quote:Originally posted by yumadro: Another example of white washed history.
Why do you say it is white-washed when they are using DNA to ID the person?
Pictures in the article make it look like the people of Europe back then were white even though even in the Roman times and early Middle Ages the majority of people were still black.
Posts: 60 | From: Europe | Registered: Nov 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yumadro or should I say Mike. The people of Europe are now and always have been White. Why doesn't your Black supremacist,White people hating, history stealing butt give it up already.
Posts: 24 | From: For Me To Know | Registered: Sep 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are a damn liar. I never said he looked black enough. I said he does not look white (traditional white male or WASP)!!!!! Dude could pass for a Mediterranean, Middle Easterner, Biracial, Hispanic or mix breed! He's racially AMBIGUOUS!
quote:Originally posted by Ase:
Well since you said the guy above looks black enough BC...
quote:Originally posted by yumadro: Another example of white washed history.
Why do you say it is white-washed when they are using DNA to ID the person?
Pictures in the article make it look like the people of Europe back then were white even though even in the Roman times and early Middle Ages the majority of people were still black.
posted
So mediterraneans are never white? You disagree with yumadro that Ava's history is white washed but with her looks, she could be his relative.
Oh and you kinda did defend the idea this guy was black so you could argue what he did wasn't a hate crime:
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: And I would say they were not white either!! It is obvious dude is biracial or mix pedigree. But we know in the US, socially, they are treated as "Black." That is soon to change however.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: If that guy's face was the forensic result of an Egyptian mummy, how much do you want to bet BC would be among the first on here galloping to show us proof Egyptians weren't black? See how the goalposts are constantly shifting? But of course NOW this guy can be black when the plan is to dismiss hate crimes? Jari has "Black" Crystal ever thought to normally post stories about hate crimes, or as usual, are these stories only of interest to him to post about when the idea is to talk crap about black people? He put his name among the targets to throw off any investigations directed towards him, not because he's black. What a load of nonsense.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: First off, I never claimed the race of the perp. Check your delusions. Second, it's obvious he is biracial or mix breed. The point is it does not qualify as a hate crime because the perpetrator is not a white male.
How did the media determined his race?
"Arthur is black, according to online court records."
quote:Originally posted by Ase: So mediterraneans are never white? You disagree with yumadro that Ava's history is white washed but with her looks, she could be his relative.
I never said Mediterraneans were not white. Dude you need to stop READING INTO my statements, which honestly is a sign of poor reading comprehension skills.
Mediterraneans are not your classic WASP type white. You realize that there are different types of whites? Surely you can see the difference between a Nordic and Mediterranean white, just as you'd see the difference between Nigerian and Congolese black? Yes?
The model is white because she comes from the Mediterranean. You are making this more complex than it is.
posted
I think you come into this discussion with deep seated prejudices. You cannot even approach it objectively. I never defended the idea this guy was black. I stated a fact that court documents establish him as black. I said that this was not a hate crime because it was not committed by a WHITE MALE! Why is this simple concept difficult for you to grasp?
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Oh and you kinda did defend the idea this guy was black so you could argue what he did wasn't a hate crime:
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: And I would say they were not white either!! It is obvious dude is biracial or mix pedigree. But we know in the US, socially, they are treated as "Black." That is soon to change however.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: If that guy's face was the forensic result of an Egyptian mummy, how much do you want to bet BC would be among the first on here galloping to show us proof Egyptians weren't black? See how the goalposts are constantly shifting? But of course NOW this guy can be black when the plan is to dismiss hate crimes? Jari has "Black" Crystal ever thought to normally post stories about hate crimes, or as usual, are these stories only of interest to him to post about when the idea is to talk crap about black people? He put his name among the targets to throw off any investigations directed towards him, not because he's black. What a load of nonsense.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: First off, I never claimed the race of the perp. Check your delusions. Second, it's obvious he is biracial or mix breed. The point is it does not qualify as a hate crime because the perpetrator is not a white male.
How did the media determined his race?
"Arthur is black, according to online court records."
posted
So what if they're not WASP white? Did I say the guy in the above photo had to be WASP white to be white, or that he's a WASP white? No. I specifically compared him to Mediterranean whites. It was all ho hum and HE AINT WHIITE (as if you have to be white to commit a hate crime against blacks...), but now they're white, just of Mediterranean type. All that to claim bronze age European history for whites, when the guy above can't be white when the subject is a hate crime.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Risking a double post because you may respond before I edit with the other part of what you said. Just wanted to comment on your denying that you said he isn't black. You said:
quote:But we know in the US, socially, they are treated as "Black." That is soon to change however.
This is not true. You pulled that out your rear end. That man wouldn't be treated as black in the U.S but you claimed him to be as such to support denying angry blacks their demand to see him charged with a hate crime. But Ava is part of "white history" when she and this man look more alike than Ava does to most modern Scots.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey guy, really, let go whatever hate you have for whites. It is clouding your ability to discern properly. Mariah Carey looks white. But she is not. You cannot use African Americans or people with mix pedigree that phenotypically look white to claim they are white. Socially they may pass as white if they choose not to reveal their true racial heritage, but they do not hail from a group (Europeans) that produces those features "naturally." Mix race people are the way they are physically because of "miscegenation," whether they look like their black side (eg., Barack Obama) or like their white side (Mariah Carey). Luckily now they are being classified under a group specific to their biological history!
quote:Originally posted by Ase: So what if they're not WASP white? Did I say the guy in the above photo had to be WASP white to be white, or that he's a WASP white? No. I specifically compared him to Mediterranean whites It was all ho hum and HE AINT WHIITE (as if you have to be white to commit a hate crime against blacks, but okay), but now they're white, just of Mediterranean type to absorb bronze age European history for whites, when the guy above can't be white when the subject is a hate crime.
posted
What is Halle Berry considered socially in terms of race?
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Risking a double post because you may respond before I edit with the other part of what you said. Just wanted to comment on your denying that you said he isn't black. You said:
quote:But we know in the US, socially, they are treated as "Black." That is soon to change however.
This is not true. You pulled that out your rear end. That man wouldn't be treated as black in the U.S but you claimed him to be as such to support denying angry blacks their demand to see him charged with a hate crime. But Ava is part of "white history" when she and this man look more alike than Ava does to most modern Scots.
posted
FYI, in the US, hate crimes are normally seen within the context of dominant race (white) perpetrating hate against a minority race (black and nonwhite); it is similar to the notion only whites can be racist.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: So what if they're not WASP white? Did I say the guy in the above photo had to be WASP white to be white, or that he's a WASP white? No. I specifically compared him to Mediterranean whites. It was all ho hum and HE AINT WHIITE (as if you have to be white to commit a hate crime against blacks...), but now they're white, just of Mediterranean type. All that to claim bronze age European history for whites, when the guy above can't be white when the subject is a hate crime.
posted
This has nothing to do with hating white people. This has to do with the fact you don't carry much integrity when arguing, and like most white supremacists and anti-blacks, you shift goalposts in defining race as it suits. That man isn't white when the conversation is his hate crime. But now he is when you realize you don't get to claim Bronze Age Scottish history as white. Many blacks have about as much mixture as Barack but will not claim to be "biracial." "Biracial" is about a more immediate connection to non blacks and identifying with those relatives. Blacks that have Obama's level of mixture, but got it generations ago when slaves were being raped do not often claim this label. In that sense "Biracial" is a social construct, rather than something that describes in absolute terms biological reality (even if we were to ignore that some blacks have no SSA ancestry).
Also, show older pics of Mariah Carey. She's altered aspects of her appearance, presumably in part (as an entertainer) to make herself sell more to the dominant society. By that extension I guess Lil Kim could be reclassified as always being non-black whenever she dramatically alters her appearance.
Racheal Dolezal can be classified as always having been non white when she changes her skin tone and hair texture.
Younger Mariah's photos show someone who certainly wouldn't have "passed" for white in U.S society. The guy in the above photo passes as Mediterranean white because he has no features from any groups of blacks that would really clue people in that much to his (legally described) identity. Mariah's and Obama's face show more SSA influences.
posted
No one shifted a goal post on you. I said what needed to be said and supported it logically. If you cant see the difference between biracial or mix people who look white and Europeans who are white and why the two groups are not the same, then that is on you. I am done with the back and forth on this topic.
quote:Originally posted by SaxonQueen: Yumadro or should I say Mike. The people of Europe are now and always have been White. Why doesn't your Black supremacist,White people hating, history stealing butt give it up already.
I'm not Mike and white people are newer comers to Europe. Original Europeans really did were black people.
For example, I posted yesterday a topic about the original Finns in which I linked some pictures and other links which are quite interesting. Some of the findings of the oldest Europeans & Finnish have been studied and they have found out having brown instead of the modern European white skin.
posted
yumadro, how do you define black? is it on trait, ie, skin color?
quote:Originally posted by yumadro:
quote:Originally posted by SaxonQueen: Yumadro or should I say Mike. The people of Europe are now and always have been White. Why doesn't your Black supremacist,White people hating, history stealing butt give it up already.
I'm not Mike and white people are newer comers to Europe. Original Europeans really did were black people.
For example, I posted yesterday a topic about the original Finns in which I linked some pictures and other links which are quite interesting. Some of the findings of the oldest Europeans & Finnish have been studied and they have found out having brown instead of the modern European white skin.
posted
I said there's no difference between a man that passes for a white mediterranean and a Bronze Age European. I don't believe in ascribing races to genotype because you don't have to be of similar genotype to be of the same race. So this idea that he's got some African ancestry is rather irrelevant when people who don't have any can be black too. "Passing" is how people in the U.S describe people who may have some ancestors that are black but don't have a phenotype that would be at risk for anti black discrimination. He can easily blend in with other races, much moreso than he would attempting to blend with phenotypes that are still black overall but are the product of some non black mixture (like Obama).
The goal post is shifted because there's no tangible definition for a white phenotype. It changes to assume and discard certain people. This woman's phenotype qualifies her as white. But the man above who looks very similar to her is not per your logic. Now I guess they're white but now it's a Mediterranean phenotype. That or you insist differences in genotype matter, but why do they matter if an Aboriginal can be black?
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: No one shifted a goal post on you. I said what needed to be said and supported it logically. If you cant see the difference between biracial or mix people who look white and Europeans who are white and why the two groups are not the same, then that is on you. I am done with the back and forth on this topic.
quote:Originally posted by SaxonQueen: Yumadro or should I say Mike. The people of Europe are now and always have been White. Why doesn't your Black supremacist,White people hating, history stealing butt give it up already.
I guess if yunadro is Mike then you must be Doxie AKA Celtic Warrioress
-------------------- The Habsburg Agenda - Defending Western Christian civilization Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
My gosh! How is it you don't understand being phenotypically white through miscegenation is different than being phenotypically white naturally? How do you not get individuals are not the same as groups! Find me a white phenotype population in Sub-Sahara Africa and I will shut the hell up. Otherwise you just wasting my time.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: I said there's no difference between a man that passes for a white mediterranean and a Bronze Age European. I don't believe in ascribing races to genotype because you don't have to be of similar genotype to be of the same race. So this idea that he's got some African ancestry is rather irrelevant when people who don't have any can be black too. "Passing" is how people in the U.S describe people who may have some ancestors that are black but don't have a phenotype that would be at risk for anti black discrimination. He can easily blend in with other races, much moreso than he would even attempting to blend with phenotypes that are still black overall but are the product of some non black mixture (like Obama).
The goal post is shifted because there's no tangible definition for a white phenotype. It changes to assume and discard certain people. This woman's phenotype qualifies her as white. But the man above who looks very similar to her is not per your logic. Now I guess they're white but now it's a Mediterranean phenotype. That or you insist differences in genotype matter, but why do they matter if an Aboriginal can be black?
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Who were the "Tamahu" people, yumadro?
quote:Originally posted by yumadro:
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal:
quote:Originally posted by yumadro: Another example of white washed history.
Why do you say it is white-washed when they are using DNA to ID the person?
Pictures in the article make it look like the people of Europe back then were white even though even in the Roman times and early Middle Ages the majority of people were still black.
I didn't know about Tamahu, but the more I read about them the more it seems like they really could be white people. In fact, even the Bible supports this theory as it tells that the God destroyed and made the Caucasus mountains into a wasteland. The Edomites (white people) lived in Caucasus mountains.
There could have been some sort of war which white people lost and because of that their homelands were destroyed into a wasteland and they moved into caves because the surface was uninhabitable.
Posts: 60 | From: Europe | Registered: Nov 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason I asked is because you said no whites lived in Europe 2K BC. Tamahu are said to have been a forerunner to modern Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by yumadro:
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Who were the "Tamahu" people, yumadro?
quote:Originally posted by yumadro:
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal:
quote:Originally posted by yumadro: Another example of white washed history.
Why do you say it is white-washed when they are using DNA to ID the person?
Pictures in the article make it look like the people of Europe back then were white even though even in the Roman times and early Middle Ages the majority of people were still black.
I didn't know about Tamahu, but the more I read about them the more it seems like they really could be white people. In fact, even the Bible supports this theory as it tells that the God destroyed and made the Caucasus mountains into a wasteland. The Edomites (white people) lived in Caucasus mountains.
There could have been some sort of war which white people lost and because of that their homelands were destroyed into a wasteland and they moved into caves because the surface was uninhabitable.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: yumadro, how do you define black? is it on trait, ie, skin color?
quote:Originally posted by yumadro:
quote:Originally posted by SaxonQueen: Yumadro or should I say Mike. The people of Europe are now and always have been White. Why doesn't your Black supremacist,White people hating, history stealing butt give it up already.
I'm not Mike and white people are newer comers to Europe. Original Europeans really did were black people.
For example, I posted yesterday a topic about the original Finns in which I linked some pictures and other links which are quite interesting. Some of the findings of the oldest Europeans & Finnish have been studied and they have found out having brown instead of the modern European white skin.
Skin color, bone structure, and genetics (haplogroups etc). Thanks to the latest findings in genetics the scientist have been able to figure out, for example, the skin color of Cheddar Man and the original Europeans.
Posts: 60 | From: Europe | Registered: Nov 2018
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: My gosh! How is it you don't understand being phenotypically white through miscegenation is different than being phenotypically white naturally? How do you not get individuals are not the same as groups!
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Uh...being phenotypically white through miscegenation is being phenotypically white naturally.
Racheal Dolezal would be an example of someone attempting to have a black phenotype by artificially creating a look that they did not have at birth through cosmetic procedures. This man (like Ava) has a natural appearance of a Mediterranean white and he got it at birth.
You are the one demanding race have some common genetic underpinning. I (like most people I've seen on ES) are arguing it does not. You've been asked to prove how all people deemed blacks by white supremacists throughout history have a common genetic heritage that clusters them together before people of other races and you've yet to provide it. Instead you try to keep the conversation as close to SSA as possible. If an Aboriginal or Negrito can be deemed black and not be related to a SSA, how come this man and Ava aren't the same race? Still awaiting an answer.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cheddar man is related to modern Europeans. This is why I asked for your definition of black, if it is a singular trait. Cheddar man was dark skin but scientists say he was genetically related to modern Europeans. How do you factor that fact into your position?
quote:Originally posted by yumadro:
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: yumadro, how do you define black? is it on trait, ie, skin color?
quote:Originally posted by yumadro:
quote:Originally posted by SaxonQueen: Yumadro or should I say Mike. The people of Europe are now and always have been White. Why doesn't your Black supremacist,White people hating, history stealing butt give it up already.
I'm not Mike and white people are newer comers to Europe. Original Europeans really did were black people.
For example, I posted yesterday a topic about the original Finns in which I linked some pictures and other links which are quite interesting. Some of the findings of the oldest Europeans & Finnish have been studied and they have found out having brown instead of the modern European white skin.
Skin color, bone structure, and genetics (haplogroups etc). Thanks to the latest findings in genetics the scientist have been able to figure out, for example, the skin color of Cheddar Man and the original Europeans.
posted
No. Individuals who owe their phenotype to miscegenation are one to a few generations removed from the parent source. Europeans on the other hand owe their phenotype to the natural course of evolution (thousands of years). Get it now?
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Uh...being phenotypically white through miscegenation is being phenotypically white naturally.
posted
Nope. Because you're again attempting to suggest race is about a common genotype when people that have no genetic relationship can be of the same race. If a Torres Stait Islander can be black with 0% SSA, how come it's difficult to comprehend a man with 75%-50% European ancestry being white because his phenotype passes for Mediterranean?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Cheddar man is related to modern Europeans. This is why I asked for your definition of black, if it is a singular trait. Cheddar man was dark skin but scientists say he was genetically related to modern Europeans. How do you factor that fact into your position?
quote:Originally posted by yumadro:
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: yumadro, how do you define black? is it on trait, ie, skin color?
quote:Originally posted by yumadro:
quote:Originally posted by SaxonQueen: Yumadro or should I say Mike. The people of Europe are now and always have been White. Why doesn't your Black supremacist,White people hating, history stealing butt give it up already.
I'm not Mike and white people are newer comers to Europe. Original Europeans really did were black people.
For example, I posted yesterday a topic about the original Finns in which I linked some pictures and other links which are quite interesting. Some of the findings of the oldest Europeans & Finnish have been studied and they have found out having brown instead of the modern European white skin.
Skin color, bone structure, and genetics (haplogroups etc). Thanks to the latest findings in genetics the scientist have been able to figure out, for example, the skin color of Cheddar Man and the original Europeans.
Yes, the white people didn't just appear from thin air. Of course, they were born from original black people by having some sort of hereditary condition which turned their skin into white. Scientists call it a mutation and the Bible calls it a curse for being sinners.
Posts: 60 | From: Europe | Registered: Nov 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wrong. You are attempting to redefine what race is. You don't get to reinvent the wheel, buddy.
Race is defined as a common genotype within a specific group. Look up the fathers of the racial taxonomy and educate yourself. I will help you. Start here:
Blumenbach, Carl Linnaeus, and of course Darwin.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Nope. Because you're again attempting to suggest race is about a common genotype when people that have no genetic relationship can be of the same race. If an Torres Stait Islander can be black with 0% SSA, how come it's difficult to comprehend a man with 75%-50% European ancestry being white because his phenotype passes for Mediterranean?
posted
Yes where race exists as a valid biological construct there would be a common genetic substructure to people of the same race, but this doesn't apply to humans. Humans with no relationship have been deemed the same race. I for instance wasn't the one that called certain Asian groups "Negritos" nor did I call Aboriginals that got enslaved or kidnapped Blackfellas (or worse the N-word). White supremacists did that. Calling white supremacists out on their BS is not reinventing the wheel.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Wrong. You are attempting to redefine what race is. You don't get to reinvent the wheel, buddy.
posted
You're not making sense, now. Cheddar man did not share genetics with Africans nor did he share all African phenotype. This is why I asked how do you define "black," if it is one specific trait or something else. Apparently you are relying on the singular trait, black or dark skin to define it.
Would not it be an honest approach on your part to disambiguate your definition just so we all could be clear on the fact there is a difference between the race "Black" and skin color "black"?
And since you are relying on skin color, solely, for your definition, then I think it would be well advised to describe Cheddar man, ancestor of modern Europeans as "dark skin" to avoid coming across pretending the Black race found in Africa gave rise to Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by yumadro:
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Cheddar man is related to modern Europeans. This is why I asked for your definition of black, if it is a singular trait. Cheddar man was dark skin but scientists say he was genetically related to modern Europeans. How do you factor that fact into your position?
quote:Originally posted by yumadro:
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: yumadro, how do you define black? is it on trait, ie, skin color?
quote:Originally posted by yumadro:
quote:Originally posted by SaxonQueen: Yumadro or should I say Mike. The people of Europe are now and always have been White. Why doesn't your Black supremacist,White people hating, history stealing butt give it up already.
I'm not Mike and white people are newer comers to Europe. Original Europeans really did were black people.
For example, I posted yesterday a topic about the original Finns in which I linked some pictures and other links which are quite interesting. Some of the findings of the oldest Europeans & Finnish have been studied and they have found out having brown instead of the modern European white skin.
Skin color, bone structure, and genetics (haplogroups etc). Thanks to the latest findings in genetics the scientist have been able to figure out, for example, the skin color of Cheddar Man and the original Europeans.
Yes, the white people didn't just appear from thin air. Of course, they were born from original black people by having some sort of hereditary condition which turned their skin into white. Scientists call it a mutation and the Bible calls it a curse for being sinners.
posted
First off, I am not a white supremacist. Let's get that out the way. Second, if you enter a paradigm, you play by its rules, not change it up to your liking. If people are allowed to switch up rules as they see fit, there would be no standard or uniformity to the rules of the taxonomy. It's either you play by the rules set forth by the founding fathers of that system, or reject it out of hand. Lukewarm is the playground of devilish games. And you playing a lot of games with me in this discussion, quite frankly.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Yes where race exists as a valid biological construct there would be a common genetic substructure to people of the same race, but this doesn't apply to humans. Humans with no relationship have been deemed the same race. I for instance wasn't the one that called certain Asian groups "Negritos" nor did I call Aboriginals that got enslaved or kidnapped Blackfellas (or worse the N-word). White supremacists did that. Calling white supremacists out on their BS is not reinventing the wheel.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Wrong. You are attempting to redefine what race is. You don't get to reinvent the wheel, buddy.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: You're not making sense, now. Cheddar man did not share genetics with Africans nor did he share all African phenotype. This is why I asked how do you define "black," if it is one specific trait or something else. Apparently you are relying on the singular trait, black or dark skin to define it.
Would not it be an honest approach on your part to disambiguate your definition just so we all can be clear on the fact there is a difference between the race "Black" and skin color "black"?
And since you are relying on skin color, solely, for your definition, then I think it would be well advised to describe Cheddar man, ancestor of modern Europeans as "dark skin" to avoid coming across pretending the Black race found in Africa gave rise to Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by yumadro:
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: Cheddar man is related to modern Europeans. This is why I asked for your definition of black, if it is a singular trait. Cheddar man was dark skin but scientists say he was genetically related to modern Europeans. How do you factor that fact into your position?
quote:Originally posted by yumadro:
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: yumadro, how do you define black? is it on trait, ie, skin color?
quote:Originally posted by yumadro:
quote:Originally posted by SaxonQueen: Yumadro or should I say Mike. The people of Europe are now and always have been White. Why doesn't your Black supremacist,White people hating, history stealing butt give it up already.
I'm not Mike and white people are newer comers to Europe. Original Europeans really did were black people.
For example, I posted yesterday a topic about the original Finns in which I linked some pictures and other links which are quite interesting. Some of the findings of the oldest Europeans & Finnish have been studied and they have found out having brown instead of the modern European white skin.
Skin color, bone structure, and genetics (haplogroups etc). Thanks to the latest findings in genetics the scientist have been able to figure out, for example, the skin color of Cheddar Man and the original Europeans.
Yes, the white people didn't just appear from thin air. Of course, they were born from original black people by having some sort of hereditary condition which turned their skin into white. Scientists call it a mutation and the Bible calls it a curse for being sinners.
Cheddar Man might have been genetically closer to the modern Europeans, but that doesn't mean that black Africans didn't give rise to the Europeans. Many, if not all, European cultures were actually founded by black Africans. In ancient times the Greece and Empire of Rome, for example, were a continuation of Black African empires in Africa and the Middle East and they even were colonized and founded by black Africans. Even the Greek philosophers traveled to Egypt to study.
Posts: 60 | From: Europe | Registered: Nov 2018
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Submissive slave, no active agency, can only do anything only if Simon Says pfgh!
Moses realized he could not combat a slave mentality. So he waited until the freedman generation died off.
Slave mentality cannot be altered when the enslaved enjoys being a slave. No worries of self-determination. No independent thought patterns. No striving for improvement.
Nope, the mentally enslaved leave it all up to the folk who took their mind and will power, except for one thing.
Mental slaves work harder than their enslavers do pushing their slave-minded agenda onto others they feel have no respect for the slavers definitions designed to enslave and keep enslaved.
Mental slaves want you to understand you are incabable of defining and creating your identity and who's related to you and how they are related to you.
They don't realize the born free will fight and die for self-determination. They don't realize this because they were born slaves and don't want you wrecking their slave benefits. A pat on the head, a rub of the jowls, "good boy Fido, roll over, when I'm done ****ing you you'll get a nice Scooby snack!"
posted
^^^Africans gave rise to NO SUCH PEOPLE BUT THEIR OWN, that being African people. Next you will tell me Africans gave rise to Asians. Please, stop while you're ahead.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: ^^^Africans gave rise to NO SUCH PEOPLE BUT THEIR OWN, that being African people. Next you will tell me Africans gave rise to Asians. Please, stop while you're ahead.
Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Israelites, Mycenaean, Carthago, Hittite Empire have been founded by black African settlers from Egypt and elsewhere from Africa and European cultures are a continuation of those cultures. There are no ancient white cultures, if there is any it is hijacked from black people by white supremacists.
Even in the far north, the Saami people are genetically more related to the Berbers of Africa than to the white Scandinavian people living near them.
Posts: 60 | From: Europe | Registered: Nov 2018
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: [QB] Cheddar man is related to modern Europeans. This is why I asked for your definition of black, if it is a singular trait. Cheddar man was dark skin but scientists say he was genetically related to modern Europeans. How do you factor that fact into your position?
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: [QB] Cheddar man is related to modern Europeans. This is why I asked for your definition of black, if it is a singular trait. Cheddar man was dark skin but scientists say he was genetically related to modern Europeans. How do you factor that fact into your position?
"DNA surveys indicate that the first people in Scandinavia probably more than 10,000 years ago had black hair, dark skin and blue eyes."
Even the folklores prove that the first people were black. In Finnish folklore known as Kalevala, it is described how the first people living in the world of Kalevala were dark skinned and that they created white people to work for them as slaves.
Posts: 60 | From: Europe | Registered: Nov 2018
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Then the other thing to watch out for is the Glorriors. They attribute African origins to cultures and nations that were independent inventions of other peoples. Even though those types of cultures and nations are absent from Africa.
All black cultures and kingdoms are not African in origin. They weren't all planted by emmigrant Holocene continental Africans. Give these non-African blacks due credit for what's theirs. Recognize their ancestry split off long before the African Humid Period made for the birth of Saharo-Sudanese industry and its high-cultured offspring in ancient Nigeria, Sudan & Egypt.
posted
Race as a valid biological construct does not apply to humans BC. If it did like it might in other species then perhaps the rules of races would apply. But what genetic uniformity can be found between an Aboriginal, Negrito and Nigerian? I'll wait.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: First off, I am not a white supremacist. Let's get that out the way. Second, if you enter a paradigm, you play by its rules, not change it up to your liking. If people are allowed to switch up rules as they see fit, there would be no standard or uniformity to the rules of the taxonomy. It's either you play by the rules set forth by the founding fathers of that system, or reject it out of hand. Lukewarm is the playground of devilish games. And you playing a lot of games with me in this discussion, quite frankly.
"BLACK", alternate definitions, pick the one you are most comfortable with
definition 1) A person with dark skin and afro hair
definition 2) A person with dark skin and any type of hair
definition 3) A person with dark to semi-dark skin with one or more of the following additional traits afro hair broad features prognathic jaw
_____________________________________________
Exercise:
Look at any conversation discussing what "black" means. Copy and paste the paragraphand create a second version changing the word "black" to "dark skinned" and then analyze the meaning of what was said with the word change
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
All black cultures and kingdoms are not African in origin. They weren't all planted by emmigrant Holocene continental Africans. Give these non-African blacks due credit for what's theirs. [/QB]
^^^ This. Certain people who may have good intentions for black people as a whole fail to make this distinction and wind up alienating or angering non African blacks that are more on point about black history. Meanwhile these white supremacists are off giddy in the corner and take full advantage.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
The white supremacist and their claim-to-be-black minions have returned in full force. I guess seeing the SpamBots run free they figured mgmt is desparate for traffic.
WS's and their slaves/pets will tie up the forum by going round the mulberry bush about shit already discussed ad nauseam -- like the definition of black, as if they tell us who we are limited to while they claim caucasoid origin of everything on earth.
Their slavepets will try wearing down morale by posting nothing but black negativities, all the while white face black mask on, never posting even a single positive black accomplishment. It's funny they think we can't recognize them or we believe their false front.
I don't care if you f-up the name of a tree. Its fruit will go on tasting the same blessed way.
Sweet fruit from sweet trees Bitter fruit from bitter trees Strange fruit is what they'd like to see
How much will we feed into their agenda? They use attractive bait, hard not to bite. But after running a post every minute for days and days the SpamBots quit (though still members of ES although obviously not humans) after making it falsely look like ES got at least 1440 hits in a day. We could try ignoring WS&slavepets but you know and I know ESers are going to keep biting the bait. Hell, active mgmt stands ready to cast bait. And absentee mgmt? Their 'presence' speaks to their concerns.
posted
Socially in the U.S Japanese and Koreans would for the most part be members of the same race. There's no way they are accepted as different race in U.S society anywhere except that census. The "reality" of it's definitions end as soon as you turn the page. I wouldn't take that too seriously. They can collect information on all these groups, and lump them together as the same when its all said and done.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
No he was not white phenotypically as he lacked the skin color. But he was European (Caucasian) and is the father of modern Europeans. He was a dark skin Caucasian.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: [QB] Cheddar man is related to modern Europeans. This is why I asked for your definition of black, if it is a singular trait. Cheddar man was dark skin but scientists say he was genetically related to modern Europeans. How do you factor that fact into your position?
posted
Negritos are little people; they're small in stature. They are not African.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Race as a valid biological construct does not apply to humans BC. If it did like it might in other species then perhaps the rules of races would apply. But what genetic uniformity can be found between an Aboriginal, Negrito and Nigerian? I'll wait.
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal: First off, I am not a white supremacist. Let's get that out the way. Second, if you enter a paradigm, you play by its rules, not change it up to your liking. If people are allowed to switch up rules as they see fit, there would be no standard or uniformity to the rules of the taxonomy. It's either you play by the rules set forth by the founding fathers of that system, or reject it out of hand. Lukewarm is the playground of devilish games. And you playing a lot of games with me in this discussion, quite frankly.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic