don't believe in a "homo-..." anything. Mankind is regional and there has never been pockets of people leaving out of Africa populating the world. Branches that spread out through the world came from Asia more likely from Cushitic background, and "Indo-Europeans" are in the bible. What you don't find in the bible are nappy-headed broad nose, big lip,large skull, short broad-type Africans. The only Africans that are in the Bible are nations of Ham which are heavily populated in the farthest northeast region of Africa. There is no "Africa" in the bible so I wish you people stop claiming black Asians as African or Afro-Asiatic.
Where do you pull such bullsh@t from. My God you are fucking stupid...DAMN **** you are STUPID!! Do you even read the **** you post??
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Non Recovering Alcoholic..the holidays is waay too long put that bottle down
quote:The sub-saharan African is not considered in the bible geneology table. The reason for this is the OT writers did not consider them as part of the human family. In the eyes of the hebrew writers, these people were "Beasts," marked by their lack of writing, codified law, political structure and an organized and well ordered standing army.
Now sight us a chapter/verse in any version of the Bible where the bibical writers mention anything about them being of the sort.
ISAIAH 18:1-2 1 Woe to the land shadowing with wings, which is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia: 2 That sendeth ambassadors by the sea, even in vessels of bulrushes upon the waters, saying, Go, ye swift messengers, to a nation scattered and peeled, to a people terrible from their beginning hitherto; a nation meted out and trodden down, whose land the rivers have spoiled!
37:9 And he heard say concerning Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, He is come forth to make war with thee. And when he heard it, he sent messengers to Hezekiah, saying,Isa.43
There goes your standing Army^Alcoholic
43:3 For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee. 45:14 Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee,
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
"Ham is originally the father of four specific tribes of people; Egypt, Libya, Nubia and Canaan"
Nubia = Kush = Ethiopia.
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Non Recovering Alcoholic..the holidays is waay too long put that bottle down
quote:The sub-saharan African is not considered in the bible geneology table. The reason for this is the OT writers did not consider them as part of the human family. In the eyes of the hebrew writers, these people were "Beasts," marked by their lack of writing, codified law, political structure and an organized and well ordered standing army.
Now sight us a chapter/verse in any version of the Bible where the bibical writers mention anything about them being of the sort.
ISAIAH 18:1-2 1 Woe to the land shadowing with wings, which is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia: 2 That sendeth ambassadors by the sea, even in vessels of bulrushes upon the waters, saying, Go, ye swift messengers, to a nation scattered and peeled, to a people terrible from their beginning hitherto; a nation meted out and trodden down, whose land the rivers have spoiled!
37:9 And he heard say concerning Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, He is come forth to make war with thee. And when he heard it, he sent messengers to Hezekiah, saying,Isa.43
There goes your standing Army^Alcoholic
43:3 For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee. 45:14 Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee,
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: [QB] Negro, did you read everything I wrote?
"Ham is originally the father of four specific tribes of people; Egypt, Libya, Nubia and Canaan"
Nubia = Kush = Ethiopia.
Evidence? Ethiopia is a Greek term and it refers to a larger regional than just modern Ethiopia. I don't remember Greeks looking down at "sub-Saharan" Africans unlike the Northern European barbarians, never mind Semitic-speaking sources.
These nations you choose to isolate speak an Afro-Asiatic tongue which represents one of the dominant tongues in West. I don't see how Hausa peoples would not be included. That's a lot more reasonable than say involving the English or Swedes (who are not even that closely to Iranians) as such.
As for Nubians, the term isn't even recognized in the Bible. It is a Roman term (which didn't even exist at the time of the OT) and referred to Upper Egypt and Lower Sudan. The term has nothing to do with ethnicity, but rather resources. Those parts are rich with gold and that term "Nubia" refers to that.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think most of the respondents to the resident nut's hot air might be overlooking these...
1)Exactly who are these "OT writers"; their names?
2)Had these writers even ever heard of "sub-Saharan Africa", which is a recent European geopolitical construct? Had they traveled deep into what is now called to "sub-Saharan Africa" to know them, and hence consider them?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: [QB] Negro, did you read everything I wrote?
"Ham is originally the father of four specific tribes of people; Egypt, Libya, Nubia and Canaan"
Nubia = Kush = Ethiopia.
Evidence? Ethiopia is a Greek term and it refers to a larger regional than just modern Ethiopia. I don't remember Greeks looking down at "sub-Saharan" Africans unlike the Northern European barbarians, never mind Semitic-speaking sources.
These nations you choose to isolate speak an Afro-Asiatic tongue which represents one of the dominant tongues in West. I don't see how Hausa peoples would not be included. That's a lot more reasonable than say involving the English or Swedes (who are not even that closely to Iranians) as such.
As for Nubians, the term isn't even recognized in the Bible. It is a Roman term (which didn't even exist at the time of the OT) and referred to Upper Egypt and Lower Sudan. The term has nothing to do with ethnicity, but rather resources. Those parts are rich with gold and that term "Nubia" refers to that.
Actually Upper Egypt is referenced to as Pathros not Kush or Ethiopia in the Bible. Ethiopia was the Southern Kingdoms beyond Egypt like Merowe, While Mizriam referenced Upper Egypt.
9And when he heard say of Tirhakah king of [b]Ethiopia[b/], Behold, he is come out to fight against thee: he sent messengers again unto Hezekiah, saying, 2. Kings 19:9
Pathros Pathros Pathros is the name of Egypt's South Region (that's Upper Egypt) was known.
The name Pathros is probably a transliteration of the Egyptian pe-te-res, meaning South Land, but it may have reminded the Hebrews of the verb patar (patar 1860), meaning interpret (dreams). But that word neither contains nor explains the letter samek. Some words of interest: pata (pata 1853), entice, deceive, persuade. Derivation peti (peti 1853a) means simple, foolish. pat (pat 1862a) means fragment, bit. The verb rasas (rasas 2181) means moisten. Derivation rasis (rasis 2181a) means drop of dew. The identical but untranslated root rasas (rss 2182) yields identical derivation rasis (rasis 2182a), meaning fragment.
People we call Nubians today would actually be Egyptians.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see that the recovering Afronuthugger doesn't have a response to my last post in this thread of which dealt specifically with his opening post, most likely because it administered the death blow.
Notice now has he has strayed off his own topic once again.
Surely he will create another thread a week later spouting the same nonsense, as he notes...shadowboxing the mythical demon afrocentrists!! LOL Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know what you saying Explorer and the O.T folks didn't mention China or the America's and the Isles of the Pacific either..
Mindover he always does that when he got his azz handed to him ...run off and start a new thread in the hopes of burying his defeat,
Hay drunk!!Kush existed right up to the borders of Ethiopia..and the Kush were atleast in part Nilo-Saharan in language.
Non Recovering Alcoholic
quote:The sub-saharan African is not considered in the bible geneology table. The reason for this is the OT writers did not consider them as part of the human family. In the eyes of the hebrew writers, these people were "Beasts," marked by their lack of writing, codified law, political structure and an organized and well ordered standing army.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: I don't believe in the scientific beliefs of homo erectus or those other "pre-human-type" creatures theories. I am the only one on ES who believes in the bible, and if I believe the bible to be true then I believe mankind and is multiregional and has been since the beginning.
Afronut, the multi-regional hypothesis doesn't suggest that the genus homo didn't originate from Africa. It suggests that the development of anatomically modern humans occurred in parallel. That is, the homo erectus left Africa, as dark skinned individuals, and developed as pale skinned Europeans within Asia.
I don't remember the Bible speaking much about European people. The cultural and linguistic history of the Bible is heavily tied to Africa. There were no Indo-Europeans in the region, nor Turks, nor Sino-Tibetans at that time. The medium of Abrahmic religions clearly has an African origin suggesting that the population was such. The Ethiopian language, Amharic, is a semitic language and Somalis are more connected to Hebrews than Germans or Swedes.
Technically, the Sinai Peninsula is part of Africa and remember, the text doesn't obey popular geography. The indigenous in this region and much of Southern and West Asia are still dark. The Western experience where light skin or European approximation was a strong requisite for access to immigration is going to severely limit one's understanding. White people have a very limited role in the region.
You're spewing emotional afrocentric bullshyt. I don't believe in a "homo-..." anything. Mankind is regional and there has never been pockets of people leaving out of Africa populating the world.
Oh well. Now shut up and go get yourself a liposuction, overweight white women. It seems like you'll continue to push positions that isn't even substantiated. Provide a damn source.
quote:Branches that spread out through the world came from Asia more likely from Cushitic background,
I find this ironic considering I don't look African-American at all. That's readily noticeable by post African-Americans I've met. On the other hand, I approximate rather heavily to East Africans or South Arabians. The difference is that I'm probably lot lighter.
Please don't kid me. How the hell are those populations not related to Africans elsewhere? I doubt people ever mixed me up whites. I've also seen numerous "West Africans" who look identical to Somalis. The Fula people are one, the Tutsis are another.
I don't think anyone is going to suggest these populations aren't black. These groups had more of a role in the Bible than the English or other Northern Europeans, who are just part of that multi-regional language group.
quote: and "Indo-Europeans" are in the bible.
I should clarify: Northern Europeans. The Iranians are mentioned, during the advent of Ezra and Ezekiel, but what about the Swedes? That population didn't even have a direct role prior to that.
Remember the vast majority of Indo-European speakers are people of color. Those in India are just as dark as an African-American in your failed nation. It's obvious that you haven't seen people in much of the Middle East who would as well. I've shown this excerpt and will do it again:
quote:The Egyptians see themselves as essentially sumr, or "dark". However, for all intents and purposes this is a most confusing and contentious term. If an individual is described as asmar, the masculine, or samra, the feminine, they could range in colour from the southern Sudanese ebony or indigo black, a west African chocolate or mahogany black, the various copper and honey-toned Ethiopian and Somali types, to the olive or off-white dark-haired Mediterranean or Middle Eastern-looking type. Link
Notice how they refer to the off-white dark-haired populations (Greeks are nearly exclusively dark-haired, remember) and it'll describe their origin:
quote: At some theoretical level it is understandable that black conjures up images of the ugly, pathetic and wretched in the Egyptian psyche. Egypt has become progressively whiter over the millennia. [...]
Upper class Egyptians, often fairer than their poorer compatriots, invariably look down on lower class Egyptians who tend to be darker in complexion. There is a subtle correlation between lower income and darker complexion. The Egyptian upper classes and elites tend to be noticeably lighter in complexion than their poorer and working class compatriots. "They labour in the sun," is sometimes the cynical explanation.
But, a more accurate explanation would be that Egypt has for thousands of years been ruled by foreign, and lighter-skinned, invaders -- [url]Persians, Greeks, Romans[/url], Arabs, Turks, the French and British.[b] A large section of the pre-revolutionary Egyptian elite could trace their ancestry to Balkan, Caucasian and Turkish roots. Moreover, Napoleon Bonaparte's French expedition was notorious for sowing its seeds in places like the Delta city of Mansoura whose women are reputedly "exceptionally beautiful"; in Egyptian common parlance that means fair-skinned, with light-coloured eyes and hair.
Not only are the poorer classes darker in complexion, but they tend to display more "African" cultural traits. [b]Much of the music they enjoy has rhythmic beats that are reminiscent of those of the music of Africa south of the Sahara, with an emphasis on drums and percussion. The elite tend to favour classical Western-influenced music or Middle Eastern (Turkish and Persian) musical strains dominated by stringed instruments. While the poorer and working classes are more likely to dance spontaneously and with abandon in public, the elites tend to be more restrained. Much clapping and ululation accompanies street parties in low income areas, the elites, in sharp contrast, shun these "baladi" literally "country" traits, suggestive of the African.
quote:What you don't find in the bible are nappy-headed broad nose, big lip,large skull, short broad-type Africans.
You really simplify the people of Africas. Broad noses aren't that uncommon in East Africa or the Middle East. In fact, Dirk posted a picture of an Upper Egypt male who had a broad nose as well. The same goes for full lips which are quite common. Just look at ]Bin Laden or Yasser Arafat for that matter. The tend to slightly thinner (vs Jay-Z), but for the nose, it's broad, but protrudes. And don't tell me how an aquiline nose looks like, because I seem them everyday.
Besides, Africans in the horn typically have curly hair. I don't get where you're nonsense is even coming from. Hair relaxers are used in these communities quite extensively and I see that being the case all the time. It's obvious that your overweight self doesn't even interact with these populations.
quote:The only Africans that are in the Bible are nations of Ham which are heavily populated in the farthest northeast region of Africa. There is no "Africa" in the bible so I wish you people stop claiming black Asians as African or Afro-Asiatic.
The majority of the world's population was concentrated in the "Northeast" regions of Africa. One of the largest West African groups are the Hausa people, who by the way, speak an Afro-Asiatic language. You really need to start reading more.
The so-called Hausa language has no relations to Asia and is strictly African in origin. Labeling it "Afro-Asiatic" will not make it so and will not make it Asian in any sort. They also call Somali Afro-Asiatic and Somali is strictly African in origin with no other language outside Africa matching it. The only language that is similar is the Oromo language which is restricted to Africans. I don't give a damn what the white man label as "afro-asiatic" since it is insulting to identify a language that is 100% strictly African in origin as anything other than African.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01: The Bible is not a very reliable source. It's not a fallible source, that is, unless we believe that raping women is justifiable if we pay some silvers to the "whore's" father. Let's not be so selective, my friends.
Culture and linguistics, not just genetics, suggest that sub-Saharan peoples are most closely related to Ancient Egyptians and Nubians. This pathological obsession to refer Nubians as Black African one day, and white on the other, is just a sign of intellectual bankruptcy. Make up your damn minds.
The Nubian populations, like the Egyptians, or the Hausa, Somalis, and others in "sub-Saharan" Africa are much closer to the Arabs and Hebrews than Europeans. The major language groups in West Africa include Afro-Asiatic languages so I don't see where this classification comes from.
These populations are Black Africans and denial isn't going to eliminate that fact. Those who brought Arabic into the Middle East were Black Africans as well. The Semetic languages (spoken by the sub-Saharan Amhara peoples) has an origin within the sub-Saharan Horn.
I see that you nappy-headed, big nose, big lip, short-hair, stocky-broad-built ape looking Africans keep trying to interject yourselves into the noble history of the biblical descendants of Ham. Sub-Saharan Africans aren't closely related to Egyptians so stop the bullshyt. You people are written out of the Bible and other witnesses who came across noble civilizations don't refer to those type of black people. Every black person that is written in history always came from Cushitic, Egyptian, or Middle Eastern or Asian stock, and I am sorry that other Africans aren't part of that. It is nothing to be ashamed about because biblical history and other "mainstream" religion don't speak about Indigenous Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Nordics, Eskimos, Aborigines, and others so don't feel inferior because your people aren't founded in the bible.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: The sub-saharan African is not considered in the bible geneology table. The reason for this is the OT writers did not consider them as part of the human family. In the eyes of the hebrew writers, these people were "Beasts," marked by their lack of writing, codified law, political structure and an organized and well ordered standing army. Basically they were uncivilized. It is during the xtian age, that the geneology of Ham is extended to the far reaches of Africa (of that time). Originally, that was not the case. Ham is originally the father of four specific tribes of people; Egypt, Libya, Nubia and Canaan.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01:
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: I don't believe in the scientific beliefs of homo erectus or those other "pre-human-type" creatures theories. I am the only one on ES who believes in the bible, and if I believe the bible to be true then I believe mankind and is multiregional and has been since the beginning.
Afronut, the multi-regional hypothesis doesn't suggest that the genus homo didn't originate from Africa. It suggests that the development of anatomically modern humans occurred in parallel. That is, the homo erectus left Africa, as dark skinned individuals, and developed as pale skinned Europeans within Asia.
I don't remember the Bible speaking much about European people. The cultural and linguistic history of the Bible is heavily tied to Africa. There were no Indo-Europeans in the region, nor Turks, nor Sino-Tibetans at that time. The medium of Abrahmic religions clearly has an African origin suggesting that the population was such. The Ethiopian language, Amharic, is a semitic language and Somalis are more connected to Hebrews than Germans or Swedes.
Technically, the Sinai Peninsula is part of Africa and remember, the text doesn't obey popular geography. The indigenous in this region and much of Southern and West Asia are still dark. The Western experience where light skin or European approximation was a strong requisite for access to immigration is going to severely limit one's understanding. White people have a very limited role in the region.
You're spewing emotional afrocentric bullshyt. I don't believe in a "homo-..." anything. Mankind is regional and there has never been pockets of people leaving out of Africa populating the world. Branches that spread out through the world came from Asia more likely from Cushitic background, and "Indo-Europeans" are in the bible. What you don't find in the bible are nappy-headed broad nose, big lip,large skull, short broad-type Africans. The only Africans that are in the Bible are nations of Ham which are heavily populated in the farthest northeast region of Africa. There is no "Africa" in the bible so I wish you people stop claiming black Asians as African or Afro-Asiatic.
Where do you pull such bullsh@t from. My God you are fucking stupid...DAMN **** you are STUPID!! Do you even read the **** you post??
You Afrocentrics are fvcking STUPID since it is you people that keep interjecting yourselves in noble history that has nothing to do with you or your kind. Like I said, the only African nations in the bible are those of Ham which were in the fartherst northeast region of Africa, other than that, they were all from Asia.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Acts 13:1-3 << Acts 12 | Acts 13 | Acts 14 >> Barnabas and Saul Sent Off 13:1 Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, [1] Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.
Footnotes [1] 13:1 Niger is a Latin word meaning black, or dark
Note Niger a man from the Niger river a West African..Niger,Nigerian etc..for fucs sakes do a quick goole before writing Betty Boo Boo.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: I don't believe in the scientific beliefs of homo erectus or those other "pre-human-type" creatures theories. I am the only one on ES who believes in the bible, and if I believe the bible to be true then I believe mankind and is multiregional and has been since the beginning.
Afronut, the multi-regional hypothesis doesn't suggest that the genus homo didn't originate from Africa. It suggests that the development of anatomically modern humans occurred in parallel. That is, the homo erectus left Africa, as dark skinned individuals, and developed as pale skinned Europeans within Asia.
I don't remember the Bible speaking much about European people. The cultural and linguistic history of the Bible is heavily tied to Africa. There were no Indo-Europeans in the region, nor Turks, nor Sino-Tibetans at that time. The medium of Abrahmic religions clearly has an African origin suggesting that the population was such. The Ethiopian language, Amharic, is a semitic language and Somalis are more connected to Hebrews than Germans or Swedes.
Technically, the Sinai Peninsula is part of Africa and remember, the text doesn't obey popular geography. The indigenous in this region and much of Southern and West Asia are still dark. The Western experience where light skin or European approximation was a strong requisite for access to immigration is going to severely limit one's understanding. White people have a very limited role in the region.
You're spewing emotional afrocentric bullshyt. I don't believe in a "homo-..." anything. Mankind is regional and there has never been pockets of people leaving out of Africa populating the world.
Oh well. Now shut up and go get yourself a liposuction, overweight white women. It seems like you'll continue to push positions that isn't even substantiated. Provide a damn source.
quote:Branches that spread out through the world came from Asia more likely from Cushitic background,
I find this ironic considering I don't look African-American at all. That's readily noticeable by post African-Americans I've met. On the other hand, I approximate rather heavily to East Africans or South Arabians. The difference is that I'm probably lot lighter.
Please don't kid me. How the hell are those populations not related to Africans elsewhere? I doubt people ever mixed me up whites. I've also seen numerous "West Africans" who look identical to Somalis. The Fula people are one, the Tutsis are another.
I don't think anyone is going to suggest these populations aren't black. These groups had more of a role in the Bible than the English or other Northern Europeans, who are just part of that multi-regional language group.
quote: and "Indo-Europeans" are in the bible.
I should clarify: Northern Europeans. The Iranians are mentioned, during the advent of Ezra and Ezekiel, but what about the Swedes? That population didn't even have a direct role prior to that.
Remember the vast majority of Indo-European speakers are people of color. Those in India are just as dark as an African-American in your failed nation. It's obvious that you haven't seen people in much of the Middle East who would as well. I've shown this excerpt and will do it again:
quote:The Egyptians see themselves as essentially sumr, or "dark". However, for all intents and purposes this is a most confusing and contentious term. If an individual is described as asmar, the masculine, or samra, the feminine, they could range in colour from the southern Sudanese ebony or indigo black, a west African chocolate or mahogany black, the various copper and honey-toned Ethiopian and Somali types, to the olive or off-white dark-haired Mediterranean or Middle Eastern-looking type. Link
Notice how they refer to the off-white dark-haired populations (Greeks are nearly exclusively dark-haired, remember) and it'll describe their origin:
quote: At some theoretical level it is understandable that black conjures up images of the ugly, pathetic and wretched in the Egyptian psyche. Egypt has become progressively whiter over the millennia. [...]
Upper class Egyptians, often fairer than their poorer compatriots, invariably look down on lower class Egyptians who tend to be darker in complexion. There is a subtle correlation between lower income and darker complexion. The Egyptian upper classes and elites tend to be noticeably lighter in complexion than their poorer and working class compatriots. "They labour in the sun," is sometimes the cynical explanation.
But, a more accurate explanation would be that Egypt has for thousands of years been ruled by foreign, and lighter-skinned, invaders -- [url]Persians, Greeks, Romans[/url], Arabs, Turks, the French and British.[b] A large section of the pre-revolutionary Egyptian elite could trace their ancestry to Balkan, Caucasian and Turkish roots. Moreover, Napoleon Bonaparte's French expedition was notorious for sowing its seeds in places like the Delta city of Mansoura whose women are reputedly "exceptionally beautiful"; in Egyptian common parlance that means fair-skinned, with light-coloured eyes and hair.
Not only are the poorer classes darker in complexion, but they tend to display more "African" cultural traits. [b]Much of the music they enjoy has rhythmic beats that are reminiscent of those of the music of Africa south of the Sahara, with an emphasis on drums and percussion. The elite tend to favour classical Western-influenced music or Middle Eastern (Turkish and Persian) musical strains dominated by stringed instruments. While the poorer and working classes are more likely to dance spontaneously and with abandon in public, the elites tend to be more restrained. Much clapping and ululation accompanies street parties in low income areas, the elites, in sharp contrast, shun these "baladi" literally "country" traits, suggestive of the African.
quote:What you don't find in the bible are nappy-headed broad nose, big lip,large skull, short broad-type Africans.
You really simplify the people of Africas. Broad noses aren't that uncommon in East Africa or the Middle East. In fact, Dirk posted a picture of an Upper Egypt male who had a broad nose as well. The same goes for full lips which are quite common. Just look at ]Bin Laden or Yasser Arafat for that matter. The tend to slightly thinner (vs Jay-Z), but for the nose, it's broad, but protrudes. And don't tell me how an aquiline nose looks like, because I seem them everyday.
Besides, Africans in the horn typically have curly hair. I don't get where you're nonsense is even coming from. Hair relaxers are used in these communities quite extensively and I see that being the case all the time. It's obvious that your overweight self doesn't even interact with these populations.
quote:The only Africans that are in the Bible are nations of Ham which are heavily populated in the farthest northeast region of Africa. There is no "Africa" in the bible so I wish you people stop claiming black Asians as African or Afro-Asiatic.
The majority of the world's population was concentrated in the "Northeast" regions of Africa. One of the largest West African groups are the Hausa people, who by the way, speak an Afro-Asiatic language. You really need to start reading more.
The so-called Hausa language has no relations to Asia and is strictly African in origin. Labeling it "Afro-Asiatic" will not make it so and will not make it Asian in any sort. They also call Somali Afro-Asiatic and Somali is strictly African in origin with no other language outside Africa matching it. The only language that is similar is the Oromo language which is restricted to Africans. I don't give a damn what the white man label as "afro-asiatic" since it is insulting to identify a language that is 100% strictly African in origin as anything other than African.
Who the heck made you the linguist? Besides, I think you're totally forgetting about Amhari which is a semitic language and is only spoken within Africa. The classification system you use is extremely faulty and has no scientific backing.
Hell, I don't see how it has biblical backing. For instance, Ancient Egyptian was probably not widely spoken outside the nation. The same goes for Cushitic or "Hamitic" tongues which have very little to do with Asia.
Also, Arabic has an African origin. The language was spoken initially by Black Africans and the Semitic language is of African origin. You need to really flesh out your reasoning, because it doesn't make any sense.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01: The Bible is not a very reliable source. It's not a fallible source, that is, unless we believe that raping women is justifiable if we pay some silvers to the "whore's" father. Let's not be so selective, my friends.
Culture and linguistics, not just genetics, suggest that sub-Saharan peoples are most closely related to Ancient Egyptians and Nubians. This pathological obsession to refer Nubians as Black African one day, and white on the other, is just a sign of intellectual bankruptcy. Make up your damn minds.
The Nubian populations, like the Egyptians, or the Hausa, Somalis, and others in "sub-Saharan" Africa are much closer to the Arabs and Hebrews than Europeans. The major language groups in West Africa include Afro-Asiatic languages so I don't see where this classification comes from.
These populations are Black Africans and denial isn't going to eliminate that fact. Those who brought Arabic into the Middle East were Black Africans as well. The Semetic languages (spoken by the sub-Saharan Amhara peoples) has an origin within the sub-Saharan Horn.
I see that you nappy-headed, big nose, big lip, short-hair, stocky-broad-built ape looking Africans keep trying to interject yourselves into the noble history of the biblical descendants of Ham. Sub-Saharan Africans aren't closely related to Egyptians so stop the bullshyt. You people are written out of the Bible and other witnesses who came across noble civilizations don't refer to those type of black people. Every black person that is written in history always came from Cushitic, Egyptian, or Middle Eastern or Asian stock, and I am sorry that other Africans aren't part of that. It is nothing to be ashamed about because biblical history and other "mainstream" religion don't speak about Indigenous Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Nordics, Eskimos, Aborigines, and others so don't feel inferior because your people aren't founded in the bible.
I'm pretty sure you're some fat and ugly white women. That I can say with confidence, being that I am probably one of the tallest person on this damn forum. My lean body type is East Africans, far from "broad" considering I'm tied to the damn region. I don't even know why I'm being assumed to be African-American, considering that I got direct ties to those "Asiatic peoples".
Regardless of that, you're not making any sense once again. The term "Cush" does not refer to Cushitic languages. The latter is a modern definition, while "Kush" is some 3000 years old. The terms are not complementary and "broad people" do exist in those regions.
You're going to tell someone who has been to those regions, and live in the heavily East African suburb of Footscray (Australia). Please don't project your limited American experience on me, fool. Traits are going to vary quite significantly in most cultures.
Saying that, Northern Europeans have **** to do with the Biblical times. I don't even see any customary similarities. Most Italians, not those half-breed, part-Swedish mules of US, would agree. Regardless, those groups were not present in the OT, and the people active were dark skinned people.
The irony is that you will refer to Cushitic, and pure Arabians, who easily represent some of the darkest people in the world. That actor, Wesley Snipes isn't even that dark. Somehow thinking that white people could just be running around in a similar environment sounds really hilarious. In fact, many Iranians well acknowledge that they carry multiple origins. Turks do as well. I am not talking about uncle toms, who like Obama, are no different from Arthur Kemp.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: The sub-saharan African is not considered in the bible geneology table. The reason for this is the OT writers did not consider them as part of the human family. In the eyes of the hebrew writers, these people were "Beasts," marked by their lack of writing, codified law, political structure and an organized and well ordered standing army. Basically they were uncivilized. It is during the xtian age, that the geneology of Ham is extended to the far reaches of Africa (of that time). Originally, that was not the case. Ham is originally the father of four specific tribes of people; Egypt, Libya, Nubia and Canaan.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01:
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: I don't believe in the scientific beliefs of homo erectus or those other "pre-human-type" creatures theories. I am the only one on ES who believes in the bible, and if I believe the bible to be true then I believe mankind and is multiregional and has been since the beginning.
Afronut, the multi-regional hypothesis doesn't suggest that the genus homo didn't originate from Africa. It suggests that the development of anatomically modern humans occurred in parallel. That is, the homo erectus left Africa, as dark skinned individuals, and developed as pale skinned Europeans within Asia.
I don't remember the Bible speaking much about European people. The cultural and linguistic history of the Bible is heavily tied to Africa. There were no Indo-Europeans in the region, nor Turks, nor Sino-Tibetans at that time. The medium of Abrahmic religions clearly has an African origin suggesting that the population was such. The Ethiopian language, Amharic, is a semitic language and Somalis are more connected to Hebrews than Germans or Swedes.
Technically, the Sinai Peninsula is part of Africa and remember, the text doesn't obey popular geography. The indigenous in this region and much of Southern and West Asia are still dark. The Western experience where light skin or European approximation was a strong requisite for access to immigration is going to severely limit one's understanding. White people have a very limited role in the region.
You're spewing emotional afrocentric bullshyt. I don't believe in a "homo-..." anything. Mankind is regional and there has never been pockets of people leaving out of Africa populating the world. Branches that spread out through the world came from Asia more likely from Cushitic background, and "Indo-Europeans" are in the bible. What you don't find in the bible are nappy-headed broad nose, big lip,large skull, short broad-type Africans. The only Africans that are in the Bible are nations of Ham which are heavily populated in the farthest northeast region of Africa. There is no "Africa" in the bible so I wish you people stop claiming black Asians as African or Afro-Asiatic.
Where do you pull such bullsh@t from. My God you are fucking stupid...DAMN **** you are STUPID!! Do you even read the **** you post??
You Afrocentrics are fvcking STUPID since it is you people that keep interjecting yourselves in noble history that has nothing to do with you or your kind. Like I said, the only African nations in the bible are those of Ham which were in the fartherst northeast region of Africa, other than that, they were all from Asia.
It's funny that we hear terms like "bullshit" applied to us. I can say with confidence, in this section, that I'm a leader on this forum. There are obviously some differences between myself and some users with regards to the white power structure.
Outside of that, our interests would be very similar. Regardless, I think we can say confidently, if we employ the history, and the sciences, that Ancient Egyptians would not only be tropically adapted, Black-skinned, Africans ( being "Cushitic" doesn't override that), but related to "sub-Saharan" Africa.
This is the case of Eurocentrists not controlling the definition of term used. That term, "sub-Saharan", refers to the south of Sahara which includes Somalis. The traits associated with the group is quite common amongst West Africans as well.
The problem why it is hard to understand that is due to limited exposure to Africa. The largest group in Nigeria, the Hausa and Fula peoples, look very similar to Somalis. Since the immigration system favors Christians, more people of Yoruba descent are present. Seeing that I haven't been to every part of US, one thing I do remember is that many African-Americans do approximate towards the aquiline and leaner East Africans. I've seen the exact reverse as well, so it isn't that clear cut.
Having said that, Sudanic people, North-to-South, can be very "broad" as well. I'd argue are more much more common in Egypt and Sudan than East Africa. The type is more common in South Arabia as well (i.e. "Australoids").
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
One more thing, the term "Kush" probably didn't even refer to "Nubia". That's because such a nation didn't even exist and this Roman-based term, included Southern Egypt as well.
Now if that term refers to "Ethiopia", it would be referring to Africa south of the Sahara.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I was referring to your use of "West African looking"; I don't recall Brace using that term, whom you implicated as your source.
Congo is aligned in central Africa than it is west Africa proper, and hence, usually described as west-Central Africa. The Haya populations live in Tanzania, which is in eastern Africa, i.e. south-eastern Africa.
The majority of the samples were from Central-West Africa. I hate using these terms, because these terms are hardly scientific. People weren't confined to these regions, nor are features restricted according to regional-lines. However the "typical" traits (from what I've seen or head) tend to be West African-esque.
In other words, it wouldn't be hard to differentiate between a Haya-speaking and a Tutsi counterpart. I wouldn't be surprised if the cluster chosen by Brace was developed to create a "True Negro" cluster.
posted
What do you mean by "West African looking" or "West African-esque"? These are your words, not Brace's, as they are nowhere to be found in the source you referenced.
As for Brace's motives in creating a "True Negro" cluster, it is not unreasonable to assume so, since this appears to be the only African group (just three very selective samples were used) that had been put together on the basis of a language superphylum, as opposed to strictly regional (geographical sphere) basis.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: The sub-saharan African is not considered in the bible geneology table. The reason for this is the OT writers did not consider them as part of the human family. In the eyes of the hebrew writers, these people were "Beasts," marked by their lack of writing, codified law, political structure and an organized and well ordered standing army. Basically they were uncivilized. It is during the xtian age, that the geneology of Ham is extended to the far reaches of Africa (of that time). Originally, that was not the case. Ham is originally the father of four specific tribes of people; Egypt, Libya, Nubia and Canaan.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01:
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: I don't believe in the scientific beliefs of homo erectus or those other "pre-human-type" creatures theories. I am the only one on ES who believes in the bible, and if I believe the bible to be true then I believe mankind and is multiregional and has been since the beginning.
Afronut, the multi-regional hypothesis doesn't suggest that the genus homo didn't originate from Africa. It suggests that the development of anatomically modern humans occurred in parallel. That is, the homo erectus left Africa, as dark skinned individuals, and developed as pale skinned Europeans within Asia.
I don't remember the Bible speaking much about European people. The cultural and linguistic history of the Bible is heavily tied to Africa. There were no Indo-Europeans in the region, nor Turks, nor Sino-Tibetans at that time. The medium of Abrahmic religions clearly has an African origin suggesting that the population was such. The Ethiopian language, Amharic, is a semitic language and Somalis are more connected to Hebrews than Germans or Swedes.
Technically, the Sinai Peninsula is part of Africa and remember, the text doesn't obey popular geography. The indigenous in this region and much of Southern and West Asia are still dark. The Western experience where light skin or European approximation was a strong requisite for access to immigration is going to severely limit one's understanding. White people have a very limited role in the region.
You're spewing emotional afrocentric bullshyt. I don't believe in a "homo-..." anything. Mankind is regional and there has never been pockets of people leaving out of Africa populating the world. Branches that spread out through the world came from Asia more likely from Cushitic background, and "Indo-Europeans" are in the bible. What you don't find in the bible are nappy-headed broad nose, big lip,large skull, short broad-type Africans. The only Africans that are in the Bible are nations of Ham which are heavily populated in the farthest northeast region of Africa. There is no "Africa" in the bible so I wish you people stop claiming black Asians as African or Afro-Asiatic.
Where do you pull such bullsh@t from. My God you are fucking stupid...DAMN **** you are STUPID!! Do you even read the **** you post??
You Afrocentrics are fvcking STUPID since it is you people that keep interjecting yourselves in noble history that has nothing to do with you or your kind. Like I said, the only African nations in the bible are those of Ham which were in the fartherst northeast region of Africa, other than that, they were all from Asia.
It's funny that we hear terms like "bullshit" applied to us. I can say with confidence, in this section, that I'm a leader on this forum. There are obviously some differences between myself and some users with regards to the white power structure.
Outside of that, our interests would be very similar. Regardless, I think we can say confidently, if we employ the history, and the sciences, that Ancient Egyptians would not only be tropically adapted, Black-skinned, Africans ( being "Cushitic" doesn't override that), but related to "sub-Saharan" Africa.
This is the case of Eurocentrists not controlling the definition of term used. That term, "sub-Saharan", refers to the south of Sahara which includes Somalis. The traits associated with the group is quite common amongst West Africans as well.
The problem why it is hard to understand that is due to limited exposure to Africa. The largest group in Nigeria, the Hausa and Fula peoples, look very similar to Somalis. Since the immigration system favors Christians, more people of Yoruba descent are present. Seeing that I haven't been to every part of US, one thing I do remember is that many African-Americans do approximate towards the aquiline and leaner East Africans. I've seen the exact reverse as well, so it isn't that clear cut.
Having said that, Sudanic people, North-to-South, can be very "broad" as well. I'd argue are more much more common in Egypt and Sudan than East Africa. The type is more common in South Arabia as well (i.e. "Australoids").
Your beliefs are so flawed. Somalis haven't always lived in the horn known as Somalia and though it is "sub-sahara" Africa they are indeed part of the Cushitic branch. Secondly, Hausa and Fula are not the majority in Nigeria. Thirdly, it is the Yoruba that makes up the majority. Fourthly, Fulas or Hausas don't look nothing like Somalis. Both Fulas and Hausas look like every other black, big-nose, from west Africa or Saharan stock. Fifth, don't forget that many Africans speak languages outside of their ethnic group, so just because someone speak "hausa" or "fula" doesn't make them one. Other than that, I don't know what you are talking about.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: I don't believe in the scientific beliefs of homo erectus or those other "pre-human-type" creatures theories. I am the only one on ES who believes in the bible, and if I believe the bible to be true then I believe mankind and is multiregional and has been since the beginning.
Afronut, the multi-regional hypothesis doesn't suggest that the genus homo didn't originate from Africa. It suggests that the development of anatomically modern humans occurred in parallel. That is, the homo erectus left Africa, as dark skinned individuals, and developed as pale skinned Europeans within Asia.
I don't remember the Bible speaking much about European people. The cultural and linguistic history of the Bible is heavily tied to Africa. There were no Indo-Europeans in the region, nor Turks, nor Sino-Tibetans at that time. The medium of Abrahmic religions clearly has an African origin suggesting that the population was such. The Ethiopian language, Amharic, is a semitic language and Somalis are more connected to Hebrews than Germans or Swedes.
Technically, the Sinai Peninsula is part of Africa and remember, the text doesn't obey popular geography. The indigenous in this region and much of Southern and West Asia are still dark. The Western experience where light skin or European approximation was a strong requisite for access to immigration is going to severely limit one's understanding. White people have a very limited role in the region.
You're spewing emotional afrocentric bullshyt. I don't believe in a "homo-..." anything. Mankind is regional and there has never been pockets of people leaving out of Africa populating the world.
Oh well. Now shut up and go get yourself a liposuction, overweight white women. It seems like you'll continue to push positions that isn't even substantiated. Provide a damn source.
quote:Branches that spread out through the world came from Asia more likely from Cushitic background,
I find this ironic considering I don't look African-American at all. That's readily noticeable by post African-Americans I've met. On the other hand, I approximate rather heavily to East Africans or South Arabians. The difference is that I'm probably lot lighter.
Please don't kid me. How the hell are those populations not related to Africans elsewhere? I doubt people ever mixed me up whites. I've also seen numerous "West Africans" who look identical to Somalis. The Fula people are one, the Tutsis are another.
I don't think anyone is going to suggest these populations aren't black. These groups had more of a role in the Bible than the English or other Northern Europeans, who are just part of that multi-regional language group.
quote: and "Indo-Europeans" are in the bible.
I should clarify: Northern Europeans. The Iranians are mentioned, during the advent of Ezra and Ezekiel, but what about the Swedes? That population didn't even have a direct role prior to that.
Remember the vast majority of Indo-European speakers are people of color. Those in India are just as dark as an African-American in your failed nation. It's obvious that you haven't seen people in much of the Middle East who would as well. I've shown this excerpt and will do it again:
quote:The Egyptians see themselves as essentially sumr, or "dark". However, for all intents and purposes this is a most confusing and contentious term. If an individual is described as asmar, the masculine, or samra, the feminine, they could range in colour from the southern Sudanese ebony or indigo black, a west African chocolate or mahogany black, the various copper and honey-toned Ethiopian and Somali types, to the olive or off-white dark-haired Mediterranean or Middle Eastern-looking type. Link
Notice how they refer to the off-white dark-haired populations (Greeks are nearly exclusively dark-haired, remember) and it'll describe their origin:
quote: At some theoretical level it is understandable that black conjures up images of the ugly, pathetic and wretched in the Egyptian psyche. Egypt has become progressively whiter over the millennia. [...]
Upper class Egyptians, often fairer than their poorer compatriots, invariably look down on lower class Egyptians who tend to be darker in complexion. There is a subtle correlation between lower income and darker complexion. The Egyptian upper classes and elites tend to be noticeably lighter in complexion than their poorer and working class compatriots. "They labour in the sun," is sometimes the cynical explanation.
But, a more accurate explanation would be that Egypt has for thousands of years been ruled by foreign, and lighter-skinned, invaders -- [url]Persians, Greeks, Romans[/url], Arabs, Turks, the French and British.[b] A large section of the pre-revolutionary Egyptian elite could trace their ancestry to Balkan, Caucasian and Turkish roots. Moreover, Napoleon Bonaparte's French expedition was notorious for sowing its seeds in places like the Delta city of Mansoura whose women are reputedly "exceptionally beautiful"; in Egyptian common parlance that means fair-skinned, with light-coloured eyes and hair.
Not only are the poorer classes darker in complexion, but they tend to display more "African" cultural traits. [b]Much of the music they enjoy has rhythmic beats that are reminiscent of those of the music of Africa south of the Sahara, with an emphasis on drums and percussion. The elite tend to favour classical Western-influenced music or Middle Eastern (Turkish and Persian) musical strains dominated by stringed instruments. While the poorer and working classes are more likely to dance spontaneously and with abandon in public, the elites tend to be more restrained. Much clapping and ululation accompanies street parties in low income areas, the elites, in sharp contrast, shun these "baladi" literally "country" traits, suggestive of the African.
quote:What you don't find in the bible are nappy-headed broad nose, big lip,large skull, short broad-type Africans.
You really simplify the people of Africas. Broad noses aren't that uncommon in East Africa or the Middle East. In fact, Dirk posted a picture of an Upper Egypt male who had a broad nose as well. The same goes for full lips which are quite common. Just look at ]Bin Laden or Yasser Arafat for that matter. The tend to slightly thinner (vs Jay-Z), but for the nose, it's broad, but protrudes. And don't tell me how an aquiline nose looks like, because I seem them everyday.
Besides, Africans in the horn typically have curly hair. I don't get where you're nonsense is even coming from. Hair relaxers are used in these communities quite extensively and I see that being the case all the time. It's obvious that your overweight self doesn't even interact with these populations.
quote:The only Africans that are in the Bible are nations of Ham which are heavily populated in the farthest northeast region of Africa. There is no "Africa" in the bible so I wish you people stop claiming black Asians as African or Afro-Asiatic.
The majority of the world's population was concentrated in the "Northeast" regions of Africa. One of the largest West African groups are the Hausa people, who by the way, speak an Afro-Asiatic language. You really need to start reading more.
The so-called Hausa language has no relations to Asia and is strictly African in origin. Labeling it "Afro-Asiatic" will not make it so and will not make it Asian in any sort. They also call Somali Afro-Asiatic and Somali is strictly African in origin with no other language outside Africa matching it. The only language that is similar is the Oromo language which is restricted to Africans. I don't give a damn what the white man label as "afro-asiatic" since it is insulting to identify a language that is 100% strictly African in origin as anything other than African.
Who the heck made you the linguist? Besides, I think you're totally forgetting about Amhari which is a semitic language and is only spoken within Africa. The classification system you use is extremely faulty and has no scientific backing.
Hell, I don't see how it has biblical backing. For instance, Ancient Egyptian was probably not widely spoken outside the nation. The same goes for Cushitic or "Hamitic" tongues which have very little to do with Asia.
Also, Arabic has an African origin. The language was spoken initially by Black Africans and the Semitic language is of African origin. You need to really flesh out your reasoning, because it doesn't make any sense.
You're the one not making any damn sense. Everything you wrote is fvcking confusing. Like I said, Hausa is a strict African language and has no relations to Asia. Amharic is actually a language of HAM descendants and not of Shem and it is Asian in origin spoken both in Africa (amongst the few Amahara and other Ethiopians who learned the language as the official language) and in Asia. Don't forget that the Amhara people (true Amhara) migrated to Ethiopia. There never been a migrations of Hausa people from Asia into Africa.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01: The Bible is not a very reliable source. It's not a fallible source, that is, unless we believe that raping women is justifiable if we pay some silvers to the "whore's" father. Let's not be so selective, my friends.
Culture and linguistics, not just genetics, suggest that sub-Saharan peoples are most closely related to Ancient Egyptians and Nubians. This pathological obsession to refer Nubians as Black African one day, and white on the other, is just a sign of intellectual bankruptcy. Make up your damn minds.
The Nubian populations, like the Egyptians, or the Hausa, Somalis, and others in "sub-Saharan" Africa are much closer to the Arabs and Hebrews than Europeans. The major language groups in West Africa include Afro-Asiatic languages so I don't see where this classification comes from.
These populations are Black Africans and denial isn't going to eliminate that fact. Those who brought Arabic into the Middle East were Black Africans as well. The Semetic languages (spoken by the sub-Saharan Amhara peoples) has an origin within the sub-Saharan Horn.
I see that you nappy-headed, big nose, big lip, short-hair, stocky-broad-built ape looking Africans keep trying to interject yourselves into the noble history of the biblical descendants of Ham. Sub-Saharan Africans aren't closely related to Egyptians so stop the bullshyt. You people are written out of the Bible and other witnesses who came across noble civilizations don't refer to those type of black people. Every black person that is written in history always came from Cushitic, Egyptian, or Middle Eastern or Asian stock, and I am sorry that other Africans aren't part of that. It is nothing to be ashamed about because biblical history and other "mainstream" religion don't speak about Indigenous Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Nordics, Eskimos, Aborigines, and others so don't feel inferior because your people aren't founded in the bible.
I'm pretty sure you're some fat and ugly white women. That I can say with confidence, being that I am probably one of the tallest person on this damn forum. My lean body type is East Africans, far from "broad" considering I'm tied to the damn region. I don't even know why I'm being assumed to be African-American, considering that I got direct ties to those "Asiatic peoples".
Regardless of that, you're not making any sense once again. The term "Cush" does not refer to Cushitic languages. The latter is a modern definition, while "Kush" is some 3000 years old. The terms are not complementary and "broad people" do exist in those regions.
You're going to tell someone who has been to those regions, and live in the heavily East African suburb of Footscray (Australia). Please don't project your limited American experience on me, fool. Traits are going to vary quite significantly in most cultures.
Saying that, Northern Europeans have **** to do with the Biblical times. I don't even see any customary similarities. Most Italians, not those half-breed, part-Swedish mules of US, would agree. Regardless, those groups were not present in the OT, and the people active were dark skinned people.
The irony is that you will refer to Cushitic, and pure Arabians, who easily represent some of the darkest people in the world. That actor, Wesley Snipes isn't even that dark. Somehow thinking that white people could just be running around in a similar environment sounds really hilarious. In fact, many Iranians well acknowledge that they carry multiple origins. Turks do as well. I am not talking about uncle toms, who like Obama, are no different from Arthur Kemp.
Shut UP! Your azz is on ES trolling.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: because biblical history
There is no such thing as "biblical history" you jackass, its a mythological book like all other ancient mythologies.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
BTW - Why you guys waste your breath on someone who doesn't beleive in Dinosaurs and believes in the Bible. . . .literally
-------------------- 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 Recovering Afrocentrist: The sub-saharan African is not considered in the bible geneology table. The reason for this is the OT writers did not consider them as part of the human family. In the eyes of the hebrew writers, these people were "Beasts," marked by their lack of writing, codified law, political structure and an organized and well ordered standing army. Basically they were uncivilized. It is during the xtian age, that the geneology of Ham is extended to the far reaches of Africa (of that time). Originally, that was not the case. Ham is originally the father of four specific tribes of people; Egypt, Libya, Nubia and Canaan.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01:
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: I don't believe in the scientific beliefs of homo erectus or those other "pre-human-type" creatures theories. I am the only one on ES who believes in the bible, and if I believe the bible to be true then I believe mankind and is multiregional and has been since the beginning.
Afronut, the multi-regional hypothesis doesn't suggest that the genus homo didn't originate from Africa. It suggests that the development of anatomically modern humans occurred in parallel. That is, the homo erectus left Africa, as dark skinned individuals, and developed as pale skinned Europeans within Asia.
I don't remember the Bible speaking much about European people. The cultural and linguistic history of the Bible is heavily tied to Africa. There were no Indo-Europeans in the region, nor Turks, nor Sino-Tibetans at that time. The medium of Abrahmic religions clearly has an African origin suggesting that the population was such. The Ethiopian language, Amharic, is a semitic language and Somalis are more connected to Hebrews than Germans or Swedes.
Technically, the Sinai Peninsula is part of Africa and remember, the text doesn't obey popular geography. The indigenous in this region and much of Southern and West Asia are still dark. The Western experience where light skin or European approximation was a strong requisite for access to immigration is going to severely limit one's understanding. White people have a very limited role in the region.
You're spewing emotional afrocentric bullshyt. I don't believe in a "homo-..." anything. Mankind is regional and there has never been pockets of people leaving out of Africa populating the world. Branches that spread out through the world came from Asia more likely from Cushitic background, and "Indo-Europeans" are in the bible. What you don't find in the bible are nappy-headed broad nose, big lip,large skull, short broad-type Africans. The only Africans that are in the Bible are nations of Ham which are heavily populated in the farthest northeast region of Africa. There is no "Africa" in the bible so I wish you people stop claiming black Asians as African or Afro-Asiatic.
Where do you pull such bullsh@t from. My God you are fucking stupid...DAMN **** you are STUPID!! Do you even read the **** you post??
You Afrocentrics are fvcking STUPID since it is you people that keep interjecting yourselves in noble history that has nothing to do with you or your kind. Like I said, the only African nations in the bible are those of Ham which were in the fartherst northeast region of Africa, other than that, they were all from Asia.
It's funny that we hear terms like "bullshit" applied to us. I can say with confidence, in this section, that I'm a leader on this forum. There are obviously some differences between myself and some users with regards to the white power structure.
Outside of that, our interests would be very similar. Regardless, I think we can say confidently, if we employ the history, and the sciences, that Ancient Egyptians would not only be tropically adapted, Black-skinned, Africans ( being "Cushitic" doesn't override that), but related to "sub-Saharan" Africa.
This is the case of Eurocentrists not controlling the definition of term used. That term, "sub-Saharan", refers to the south of Sahara which includes Somalis. The traits associated with the group is quite common amongst West Africans as well.
The problem why it is hard to understand that is due to limited exposure to Africa. The largest group in Nigeria, the Hausa and Fula peoples, look very similar to Somalis. Since the immigration system favors Christians, more people of Yoruba descent are present. Seeing that I haven't been to every part of US, one thing I do remember is that many African-Americans do approximate towards the aquiline and leaner East Africans. I've seen the exact reverse as well, so it isn't that clear cut.
Having said that, Sudanic people, North-to-South, can be very "broad" as well. I'd argue are more much more common in Egypt and Sudan than East Africa. The type is more common in South Arabia as well (i.e. "Australoids").
Your beliefs are so flawed. Somalis haven't always lived in the horn known as Somalia and though it is "sub-sahara" Africa they are indeed part of the Cushitic branch. Secondly, Hausa and Fula are not the majority in Nigeria. Thirdly, it is the Yoruba that makes up the majority. Fourthly, Fulas or Hausas don't look nothing like Somalis. Both Fulas and Hausas look like every other black, big-nose, from west Africa or Saharan stock. Fifth, don't forget that many Africans speak languages outside of their ethnic group, so just because someone speak "hausa" or "fula" doesn't make them one. Other than that, I don't know what you are talking about.
Once again, you're mixing up "Cush" in the Bible with the Cushitic languages. It's not like the writers of the Bible were linguistics, fool. As for Hausa people, even if they aren't a majority, they're a significant population in "West Africa". In addition, like the Somali-looking Fula and Tutsis, MANY "West Africans" of that stock exists.
You are introducing classifications that don't even run with reality. I still don't even know why an overweight American such as yourself is posting on a forum that should have a large African and Middle Eastern base. Go join some Biblical psuedo-scientific forum elsewhere if you're not going to back your claims with the text you claim to be deriving your knowledge from.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: I don't believe in the scientific beliefs of homo erectus or those other "pre-human-type" creatures theories. I am the only one on ES who believes in the bible, and if I believe the bible to be true then I believe mankind and is multiregional and has been since the beginning.
Afronut, the multi-regional hypothesis doesn't suggest that the genus homo didn't originate from Africa. It suggests that the development of anatomically modern humans occurred in parallel. That is, the homo erectus left Africa, as dark skinned individuals, and developed as pale skinned Europeans within Asia.
I don't remember the Bible speaking much about European people. The cultural and linguistic history of the Bible is heavily tied to Africa. There were no Indo-Europeans in the region, nor Turks, nor Sino-Tibetans at that time. The medium of Abrahmic religions clearly has an African origin suggesting that the population was such. The Ethiopian language, Amharic, is a semitic language and Somalis are more connected to Hebrews than Germans or Swedes.
Technically, the Sinai Peninsula is part of Africa and remember, the text doesn't obey popular geography. The indigenous in this region and much of Southern and West Asia are still dark. The Western experience where light skin or European approximation was a strong requisite for access to immigration is going to severely limit one's understanding. White people have a very limited role in the region.
You're spewing emotional afrocentric bullshyt. I don't believe in a "homo-..." anything. Mankind is regional and there has never been pockets of people leaving out of Africa populating the world.
Oh well. Now shut up and go get yourself a liposuction, overweight white women. It seems like you'll continue to push positions that isn't even substantiated. Provide a damn source.
quote:Branches that spread out through the world came from Asia more likely from Cushitic background,
I find this ironic considering I don't look African-American at all. That's readily noticeable by post African-Americans I've met. On the other hand, I approximate rather heavily to East Africans or South Arabians. The difference is that I'm probably lot lighter.
Please don't kid me. How the hell are those populations not related to Africans elsewhere? I doubt people ever mixed me up whites. I've also seen numerous "West Africans" who look identical to Somalis. The Fula people are one, the Tutsis are another.
I don't think anyone is going to suggest these populations aren't black. These groups had more of a role in the Bible than the English or other Northern Europeans, who are just part of that multi-regional language group.
quote: and "Indo-Europeans" are in the bible.
I should clarify: Northern Europeans. The Iranians are mentioned, during the advent of Ezra and Ezekiel, but what about the Swedes? That population didn't even have a direct role prior to that.
Remember the vast majority of Indo-European speakers are people of color. Those in India are just as dark as an African-American in your failed nation. It's obvious that you haven't seen people in much of the Middle East who would as well. I've shown this excerpt and will do it again:
quote:The Egyptians see themselves as essentially sumr, or "dark". However, for all intents and purposes this is a most confusing and contentious term. If an individual is described as asmar, the masculine, or samra, the feminine, they could range in colour from the southern Sudanese ebony or indigo black, a west African chocolate or mahogany black, the various copper and honey-toned Ethiopian and Somali types, to the olive or off-white dark-haired Mediterranean or Middle Eastern-looking type. Link
Notice how they refer to the off-white dark-haired populations (Greeks are nearly exclusively dark-haired, remember) and it'll describe their origin:
quote: At some theoretical level it is understandable that black conjures up images of the ugly, pathetic and wretched in the Egyptian psyche. Egypt has become progressively whiter over the millennia. [...]
Upper class Egyptians, often fairer than their poorer compatriots, invariably look down on lower class Egyptians who tend to be darker in complexion. There is a subtle correlation between lower income and darker complexion. The Egyptian upper classes and elites tend to be noticeably lighter in complexion than their poorer and working class compatriots. "They labour in the sun," is sometimes the cynical explanation.
But, a more accurate explanation would be that Egypt has for thousands of years been ruled by foreign, and lighter-skinned, invaders -- [url]Persians, Greeks, Romans[/url], Arabs, Turks, the French and British.[b] A large section of the pre-revolutionary Egyptian elite could trace their ancestry to Balkan, Caucasian and Turkish roots. Moreover, Napoleon Bonaparte's French expedition was notorious for sowing its seeds in places like the Delta city of Mansoura whose women are reputedly "exceptionally beautiful"; in Egyptian common parlance that means fair-skinned, with light-coloured eyes and hair.
Not only are the poorer classes darker in complexion, but they tend to display more "African" cultural traits. [b]Much of the music they enjoy has rhythmic beats that are reminiscent of those of the music of Africa south of the Sahara, with an emphasis on drums and percussion. The elite tend to favour classical Western-influenced music or Middle Eastern (Turkish and Persian) musical strains dominated by stringed instruments. While the poorer and working classes are more likely to dance spontaneously and with abandon in public, the elites tend to be more restrained. Much clapping and ululation accompanies street parties in low income areas, the elites, in sharp contrast, shun these "baladi" literally "country" traits, suggestive of the African.
quote:What you don't find in the bible are nappy-headed broad nose, big lip,large skull, short broad-type Africans.
You really simplify the people of Africas. Broad noses aren't that uncommon in East Africa or the Middle East. In fact, Dirk posted a picture of an Upper Egypt male who had a broad nose as well. The same goes for full lips which are quite common. Just look at ]Bin Laden or Yasser Arafat for that matter. The tend to slightly thinner (vs Jay-Z), but for the nose, it's broad, but protrudes. And don't tell me how an aquiline nose looks like, because I seem them everyday.
Besides, Africans in the horn typically have curly hair. I don't get where you're nonsense is even coming from. Hair relaxers are used in these communities quite extensively and I see that being the case all the time. It's obvious that your overweight self doesn't even interact with these populations.
quote:The only Africans that are in the Bible are nations of Ham which are heavily populated in the farthest northeast region of Africa. There is no "Africa" in the bible so I wish you people stop claiming black Asians as African or Afro-Asiatic.
The majority of the world's population was concentrated in the "Northeast" regions of Africa. One of the largest West African groups are the Hausa people, who by the way, speak an Afro-Asiatic language. You really need to start reading more.
The so-called Hausa language has no relations to Asia and is strictly African in origin. Labeling it "Afro-Asiatic" will not make it so and will not make it Asian in any sort. They also call Somali Afro-Asiatic and Somali is strictly African in origin with no other language outside Africa matching it. The only language that is similar is the Oromo language which is restricted to Africans. I don't give a damn what the white man label as "afro-asiatic" since it is insulting to identify a language that is 100% strictly African in origin as anything other than African.
Who the heck made you the linguist? Besides, I think you're totally forgetting about Amhari which is a semitic language and is only spoken within Africa. The classification system you use is extremely faulty and has no scientific backing.
Hell, I don't see how it has biblical backing. For instance, Ancient Egyptian was probably not widely spoken outside the nation. The same goes for Cushitic or "Hamitic" tongues which have very little to do with Asia.
Also, Arabic has an African origin. The language was spoken initially by Black Africans and the Semitic language is of African origin. You need to really flesh out your reasoning, because it doesn't make any sense.
You're the one not making any damn sense. Everything you wrote is fvcking confusing. Like I said, Hausa is a strict African language and has no relations to Asia. Amharic is actually a language of HAM descendants and not of Shem and it is Asian in origin spoken both in Africa (amongst the few Amahara and other Ethiopians who learned the language as the official language) and in Asia. Don't forget that the Amhara people (true Amhara) migrated to Ethiopia. There never been a migrations of Hausa people from Asia into Africa.
What is your evidence fool? The Amhara people never migrated to Asia. The reverse occurred with Africans bringing the Semitic language into Asia. That entire language group, along with its parent Afro-Asiatic languages originated within Africa.
Minimal Asiatic exposure amongst those groups mean ****. Besides most would have a very hard time differentiating between an Amhaha, Fula and a Tutsi. Especially if they introduced some overweight, mongrel, Northern European trash like yourself into the equation. These groups would be considered the same "niggers" in virtually every state in America.
Back your claims, fool. I don't even see where this all is stated in the Bible.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic