This is Question is only for those like me who are seeking the truth in history, and not an agenda. I was on Youtube and I saw a video discussing the origins of China were created by Africans. I then remembered various postings about Black Vikings, Blacks Greece, and Black Rome. I found this disconcerting because if Im not mistaken it seems that there are some that seek to perpetrate the same lies as Eurocentrics. What is an affective way to address this issue. I also want to know, am I missing something?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The first people of Asia were aboriginal populations similar to those found elsewhere in Asia today. That is an undisputed fact. The question is how many of these darker skinned types were around during the first Chinese dynasties? I don't know but it was certainly more than zero. The problem is that some people call them Africans as opposed to aboriginal Asians or Indians and so forth who were and are well known in Asia.
Aborigine does not equal African.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The first people of Asia were aboriginal populations similar to those found elsewhere in Asia today. That is an undisputed fact. The question is how many of these darker skinned types were around during the first Chinese dynasties? I don't know but it was certainly more than zero. The problem is that some people call them Africans as opposed to aboriginal Asians or Indians and so forth who were and are well known in Asia.
Aborigine does not equal African.
Doug - You have to be kidding. How could the current populations of Asia closely resemble the "ORIGINAL" populations when we KNOW from ARTIFACTS and scientific STUDIES, not your say-so, that those ORIGINAL people were AFRICANS, and the CURRENT people are HYBRIDS of a Hybrid: i.e. Blacks and Mongols who are themselves Hybrids of Mongol Blacks and Whites from Central Asia!
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Discourse should begin with defining terms. If the object of a definition fits the adjectives used to identify it, then, it is a good, workable definition.
I, for one, use African not as 99% of people do; most use it geographically meaning all the population within the continent is African, all outside aren't.
This overlooks the fact that lands now called the Middle East, Europe, Asia, once had populations exactly like those in today's Africa. Those lands could have been called greater Africa:
I don't use a geographical definition. I use a physical definition where an African is someone, color aside, who has some combination of woolly/wiry hair, a full nose, and full mouth. At the bottom of this page, I give a more complete definition of "African."
Not using color (as it is so contentious and also unnecessary as other physical differences are good enough), how are Africans physically differentiated from whites and Asians? Whites typically have narrow noses and straight hair; Asians/Monguls, oblong eyes and straight hair. Africans don't.
Someone may not be happy with a physical definition for African but they CANNOT say (by the definition used) that the following people are anything but African as they fit the definition.
They may wish the definition away, but they must, if they are logical and objective, concede it is a legitimate definition and those who fit it are African:
Actually, there are huge populations in China this very day who have the full lips and nose of a black/African/Negro and if they had woolly hair would pass for black/African/Negro. That was the original population before Monguls arrived with Ghengis and Kubla Khan during the European Middle Ages and gained hegemony.
A more complete definition of African:
THE THREE GREAT RACES AND THEIR MERGERS: The three great races are the Mongul, the White, and African. Until near 2300 BC, they were completely isolated from each other but since have mixed creating new sub-races as in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. The present work focuses not on the sub-races or Mongul or White but African. And, why? Much has been written about the others but the African is usually passed-over as being but a yawn; an insignificant footnote to history. Especially when contributions to civilization are concerned. There is, thus, an information vacuum or information gap. Here the attempt is made to bridge that gap.
THE LOOK OF THE AFRICAN: Let's omit color. Color aside, how are Africans distinguished: especially as art subjects and in ancient rock drawings, stone figurine, and human remains from 5000 years ago and earlier? African-looking people are the focus of this site. Not all will agree, but some Africans will be found with wavy hair. Others have curly hair. Sometimes, Africans have straight hair as the Afro-American U.S. Secretary of State, Donna Rice (these cases the result of miscegenation from the days of slavery and after).
Still, on one hand, Africans are people who typically have or are inclined to have (not "must" have) a "head like pure wool" as the Son of Man was described in Daniel 7:9; and have a full nose, and full mouth. Yet, the figurine of the Pygmy may be shown as steatophygous. The Kung or Bushman is very slender and has delicate facial features, not broad. Prognasthism (a projecting lower jaw) may exist. African human remains show skulls that are long rather than round; although it may come as a surprise the Khoisan (Bushman) has a round skull and it was they in prehistoric Mesopotamia, Sudan, and Egypt.
. .
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
TRUE HISTORY VS. FALSE HISTORY
Compare the first column of original Africans to the second column of redone counterfeits. Part of the confusion why people don't know the African nature of the past is the deliberate efforts to, literally, re-tool and white-wash history.
. .
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Aboriginal Asians are Asians even though they ultimately came from Africa thousands of years ago. They are Asians and have features similar to other Asians and Asian features developed FROM THEM. The ONLY way there could be a "hybrid" or "mixing" is if there were OTHER PEOPLE in Asia with DIFFERENT FEATURES BEFORE the original Aboriginal populations from Africa. There weren't. ALL those features in Asia and everywhere else developed among the Aboriginal populations of the world, before light skin was even present.
Like I said, aboriginal or dark skinned does not equal African.
Australia
America
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
If all the genetic information released thus far is true then. . . the logical conclusion is there is no such thing as RACE. This is supported by the phenotype of these Asian statues.
Some of these people may be classified as AA here in the US but they are not clsoely related to people of the African continent. They may look "negroid". They left the continent close to 50 kya. They may have MANY of the characteristics of being classified as "negros" but they are NOT.
Which support the theory/fact there is no race.
Sorry Mike et al.
If they are African then everyone is an African. . .including Europeans you know. . .those people from the Steppes. (pause) Just kidding about the Steppes.
If we go far back enough we are all Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Aboriginal Asians are Asians even though they ultimately came from Africa thousands of years ago.. . . . Philippines:
!!!!!!!!
There really troubling thing is trying to understand what happened. The further back in history we go these civilization seem more "negroid" albiet not African. But yet today these negroid peopel are virtually gone. We see that in India, Taiwan, Japan, China, Sothern Europe, even is the new Americas.
eg the modern Northern Indian, Japanese and Chinese are whiter and less negroid than their pre-decessors. ie their founders.
We spent a lot of time understanding what happened in Africa and it's satellite (Europe).
What happened in Middle and East Asia? Where did these white skinned Asians come from. Was it diet as is the supposed case with Northern Europeans??? Are similarities between northern Chinese and northern Euroepans. ie loss of the tropical body plan (He! He! He!)
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
If all the genetic information released thus far is true then. . . the logical conclusion is there is no such thing as RACE. This is supported by the phenotype of these Asian statues.
Some of these people may be classified as AA here in the US but they are not clsoely related to people of the African continent. They may look "negroid". They left the continent close to 50 kya. They may have MANY of the characteristics of being classified as "negros" but they are NOT.
In one segment your comment suggests rejection of racialist dogma, but in another, it suggests tacit acceptance of this dogma. But just for clarification, what characterizes a "negro"; is one only a "negro", if one is African?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
xyyman - I am just playing the hand that I was dealt. I didn't create the concept of races or racism. I didn't create a system of false history, and the falsification of artifacts. I didn't create the system of world relations built on race.
That is ALL the White mans doing. He created it as a way to unify Whites against the more numerous and capable Blacks. And he did very well with it, or didn't you notice that for all intents and purposes, they control the world?
I would suggest that a little more thought go into your positions.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Yes, I reject the recialist theory. But. . .these people ie Asians are not genetically similar to me although they look like me. ie 'Negroid/African". There is no other logical conclusion.
In other words Negroid does not equate to African which is the perception of some of my fellow Afrocentrist.
Modern Africans(about 4kya) did not leave the continent and went about building civilizations throughout the world. These people only "looked" like me.
But as I asked. . . what happened? why the recent shift in dominance by light skinned people. ie China, Japan, Taiwan, India and Europe.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
positions? No need to re-hash they Asians are not black?? thread. but St Tigray should check out that thread.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Yes, I reject the recialist theory. But. . .
you go onto accept it anyway?...because you say,
these people ie Asians are not genetically similar to me although they look like me. ie 'Negroid/African". -xyyman
...which comes back to the question I asked above.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Yes, I reject the recialist theory. But. . .these people ie Asians are not genetically similar to me although they look like me. ie 'Negroid/African". There is no other logical conclusion.
In other words Negroid does not equate to African which is the perception of some of my fellow Afrocentrist.
Modern Africans(about 4kya) did not leave the continent and went about building civilizations throughout the world. These people only "looked" like me.
But as I asked. . . what happened? why the recent shift in dominance by light skinned people. ie China, Japan, Taiwan, India and Europe.
xyyman - Sorry to say; but you wouldn't know logic if it slapped you in the face.
Could you Pleeese tell me what this quote means, and who told you so. i.e. what does "genetically similar" mean, and how do you know it?
"these people ie Asians are not genetically similar to me although they look like me." Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
The Afronuts are doing far worse than the eurocentrists have ever done. Afronuts are attempting to afrikanize all history. Eventually the Afronuts will afrikanize europe. Wait a sec... they already have with their wild claim that vikings, nords, etc... were all Afrikans LOL!!!
quote:Originally posted by StTigray: This is Question is only for those like me who are seeking the truth in history, and not an agenda. I was on Youtube and I saw a video discussing the origins of China were created by Africans. I then remembered various postings about Black Vikings, Blacks Greece, and Black Rome. I found this disconcerting because if Im not mistaken it seems that there are some that seek to perpetrate the same lies as Eurocentrics. What is an affective way to address this issue. I also want to know, am I missing something?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
xyyman - Has it Dawned on you, that you have fallen for the oldest trick in the book. The White man says - Who you gonna believe, ME (in this case my White definitions of genetics and genetic relationships), or your OWN lying eyes. He he - Sucker!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ Mike/Explorer - it is very simple. These "negro" looking ancient looking Asians are .. . .that. Negroid looking asians. They may resemble me . .. on the surface. . . .but apparently, based on their genetic lineage they are VERY distantly related to me.
I use the term "negroid" to generate a phenotype in the readers mind. ie to get a picture/message across. This is the popular term although incorrect.
So. If, If, If the genetic data presented by these Europeans and. . . .Asians are true then these ancient Asians are NOT negroid ie not closely related to Africans. NOT black in the conventiional sense.
Sucker. . maybe. But I have to rely on the scientific data presented by . . .white people.. . .and Asians. . .now.
This does not negate the fact that AE are also negroid, maybe even some of the southern Europeans.
Looking at the Estrucans pics, you posted and Fayoum (Romans)painting . . .these people were obviously "negroid". The meso_Americans were also negroid vis-a-vis Austrialians.
So, Afro-centrists are at least a lot more valid than Euro-centrist. ALL these people are "negroid" in the conventional sense. But are they closely related, genetically, to recent/modern African.. . . NO!!!!!!!!! (ie Ancient Asians, Dravidians, meso-americans)
My understand is the even the nordic Euros are more closely related to us.
Shi1t man! The Soutern Euros are R1b and e3b - one step away from R1 Africans etc
Which throws "race" flat on it's face.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
Cosign.
If you believe that ANY black phillipinos were sampled in any mainstream genetic studies, you're having a bubble. Mainstream genetic studies use sampling methods to suit an agenda... if they started sampling blacks in the Phillipines, Vietnam, Mongol, not to mention Egypt, Libya, Arabia etc... it would throw all of their genetic "evidence" out of balanace. Hence in mainstream genetic studies blacks outside of Africa are never sampled, because they are falsely classified as immigrants as opposed to indigenous... hence the black world presence is academia's best kept secret...
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: xyyman - Has it Dawned on you, that you have fallen for the oldest trick in the book. The White man says - Who you gonna believe, ME (in this case my White definitions of genetics and genetic relationships), or your OWN lying eyes. He he - Sucker!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
DP
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
DP? Sorry, over my head...
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
There really troubling thing is trying to understand what happened. The further back in history we go these civilization seem more "negroid" albiet not African. But yet today these negroid peopel are virtually gone. We see that in India, Taiwan, Japan, China, Sothern Europe, even is the new Americas.
eg the modern Northern Indian, Japanese and Chinese are whiter and less negroid than their pre-decessors. ie their founders.
We spent a lot of time understanding what happened in Africa and it's satellite (Europe).
What happened in Middle and East Asia? Where did these white skinned Asians come from. Was it diet as is the supposed case with Northern Europeans??? Are similarities between northern Chinese and northern Euroepans. ie loss of the tropical body plan (He! He! He!)
The people know there history well. The Chinese came from the mountains after 1500BC.
As the Zhou they conquered China and made the Blacks into slaves or murdered them. They are recorded in Chinese history as Qiang slaves. They were also called Li Min 'black people'.
The modern Northern Indian, Japanese and Chinese are "whiter" and less negroid than their pre-decessors, because they are not descendants of the first Blacks to settle East Asia, or the African Blacks who entered China from the West in their Chariots and boats in serach of metals and adventure.
The Southern Indians are "Africans". The archaeolofy make it clear that the Dravidians are descendants of the C-Group people and they speak languages genetically related to Niger-Congo languages.
.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: But as I asked. . . what happened? why the recent shift in dominance by light skinned people. ie China, Japan, Taiwan, India and Europe.
They killed the Blacks off of course.
.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Leading world victims of skin cancer; Whites. Second place goes to; Asians.
Hispanic and blacks skin cancer rates, worldwide are in the noise. Skin cancer occurs when the victim is NOT environmentally adapted to the environment's UV index.
Therefore, Asia/Eurasia were first populated by normal AND albino Africans.
Race, is a myth. The world is comprised of only three groups of humans. Melanated, defectives (Albino), and admixed, yet they are all African.
Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
But of course you'd come up w/ that most idiotic theory. It is the only way you can Trojan horse your way into the history and culture of all non white peoples. Since you lack your own history, you use pseudo history and science to hijack others. Since when was the world divided into two; melanated and deficient? WTF or how the fvck is light skin deficient in northern latitudes? What a fcuking idiot you are. Such a insignificant and not well travelled person you are to think the world is nothing but a tropic Afronutopia.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Leading world victims of skin cancer; Whites. Second place goes to; Asians.
Hispanic and blacks skin cancer rates, worldwide are in the noise.
Therefore, Asia was first populated by normal AND albino Africans.
Race, is a myth. The world is comprised of only three groups of humans. Melanated, defectives, and admixed.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: But of course you'd come up w/ that most idiotic theory. It is the only way you can Trojan horse your way into the history and culture of all non white peoples. Since you lack your own history, you use pseudo history and science to hijack others. Since when was the world divided into two; melanated and deficient? WTF or how the fvck is light skin deficient in northern latitudes? What a fcuking idiot you are. Such a insignificant and not well travelled person you are to think the world is nothing but a tropic Afronutopia.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Leading world victims of skin cancer; Whites. Second place goes to; Asians.
Hispanic and blacks skin cancer rates, worldwide are in the noise.
Therefore, Asia was first populated by normal AND albino Africans.
Race, is a myth. The world is comprised of only three groups of humans. Melanated, defectives, and admixed.
Albinism affects not only the body, but also the mind, from inception. It's scientifically proven, a lack of sufficient melanin in the reproductive stage wires the brain abnormally. Therefore, a skewed sense of reality (history) may appear "normal" to a mis-wired entity.
Posted by StTigray (Member # 16910) on :
Maybe this is over my head but my initial question was not answered, where can I take a stand because I feel that inadvertently we are edging into an arena where, we are making enemies among those who would otherwise not be our enemies, and we are doing the same type of poor academics that whites have done not only with our culture but many others. I am saying that this question needs to be defined, it is way tooo open ended.
Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
If that is the case than you sir have a lot of explaining to do. How do you explain the white man colonizing the entire globe?
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: But of course you'd come up w/ that most idiotic theory. It is the only way you can Trojan horse your way into the history and culture of all non white peoples. Since you lack your own history, you use pseudo history and science to hijack others. Since when was the world divided into two; melanated and deficient? WTF or how the fvck is light skin deficient in northern latitudes? What a fcuking idiot you are. Such a insignificant and not well travelled person you are to think the world is nothing but a tropic Afronutopia.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Leading world victims of skin cancer; Whites. Second place goes to; Asians.
Hispanic and blacks skin cancer rates, worldwide are in the noise.
Therefore, Asia was first populated by normal AND albino Africans.
Race, is a myth. The world is comprised of only three groups of humans. Melanated, defectives, and admixed.
Albinism affects not only the body, but also the mind, from inception. It's scientifically proven, a lack of sufficient melanin in the reproductive stage wires the brain abnormally. Therefore, a skewed sense of reality (history) may appear "normal" to a mis-wired entity.
Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
Yea, it's called alienating one self. You can thank your afronut colleagues for alienating us from the rest of the non-white world. Of all people, native americans are up in arms at what afrocentrists are doing (hijacking their history). You'd think if anyone who could empathize with the Black man, it would be the natives. Well guess what? You can kiss that goodbye! Non-white people, whether natives or asians or latinos, have 10 fold more respect for Whites than Blacks. You can thank Youtube for broadcasting what is actually a fringe group (afronutters) into house around the world. Unfortunately Youtube has the effect of making something insignificant larger than life. People around the world see Blacks, specifically Afrikan Americans, as leaches and culture vultures. Truly a shame.
quote:Originally posted by StTigray: Maybe this is over my head but my initial question was not answered, where can I take a stand because I feel that inadvertently we are edging into an arena where, we are making enemies among those who would otherwise not be our enemies, and we are doing the same type of poor academics that whites have done not only with our culture but many others. I am saying that this question needs to be defined, it is way tooo open ended.
Posted by Clint EastWood (Member # 16969) on :
Children and toys are inseperable. Have you read "Atlas Shrugged" ?
Get it on Amazon marketplace from seller named "HorizonBooks". You get best price! Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by StTigray: Maybe this is over my head but my initial question was not answered, where can I take a stand because I feel that inadvertently we are edging into an arena where, we are making enemies among those who would otherwise not be our enemies, and we are doing the same type of poor academics that whites have done not only with our culture but many others. I am saying that this question needs to be defined, it is way tooo open ended.
This is a public forum, so of course you are going to get all sorts of points of view. It is up to you to determine what you want to believe and what you don't. However, some "Afrocentrics" are not the basis of the historic hatred for black people. That hatred is based on peoples own warped views and prejudices and nothing else.
Go do your own research and study history for yourself if you are concerned about "distortions" from any particular group of people. Then you can understand the truth for yourself and not have to depend on others to give it to you.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: If that is the case than you sir have a lot of explaining to do. How do you explain the white man colonizing the entire globe?
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: But of course you'd come up w/ that most idiotic theory. It is the only way you can Trojan horse your way into the history and culture of all non white peoples. Since you lack your own history, you use pseudo history and science to hijack others. Since when was the world divided into two; melanated and deficient? WTF or how the fvck is light skin deficient in northern latitudes? What a fcuking idiot you are. Such a insignificant and not well travelled person you are to think the world is nothing but a tropic Afronutopia.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Leading world victims of skin cancer; Whites. Second place goes to; Asians.
Hispanic and blacks skin cancer rates, worldwide are in the noise.
Therefore, Asia was first populated by normal AND albino Africans.
Race, is a myth. The world is comprised of only three groups of humans. Melanated, defectives, and admixed.
Albinism affects not only the body, but also the mind, from inception. It's scientifically proven, a lack of sufficient melanin in the reproductive stage wires the brain abnormally. Therefore, a skewed sense of reality (history) may appear "normal" to a mis-wired entity.
Killer sharks rule the oceans, but their success has very little to do with their intelligence. Rather, their position is attributed moreso to their evolution to nature born killers. What point are you attempting to promote?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by StTigray: Maybe this is over my head but my initial question was not answered, where can I take a stand because I feel that inadvertently we are edging into an arena where, we are making enemies among those who would otherwise not be our enemies, and we are doing the same type of poor academics that whites have done not only with our culture but many others. I am saying that this question needs to be defined, it is way tooo open ended.
Stick around a while, try reading older threads, that go back at least a year or so....and you will be able to distinguish the fringe pseudos, from those who actually practice an unbiased approach to history on this forum.
Not everyone on this board -as you can see- claims that all civilizations around the world were started by Africans until "whites" came and murdered all the indigenous "black" people in Europe, China, the Americas etc...
In a way the fringe pseudos who do promote this give "whites" too much credit IMO.
A lot of the misunderstandings and bizarre claims basically stem from the lack of knowledge and understanding of bio-anthropology and when it comes to the Out Of Africa (OOA) theory .
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
@ Mike/Explorer - it is very simple.
If it were that simple, you wouldn't be contradicting yourself. You first profess to reject racialist dogma, and then go onto apply it. Does that make sense to you? How is that simple?
quote: These "negro" looking ancient looking Asians are .. . .that. Negroid looking asians. They may resemble me . .. on the surface. . . .but apparently, based on their genetic lineage they are VERY distantly related to me.
I use the term "negroid" to generate a phenotype in the readers mind. ie to get a picture/message across. This is the popular term although incorrect.
You are essentially treating "negro" as a race, since you say that the so-called Asians are "negroid" but they aren't "negro"; yet you fail to define what it is, that is supposed to characterize a "negro". If "negro" is just a phenotype, then why did you bring up the issue of "genetic distinction"? And if "negro" is just a phenotype, and said Asians are "negroid", then why can't they just be simply "negro", since after all, they are "negroid" by your standards? Still think the matter is as simple as you say it is?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Guys - Speaking for myself, as just one Black man.
Fuch you - I am not here seeking allies against the White man. I am here seeking truth and speaking truth, as best I know it, nothing more and nothing less.
Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
Sooo what are you saying? Whites have a higher evolution that enables them to subdue others? You know like BIG FISH EAT LITTLE FISH, Big Shark eat little gupper, it's called the circle of life. Me think you should have NEVER used that analogy.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: If that is the case than you sir have a lot of explaining to do. How do you explain the white man colonizing the entire globe?
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: But of course you'd come up w/ that most idiotic theory. It is the only way you can Trojan horse your way into the history and culture of all non white peoples. Since you lack your own history, you use pseudo history and science to hijack others. Since when was the world divided into two; melanated and deficient? WTF or how the fvck is light skin deficient in northern latitudes? What a fcuking idiot you are. Such a insignificant and not well travelled person you are to think the world is nothing but a tropic Afronutopia.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Leading world victims of skin cancer; Whites. Second place goes to; Asians.
Hispanic and blacks skin cancer rates, worldwide are in the noise.
Therefore, Asia was first populated by normal AND albino Africans.
Race, is a myth. The world is comprised of only three groups of humans. Melanated, defectives, and admixed.
Albinism affects not only the body, but also the mind, from inception. It's scientifically proven, a lack of sufficient melanin in the reproductive stage wires the brain abnormally. Therefore, a skewed sense of reality (history) may appear "normal" to a mis-wired entity.
Killer sharks rule the oceans, but their success has very little to do with their intelligence. Rather, their position is attributed moreso to their evolution to nature born killers. What point are you attempting to promote?
Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
You are ISOLATED. Thank God people like you are a fringe!
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Guys - Speaking for myself, as just one Black man.
Fuch you - I am not here seeking allies against the White man. I am here seeking truth and speaking truth, as best I know it, nothing more and nothing less.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: Sooo what are you saying? Whites have a higher evolution that enables them to subdue others? You know like BIG FISH EAT LITTLE FISH, Big Shark eat little gupper, it's called the circle of life. Me think you should have NEVER used that analogy.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: If that is the case than you sir have a lot of explaining to do. How do you explain the white man colonizing the entire globe?
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: But of course you'd come up w/ that most idiotic theory. It is the only way you can Trojan horse your way into the history and culture of all non white peoples. Since you lack your own history, you use pseudo history and science to hijack others. Since when was the world divided into two; melanated and deficient? WTF or how the fvck is light skin deficient in northern latitudes? What a fcuking idiot you are. Such a insignificant and not well travelled person you are to think the world is nothing but a tropic Afronutopia.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Leading world victims of skin cancer; Whites. Second place goes to; Asians.
Hispanic and blacks skin cancer rates, worldwide are in the noise.
Therefore, Asia was first populated by normal AND albino Africans.
Race, is a myth. The world is comprised of only three groups of humans. Melanated, defectives, and admixed.
Albinism affects not only the body, but also the mind, from inception. It's scientifically proven, a lack of sufficient melanin in the reproductive stage wires the brain abnormally. Therefore, a skewed sense of reality (history) may appear "normal" to a mis-wired entity.
Killer sharks rule the oceans, but their success has very little to do with their intelligence. Rather, their position is attributed moreso to their evolution to nature born killers. What point are you attempting to promote?
No, not a HIGHER evolution, but rather a different perverted evolution. As perverted as their defective DNA. All cultures kill, but not all enjoy the act of killing as much as the descendents of the African Albino.
Yes, the analogy is appropriate. Although sharks are on top of the food chain, they are basically dumb and would kill and consume until there was nothing left. The trade-off for their killer instinct is they are too dumb to not kill their way into their own extinction. Rome is dead, and so is Rome II.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: The trade-off for their killer instinct is they are too dumb to not kill their way into their own extinction.
Gee, I wouldn't say that, sharks been around since dinosaurs genius.....
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Wrong, as usual 40-90. Ancient sharks were as close to modern sharks as monkeys are to modern man.
Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
"Perverted evolution"? LOL. You are waste. You lack a scientific mind. YOU LOSE.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: Sooo what are you saying? Whites have a higher evolution that enables them to subdue others? You know like BIG FISH EAT LITTLE FISH, Big Shark eat little gupper, it's called the circle of life. Me think you should have NEVER used that analogy.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: If that is the case than you sir have a lot of explaining to do. How do you explain the white man colonizing the entire globe?
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: But of course you'd come up w/ that most idiotic theory. It is the only way you can Trojan horse your way into the history and culture of all non white peoples. Since you lack your own history, you use pseudo history and science to hijack others. Since when was the world divided into two; melanated and deficient? WTF or how the fvck is light skin deficient in northern latitudes? What a fcuking idiot you are. Such a insignificant and not well travelled person you are to think the world is nothing but a tropic Afronutopia.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Leading world victims of skin cancer; Whites. Second place goes to; Asians.
Hispanic and blacks skin cancer rates, worldwide are in the noise.
Therefore, Asia was first populated by normal AND albino Africans.
Race, is a myth. The world is comprised of only three groups of humans. Melanated, defectives, and admixed.
Albinism affects not only the body, but also the mind, from inception. It's scientifically proven, a lack of sufficient melanin in the reproductive stage wires the brain abnormally. Therefore, a skewed sense of reality (history) may appear "normal" to a mis-wired entity.
Killer sharks rule the oceans, but their success has very little to do with their intelligence. Rather, their position is attributed moreso to their evolution to nature born killers. What point are you attempting to promote?
No, not a HIGHER evolution, but rather a different perverted evolution. As perverted as their defective DNA. All cultures kill, but not all enjoy the act of killing as much as the descendents of the African Albino.
Yes, the analogy is appropriate. Although sharks are on top of the food chain, they are basically dumb and would kill and consume until there was nothing left. The trade-off for their killer instinct is they are too dumb to not kill their way into their own extinction. Rome is dead, and so is Rome II.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by StTigray:
Maybe this is over my head but my initial question was not answered, where can I take a stand because I feel that inadvertently we are edging into an arena where, we are making enemies among those who would otherwise not be our enemies, and we are doing the same type of poor academics that whites have done not only with our culture but many others. I am saying that this question needs to be defined, it is way tooo open ended.
No offense intended here, but your assessment starts from a faulty premise, if not ambiguous, because "we" suggests all bears the guilt or responsibility for what you are proposing; I highly doubt that is an accurate assessment of the status quo.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
[Doug writes] Aboriginal Asians are Asians even though they ultimately came from Africa thousands of years ago. They are Asians and have features similar to other Asians and Asian features developed FROM THEM.
quote: [Doug writes] Aboriginal Asians are Asians even though they ultimately came from Africa thousands of years ago. They are Asians and have features similar to other Asians and Asian features developed FROM THEM.
Thus we have in Africa them: Who could pass for black Asians
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
quote: [Doug writes] Aboriginal Asians are Asians even though they ultimately came from Africa thousands of years ago. They are Asians and have features similar to other Asians and Asian features developed FROM THEM.
Thus we have in Africa them: Who could pass for black Asians The Asians even appears a tad darker IMO.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
For those who say people who have negroid features outside of Africa aren't African but aborigines of different sorts and names I say as I've said a thousand times, yours is a geographical definition.
If we use a physical definition for African being those with some combination of to woolly or wiry hair and full facial features, then they are African. Both in appearance and ultimate origination.
WHY THE DEMAND TO CALL PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF AFRICA WHO FIT A PHYSICAL DEFINITION FOR AFRICAN ABORIGINE? WHY NOT CALL THEM AFRICAN?
WHY CALL SUCH ABORIGINES ABORIGINE RATHER THAN AFRICAN? WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?
IT SEEMS THERE IS PHOBIA CONNECTED WITH THE NAME AFRICAN. THESE CONTINUAL, ENDLESS ARGUMENTS COMING FROM SO MANY QUARTERS AGAINST CALLING PEOPLE AFRICAN IS INTERESTING TO SAY THE LEAST.
DP = double post. Wish we had better editing features here.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: DP? Sorry, over my head...
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Clyde. Straight hair comes from aboriginal black Asians, not RACE MIXING. The first people on earth with straight hair, brown hair, black hair, blonde hair and any other kind of hair is .... black aboriginal people. Likewise, the first people with round eyes, 'slanted' eyes, thin noses and thin lips are also aboriginal black people. Those features among black aboriginal types DO NOT come from "race mixing".
If blacks are aboriginal to ALL PARTS of the planet then THERE WERE NO OTHER HUMANS TO MIX WITH. Those features therefore ALL DERIVE from aboriginal black populations. The ONLY kind of mixing that has occurred is due to the later lighter skinned populations mixing with those who are still tropically adapted. But BOTH populations all got their features from the same aboriginal founding groups. The only difference is that those who stayed in tropical environments retained their dark skin while others in the north did not.
Just like there is no one type of black African there is no one type of black person world wide.
Aboriginal populations all over the world have different features that have developed over thousands of years. And from them you get most of the features you see world wide.
There is a tremendous amount of differences between human features across Africa, hence there is no one type of black African and outside Africa the same is also true. It has nothing to do with Africa per se as opposed to the environment and random physical variation.
The Aboriginal people of India, South Asia, the Pacific, New Guinea and Australia do NOT look like Africans. You can easily pick them out in a series of anonymous photos of black people from across the planet. So trying to pretend that all those people are "Africans" is purely an exercise in nonsense. Yes, there are SOME Africans with features similar to those populations, yet because Africa is SO DIVERSE to begin with and because of the local environmental adaptation, you are not going to find WHOLE populations that match the features of black populations world wide. NONE of those people are Africans. Black does not equal African just like aboriginal does not equal African. The aboriginal blacks in Asia are just that ASIANS. They are not blacks who sailed to Asia a few thousand years ago. Similarly the aboriginal black populations of the Pacific, South Asia and the Americas are a result of population movements out of Africa from over 50,000 years ago. They are not Africans who just got there yesterday.
Calling these aboriginal people Africans is tantamount to calling all people worldwide populations white or black Africans. They are genetically and phenotypically closer to the people in their respective areas than they are to Africans. Yes the aboriginal populations worldwide are proof of the out of Africa migrations of all humans, but they did not get there yesterday and they are therefore not Africans in any contemporary sense.
You simply are trying to claim black skin as a marker meaning African, when it doesn't.
Yes Chinese people originally came from Africa like everyone else, but they are still Chinese:
Calling all these people Africans is to disrespect the patterns of history and culture of all these populations.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Doug. Some more nice pictures.
. .
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
There shouldn't be any confusion you question has been answered in this thread.
There is essentially two school of thought.
1. All negroid "looking" people should be called African. . .wherever they are found. Thus those ancient Asians(and meso-America) statues etc are . . .African.
and
2. These ancient Asians pieces are NOT african although they fit the modern/Stereotypical/"conventional" view of negro. Genetical the Aborigenee test farthest from continental Africans.. . .and us decendants (AA). Hense Explorer question: what are negro traits . . . which I think is pretty evident.
I will take a leap and say ALL on this board agree that they are black skinned indegenous people. The conflict is should they be classified as African/negro or non-African/non-negro.
Even Afronutslayer agrees they are black skinned indegenous people. . .right???
quote:Originally posted by StTigray: This is Question is only for those like me who are seeking the truth in history, and not an agenda. I was on Youtube and I saw a video discussing the origins of China were created by Africans. I then remembered various postings about Black Vikings, Blacks Greece, and Black Rome. I found this disconcerting because if Im not mistaken it seems that there are some that seek to perpetrate the same lies as Eurocentrics. What is an affective way to address this issue. I also want to know, am I missing something?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You saying light skinned people are pre-disposed(genetically) to . . .murder and carnage. Is light skinned synominous to extermination? This is evident in China, Europe, India, Americas (pre-historic).
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: But as I asked. . . what happened? why the recent shift in dominance by light skinned people. ie China, Japan, Taiwan, India and Europe.
They killed the Blacks off of course.
.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
In recent times, skin color has become a bigger factor in the ethnic divisions and wars between various groups. Of course there has always been ethnic conflict and struggle throughout human history, along with political and social struggles. This is not unique to light skinned people. However, it is the Europeans who have elevated the concept of ethnic struggle to a global racial perspective and propagated the worst atrocities in the name of race.
Prior to this ethnic struggle was not simply racial. Asians were fighting Asians, Africans were fighting Africans, Europeans fighting Europeans. And because ethnic differences sometimes included skin color, there were struggles around skin color. However, the PRIMARY reason for the lack of darker skinned populations in most of Asia is environmental. Black skin is not as suited to the northern environments as paler skin. If dark skin was predominant in those areas, they would not have been wiped out. Therefore, it cannot be said that dark skinned populations are missing from Asia purely because of racism. It is no coincidence that the majority of the dark skinned aboriginal populations of Asia are found in tropical environments. Likewise it is also not a coincidence that some of the darkest native Americans are found in the hottest parts of the Americas: The Desert South West, the tropics and so forth. So we cannot blame everything on racism prior to the age of European colonialsm. Most wars prior to this time were primarily between people of the same complexion or features I would think. But again the history prior to the Age of Europeans has been so muddied and distorted that it is hard to get a clear picture of what was happening.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Huh? I thought the sceintifica data demonstrates that the light skin originated aboce the 48th Parallel(?) ?
+++++++
However, the PRIMARY reason for the lack of darker skinned populations in most of Asia is environmental. (latitude of these Aisan countires??)
+++++ Likewise it is also not a coincidence that some of the darkest native Americans are found in the HOTTEST parts of the Americas:(Latitude??)
Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
Yes I agree they are Black skin (not to be confused with the noun - Black, which has been used to denote, for the most part, sub saharaners) and it is this fact that the Afronutters exploit as their Trojan Horse to go in, hijack, and rob other people's history.
Another thing, indigenous'ness does not necessarily imply they are the people who created the civilization on that land. Case in pt. The Americas. It was white skin chinese who built the civilization of their respective land.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: There shouldn't be any confusion you question has been answered in this thread.
There is essentially two school of thought.
1. All negroid "looking" people should be called African. . .wherever they are found. Thus those ancient Asians(and meso-America) statues etc are . . .African.
and
2. These ancient Asians pieces are NOT african although they fit the modern/Stereotypical/"conventional" view of negro. Genetical the Aborigenee test farthest from continental Africans.. . .and us decendants (AA). Hense Explorer question: what are negro traits . . . which I think is pretty evident.
I will take a leap and say ALL on this board agree that they are black skinned indegenous people. The conflict is should they be classified as African/negro or non-African/non-negro.
Even Afronutslayer agrees they are black skinned indegenous people. . .right???
quote:Originally posted by StTigray: This is Question is only for those like me who are seeking the truth in history, and not an agenda. I was on Youtube and I saw a video discussing the origins of China were created by Africans. I then remembered various postings about Black Vikings, Blacks Greece, and Black Rome. I found this disconcerting because if Im not mistaken it seems that there are some that seek to perpetrate the same lies as Eurocentrics. What is an affective way to address this issue. I also want to know, am I missing something?
Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
Not too sure if you are an Afronutter, but if you are this would be my first time actually agreeing with one!
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In recent times, skin color has become a bigger factor in the ethnic divisions and wars between various groups. Of course there has always been ethnic conflict and struggle throughout human history, along with political and social struggles. This is not unique to light skinned people. However, it is the Europeans who have elevated the concept of ethnic struggle to a global racial perspective and propagated the worst atrocities in the name of race.
Prior to this ethnic struggle was not simply racial. Asians were fighting Asians, Africans were fighting Africans, Europeans fighting Europeans. And because ethnic differences sometimes included skin color, there were struggles around skin color. However, the PRIMARY reason for the lack of darker skinned populations in most of Asia is environmental. Black skin is not as suited to the northern environments as paler skin. If dark skin was predominant in those areas, they would not have been wiped out. Therefore, it cannot be said that dark skinned populations are missing from Asia purely because of racism. It is no coincidence that the majority of the dark skinned aboriginal populations of Asia are found in tropical environments. Likewise it is also not a coincidence that some of the darkest native Americans are found in the hottest parts of the Americas: The Desert South West, the tropics and so forth. So we cannot blame everything on racism prior to the age of European colonialsm. Most wars prior to this time were primarily between people of the same complexion or features I would think. But again the history prior to the Age of Europeans has been so muddied and distorted that it is hard to get a clear picture of what was happening.
Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
Not too sure if you are an Afronutter, but if you are this would be my first time actually agreeing with one!
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In recent times, skin color has become a bigger factor in the ethnic divisions and wars between various groups. Of course there has always been ethnic conflict and struggle throughout human history, along with political and social struggles. This is not unique to light skinned people. However, it is the Europeans who have elevated the concept of ethnic struggle to a global racial perspective and propagated the worst atrocities in the name of race.
Prior to this ethnic struggle was not simply racial. Asians were fighting Asians, Africans were fighting Africans, Europeans fighting Europeans. And because ethnic differences sometimes included skin color, there were struggles around skin color. However, the PRIMARY reason for the lack of darker skinned populations in most of Asia is environmental. Black skin is not as suited to the northern environments as paler skin. If dark skin was predominant in those areas, they would not have been wiped out. Therefore, it cannot be said that dark skinned populations are missing from Asia purely because of racism. It is no coincidence that the majority of the dark skinned aboriginal populations of Asia are found in tropical environments. Likewise it is also not a coincidence that some of the darkest native Americans are found in the hottest parts of the Americas: The Desert South West, the tropics and so forth. So we cannot blame everything on racism prior to the age of European colonialsm. Most wars prior to this time were primarily between people of the same complexion or features I would think. But again the history prior to the Age of Europeans has been so muddied and distorted that it is hard to get a clear picture of what was happening.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: "Perverted evolution"? LOL. You are waste. You lack a scientific mind. YOU LOSE.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: Sooo what are you saying? Whites have a higher evolution that enables them to subdue others? You know like BIG FISH EAT LITTLE FISH, Big Shark eat little gupper, it's called the circle of life. Me think you should have NEVER used that analogy.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: If that is the case than you sir have a lot of explaining to do. How do you explain the white man colonizing the entire globe?
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: But of course you'd come up w/ that most idiotic theory. It is the only way you can Trojan horse your way into the history and culture of all non white peoples. Since you lack your own history, you use pseudo history and science to hijack others. Since when was the world divided into two; melanated and deficient? WTF or how the fvck is light skin deficient in northern latitudes? What a fcuking idiot you are. Such a insignificant and not well travelled person you are to think the world is nothing but a tropic Afronutopia.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Leading world victims of skin cancer; Whites. Second place goes to; Asians.
Hispanic and blacks skin cancer rates, worldwide are in the noise.
Therefore, Asia was first populated by normal AND albino Africans.
Race, is a myth. The world is comprised of only three groups of humans. Melanated, defectives, and admixed.
Albinism affects not only the body, but also the mind, from inception. It's scientifically proven, a lack of sufficient melanin in the reproductive stage wires the brain abnormally. Therefore, a skewed sense of reality (history) may appear "normal" to a mis-wired entity.
Killer sharks rule the oceans, but their success has very little to do with their intelligence. Rather, their position is attributed moreso to their evolution to nature born killers. What point are you attempting to promote?
No, not a HIGHER evolution, but rather a different perverted evolution. As perverted as their defective DNA. All cultures kill, but not all enjoy the act of killing as much as the descendents of the African Albino.
Yes, the analogy is appropriate. Although sharks are on top of the food chain, they are basically dumb and would kill and consume until there was nothing left. The trade-off for their killer instinct is they are too dumb to not kill their way into their own extinction. Rome is dead, and so is Rome II.
LOL..I NEVER LOSE. Listen, and learn pup and try not to become defensive.
"Perverted"
To turn from truth, rectitude, or propriety; to divert from a right use, end, or way; to lead astray; to corrupt; To turn another way. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Afro Idiot quote: "Another thing, indigenous'ness does not necessarily imply they are the people who created the civilization on that land. Case in pt. The Americas. It was white skin chinese who built the civilization of their respective land."
Damn boy, you sure are stupid, and every time that I think that you have reached the height of stupidity, you go higher yet - amazing!
Now that I have given you sufficient flattery, please tell us by name, who those white skin Chinese that built America were.
A picture would also be helpful, if you have any. Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Huh? I thought the sceintifica data demonstrates that the light skin originated aboce the 48th Parallel(?) ?
+++++++
However, the PRIMARY reason for the lack of darker skinned populations in most of Asia is environmental. (latitude of these Aisan countires??)
+++++ Likewise it is also not a coincidence that some of the darkest native Americans are found in the HOTTEST parts of the Americas:(Latitude??)
Light skin may develop anywhere on earth. Albinism can be found anywhere on the planet occurring in all species of animal and plant. A good question is; when did the 1st Albino species appear in Africa, on earth, and what major event occur to trigger the perversion.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Guys. In case you did not notice. . . Albinism led to whites. . .give me a break!!!
With this one I think you are in LA LA land!!
You are an engineer/scientist . . . right? Don't let the profession down.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I remeber back in the day when I read Van Sertima's "they came before. . ."
I actually believed that "WEEE came before colombus".
Now I know better. Most ancient peoples have the stereotypical negroid features bacause. . . .The first man who came from Africa had these features.
@ Explorer - Prognathism, large strong teeth, thicker lips, black/brown skin, wiry/curly hair, longer limbs, less body hair . . .
Remeber I said "stereotypical". Even the so called Ethiopids carry these traits as are the AE.
These features are NOT typically found in Northern Europe, northern China, Northern India etc.
Many of the statues, paintings from these Ancient people show the people having these stereotypical trait. . .conclusion/question. . . are they Africans? Therein lies the confusion or conflict.
So the question posed by Explorer - "what is a negro" is justified. Similarly - what is an African phenotype?
@ DerKy and Afronutslayer - This is a lot deepr than your nonsense. Brothas are talking here stay out of this.
AE are undoubtedly an indegenous African civilization. Cocoa-sians did not come to Africa.
. . . .This is the same issue ALTK posited in the " Asians are not black" thread.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Xyyman
quote:Now I know better. Most ancient peoples have the stereotypical negroid features bacause. . . .The first man who came from Africa had these features.
A real case could could be made for pre Columbian African contacts both ancient and medival but that's for another day.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Afro Idiot quote: "Another thing, indigenous'ness does not necessarily imply they are the people who created the civilization on that land. Case in pt. The Americas. It was white skin chinese who built the civilization of their respective land."
Damn boy, you sure are stupid, and every time that I think that you have reached the height of stupidity, you go higher yet - amazing!
Now that I have given you sufficient flattery, please tell us by name, who those white skin Chinese that built America were.
A picture would also be helpful, if you have any.
I agree. Doug and AfroIdiot just can't understand that certain populations do no like Negroes, Blacks, Africans and etc., and have committed genocide against them on many occasions.
They also don't recognize that the present inhabitants of many regions today are not the original inhabitants. Poor boy, Doug you just don't get it.
.
.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Agreed the current populations that are now dominant in these regions DO NOT look like the statues or portraits of these ancient peoples.
The Afrocentrics point - "they look like me. Therefore they are my people". But we are on point with "they look like me".
Question is - are they my people because they look like me?
Southern Europeans - Estruscans (sp?), Pelagascians, Dravidians (Indus civilzations), Meso-Americans . They all look like or resemble modern day Africans and AA. That is a FACT.
But are they? How far back do we go? If we all include all that left the continent then. . . we got to include Europeans. So is there such a thing as a RACE then?
But the really burning question is - WHAT HAPPENED. How come the current dominant inhabitants look DIFFERENT to the ancients? Did the old group evolved or was it a complete overpowering/replacement by the light skinned ones from the north.
Was there enough time for the evolution. If light skin originated from above the 48th Parallel(?) then obviously they are NOT the same people but does that make the original inhabitants . . .African and the new-comers. . . . not African.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I remeber back in the day when I read Van Sertima's "they came before. . ."
I actually believed that "WEEE came before colombus".
Now I know better. Most ancient peoples have the stereotypical negroid features bacause. . . .The first man who came from Africa had these features.
@ Explorer - Prognathism, large strong teeth, thicker lips, black/brown skin, wiry/curly hair, longer limbs, less body hair . . .
Remeber I said "stereotypical". Even the so called Ethiopids carry these traits as are the AE.
These features are NOT typically found in Northern Europe, northern China, Northern India etc.
Many of the statues, paintings from these Ancient people show the people having these stereotypical trait. . .conclusion/question. . . are they Africans? Therein lies the confusion or conflict.
So the question posed by Explorer - "what is a negro" is justified. Similarly - what is an African phenotype?
@ DerKy and Afronutslayer - This is a lot deepr than your nonsense. Brothas are talking here stay out of this.
AE are undoubtedly an indegenous African civilization. Cocoa-sians did not come to Africa.
. . . .This is the same issue ALTK posited in the " Asians are not black" thread.
Bottom line, all people with dark skin do not possess stereotypical negroid features and never have. That is both in and outside of Africa. So whatever it is you are talking about, it isn't based on facts. All dark skinned people are not African, whether or not they look Negroid or not.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Agreed the current populations that are now dominant in these regions DO NOT look like the statues or portraits of these ancient peoples.
The Afrocentrics point - "they look like me. Therefore they are my people". But we are on point with "they look like me".
Question is - are they my people because they look like me?
Southern Europeans - Estruscans (sp?), Pelagascians, Dravidians (Indus civilzations), Meso-Americans . They all look like or resemble modern day Africans and AA. That is a FACT.
But are they? How far back do we go? If we all include all that left the continent then. . . we got to include Europeans. So is there such a thing as a RACE then?
But the really burning question is - WHAT HAPPENED. How come the current dominant inhabitants look DIFFERENT to the ancients? Did the old group evolved or was it a complete overpowering/replacement by the light skinned ones from the north.
Was there enough time for the evolution. If light skin originated from above the 48th Parallel(?) then obviously they are NOT the same people but does that make the original inhabitants . . .African and the new-comers. . . . not African.
Do all black Africans look like you?
If so, why? If not why not?
Do all blacks world wide look like you?
Yes or no?
What does "look like you mean"? I am sure that MOST black people world wided DO NOT look like you.
Then again, what do you look like?
So again, you are making up standards of measurement for your own made up definition of what constitutes an African with no basis in fact at all.
You may even be white for all we know.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Agreed the current populations that are now dominant in these regions DO NOT look like the statues or portraits of these ancient peoples.
The Afrocentrics point - "they look like me. Therefore they are my people". But we are on point with "they look like me".
Question is - are they my people because they look like me?
Southern Europeans - Estruscans (sp?), Pelagascians, Dravidians (Indus civilzations), Meso-Americans . They all look like or resemble modern day Africans and AA. That is a FACT.
But are they? How far back do we go? If we all include all that left the continent then. . . we got to include Europeans. So is there such a thing as a RACE then?
But the really burning question is - WHAT HAPPENED. How come the current dominant inhabitants look DIFFERENT to the ancients? Did the old group evolved or was it a complete overpowering/replacement by the light skinned ones from the north.
Was there enough time for the evolution. If light skin originated from above the 48th Parallel(?) then obviously they are NOT the same people but does that make the original inhabitants . . .African and the new-comers. . . . not African.
Afrocentric researchers who identify a group of Blacks outside Africa as Africans, do not rely solely on how they look. Afrocentric researchers support their conclusions based on collateral evidence from anthropology, archaeology and linguistics.
For example, we claim Dravidian speakers are Africans because the archaeological, linguistic and anthropological evidence indicates that they were members of the C-Group people. This evidence gives us a date for the appearence of Dravidian speakers in India so we can call these people Africans since their appearence in South Asia is not due to the OOA event 60kya.
We claim the Olmecs are Africans because of similar reasoning:
1) the Olmec appear in Mexico suddenly between 1300-1200 BC
2) the skeletal remains show that they were Africans.
3) they used a common writing systems
4) the ethnonym for the Olmec, Xi (Shi) is of Mande origin
5) the religious and cultural terms of the Maya who got their culture and civilization from the Olmecs, are Mande terms
6) the use of jade to make tools in Africa and Mexico
7) the use of similar ceramics
The evidence is congruent with the iconography which indicates that the Olmec were Africans who spoke a Mande language. As you can see, Afrocentric researchers who write history do not rely solely on color to call a people African outside Africa.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Many non-Blacks do not like African people and ofetn use genocide to eliminate our presence. I have already discussed the Chinese who used the Qiang for sport. Meso-Americans also did not like Africans. Below are pictures from Monte Alban. Monte Alban was an Olmec colonial site until the Zapotec conquered the city. The Zapotec left the following stelas
If you look carefully you will notice that the people in these stelas have their penises flayed or mutilated. This is a clear indication that the Zapotecs hated these Blacks not only because of their civilization and culture they also wanted to make sure that even in death these men could not make more Amerindian babies or children generally.
.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Eurocentrism is a lie fabricated by White people, in order to create a false history for themselves, one filled with great deeds and accomplishments that really did not involve them. That because no person or people of power, willingly admit their humble origins.
Afrocentrism - is the truthful counter to Eurocentrism. It's function is to return to Africa and Africans the history and accomplishments that rightfully belong there. I don't recall an Afrocentric claiming that Blacks put a man on the moon - though Blacks were doubtlessly involved.
What Afrocentrism is NOT, is about gobbling up everyone and claiming that they are Black. For me personally, the hybrid peoples are whatever they CHOOSE to be. I am not so lonely being Black, that I need everyone else to be Black also.
But that being said, how can anyone claim that the hybrid people EVOLVED to look as they do now? When the evidence is clear that they are the result of admixture between VARIOUS African peoples and phenotypes.
INCLUDING THESE AFRICANS!!!!
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Unfortunately some people feel the best way to combat Eurocentrism is to mimic it.
The fact is that the people most responsible for the reduction in the numbers of blacks world wide are colonial Europeans. There is no evidence that any culture has ever had as much of a dedicated focus on the "black race" as white Europeans. There is no evidence that ANY culture has ever been dedicated to destroying people with black skin as much as Europeans in any part of the globe. This is obvious because blacks were still present in MOST of the places Europeans went outside of Europe.
So the blacks were not killed off before then. Throughout history black populations have not been exclusively on the losing side of wars or hatred. They have sometimes been victors and sometimes been victims, but it is simply not true they have been exclusively "whipping boys" because of black skin. That is simply a retarded view of history. The fact is that Europeans are the most violent of ANY culture EVER to come along both among THEMSELVES and others around the world. And they are the first culture to DEVOTE themselves to ethnic cleansing and genocide world wide. NO other culture can even come close or should even TRY to.
Black folks should simply do what they need to do for themselves and their own survival. Wasting your time slandering whites and trying to be reverse racists is not going to do that.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
DougM is the only person talking any sense in this thread.
how can people think that all people with dark skin, or broad features are somehow related to Africans? This is not true.
There are many people all over the world that look like Africans, but are not Africans.
the dumbest thing in this thread is the idea that Africans or other blacks were being hated for there skin color even back in Ancient times. All you people are doing is making Africans eternal victims. Your not proving how great blacks were, really you are degrading Africans and Black people the world over by saying they were killed off by people who hate them without any evidence.
What proof is there that blacks in Asia were killed off for the simple reason that they had Black skin? You people make Blacks seem weak and allways victims. This mentality has to change.
Peace
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
King quote: how can people think that all people with dark skin, or broad features are somehow related to Africans? This is not true.
King - I think you missed something in the translation. We AGREE that they ARE related to Africans.
The argument is to why SOME no longer "look" like Africans.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Unfortunately some people feel the best way to combat Eurocentrism is to mimic it.
The fact is that the people most responsible for the reduction in the numbers of blacks world wide are colonial Europeans. There is no evidence that any culture has ever had as much of a dedicated focus on the "black race" as white Europeans. There is no evidence that ANY culture has ever been dedicated to destroying people with black skin as much as Europeans in any part of the globe. This is obvious because blacks were still present in MOST of the places Europeans went outside of Europe.
So the blacks were not killed off before then. Throughout history black populations have not been exclusively on the losing side of wars or hatred. They have sometimes been victors and sometimes been victims, but it is simply not true they have been exclusively "whipping boys" because of black skin. That is simply a retarded view of history. The fact is that Europeans are the most violent of ANY culture EVER to come along both among THEMSELVES and others around the world. And they are the first culture to DEVOTE themselves to ethnic cleansing and genocide world wide. NO other culture can even come close or should even TRY to.
Black folks should simply do what they need to do for themselves and their own survival. Wasting your time slandering whites and trying to be reverse racists is not going to do that.
Haaahaha....you're such a fool. If only you could read Chinese and other languages.
.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
@ Explorer - Prognathism, large strong teeth, thicker lips, black/brown skin, wiry/curly hair, longer limbs, less body hair . . .
Is this what you mean, when you say said Asians are "negroid"? If yes, then what else do they need to have, in order to be--to put it à la your logic--authentically "negro" as opposed to "negroid"?
Furthermore, are you on record, saying that the listed traits above are only confined to Africa?
quote: Remeber I said "stereotypical". Even the so called Ethiopids carry these traits as are the AE.
These features are NOT typically found in Northern Europe, northern China, Northern India etc.
If these "stereotypical" traits are not found in non-Africans and just confined to Africans, then why do you say certain non-Africans [Asians in this case] are "negroid"?
Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
Afronuts would have you to believe places like China were once populated by a majority of people with black skin. Of course this is anything but true. They have no other alternative but to convince you of this lie. Otherwise, their pseudo-history goes......POOF!
You see, finding a handful of archeological remains of a black presence in china is not even by a stretch of the imagination enough to claim these ancient chinese were a majority Black. Because that same idiotic logic can be used for the 100 folds more of archeological remains that exist of light skin Chinese.
There is that one little matter omitted from the Afronut's pseudo equation of deception, what the fcuck happened to all those "Black" chinese if indeed chinese people were once Black? And the fcked up part about this crap, it's the same bullshit for all the other places, Afronuts love to claim. The alleged Black ancestry somehow myseriously vanished. So much for the "Dark genes are dominant" science!
EPIC FAIL!
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Afronuttin
quote:what the fcuck happened to all those "Black" chinese if indeed chinese people were once Black?
My guess some migrated some intermarried they eventually got abosrbed and that's the easiest explaination. The important looking fella may or may not be African but he sure was black I am thinking Ambassdor from Africa? But these fellas certainly where black Asians on the mainland Ladies and gentilemen live and in living color I present to you Black Asians from the distant past. Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: Afronuts would have you to believe places like China were once populated by a majority of people with black skin. Of course this is anything but true.
In all actuality Kayanyah a.k.a Afronuthugger (whom I've shut down so many times before) this is the main or shall I say majority view held by unbiased (all points viewed without prejudice) scientific academia and accepted by all credible scholars working in this field of expertise.
Note, that since humanity arose in Africa I.e., that humans were populated by people coming from Africa who of which according to natural laws of science would have, and indeed have been proven to be tropically adapted black Africans (just note Oceanic's, I.e., Melanesians and Australians).
Humans spread out from Africa, and as a consequence after thousands of years and subsequent bottlenecks in the areas they populated adapting to different environmental pressures look as they do today.
Where ever you see an individual who does not resemble an African is result of environmental pressures.
If you don't want to believe it then disprove the already proven analyses pertaining to parenatal markers (Mtdna and Y-dna), then we can talk business, so far nobody has been able to do so, and of course you'll fall short indeed.
No doubt without population genetics to correlatively match with anthropological evidence which proves this undoubtedly over and over, that ultimately anatomically modern humans originated within sub Saharan Africa (I.e, Y-dna and Mtdna wise) we wouldn't know this information at all and would be stuck spouting racialist dogma as some still persist to do to this day.
Go do some of your own original research (albeit I know you won't) on the subject of bio-anthropology, perhaps you'll embarrass yourself less than what you do now.
Of course to you it's the big bad Afro-centrists who run the majority of new age scientific studies published whereas the OOA/RAO (Out of Africa/Recent African Origin), has never been refuted, correct?
Gosh darn all those afro-centric scientists in academia.. huh nut?
Like SOY Keita says the ghosts of the pre-genetic era need to be exorcised!!!
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
[Doug writes] Bottom line, all people with dark skin do not possess stereotypical negroid features and never have. That is both in and outside of Africa. So whatever it is you are talking about, it isn't based on facts. All dark skinned people are not African, whether or not they look Negroid or not.
[Marc writes] Doug. Your writing is non-sequitor. You write, “All dark skinned people are not African, whether or not they look Negroid or not.”
If they look Negroid and the definition of “African” is people who look Negroid, then they are African.
I believe your concept of the geographical African is a colonized, defeated people and this sits well with your notions of white superiority. On the other hand, it creates revulsion to countenance the thought that an a Negroid-looking person isn’t African.
is utter, mindless foolishness.
Keep in mind that many of the people you show with negroid characteristics originated from populations even more Negroid-looking until whites came with racial intermixing and genocide.
The following are examples of ancient Negroid peoples you’d say weren’t African.
6. China, 7. Siberia 8. Aluetian Islands, 9. Croation of Europe 11. Honduran 12. Celt of Spain 13. Mesopotamian
You have devoted your life to fighting the assertion that Africans successfully survived outside the continent.
But if Africans look Negroid, they are. You saying they aren’t is utter stupidity and paranoid racist.
. .
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
In the Chinese literature the Blacks were called li-min, Kunlung, Ch'iang (Qiang), Yi and Yueh. The founders of the Xia Dynasty and the Shang Dynasties were blacks. These blacks were called Yueh and Qiang. The modern Chinese are descendants of the Zhou. The second Shang Dynasty ( situated at Anyang) was founded by the Yin. As a result this dynasty is called Shang-Yin. The Yin or Oceanic Mongoloid type is associated with the Austronesian speakers ( Kwang-chih Chang, "Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China", Current Anthropology, 5 (1964) pp.359-375 :375). The Austronesian or Oceanic Mongoloid type were called Yin, Feng, Yen, Zhiu Yi and Lun Yi.
In Chinese min=people and li= black (see L. Wieger, Chinese Characters (1915)).The Chinese classics make it clear that the Li min, meant "Black people" not young Chinese or peasant Chinese. In the "Shu King", we read that "In the Canon of Yao, we discover that Yu "…regulated and polished the people of his domain, who all became brightly intelligent. Finally, he united and harmonized the myriad States of the empire; and lo! The black people were transformed". In this passage "min li is used to describe all the people in the Empire, not just the peasants or the young people. In Book II, it was written that Kao yao "…with vigorous activity sowing abroad his virtue, which has decended on the black people, till they cherish him in their hearts". Again the term li min was applied to the people of the empire and not just a particular group.
The term li min means "black people". The term for peasant had nothing to do with li min. The term for peasant comes from the tsung-jen character which is formed by a group of three men usually placed under a sun, signifying that they are working on the farm in the sun. In later periods many Chinese writers began to called the tsung-jen character li min, so as to associate this sign with the ancient designation of the Shang and Xia people who were "black or Oceanic/African people", not yellow people "browned by the sun".
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Secondly, archaeological research makes it clear that Negroids were very common to ancient China. F. Weidenreich ( in Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-30) noted that the one of the earliest skulls from north China found in the Upper Cave of Chou-k'ou-tien, was of a Oceanic Negroid/Melanesoid " (p.163).
These blacks were the dominant group in South China. Kwang-chih Chang, writing in the 4th edition of Archaeology of ancient China (1986) wrote that:" by the beginning of the Recent (Holocene) period the population in North China and that in the southwest and in Indochina had become sufficiently differentiated to be designated as Mongoloid and OCEANIC NEGROID races respectively…."(p.64). By the Upper Pleistocene the Negroid type was typified by the Liu-chiang skulls from Yunnan (Chang, 1986, p.69).
Negroid skeletons dating to the early periods of Southern Chinese history have been found in Shangdong, Jiantung, Sichuan, Yunnan, Pearl River delta and Jiangxi especially at the initial sites of Chingliengang (Ch'ing-lien-kang) and Mazhiabang (Ma chia-pang) phases ( see: K.C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University Press:New Haven,1977) p.76) . The Chingliengang culture is often referred to as the Ta-wen-k'ou (Dawenkou) culture of North China. The presence of Negroid skeletal remains at Dawenkou sites make it clear that Negroes were still in the North in addition to South China. The Dawenkou culture predates the Lung-shan culture which is associated with the Xia civilization.
.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
[Xxyman writes]:
Agreed the current populations that are now dominant in these regions DO NOT look like the statues or portraits of these ancient peoples.
The Afrocentrics point - "they look like me. Therefore they are my people".
Southern Europeans - Estruscans (sp?), Pelagascians, Dravidians (Indus civilzations), Meso-Americans . They all look like or resemble modern day Africans and AA. That is a FACT.
But are they? How far back do we go? If we all include all that left the continent then. . . we got to include Europeans. So is there such a thing as a RACE then?
[Marc writes]: I’m surprised to hear you ask the question. It seems your thinking is diametrically opposed to what it was a year back and earlier where you would argue indeed race does exist.
[Xxyman writes]: But the really burning question is - WHAT HAPPENED. How come the current dominant inhabitants look DIFFERENT to the ancients? Did the old group evolved or was it a complete overpowering/replacement by the light skinned ones from the north.
[Marc writes]: Again I am surprised you ask the question. Again, a year before and earlier, you’d clearly note and recognize that genocide has been committed worldwide.
As whites and Monguls migrated worldwide from mostly after the 5th century AD, they cleansed the lands of the original African/black/Negro inhabitants through genocide and slavery.
Whenever you see golden races, you see the mixture of snow white and jet black. The Spanish, Middle Easterners, Asians, all examples of a figurative jet-black African population which encountered incursive whites and/or Monguls.
[Xxyman writes]: Was there enough time for the evolution. If light skin originated from above the 48th Parallel(?) then obviously they are NOT the same people but does that make the original inhabitants . . .African and the new-comers. . . . not African.
[Marc writes:] Are you joking? Was there enough time for evolution? You have populations in Europe even during the Middle Ages that were black. Are you asking if there was enough time for evoution to change these people in five centuries?
Thanks for clearing that up Mike. Saw it lastnight did not have to respond. Enjoying the game. Don't get it with the NFL. Why Canada.. . .
@ King/Doug - I am asking the question. That is NOT my position. I asking the brothas who make that claim to support it. Dr. Winters just provided some evidence above. That, yes,indeed the Olmecs are recent Affricans, circa 1200BC.
QUOTE: King - I think you missed something in the translation.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: King quote: how can people think that all people with dark skin, or broad features are somehow related to Africans? This is not true.
King - I think you missed something in the translation. We AGREE that they ARE related to Africans.
The argument is to why SOME no longer "look" like Africans.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
^^ great points. Counter???
So the Northern Indians are genetically different from the Dravidians.
Is there similar differences between the Northern lighter Chinese and the darker southern Asians?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]Afrocentric researchers who identify a group of Blacks outside Africa as Africans, do not rely solely on how they look. Afrocentric researchers support their conclusions based on collateral evidence from anthropology, archaeology and linguistics.
For example, we claim Dravidian speakers are Africans because the archaeological, linguistic and anthropological evidence indicates that they were members of the C-Group people. This evidence gives us a date for the appearence of Dravidian speakers in India so we can call these people Africans since their appearence in South Asia is not due to the OOA event 60kya.
We claim the Olmecs are Africans because of similar reasoning:
1) the Olmec appear in Mexico suddenly between 1300-1200 BC
2) the skeletal remains show that they were Africans.
3) they used a common writing systems
4) the ethnonym for the Olmec, Xi (Shi) is of Mande origin
5) the religious and cultural terms of the Maya who got their culture and civilization from the Olmecs, are Mande terms
6) the use of jade to make tools in Africa and Mexico
7) the use of similar ceramics
The evidence is congruent with the iconography which indicates that the Olmec were Africans who spoke a Mande language. As you can see, Afrocentric researchers who write history do not rely solely on color to call a people African outside Africa.
.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: . .
[Xxyman writes]:
Agreed the current populations that are now dominant in these regions DO NOT look like the statues or portraits of these ancient peoples.
The Afrocentrics point - "they look like me. Therefore they are my people".
Southern Europeans - Estruscans (sp?), Pelagascians, Dravidians (Indus civilzations), Meso-Americans . They all look like or resemble modern day Africans and AA. That is a FACT.
But are they? How far back do we go? If we all include all that left the continent then. . . we got to include Europeans. So is there such a thing as a RACE then?
[Marc writes]: I’m surprised to hear you ask the question. It seems your thinking is diametrically opposed to what it was a year back and earlier where you would argue indeed race does exist.
[Xxyman writes]: But the really burning question is - WHAT HAPPENED. How come the current dominant inhabitants look DIFFERENT to the ancients? Did the old group evolved or was it a complete overpowering/replacement by the light skinned ones from the north.
[Marc writes]: Again I am surprised you ask the question. Again, a year before and earlier, you’d clearly note and recognize that genocide has been committed worldwide.
As whites and Monguls migrated worldwide from mostly after the 5th century AD, they cleansed the lands of the original African/black/Negro inhabitants through genocide and slavery.
Whenever you see golden races, you see the mixture of snow white and jet black. The Spanish, Middle Easterners, Asians, all examples of a figurative jet-black African population which encountered incursive whites and/or Monguls.
[Xxyman writes]: Was there enough time for the evolution. If light skin originated from above the 48th Parallel(?) then obviously they are NOT the same people but does that make the original inhabitants . . .African and the new-comers. . . . not African.
[Marc writes:] Are you joking? Was there enough time for evolution? You have populations in Europe even during the Middle Ages that were black. Are you asking if there was enough time for evoution to change these people in five centuries?
The fact you keep trying to pretend it does is simply your own inability to comprehend reality.
The fact is that ALL humans black or otherwise, ultimately originate in Africa. Therefore, if you are going to claim that the blacks of Asia are Africans then so too are the whites of Asia because they are BOTH the same people.
THAT is the nonsense logic that you and Clyde keep trying to push as if all blacks world wide only got there yesterday and therefore are all recent African transplants, when they aren't.
And to claim that the Africans of middle Ages Europe who were part of African expansions into Europe during the middle Ages proves that all blacks world wide are recent African migrants IS STUPID.
The circumstances by which black populations became a minority in various parts of the world varies. In China there was a population explosion in the North, where black skin is not suited to the environment. This is the PRIMARY reason blacks no longer exist in large numbers there. Yes, China has been an imperial power in Asia for a few thousand years, but they were not just hostile to blacks, they were hostile to Mongols, Koreans, Japanese and many other ethnic groups. Singling out blacks as being somehow uniquely singled out is retarded. Asians have been fighting Asians since forever and the ONLY reason blacks were easily beaten is because of their numerical inferiority to the large numbers of Northerners. If there were 100 million or more black mainland Chinese 2000 years ago, I doubt very seriously they would have been wiped out. But the environment in the north would not have supported such a scenario to begin with. Imperial China had slaves and eunuchs from all parts of Asia, some black but most were other WHITE ASIANS.
But don't get me wrong, I am not claiming that Chinese were never racists or that blacks have not been treated bad in China for being black. I have no doubt that to this day the presence of blacks in Ancient China may be something of a "state secret" in China. What I am saying is that the PRIMARY reason for the numerical inferiority of blacks in mainland Asia is ENVIRONMENTAL more than anything else. And those blacks were still present in parts of China and South Asia up until the arrival of Europeans, which is when the MAJORITY of black South Asians and other Asians were wiped out.
And again, the only people responsible for the systematic purposeful destruction of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of black people world wide is Europeans. NO other culture prior to that has EVER come close.
But even with all of that, there are STILL blacks in Asia and the Americas and they are NOT AFRICANS.
Numerous threads have already been over this many times:
So St. Tigray there you have it. To answer your question:
Several points of view.
Marc/Mike: Anyone who has the stereotypical “negroid features is negroid. Negroid=African. Does matter when they left the continent. Or what their genetic lineage are. Negroid=black. So if you hold that point of view then ALL these artifacts were created by Africans. The strength of that argument is ALL genetic lineage probable looked African up 5Kya.
Clyde: Olmecs, Dravidians, Qiang(?) are recent Africans. They are NOT part of the 50kya (old) OOA migration. Some of these were Africans who recently left the continent and occupied other lands. Dr. Winters cites genetics, and the ability to read ancient scripts. Which many of us can not. Give him the benefit of the doubt
Explorer/KIK: does NOT matter what they look like. Since they don’t belong to African lineage (genetically) then they are not Africans. Believe the ancients are the ancestors of the present occupiers.
Doug: similar to KIK/Explorer. But he doesn’t believe they were aborbed/morphed. They were exterminated.
AfronutSlayer: I am not sure what he is saying. Gabbledegook. Complain! Complain! Bitch bitch! What is your of view, what are you saying? Says he is black but just bitches!! What is you view brotha? What camp do you fall in? can you back it up. You do have a valid question which I asked. What happened?
My view: I am learning. I am trying to put the pieces together in my mind. ALL of us agree the ancients look dis-similar to the present occupiers.
@ Doug – I take offence at being called white. I said who I am many times. Tested E3a via NG genographic project. So. . .West African ancestry. Although I may have a white mother. . . .just kidding about the white mother. LOL. Is Obama black?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Xyyman stop trying to be a mouth piece for other people.
Every one on this board is perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. I certainly don't need you to summarize what I said, especially since you don't even get it right to begin with.
Like I said, the best thing for ANYONE to do is to learn for themselves by going to the library or online to libraries and institutions and looking up the facts FOR THEMSELVES. Going to a public forum like this is not going to give you the facts. It will give you various points of view and it is up to you to believe what you want.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
So let's flip the switch. . . if Obama's father was white and mother black. We may now have R1b "black" man.
Is he negroid/black/African/Leucoderm/European. Or none of the above?
See where I am going with this. . . .?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Why? Why play retarded games and not stick to the point?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
xyyman - Are you seriously expecting a point-of-view from Afroidiot? Come on, he is some dumb-assed kid who gets his jollies saying outrageous things and generally making a fool of himself.
As I thought that I made clear; my interest is a scholarly one. I am interested in tracing mans movements out of Africa, the various crossbreeding machinations along the migration routes, and how these Africans settled the rest of the world.
Then there are the mechanics by which the current, already hybrid people when they arrived in a given area, got there, and their relationship to the Africans who first settled that area. So you see I wish to claim nobody as Black or anything else, I am only interested in finding the truth.
But, finding the truth does require that I occasionally expose racial lies. Since the conversation has turned to Asia, then I will use some Asian examples.
If this obviously African Black man is a Khmer of Cambodia.
Then this Chinese type woman could NOT possibly be a Khmer.
If this obviously African Black man is a Mon of Thailand.
Then this Chinese type woman could NOT possibly be a Mon.
If this obviously African Black man is a Berber.
Then this White type woman could NOT possibly be a Berber.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
[Doug writes] Marc black skin does not equal African. Period.
The fact you keep trying to pretend it does is simply your own inability to comprehend reality.
[Marc writes] That is not true. Look at any post I made from half a year back until five years back. I never used black to describe Africans.
THE LOOK OF THE AFRICAN: Let's omit color. Color aside, how are Africans distinguished:
And go on to state those physical features.
It is only in the last half year I have started to link African with black and Negro but as a rule I don't as it is too contentious.
You, Doug, or if you wouldn't 99% of white people wouldn't say that pale-skinned Afrikanners, Americans, Australians are not Caucasian because they are not in their homeland of the Russian Steppes but have the audacity and madness to say that even if someone looks like a Negro they are not African.
Pure madness.
. .
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Historical deception has played a role in minimizing the presence and role of blacks in Asia and many other parts of the world. And yes blacks world wide are relegated to the bottom rung of the ladder in many places world wide. There is absolutely no disagreement on that.
However, that does not mean that blacks have disappeared from these areas in modern times. What has happened is they have simply been pushed to the bottom, partly due to fairly RECENT migrations of whites and northerners. I wouldn't call that ANCIENT because even 500 years ago black populations were much more independent and powerful than today. In fact many of those statues you are referring to are less than 1000 years old to begin with.
THE LOOK OF THE AFRICAN: Let's omit color. Color aside, how are Africans distinguished:
And go on to state those physical features.
It is only in the last half year I have started to link African with black and Negro but as a rule I don't as it is too contentious.
You, Doug, or if you wouldn't 99% of white people wouldn't say that pale-skinned Afrikanners, Americans, Australians are not Caucasian because they are not in their homeland of the Russian Steppes but have the audacity and madness to say that even if someone looks like a Negro they are not African.
Pure madness.
. .
It is pure madness to compare RECENT (within the last 500 years) white migrants and colonists from Europe world wide with aboriginal black populations that have been in place for many thousands of years.
They are not equivalent in any sense of the word.
Of course they are white Europeans and can and should identify as such, they have a common tie in culture and language to Europe due to their recent exit from Europe.
Aboriginal black populations world wide have different languages, different cultures and identities and features from each other and Africans and therefore have no common tie to identify with as Africans.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Doug M quote: "Aboriginal black populations world wide have different languages, different cultures and identities and features from each other and Africans and therefore have no common tie to identify with as Africans."
The SAME could be said for AFRICANS in AFRICA!!
Where are you going with that?? Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Explorer/KIK: does NOT matter what they look like. Since they don’t belong to African lineage (genetically) then they are not Africans. Believe the ancients are the ancestors of the present occupiers.
xyyman, I think you are missing the substance of my questions, in relation to your comment. I'm asking you, why the so-called "negroid" Asians, as you called them, cannot simply be "negroes"? What is the distinction between "negroids" and "negroes"?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Like I said, the best thing for ANYONE to do is to learn for themselves by going to the library or online to libraries and institutions and looking up the facts FOR THEMSELVES. Going to a public forum like this is not going to give you the facts. It will give you various points of view and it is up to you to believe what you want.
Wherever one goes, be it library, institutions or social networks over the internet [like this forum], there will be different points of view. FACT is determined by weight of evidence in ANY of these avenues.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
I personally don't know what all the fake controversy is about. The "Modern" South Asians lineage is obvious and documented. Here is how it worked in Vietnam.
VIETNAM
.
This...
Plus This...
Equals This...
Some have LESS Black admixture...
And some have MORE Black admixture.
Contrary to what Doug says, these people have NOT inhabited these areas for thousands of years. The current populations are as has been shown, a "Hybrid" people, a blend of the original Black populations plus the incoming Chinese people. Thus they are a "NEW" people - in some cases only about 300 years old.
xyyman - If you still can't understand, then I don't know what else to do or say. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^Those people are NOT Black, and they do not claim to be Black. As a matter of fact, perhaps due to White colonization, perhaps not, there is often a tinge of racism to these people.
Tigers choice of a bride was no doubt influenced by his mother (a Thai), that will cost him dearly!
50 million?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Guys, is it just me?
Am I the only one who says "What's the point of being a King" (king equals famous and filthy rich),
If you can't have a Harem". Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
The Blacks of Asia has been in Asia for tens of thousands of years yet they are not Asians..yet some johnny come lately as far as skin and phenotype is concern but very much related to the original Blacks gets to be called Asians? makes no sense.
Posted by StTigray (Member # 16910) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Unfortunately some people feel the best way to combat Eurocentrism is to mimic it.
The fact is that the people most responsible for the reduction in the numbers of blacks world wide are colonial Europeans. There is no evidence that any culture has ever had as much of a dedicated focus on the "black race" as white Europeans. There is no evidence that ANY culture has ever been dedicated to destroying people with black skin as much as Europeans in any part of the globe. This is obvious because blacks were still present in MOST of the places Europeans went outside of Europe.
So the blacks were not killed off before then. Throughout history black populations have not been exclusively on the losing side of wars or hatred. They have sometimes been victors and sometimes been victims, but it is simply not true they have been exclusively "whipping boys" because of black skin. That is simply a retarded view of history. The fact is that Europeans are the most violent of ANY culture EVER to come along both among THEMSELVES and others around the world. And they are the first culture to DEVOTE themselves to ethnic cleansing and genocide world wide. NO other culture can even come close or should even TRY to.
Black folks should simply do what they need to do for themselves and their own survival. Wasting your time slandering whites and trying to be reverse racists is not going to do that.
I really like what you said in that we should not mimic Eurocentrist to combat them. I really feel that in doing so we have won a great victory the old fashioned way.
Posted by StTigray (Member # 16910) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So St. Tigray there you have it. To answer your question:
Several points of view.
Marc/Mike: Anyone who has the stereotypical “negroid features is negroid. Negroid=African. Does matter when they left the continent. Or what their genetic lineage are. Negroid=black. So if you hold that point of view then ALL these artifacts were created by Africans. The strength of that argument is ALL genetic lineage probable looked African up 5Kya.
Clyde: Olmecs, Dravidians, Qiang(?) are recent Africans. They are NOT part of the 50kya (old) OOA migration. Some of these were Africans who recently left the continent and occupied other lands. Dr. Winters cites genetics, and the ability to read ancient scripts. Which many of us can not. Give him the benefit of the doubt
Explorer/KIK: does NOT matter what they look like. Since they don’t belong to African lineage (genetically) then they are not Africans. Believe the ancients are the ancestors of the present occupiers.
Doug: similar to KIK/Explorer. But he doesn’t believe they were aborbed/morphed. They were exterminated.
AfronutSlayer: I am not sure what he is saying. Gabbledegook. Complain! Complain! Bitch bitch! What is your of view, what are you saying? Says he is black but just bitches!! What is you view brotha? What camp do you fall in? can you back it up. You do have a valid question which I asked. What happened?
My view: I am learning. I am trying to put the pieces together in my mind. ALL of us agree the ancients look dis-similar to the present occupiers.
@ Doug – I take offence at being called white. I said who I am many times. Tested E3a via NG genographic project. So. . .West African ancestry. Although I may have a white mother. . . .just kidding about the white mother. LOL. Is Obama black?
Hilarious!
Thank you some really valid points but I am like you just learning, but concerned about our trajectory in this matter(Claiming and defending African History). I guess I would like us to emulate Martin Luther King, and defeat the Eurocentric in such an honorable yet formidable way that our argument would seem championed by God himself. lol
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The height of the Champa Empire was in about the 9th century. It gradually declined from there to about the 15th century. Therefore, the destruction of the Champa Kingdom by Chinese NORTHERN WHITE ASIANS is not an example of ANCIENT white racism in Asia. It is an example recent imperial Chinese expansion.
Yes China has bullied its neighbors in Asia over time but most of that is due to the fact of their numeric superiority and that is what has primarily given them the upper hand. But their features are still primarily due to environmental factors.
However, that said, there are still pockets of black aboriginal type people in Vietnam. Some are called Montagnards but there are others as well. Obviously all of them have not been completely eradicated.
Throughout Southeast Asia there are people that still look like that:
And still the Champa people were not Africans. The technical term is ASIAN Aboriginal or Negrito or simply ASIAN.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Calling these people Africans is simply Absurd, no matter how black or negrito they look.
Doug M - It is not ME who is calling them Black OR African. I clearly said that they are NOT Black or African. Those people are CLEARLY of MIXED ancestry, therefore they CANNOT be Black or African - unless they wish to be identified as such. As a matter of fact, it is only YOU, who seems to be making a case about this.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Doug M
quote:Calling these people Africans is simply Absurd, no matter how black or negrito they look.
And whats more it obscures the fact of Africans who visited,trade,and conduct other business in Asia such as Axumite and other East African traders and military sailors.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
On the other hand; these people, who were the first to leave Africa, and whose phenotype no longer exists in Africa, are indeed Black, and they so identify themselves.
People keep tripping over the fact that it is the ENVIRONMENT that determines a peoples features including those IN AFRICA. And people worldwide who are TROPICALLY ADAPTED will look similar to Africans who are ALSO tropically adapted. So those populations in Asia and elsewhere who stayed in a tropical environment maintained the features of their African ancestors, while those who moved into extreme northern environments did not. It is that simple. But NEITHER population is no longer African, whether they are COAL BLACK and tropically adapted or not. It doesn't change that both are descended from African migrations, but that was THOUSANDS of years ago.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
He, he, So Doug M - Following your convoluted logic. Please tell me, which of these is the American!
Is it this one...
.
Or is it this one?
Doug - with the environment theory stuff, you are approaching the total nonsense territory of Dirkie and Afronut, give it a break. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Explorer/KIK: does NOT matter what they look like. Since they don’t belong to African lineage (genetically) then they are not Africans. Believe the ancients are the ancestors of the present occupiers.
As a longstanding poster here, I can say that for anyone who has read my posts, that this is a simplistic assessment of a variety of issues I've tried to get through. For example, from my standpoint, "they" has to be defined first and foremost, before anyone can reach any meaningful conclusion of a discussion. Furthermore, if the "they" are humans, then technically, as preponderance of tangible genetic material and paleontology show, all humans belong to African lineage genetically. Being one or several steps removed from the most common recent African ancestor does not change this fact. This obviously contradicts your assessment above. Non-Africans are not Africans, not because of the just mentioned fact, but quite simply, because they are not African natives--it is more of socio-political thing than a genetic connection.
Additionally, the continent we call "Asia" is marked by complex demographic events, as is the case for many other landmasses. Some sections of the populations therein descend from more recent episodes than others. Some sections may have recent common ancestry that post-date the proposed successful upper Paleolithic OOA genetic fission of a subset of African gene pool, while others may trace such ancestry to said Paleolithic background. Is the just-mentioned synonymous with "Believe the ancients are the ancestors of the present occupiers."? It is safe to say that while the former doesn't necessary contradict the latter in absolute terms, the former cannot easily be summarized into the latter; for instance, it comes down to the specifics of which populations, which sections within populations, and how ancient is "ancient". There is no single answer to this question.
This still stands:
xyyman, I think you are missing the substance of my questions, in relation to your comment. I'm asking you, why the so-called "negroid" Asians, as you called them, cannot simply be "negroes"? What is the distinction between "negroids" and "negroes"?
Remember, avoidance of answers to questions that seek clarity of one's own terms and stated-position is really a sign of inability to defend oneself. Of course, one is free to care or not care about their own credibility, but don't expect to be taken seriously by others. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
Non-Africans are not Africans, not because of the just mentioned fact, but quite simply, because they are not African natives--it is more of socio-political thing than a genetic connection.
Ps - to break this down further, it is social in the sense, that populations which have had chance to biologically interact with one another, will likely share more TMRCAs across the populations in question than said populations would to more geographically distant populations. It is also political in the sense, that while "Africa" is a geopolitical term, TMRCAs of African origin had and have spilled over to other territories; yet segments of populations who carry this in non-African regions, are perceived as non-Africans. Undoubtedly, the social component of being African is hampered by both real geographic barriers [aka isolation by distance, deserts, oceans and seas] and those created by political constraints -- like say, military enforcements of human-made political-borders.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
This thread only makes sense when you look at these asians as what they are. Black Asians. Not Africans and not Afro-mixed.
Mike I understand where you are coming from with your pics, but maybe the reason why those pics have broad features has to do with the style of painting. You can't just look at a mask or a statue and say so and so were Africans. If thats the case, then allot of Ancient Kemet statues would not be considered African.
Also thanks Doug for the nice pics of Dark skinned Asians. Simply beautiful. Also no nudity just the way I like my pics.
Peace
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
This paper scroll is from my neighbourhood museum Matter of fact the mongol invasion happend in my city in my neighbourhood,this is a Japanese scroll and just like the Chinese scroll it shows black Asians firmly intergrated in the community but numerically inferior amongst the Mongols..while the Japanese are uniformaly lite-skinned..so looks to me that the blacks were not exterminated they simply intermarried. Just like the Khampers and others that Doug posted. Remember this^ is not a Chinese scroll like the two posted on the previous page. Chinese paper scrolls All the above are culturally different from say him. Malik Ambar who was African and fighting the Mongol Khans in India that may have included Black Asian folks from above. Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
[Brada writes about the black presence in the Far East]
so looks to me that the blacks were not exterminated they simply intermarried.
[Marc writes] There was a combination of genocide in the Far East as well as enslavement and relegating blacks to inferior positions and neighborhoods. I agree with you, they weren't all exterminated.
During the 1800s the official Japanese government's policy was to rather force intermarriage with Japanese and Ainu, for instance (the Ainu being, by appearance, African).
In China, as well there was not complete extermination and I've said several times before that if you gave many Chinese woolly or wiry hair, you couldn't tell them from any black person living in Harlem save the oblong eye but many blacks and the Kholsan as well have that feature. So, they really would completely blend in.
Brada. You are in Japan. Here is what (by phenotype) Africans (the Ainu) looked like about a century ago:
. .
Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
Jesus f'ing Christ! Have you fcukers no shame?!
Do these people look Black?!
Year: 1870
You guys are some serious as*holes! The lengths you will go to with your psychosis!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
King - Your responses are getting to sound a lot like Afronuts above.
Could you please post one of those pictures of an ancient Egyptian who DOESN'T look like an Egyptian - Please.
Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
Yea and ahole, comment on the photo i provided. Oh... let me guess, it's a fake (insert sarcasm).
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: King - Your responses are getting to sound a lot like Afronuts above.
Could you please post one of those pictures of an ancient Egyptian who DOESN'T look like an Egyptian - Please.
People keep tripping over the fact that it is the ENVIRONMENT that determines a peoples features including those IN AFRICA. And people worldwide who are TROPICALLY ADAPTED will look similar to Africans who are ALSO tropically adapted. So those populations in Asia and elsewhere who stayed in a tropical environment maintained the features of their African ancestors, while those who moved into extreme northern environments did not. It is that simple. But NEITHER population is no longer African, whether they are COAL BLACK and tropically adapted or not. It doesn't change that both are descended from African migrations, but that was THOUSANDS of years ago.
.
Thank you for making my point Doug M;
For you see, This is ALSO an African American
Which of the two would you say is the original or the more authentic??
Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
bump...
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: Jesus f'ing Christ! Have you fcukers no shame?!
Do these people look Black?!
Year: 1870
You guys are some serious as*holes! The lengths you will go to with your psychosis!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Afroidiot - Stop Bumping your posts; There is a REASON why nobody responds.
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: bump...
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: Jesus f'ing Christ! Have you fcukers no shame?!
Do these people look Black?!
Year: 1870
You guys are some serious as*holes! The lengths you will go to with your psychosis!
RE-READ the thread stupid. Understand and observe the argument. By now you should very well see proof of "Black People" that are aboriginal to ASIA. The issue at question is when pictures such as THIS:
Are shown are they depicting Recent Africans as some would like to think, or the Indigenous Black people of Asia as other would like to think.
Why do you even open you mouth when you never know what the hell is going on? How do YOU interpret the image as you can CLEARLY see one person is VERY different from the other.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Thank you for making my point Doug M;
For you see, This is ALSO an African American
Which of the two would you say is the original or the more authentic??
Ehhhh I don't think she would be identified as an African American, as her mother was Irish American and her father was Venezuelan and African American, and she grew up with the Irish American mother...
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Quote: Her mother was Irish American and her father was of Afro-Venezuelan and African American descent;
MindoverMatter718 - I know that you and Doug don't like to hear this; But a Black Venezuelan is just as authentically a Black American as a Black U.S.citizen. And just as authentically Black as say - a Nigerian.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
MindoverMatter718 and Doug - I know that you guys will miss the connection, so I will explain it.
Miriah is CALLED an AfroAmerican; But she is REALLY a hybrid of European (by way of Central Asia) and an African.
The "Modern" South Asian is CALLED an Asian; But they are REALLY (a very recent) hybrid of Chinese and African. Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Quote: Her mother was Irish American and her father was of Afro-Venezuelan and African American descent;
MindoverMatter718 - I know that you and Doug don't like to hear this; But a Black Venezuelan is just as authentically a Black American as a Black U.S.citizen. And just as authentically Black as say - a Nigerian.
No Mike, what you mean to say is that they're every amount as African descended as an African American or Nigerian of course, not that they're African American or Nigerian though.
An African from Venezuela is just that, a Venezuelan, he speaks Spanish and has a Venezuelan culture, as there are many people in south America and the Spanish speaking Caribbean countries who are of African descent, like say a Dominican, Puerto Rican or Cuban may be African no doubt about it, but they're not African Americans when they enter the U.S.A., they're still Dominicans, Puerto Ricans and Cubans and possess different cultures...and most likely will identify with people from their respective country that speak the same language and have the same culture before an African American even though he may be a white Dominican, Puerto Rican or Cuban...
A Jamaican is not African American either Mike, he's Jamaican, a Haitian is not African American he's Haitian and so on... they also have their own culture and dialect...understand?
When all of the above mentioned come to America although being African are still considered from, and identify with their home countries. They don't become African Americans.
Mariah Carey and older brother Morgan Carey same parents, oh how African American they are huh... Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
Dumb uneducated Afrofool, I already addressed such an issue. E. Afrikan slaves were brought to China during the Tang dynasty. Any freeman Black in China was more than likely a moslem negro.
quote:Originally posted by astenb:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: bump...
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: Jesus f'ing Christ! Have you fcukers no shame?!
Do these people look Black?!
Year: 1870
You guys are some serious as*holes! The lengths you will go to with your psychosis!
RE-READ the thread stupid. Understand and observe the argument. By now you should very well see proof of "Black People" that are aboriginal to ASIA. The issue at question is when pictures such as THIS:
Are shown are they depicting Recent Africans as some would like to think, or the Indigenous Black people of Asia as other would like to think.
Why do you even open you mouth when you never know what the hell is going on? How do YOU interpret the image as you can CLEARLY see one person is VERY different from the other.
Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
Uhhh... of course there is a reason - it's called being IN DENIAL.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Afroidiot - Stop Bumping your posts; There is a REASON why nobody responds.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
MindoverMatter718 - I think you misunderstand; I am NOT claiming that she is African American - I believe that is HER self identification.
To me, she is as you are; simply Mutts.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
No need to guess what they look like I am talking about the Aniu of course they tends to be hairy and some what dark..but i wouldn't call any of them Black by any streach.. the Aniu who lives in Northern Japan are a reletively newly colonized people like the Okinawans...and these guys played at an event I produced a couple of years ago.really down to earth cool folks..they say the Japanese like to take of nature but they let nature take of them. Oki Dub Ainu Band
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: MindoverMatter718 - I think you misunderstand; I am NOT claiming that she is African American - I believe that is HER self identification.
To me, she is as you are; simply Mutts.
I've never heard her identify as an African American at all, and yes YOU actually did say she was an African American in response to Doug when he posted a picture of an African American woman claiming Mariah Carey was an African American as well.
You also said since her father was Venezuelan of African descent that he is every bit as African American as a some odd generation African American citizen which is false...
Btw Mike everyone knows you're white Mike, and there's nothing wrong with that so stop perpetrating the fraud....
Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
Mike..... YOU ARE BEING EXPOSED! LOL!!!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Mindlessone - If SHE calls herself African American (a description that is all over the media), then WHAT am I to call her, if not by the title that she claims?? Common courtesy.
Yes an African from Venezuela is still an African - regardless of what the U.S. government says.
Yes - White as Snow - couldn't you tell?
Those with half a brain - don't start; sometimes the only way to get kids to shut-up is to agree with them.
Posted by Clint EastWood (Member # 16969) on :
Mariah Carey was squirted out of an African man's penis. If she wasn't directly, her daddy was or her daddy's daddy etc etc
That makes her African and Black and black (she is slightly coloured!)
Unless you're telling me she's one of those made in a tube!? Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Clint EastWood - Damn Boy, so at what point does a person become White, if just a speck of Black blood makes them Black?
Are you one of those lonely Niggers who wants to claim everyone as Black, even when they DON'T want to be Black?
Posted by Clint EastWood (Member # 16969) on :
When they start behaving like you Mike111.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^You know, Bleaching cream was invented for lonely people like you.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
I any event Mariah Is waay liter than any of the pics of Black Asians above
Deal wid dis a self discribed black man..who could pass for one of Mike's Turks.. Adam Clayton Powell JR
Posted by Clint EastWood (Member # 16969) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^You know, Bleaching cream was invented for lonely people like you.
I would never ever want to be white. I thank GOD everyday I wake up to see my tall, DARK, handsome self in my glistening mirrors, regardless of all these black and white DEVILS that sorround me.
Sorry if I've offended anyone but TruthHurts! Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^When people of "Mixed race" claim themselves as Black, I accept them as such. When they don't, I don't.
Posted by Clint EastWood (Member # 16969) on :
Mariah Carey is a self-defined Black woman and "WE" don't have any problem with it.
She contributes to our legacy beautifully and gracefully.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: No need to guess what they look like I am talking about the Aniu of course they tends to be hairy and some what dark..but i wouldn't call any of them Black by any streach.. the Aniu who lives in Northern Japan are a reletively newly colonized people like the Okinawans...and these guys played at an event I produced a couple of years ago.really down to earth cool folks..they say the Japanese like to take of nature but they let nature take of them. Oki Dub Ainu Band
Brada-Anansi - You don't have to SWALLOW everything that is feed to you!
A little scholarly reserve is ALWAYS called for.
The Jomon entered Japan at about 33,000 B.C. But even accepting Wikis 14,000 B.C.
The Chinese "Yayoi" people entered Japan at 350 B.C.
For the sake of argument, I will accept that the Ainu descend from the Jomon.
So do you see how your statement....
Quote: "the Ainu who lives in Northern Japan are a relatively newly colonized people like the Okinawans."
Makes NO sense??
Do you really think that the Ainu lived in that LITTLE Overpopulated country for 2,000 years, undisturbed by the Chinese who were taking over their land? Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^Hint - the Japanese, like the Chinese, view themselves as White. And as such, they exhibit the SAME racist traits, including the lies and bullsh1t, as their European fellows.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
AFRO NUTTIN the below has go notthing with slaves or Muslem traders they were Black Asians found on the main-land during that time as a matter o facts these gentlemen were not Chinese they are Mongols and their presence dose not cancel out any Slave or Muslem traders from Africa..and NO!! not all the African traders were Muslems as Axum sent their traders to that area.and they were Christians. Royals or high ranking personages notthing slavish or Muslem about these guys. as different from this^ at a much later period in history.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
During the Muromachi period (1336–1573), the Japanese created a settlement at the south of the Oshima peninsula. As more people moved to the settlement to avoid battles, disputes arose between the Japanese and the Ainu. The disputes eventually developed into a rebellion. Takeda Nobuhiro killed the Ainu leader, Koshamain,[1] and defeated the rebellion in 1457. Nobuhiro's descendants became the rulers of the Matsumae-han, which ruled the south of Ezochi until the end of the Edo period in 1868.
Matsumae-han's economy relied upon trade with the Ainu. The Matsumae family was granted exclusive trading rights with the Ainu in the Azuchi-Momoyama and Edo periods (1568–1868). During the Meiji Restoration, the Tokugawa Shogunate realized there was a need to prepare northern defenses against a possible Russian invasion and took over control of most of Ezochi. The Shogunate made the plight of the Ainu slightly easier, but did not change the overall form of rule.
Hokkaidō was known as Ezochi until the Meiji Restoration. Shortly after the Boshin War in 1868, a group of Tokugawa loyalists led by Enomoto Takeaki proclaimed the island's independence as the Republic of Ezo, but the rebellion was crushed in May 1869 Like i said reletivly recent. colonization of Ainu lands..They had free range upon till over most of their lands untill 1860ts wiki source:
Posted by TheTruthHurts (Member # 17194) on :
So Doug M your saying that even if you look African and have dark skin and many other factors that come into effect that make them African.There not African?..really if Africans are the first humans on this planet earth then that would mean that there African right no matter what..Because people dont's pop out of no were so those people that you called Asians are in fact natives and are of African decent no matter what.
In the sense if they went to race base country they would be African not Asian by just of stereotype's..
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clint EastWood: Mariah Carey is a self-defined Black woman
Yea and I guess her blood brother is a black man to you also? Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheTruthHurts: So Doug M your saying that even if you look African and have dark skin and many other factors that come into effect that make them African.There not African?..
What he is saying is in fact essentially correct, they're non Africans just like Europeans and Native Americans are non Africans yet descend from Africans.
Oceanics I.e., Melanesians and Australians cluster genetically with mainland Asia, before Africans since Oceanic's carry ancestral genes to Asians which became non African after migrating OOA (out of Africa).
Oceanic's then cluster with Africans phenotypically I.e cranio-facial structure because Africa of course is the homeland of anatomically modern humans and hence certain Africans are ancestral to Oceanic's, Asians, and Europeans alike!
Oceanic's cluster phenotypically with Africans because after migrating out of Africa along the coast of south Asia, they (Oceanic's) continued to reside in a tropical environment like Africa and maintained said tropical features as noted resembling the earliest modern humans 60kya from Africa, but just like Europeans they are no longer Africans.
Early Asians, Europeans etc...all resembled Africans as do Oceanic's today, there would not have been much of a difference in the tropical phenotype amongst early humans who left Africa (as noted amongst Oceanic's) if they (early humans) didn't move into northern latitudes.
So if you're going to call Oceanic's African, then Europeans, Native Americans etc....are also Africans, which in all reality is true since all non Africans are basically Africans under the skin, and there would be no non Africans if Africans didn't leave the continent.....
Posted by JMT2 (Member # 16951) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clint EastWood: Mariah Carey is a self-defined Black woman and "WE" don't have any problem with it.
She contributes to our legacy beautifully and gracefully.
Of course Mariah is going to say publicly she doesn't have a problem with her Black heritage - Dah! Privately is a different issue. It's politically expedient for Nutty Mariah Carey to allegedly self-define herself as a Black woman. Mariah has made a lot of money off of Black people. If Mariah didn't have a Black fan base, or didn't make money from Black people, she would never mention her Black heritage. Mariah may be nutty but she's not stupid.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Mindlessone - If SHE calls herself African American (a description that is all over the media), then WHAT am I to call her, if not by the title that she claims?? Common courtesy.
Never heard her claim to be African American, dunce...
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Yes an African from Venezuela is still an African - regardless of what the U.S. government says.
Yes he is African but not African American.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Yes - White as Snow - couldn't you tell?
Not too obscure....
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Those with half a brain - don't start; sometimes the only way to get kids to shut-up is to agree with them.
Perhaps you have no brain?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Doug M - It is not ME who is calling them Black OR African. I clearly said that they are NOT Black or African. Those people are CLEARLY of MIXED ancestry , therefore they CANNOT be Black or African - unless they wish to be identified as such. As a matter of fact, it is only YOU, who seems to be making a case about this.
The problem with your theory is that genetics disproves you, the Asians in question are not recently mixed with Africans, they are more genetically distinct from Africans than are Europeans, you can sit here all day and argue with eyeball guessing games but is there genetic evidence to give your story any value?
Nope none at all, sorry Mike! Show me some African Y-dna and Mtdna markers in these Asian individuals now or stay shut!!
Posted by TheTruthHurts (Member # 17194) on :
If there not Africans but are descent of Africans.Then who were there father's and mother's before them DNA can be wrong as you should know and is not 100% percent correct so .I take a lot of that stuff with a gain of salt and these people have to be more related to African then Europeans by default DNA or no DNA.Because like you and many have said (OOA) and (OOA) means modern humans .Which means travel but if there was indeed a another set of Africans or humans that have African features but are not .DNA wise related to Ancient Africans then that would disprove this event(But there is none).So that would mean that they are indeed of African heritage and are indeed highly related to Africans because there is OOA (Modern Humans) and are the base of all dark Skinned people also African Featured people and are indeed African..
But that is my opinion and i meant be wrong but there's a high chance of be being both..But then again there should be not arguments on this matter because there African or Dark Skin Modern Human's with Stereotypical Features ..
Posted by TheTruthHurts (Member # 17194) on :
Also how do Europeans look like African's or Early Africans for that matter ? explain..
Also the European or Caucasoid people are a young modern humans.But the Oceanic's like the Melanesian and Australians and native Asians types are older then the Europeans and are more likely to be consider African or of African descent then there Europeans brother's ..(I use that term lightly)
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheTruthHurts: If there not Africans but are descent of Africans.Then who were there father's and mother's before them DNA can be wrong as you should know and is not 100% percent correct so .I take a lot of that stuff with a gain of salt and these people have to be more related to African then Europeans by default DNA or no DNA.Because like you and many have said (OOA) and (OOA) means modern humans .Which means travel but if there was indeed a another set of Africans or humans that have African features but are not .DNA wise related to Ancient Africans then that would disprove this event(But there is none).So that would mean that they are indeed of African heritage and are indeed highly related to Africans because there is OOA (Modern Humans) and are the base of all dark Skinned people also African Featured people and are indeed African..
But that is my opinion and i meant be wrong but there's a high chance of be being both..But then again there should be not arguments on this matter because there African or Dark Skin Modern Human's with Stereotypical Features ..
I'll try to be as clear as possible, yes, all non Africans (Oceanic's, Asians, Europeans etc...) descend from Africans who left the African continent and ultimately populated the world, and after spending thousands of years in each respective environment led to different phenotypes we see around the world today.
Skeletal remains show us that in Asia, Australia, Europe, and even the Americas dating back atleast 45-60kya there were humans present and these were people coming from Africa with tropically adapted body proportions, DNA extracted from these ancient humans coming from Africa shows to be present in each respective area where found, this is why OOA is proven and why all non Africans are noted to be descended from Africa. There aren't any genetic lineages outside of Africa of which can not be traced back to Africa.
As noted already if you are going to call Oceanic's Africans, then you would have to call Europeans African, since Europeans descend from Africans, the same way Australians do, only difference is that due to environmental pressures which altered their (Europeans) features after thousands of years to better suit the environment, you now don't want to call them African.
Europeans genetically are closer to Africans, because Europeans received admixture from Africans which occurred after Australia and Melanesia became populated which in turn Oceanic's became isolated from other populations....
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheTruthHurts: Also how do Europeans look like African's or Early Africans for that matter ? explain..
You read wrong. Early humans in Europe (ancestors of todays Europeans) resembled modern Africans and Australians....
quote:Originally posted by TheTruthHurts: Also the European or Caucasoid people are a young modern humans.But the Oceanic's like the Melanesian and Australians and native Asians types are older then the Europeans and are more likely to be consider African or of African descent then there Europeans brother's ..(I use that term lightly)
All modern humans African or non African are as young or old as eachother, we are one species so no modern human outside of Africa is older than another there is no separate or sub human species in our lineage and this is proven genetically, the only difference is that the phenotypes of each respective population are "younger" than others...
The African phenotype being the oldest and Europeans the youngest....
Oceania was the first place consistently populated by Africans migrating OOA 60-80kya (this is consistent with them carrying the oldest lineages ancestral to non Africans) and Europe was the last 40-45kya.
Oceanic's still resemble Africans because they wound up in an environment similar to Africa which was tropical. But the humans that continued on north who eventually became the ancestors of todays N. east Asians, Europeans etc...adapted to a totally different climate, no more tropics, as noted they originally arrived in these northern areas with tropically adapted limb proportions and as time went on there bodies gradually became more suited for the cold.
Posted by TheTruthHurts (Member # 17194) on :
I never said that Europeans are not African because of the OOA they are and i don't refute that.But from history stand point they as a people don't care about .There African counter part's and like some like to push there agenda on everything is white concept or was concept by them .Which is in fact false information because the Caucasoid are a very young race of people (Hate the Word race)that first had to learn from someone.So who were those people they were Native African's and when people say that they are not african at all but by reasonably history and DNA proof they say there in fact african by OOA..right? know matter what agreement in the context of the OOA subject facts.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheTruthHurts: .Which is in fact false information because the Caucasoid are a very young race of people (Hate the Word race)
Its not that they're a young people because their ancestors are Africans just like yours, but rather their phenotype as in modern facial features I.e., cold adapted body plans, pale skin etc...is recent in anatomically modern human evolution.
quote:Originally posted by TheTruthHurts: that first had to learn from someone.So who were those people they were Native African's
They didn't come out of the sky, understand?
Europeans and N.east Asians etc.. descend from those Native Africans you are talking about, the difference happened when these early humans coming from Africa moved out of a tropical environment.
If those Native Africans didn't move to Europe or N. east Asia then there wouldn't have been any difference in the tropical phenotype we see amongst Oceanic's and some Asians....
quote:Originally posted by TheTruthHurts: and when people say that they are not african at all but by reasonably history and DNA proof they say there in fact african by OOA..right?
Their people haven't been African for thousands upon thousands of years...
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The absurdly silly part of all this is that the biological facts are clear. ALL humans originate in Africa. Therefore, it should not be shocking that the aboriginal populations world wide would have African looking features, including those NOT in tropical regions. But that does not make them Africans in any contemporary sense.
Some people on this board REALLY DO want others to believe that the original populations who left Africa disappeared or were killed off thousands of years ago and that the only way blacks could be in these places outside of Africa is due to RECENT migrations of Africa.
That is bull sh*t.
Call them what you want but these aboriginal populations DID NOT recently leave Africa and they are CLOSER to the populations in the regions they live in than Africans. WHY? Because they represent the original populations of these regions from whom the other populations descend. That is what it means to be aboriginal.
Calling them Africans is like calling a distant cousin your brother or sister, when they aren't.
ALL humans are related on the human family tree but they aren't all CLOSELY related.
Posted by TheTruthHurts (Member # 17194) on :
So their there own race or human being in a sense and are not african right. to put it simple and we can not classify them as so..understood
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheTruthHurts: So their there own race or human being in a sense and are not african right. to put it simple and we can not classify them as so..understood
You must be slow, go re-read my posts, there is no subspecies of humans hence no race.
Posted by TheTruthHurts (Member # 17194) on :
I understand that there is no subspecies and everyone is the same and also thanks for calling me slow that really help full .You should have said let me repeat or something more based on a non angry tone..
I also know there is no such thing as race but in .But till that to the ancients that knew who they were compare to others and knew them self as different and as .I say again i said (I hate using the race term)but it is indeed apart of most peoples mindset.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^I repeated myself more than enough and is why I said let me more clear, and in response you still think "Caucasians" are a young seperate race from all other humans, they're not, like I said they didn't come out of the sky...they came from Africa!
Posted by TheTruthHurts (Member # 17194) on :
I just agree with you dude and it's common sense that **** does not come from no were.I mean really you really think .I don't understand that simple of a concept really but you do have to agree on one thing if you must .That they are indeed a young group of people by terms of history compare to there counter part's..also when did i say that Caucasian were a separate race from everyone else.I said some believe they are unique and are a race of there own that's what i meant...hopefully you understood that and this can end on a piece full note like regular human being's..*
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Doug and Brada. Again for the zillionth time, if the characteristics of a defined thing match the description, then no matter what the sound, the word, it is that thing.
This is why a greeting when meeting someone is fulfilled in the words hola in Spanish, bon jour in French, what’s happening in Afro slang, annyunghashiminka in Korean, and hello in English.
This is why for something the color of blood (red) is satisfied by pula in Phillipine, rood in Dutch, rosso in Italian, and red in English.
If a person with some combination of a full nose and mouth and wiry/woolly hair is African, where the characteristics fullfil the definition, then an African is someone who phenotypically matches that term.
Your problem, Doug, is that you are a white guy who is infused with that sicko white supremacy thing and you want to throw up at the thought that the word African can be used in a context you are dissatisfied with.
Your nonsequitor madness recently spouted was black people who look Negroid don't have to be African. Doug, you wrote:
"Bottom line, all people with dark skin do not possess stereotypical negroid features and never have. That is both in and outside of Africa. So whatever it is you are talking about, it isn't based on facts. All dark skinned people are not African, whether or not they look Negroid or not."
First of all, 99% of the time from 5 years back until today, I never use color to describe the African and you well know that. You've set up a deceitful straw argument.
This is why I have always portrayed you as the following for you saying things like that:
Marc W no need to go name calling or even hostlie response, but the fact is that no matter how long Black Asians exist..It is their Johnnie-come-lately off-springs by phonotype with the liter-skin and lank-hair that gets to be called Asians??.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
I just don't like Doug's presumptuous, know-it-all attitude that he thinks gives him the right to barge in and define the race his ancestors profited so mightily from.
It catapulted them from impoverishment in medieval Europe resulting in the transformation of that continent into a global super power many times over: genocide to kill the African owners of land and resources and the enslavement of its peoples and confiscation of its raw materials and mineral riches engineered and sustains their empire.
You ask, It is their Johnnie-come-lately off-springs by phonotype with the liter-skin and lank-hair that gets to be called Asians??
Unless someone in the Fareast of Southeast Asia specifically had woolly, kinky, or wiry hair as the first row in those pictures, I'd personally call them Asian. If they have stiff, straight hair, I'd call them now Asian though their grandmother or grandfather might have looked like anyone in Harlem.
WHY I USE THE TERM AFRICAN AND TRY TO ISOLATE THAT POPULATION: I have almost zero interest in who was African after the 1600s. My interest is in Africans before the 1600s and when their roots are traced back to times before whites and Monguls arrived, we see they almost always began the cultures and civilizations that preceded them that the incursive peoples preserve, carry-on, and deceitfully take credit for.
For instance, whaling. It was the provenance of the Ainu and from them, the world began the tradition and also in Japan. But, the Ainu were, by appearance, African. It was (by appearance) Africans who introduced whaling.
Granted, it can be argued that both whaling and smoking are negatives. But, if we did it, flaunt it. Everyone else makes hundreds of billions of dollars from industries we founded. We might as well take psychological credit as its originators.
But, there are hundreds of things presently conventions in the world (for instance, the canoe) which began by Africans.
We need to take credit and this is why I go to such pains to identify ancient Africans and spell-out their accomplishments. That is all we have left. Knowledge of the legacy of their accomplishments.
When I do point-out the presence of phenotypic Africans in Southeast Asia and the Far East, it is only to lay the basis to understand that the ancient foundation culture was also African. We were the ones who carved nations out of forests; built the first cities; established art, law, music, religion, science in those places.
Whites and Asians took what we created. We only have knowledge of our creatorship and that legacy we need to claim and that is what I am about.
This is what Doug M and his kind try to keep the lid on and why he gets so spooked and spastic every time I say the word African for people fitting the term (note I didn't say "black").
Call them anything but African. Doug's type can't live in a world of people who know they stole our legacy and people who know their great value.
. .
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: Your problem, Doug, is that you are a white guy .......
Hey, how's that white wife of yours, you know, the one you call an albino? Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: . .
I just don't like Doug's presumptuous, know-it-all attitude that he thinks gives him the right to barge in and define the race his ancestors profited so mightily from.
It catapulted them from impoverishment in medieval Europe resulting in the transformation of that continent into a global super power many times over: genocide to kill the African owners of land and resources and the enslavement of its peoples and confiscation of its raw materials and mineral riches engineered and sustains their empire.
You ask, It is their Johnnie-come-lately off-springs by phonotype with the liter-skin and lank-hair that gets to be called Asians??
Unless someone in the Fareast of Southeast Asia specifically had woolly, kinky, or wiry hair as the first row in those pictures, I'd personally call them Asian. If they have stiff, straight hair, I'd call them now Asian though their grandmother or grandfather might have looked like anyone in Harlem.
WHY I USE THE TERM AFRICAN AND TRY TO ISOLATE THAT POPULATION: I have almost zero interest in who was African after the 1600s. My interest is in Africans before the 1600s and when their roots are traced back to times before whites and Monguls arrived, we see they almost always began the cultures and civilizations that preceded them that the incursive peoples preserve, carry-on, and deceitfully take credit for.
For instance, whaling. It was the provenance of the Ainu and from them, the world began the tradition and also in Japan. But, the Ainu were, by appearance, African. It was (by appearance) Africans who introduced whaling.
Granted, it can be argued that both whaling and smoking are negatives. But, if we did it, flaunt it. Everyone else makes hundreds of billions of dollars from industries we founded. We might as well take psychological credit as its originators.
But, there are hundreds of things presently conventions in the world (for instance, the canoe) which began by Africans.
We need to take credit and this is why I go to such pains to identify ancient Africans and spell-out their accomplishments. That is all we have left. Knowledge of the legacy of their accomplishments.
When I do point-out the presence of phenotypic Africans in Southeast Asia and the Far East, it is only to lay the basis to understand that the ancient foundation culture was also African. We were the ones who carved nations out of forests; built the first cities; established art, law, music, religion, science in those places.
Whites and Asians took what we created. We only have knowledge of our creatorship and that legacy we need to claim and that is what I am about.
This is what Doug M and his kind try to keep the lid on and why he gets so spooked and spastic every time I say the word African for people fitting the term (note I didn't say "black").
Call them anything but African. Doug's type can't live in a world of people who know they stole our legacy and people who know their great value.
. .
Clyde you are not clarifying anything because there are Africans with naturally straight to curly hair. NO FEATURE of the human phenotype originates with whites, except white skin. The FIRST people with straight hair were the aboriginal blacks of the world who developed straight hair. As can be seen by the Australian Aborigines, the people of India and others who have had such features FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
You simply are resorting to outdated notions of human phenotypical variation which has been utterly decimated by the fact that ALL human biological features ultimately originate in Africa. Therefore trying to put whites as the origin of human features other than white skin is retarded.
I agree that many of the populations of South East Asia before the 1600s had kinky hair, but A LOT OF THEM DID NOT. They are called Negritoes for exactly this reason. However, the first people with the typical so called "Asian" features WERE BLACK. I agree that the Negrito type is one of the oldest types, but that was not the ONLY type of aboriginal black population in Asia. In fact, the closest relatives of those aboriginal black negritoes in Asia are the people of Melanesia and the pacific. And THEY TOO have varied hair textures and features, which makes it clear that such features DID NOT originate with whites.
That is tantamount to saying that these people have white ancestry:
And it is from these types of populations that ALL non Africans get their features from: people of India, Asia, Europe and the Americas.
So even before white skin developed you had aboriginal populations that had ALL TYPES of features: round eyes, straight eyes, straight hair, curly hair, blond hair, brown hair, black hair, black eyes, brown eyes, blue eyes, thin noses, thick noses, thin lips, thick lips and so on and so on. THAT is the point you keep missing.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Those "negrito" types of South Asia were not Africans they were Asians and related to other Asians and part of the aboriginal diversity of Asia itself, which still exists in some parts of South Asia and into the Pacific.
All that said, I do agree that lighter skinned Asians have moved into these areas in RELATIVELY RECENT TIMES. And in some cases these lighter skinned populations are sometimes passed off by some as the 'original' types of these areas, which is false. However, that does not change the fact that all features originate among aboriginal black populations and that you cannot isolate any one trait as therefore being unique among them when they possess and have possessed a wide range of traits.
I'll try to be as clear as possible, yes, all non Africans (Oceanic's, Asians, Europeans etc...) descend from Africans who left the African continent and ultimately populated the world, and after spending thousands of years in each respective environment led to different phenotypes we see around the world today.
Skeletal remains show us that in Asia, Australia, Europe, and even the Americas dating back atleast 45-60kya there were humans present and these were people coming from Africa with tropically adapted body proportions, DNA extracted from these ancient humans coming from Africa shows to be present in each respective area where found, this is why OOA is proven and why all non Africans are noted to be descended from Africa. There aren't any genetic lineages outside of Africa of which can not be traced back to Africa.
As noted already if you are going to call Oceanic's Africans, then you would have to call Europeans African, since Europeans descend from Africans, the same way Australians do, only difference is that due to environmental pressures which altered their (Europeans) features after thousands of years to better suit the environment, you now don't want to call them African.
Europeans genetically are closer to Africans, because Europeans received admixture from Africans which occurred after Australia and Melanesia became populated which in turn Oceanic's became isolated from other populations.
Funny - These are prototypical Europeans - and it only took 9 months.
Maybe there is a hole in that argument.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Woolly-haired Africans gave the world civilization
Doug.
You have shown pictures of wavy-to-straight haired peoples and they are outside my definition of African so are irrelevant to the discussion.
I have defined Africans as those with a combination of woolly/wiry hair and full facial features and with that definition, one can see it's them that started civilizations worldwide that incursive whites and Monguls have basically exterminated and taken over while continuing their civilization otherwise intact:
In all of these areas today, we no longer find the woolly haired African. Left in his place are the newcomers who took the land, wealth, committed genocide on some of the population and enslaved the remainder, and carried on their language, culture, religion, and civilization otherwise intact as they found it.
Except they faked things up and re-tooled themselves as civilization's founder.
Woolly-haired Africans gave the world civilization on every continent
. .
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The problem with you Marc is that the basis of your claims are false. All aboriginal black populations in the world did not have curly hair, especially during the times of the civilizations you speak. Some did and some didn't.
AND NO they were not recent migrants from Africa, whether they had curly hair or not.
The point being you are simply omitting that fact in order to make a point. Your chart for the Americas doesn't show any people with tight curly hair. So why are you calling them Africans? Similarly neither does your chart of the arctic circle. Even the Africans of the Nile Valley didn't all have tight curly hair, as some indeed had straight and wavy hair. Hair type does not make one African, because even the darkest curly haired negrito in Asia is not an African.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Funny - These are prototypical Europeans - and it only took 9 months.
Maybe there is a hole in that argument.
First of all those are albinos from Brazil not proto-Europeans and if they have kids they will be likely to have kids with a normal pigmentation similar to the other kids and the mother, Europeans can't do that.
They're Brazilian's and so probably aren't fully African and most likely have some admixture, from both Native Americans and Europeans...the kids hair are straighter except for the baby whose hair is a lil curly, and how sure are you that the father is black anyway?
Btw Mike don't run from your responsibilities....
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Doug M - It is not ME who is calling them Black OR African. I clearly said that they are NOT Black or African. Those people are CLEARLY of MIXED ancestry , therefore they CANNOT be Black or African - unless they wish to be identified as such. As a matter of fact, it is only YOU, who seems to be making a case about this.
The problem with your theory is that genetics disproves you, the Asians in question are not recently mixed with Africans, they are more genetically distinct from Africans than are Europeans, you can sit here all day and argue with eyeball guessing games but is there genetic evidence to give your story any value?
Nope none at all, sorry Mike! Show me some African Y-dna and Mtdna markers in these Asian individuals now or stay shut!!
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Here is a scientific study on the physical features found in the first migrants to America:
EXTRA-CONTINENTAL MORPHOLOGICAL AFFINITIES OF PALLI AIKE, SOUTHERN CHILE
quote: As far as we can draw conclusions from a single skeleton, the fact that Palli Aike aligns with Africans and Australians, instead of with Asians and modern Amerindians is significant in at least two different ways for the current debate about who were the first Americans. First, it shows that people similar to those that inhabited the Lagoa Santa area, in central Brazil, and the area of Sabana de Bogotá, in Colombia, once had a wide distribution across South America, reaching even the southernmost region of the sub-continent. Second, but intrinsically related to the first fact, that the non-Mongoloid morphology already demonstrated to occur in tropical and subtropical areas of South America (Neves and Pucciarelli, 1989, 1991; Neves et al., 1993, 1996b, 1998) , can also be found in regions characterized by very cold weather. This supports the idea that the relationship of the first known Americans with Africans and Australians cannot be explained in terms of convergent evolution due to similar climatic factors alone. As we have stressed in previous publications, based on better samples sizes, the best way to explain the similarities of the first Americans with Australians under a historical perspective is to admit that both shared a common ancestral population in mainland Asia, at the terminal Pleistocene. Our own investigations had already detected some similarities between the Australians, the first Americans and the people from Zhoukoudian Upper Cave, who lived in China around 20,000 years BP (Neves and Pucciarelli, 1991, 1998; Neves et al., 1996b). Kamminga and Wright (1988) and Wright (1995) have also suggested a morphological relationship of this late Chinese material with Australomelanesians and not with Mongoloids. The Zhoukoudian Upper Cave people could well be representatives of the ancestral population hypothesized here. As to the similarities with Africans, the best way to explain it in terms of historical connections, is to assume that the Asian ancestral population that gave rise to the Australians and to the first Americans had its ultimate origins in the African continent, as it is in fact the case with all modern humans (Stringer and Andrews, 1988; Stringer and McKie, 1996; Lahr, 1994, 1996), but which retained a very generalized morphology. In accordance with Lahr (1996), the Australians are in fact the contemporary aboriginal population that retained the most primitive morphology when compared to the first modern humans. As she stressed Groups like Australo-Melanesians are all examples of relatively early diversifications without great amounts of gene flow from other groups... (Lahr, 1996, p.335)
And I would like to add that those "mongoloid" types does not mean WHITE necessarily. As many of the so called 'mongoloid' native Americans were quite dark brown and black at the time of European arrival. In my mind it simply represents the features adopted by aboriginal type populations in the north.
And to me, many historic native american populations still look Aboriginal to me, whether the scientists call them mongoloid or not.
[Doug writes] The problem with you Marc is that the basis of your claims are false.
[Marc writes] The definition I use is Africans for the purpose of identifying those who fathered worldwide civilizations is those having some combination of woolly or wiry hair and full facial features.
One narrows or enlargens their definition to their purpose and mine is suitable for its purpose.
[Doug writes] All aboriginal black populations in the world did not have curly hair, especially during the times of the civilizations you speak. Some did and some didn't.
[Marc writes]
The straight / wavy hair of Australians is surely the result of white men sleeping around:
AND NO they were not recent migrants from Africa, whether they had curly hair or not.
[Marc writes]
Nobody said they were recent migrants from Africa. Australians and Melanesians have been there for 60,000 years. Didn’t you know that?
. .
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Funny - These are prototypical Europeans - and it only took 9 months.
Maybe there is a hole in that argument.
First of all those are albinos from Brazil not proto-Europeans and if they have kids they will be likely to have kids with a normal pigmentation similar to the other kids and the mother, Europeans can't do that.
They're Brazilian's and so probably aren't fully African and most likely have some admixture, from both Native Americans and Europeans...the kids hair are straighter except for the baby whose hair is a lil curly, and how sure are you that the father is black anyway?
Btw Mike don't run from your responsibilities....
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Doug M - It is not ME who is calling them Black OR African. I clearly said that they are NOT Black or African. Those people are CLEARLY of MIXED ancestry , therefore they CANNOT be Black or African - unless they wish to be identified as such. As a matter of fact, it is only YOU, who seems to be making a case about this.
The problem with your theory is that genetics disproves you, the Asians in question are not recently mixed with Africans, they are more genetically distinct from Africans than are Europeans, you can sit here all day and argue with eyeball guessing games but is there genetic evidence to give your story any value?
Nope none at all, sorry Mike! Show me some African Y-dna and Mtdna markers in these Asian individuals now or stay shut!!
Mindlessone - The reason that I was ignoring you is because you are getting every bit as bad as Afronut or Dirkie - I AM aware that you might all be the same person.
Albinism is hereditary; The principal gene which results in albinism prevents the body from making the usual amounts of the pigment melanin. Most forms of albinism are the result of the biological inheritance of genetically recessive alleles (genes) passed from both parents of an individual, though some rare forms are inherited from only one parent.
Two Albino people making babies results in ALWAYS producing an Albino Child.
THAT is why Europeans are as they are.
The stupidity of your genetics questions will get no response from me - that is just TOO stupid. How long have you been here again? What an asshole! Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: [Marc writes]
The straight / wavy hair of Australians is surely the result of white men sleeping around:
Actually Marc, as told you over and over this is the same outdated view held by Eurocentrists so why do you adhere to it?
Eurocentrists also posit that straighter hair in Africa is due to admixture with white men which we know from genetic analysis is certainly NOT true, so why do you adhere to it?
Genetics (Y-dna and Mtdna) disprove all of your erroneous claims Marc, Mike and Clyde too bad so sad...There is no evidence for these people being admixed with white men sorry guys.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ]Mindlessone - The reason that I was ignoring you is because you are getting every bit as bad as Afronut or Dirkie - I AM aware that you might all be the same person.
Kid, you've been on the same level as Dirk and Afronut I don't know what deludes you into thinking differently. My level is way above you, and I mean wayyyyyy above you!
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Two Albino people making babies results in ALWAYS producing an Albino Child.
Actually two African albinos can and most likely will produce a normal melanin packed human, just like other Africans...whereas Europeans can't and won't. Why?
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: The stupidity of your genetics questions will get no response from me - that is just TOO stupid. How long have you been here again? What an asshole!
Ha ha the stupidity of genetics huh? You nitwit, you won't answer a question about genetics not only because you don't understand genetics but because you know from previous times of you being debunked that there is no genetic evidence, and in actuality the genetic evidence speaks volumes against all your absurd claims, too bad so sad.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Just picking ONE of your mindless statements; "Actually two African albinos can and most likely will produce a normal melanin packed human, just like other Africans whereas Europeans can't and won't. Why?"
Please post something - anything, that supports that!
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Just picking ONE of your mindless statements; "Actually two African albinos can and most likely will produce a normal melanin packed human, just like other Africans whereas Europeans can't and won't. Why?"
Please post something - anything, that supports that!
Yea, you're well known for cherrypicking, and not answering full posts....
Anyway lol, are you serious? Post something that disproves it then we can talk... Post something to support the fact that two African albinos can't produce a child with regular levels of melanin, can you?
That's like saying only albinos can produce albinos when in fact two regular melanin parent Africans can produce an albino and an albino can produce a child with melanin and so on...
Europeans can't produce a child with melanin, but African albinos can, why not Mike?
Perhaps you need to call in the troops Meninarmer aka Menobrain, Egmond, Marc and Clyde? LOL
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Mindlessone - I am detecting unmistakable discomfort on your part, that the best part of you, the part that your mutt Puerto Rican ass is most proud of, is derived from defective Humans. He, he - Hey, it is what it is.
But hey, look on the bright side: You live in fear of them thinking of you as Black, and perhaps even calling you Nigger. Well now you have a come-back, you can call them defective Albinos - hope you all have fun with each other.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Sorry folks. Many Australian Aborigines had straight hair at the time of European first contact. Simply put, whites are not the father of the family tree, Africans are and therefore no features (other than white skin) can be said to be a unique feature of 'whites'. Europeans have only been in Australia for a little over 200 years. And only the majority far shorter than that. So how is it these whites intermarried with ALL THESE ABORIGINES but the only sign of their ancestry is straight hair and not light skin and other features?
Obviously that is a contradiction. Because you just sat there and called these people Africans.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Doug M - You are correct, straight hair is one of the many African attributes, whoever said that was wrong and should retract the statement.
Sometimes people loose track of all the facts; i.e. if Whites are African, then their traits MUST also be African. Further, the Dravidian (not Hindu) is a pure African extract, they also have straight hair, as well as many other people still IN Africa.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Mindlessone - I am detecting unmistakable discomfort on your part, that the best part of you, the part that your mutt Puerto Rican ass is most proud of, is derived from defective Humans. He, he - Hey, it is what it is.
But hey, look on the bright side: You live in fear of them thinking of you as Black, and perhaps even calling you Nigger. Well now you have a come-back, you can call them defective Albinos - hope you all have fun with each other.
No answers Mike? Only faulty ad hominems as usual? Figures...
Stands....
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: I'll try to be as clear as possible, yes, all non Africans (Oceanic's, Asians, Europeans etc...) descend from Africans who left the African continent and ultimately populated the world, and after spending thousands of years in each respective environment led to different phenotypes we see around the world today.
Skeletal remains show us that in Asia, Australia, Europe, and even the Americas dating back atleast 45-60kya there were humans present and these were people coming from Africa with tropically adapted body proportions, DNA extracted from these ancient humans coming from Africa shows to be present in each respective area where found, this is why OOA is proven and why all non Africans are noted to be descended from Africa. There aren't any genetic lineages outside of Africa of which can not be traced back to Africa.
As noted already if you are going to call Oceanic's Africans, then you would have to call Europeans African, since Europeans descend from Africans, the same way Australians do, only difference is that due to environmental pressures which altered their (Europeans) features after thousands of years to better suit the environment, you now don't want to call them African.
Europeans genetically are closer to Africans, because Europeans received admixture from Africans which occurred after Australia and Melanesia became populated which in turn Oceanic's became isolated from other populations....
Posted by StTigray (Member # 16910) on :
From what Im hearing it seems that race is almost a false construct, man this can be confusing, I wonder would it be more expedient to create academic lines based on politics rather than academics. The only problem is that those lines could very well change at any time.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by StTigray: From what Im hearing it seems that race is almost a false construct, man this can be confusing,
Biologically, there are no "races" since a "race" implies a sub-species within anatomically modern humans, which there are none, all humans around the world can ultimately trace their DNA back to Africa, not Europe or Australia or Asia etc...but Africa.
Note that humans outside of Africa are also less diverse genetically and phenotypically than inside of Africa due to population bottlenecks that occurred when these early humans 60-80 thousand years ago left Africa and were populating the world, so in comparison a single village in Africa will show to have more genetic diversity than all non Africans combined.
This again is because humans have been living inside of Africa for a much longer time than outside of Africa, and so they've had ample amount of time to diversify than non Africans as I've explained who experienced population bottlenecks on their way to populate the world...
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by StTigray: From what Im hearing it seems that race is almost a false construct, man this can be confusing, I wonder would it be more expedient to create academic lines based on politics rather than academics. The only problem is that those lines could very well change at any time.
StTigray: As you know ALL Humans are African. Whites are simply African Albinos who have extensively inbreed, but with a degree of admixture with normal Africans - probably in Asia, thereby they are no longer technically Albinos.
So in the pure sense, that is true. But does it really matter?
The rules of man, are just that, "the rules of man". If the man in power sets a rule of war, then regardless of whether or not it makes sense to you, there is no choice but to fight on the basis of that rule.
The White man chose "Skin Color" as the rallying point for his Albino people - probably for good reason, (see modern treatment of Albinos in Africa).
You as a Black man, may think Skin color a very poor reason to fight, but if the White man is going to try to kill you on that basis, then whether or not you agree with it, you had better get your Black ass moving on that basis, or you are going to get your dumb Black ass killed on that basis.
The winner ALWAYS gets to set the terms. The looser ALWAYS has no choice but to accept the terms.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
StTigray - While you are thinking that it makes no sense - consider this...
The White man - the LEAST numerous of the races - and certainly NOT the bravest or the Brightest,
CONTROLS the ENTIRE PLANET!
Maybe there is a point to it after all - huh.
Posted by StTigray (Member # 16910) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QUOTE]Originally posted by StTigray: From what Im hearing it seems that race is almost a false construct, man this can be confusing, I wonder would it be more expedient to create academic lines based on politics rather than academics. The only problem is that those lines could very well change at any time.
StTigray: As you know ALL Humans are African. Whites are simply African Albinos who have extensively inbreed, but with a degree of admixture with normal Africans - probably in Asia, thereby they are no longer technically Albinos.
So in the pure sense, that is true. But does it really matter?
The rules of man, are just that, "the rules of man". If the man in power sets a rule of war, then regardless of whether or not it makes sense to you, there is no choice but to fight on the basis of that rule.
The White man chose "Skin Color" as the rallying point for his Albino people - probably for good reason, (see modern treatment of Albinos in Africa).
You as a Black man, may think Skin color a very poor reason to fight, but if the White man is going to try to kill you on that basis, then whether or not you agree with it, you had better get your Black ass moving on that basis, or you are going to get your dumb Black ass killed on that basis.
The winner ALWAYS gets to set the terms. The looser ALWAYS has no choice but to accept the terms. [/QUOTE Unfortunately that is the case, and while I am up to the fight, I am disturbed that we have not created sufficient parameters that engages our enemy while leaving him less room to maneuver. Meaning while we are making great strides in relation to our discoveries about our history, we are creating collateral damage among those who may either be our allies or who would stay out of the fight altogether. Example: In the 70's and 80's all other races history was treated much like our own in the recent past other groups have their history celebrated while ours on the other hand has remained besieged by racist academia. I presume the racist establishment did this in order to relieve themselves of creating enemies while at the same time singling us out. What they achieved was also to have those other groups join in on their racist bandwagon. I think we as a group are fighting this fight but we are not very careful, and we need to be so if we are going to win. We need to fight in such a way that leaves no room for the racist establishment to outflank us.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by StTigray:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QUOTE]Originally posted by StTigray: From what Im hearing it seems that race is almost a false construct, man this can be confusing, I wonder would it be more expedient to create academic lines based on politics rather than academics. The only problem is that those lines could very well change at any time.
StTigray: As you know ALL Humans are African. Whites are simply African Albinos who have extensively inbreed, but with a degree of admixture with normal Africans - probably in Asia, thereby they are no longer technically Albinos.
So in the pure sense, that is true. But does it really matter?
The rules of man, are just that, "the rules of man". If the man in power sets a rule of war, then regardless of whether or not it makes sense to you, there is no choice but to fight on the basis of that rule.
The White man chose "Skin Color" as the rallying point for his Albino people - probably for good reason, (see modern treatment of Albinos in Africa).
You as a Black man, may think Skin color a very poor reason to fight, but if the White man is going to try to kill you on that basis, then whether or not you agree with it, you had better get your Black ass moving on that basis, or you are going to get your dumb Black ass killed on that basis.
The winner ALWAYS gets to set the terms. The looser ALWAYS has no choice but to accept the terms. [/QUOTE Unfortunately that is the case, and while I am up to the fight, I am disturbed that we have not created sufficient parameters that engages our enemy while leaving him less room to maneuver. Meaning while we are making great strides in relation to our discoveries about our history, we are creating collateral damage among those who may either be our allies or who would stay out of the fight altogether. Example: In the 70's and 80's all other races history was treated much like our own in the recent past other groups have their history celebrated while ours on the other hand has remained besieged by racist academia. I presume the racist establishment did this in order to relieve themselves of creating enemies while at the same time singling us out. What they achieved was also to have those other groups join in on their racist bandwagon. I think we as a group are fighting this fight but we are not very careful, and we need to be so if we are going to win. We need to fight in such a way that leaves no room for the racist establishment to outflank us.
Truth cannot be outflanked by fraud and lies. The problem with your statement is that somehow people need to be careful when telling the truth. WHY? The racists are the biggest liars, thieves, destroyers and ENEMIES of ALL CULTURES on the planet. So how on earth can attacking these frauds be a cause for alarm?
I think you misunderstand the problem. THE PROBLEM is that the frauds and liars control the airwaves and the press. They publish their lies with THE EXPLICIT INTENT of using as a form of propaganda and to INDOCTRINATE people into believing falsehoods. Therefore any ENEMIES of the truth have already been created because they have already been indoctrinated by the liars to begin with. Someone providing the TRUTH should not even be an issue.
And even more than that, how is the search for truth and the trial and error that comes with it ANYWHERE NEAR equivalent to a people WHOSE WHOLE PURPOSE was to STEAL, LIE and DESTROY from day one? I think you are confused about the real situation. The actual outflanking is going to happen when the LIARS AND THIEVES gain allies who see the BENEFIT AND NECESSITY to maintaining such lies, not because of any potential offenses of those seeking the truth. The only people who would be frightened of and or threatened by the truth are those who ARE AGAINST IT to begin with.
And who are these anonymous allies or enemies that you are referring to to begin with?
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by StTigray: From what Im hearing it seems that race is almost a false construct, man this can be confusing, I wonder would it be more expedient to create academic lines based on politics rather than academics. The only problem is that those lines could very well change at any time.
The fact is that much is already based on politics. Entire careers built on certain methods or models stand to fall when those models are questioned. Race as such is a false construct. The comparison often made is with animal species. The separation of say a donkey from a horse is very clear- they are separate SPECIES even though they may have a certain similarity in appearance. Genetically they clearly separate. With humans however these clear seperators cannot be found. There is more difference WITHIN so-called human "races" than between them. Hence to talk of race in a BIOLOGICAL sense is inaccurate. Therefore many modern scientists reject race. In a SOCIAL SENSE however, where people divide themselves up by language, tribes or whatever, then "races" can be said to exist, but that is a SOCIAL definition, not a BIOLOGICAL ONE.
Scientists who reject biological race say it is much more useful to look at climate, genetic drift etc than the arbitrary checkboxes of race. They substitute the idea of population ranges or affinities. The statement below on the ancient Egyptians captures the concept:
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas."
"[comparisons].. must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection, influenced by culture and geography." (Nancy C. Lovell, "Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, (London and New York: Routledge, 1999). pp 328-332)[2]
However, there is still an ongoing effort by some scientists to resurrect the old race categories under new population affinity labels. One of the most common ways they do it is with skewed sampling, stacking the deck ahead of time so that the analysis yields results in favor of the preferred population interpretation. Like the example below where they drew samples from the far north of Egypt as "representative" of the whole, excluding the historic south. Such slippery methods are common in skeletal, cranial and DNA studies.
Another way they stack the deck is to create stereotypical categories- straw men like the "true negro". Everything not meeting the "true" stereotype can then be neatly categorized as something else. There is a lot of manipulation and disinformation used in certain parts (not all) of the European academy. They cover it with soothing disavowals of race and talk about "diversity", but then slyly resurrect the old race categories in new guises.
Another common tactic is disinformation labeling. Like the study of Somalians which claim East Africans are not as related to "sub-Saharan" Africans as they are to Eurasian types, when the author's own data show EAST AFRICAN Somalians overwhelming cluster with other East Africans. And Somalia and Ethiopia themselves are below the Sahara, and thus "sub Saharan". Then there are cases like the Tutsi. The European academy is full of this sleight of hand. Some studies will look at Egypt then for "comparison" they will skip over populations near to Egypt, in the Sudan, or Somalia, or Chad, or Ethiopia and leap all the way to South African "Bantu" - to provide a stand-in for "true negroes" - like extras in another bad Hollywood movie. Having set up the black "sub Saharan" strawmen, they can then draw comparisons declaring how this and that African population is "unrelated" or only slightly related to the "sub Saharan" strawmen. This is the way the academy operates- soothing politically correct talk up front, devious sleight of hand below. This is how they are pushing the race concept at the present time. It is no longer in the open.
It is taking guys like Keita, Kittles, Armelagos and others, as well as boards like ES to expose the slippery methods, models and concepts and creating a more balanced framework for studying African peoples.
Question thrown out:
Can it be said that Whites as a whole biologically differ between themselves more than they differ with Africans?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan:
Question thrown out:
Can it be said that Whites as a whole biologically differ between themselves more than they differ with Africans?
Put it this way: Contrary to what some Eurocentric spin-doctor may put it, a Hg R1b bearing European will first cluster with a Hg R1b bearing Cameroonian, before he clusters with a Hg I bearing European from a Y-DNA standpoint. This no doubt, would serve as an example of more similarity between-group than within-group to said spin-doctor.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
[Mind over M writes]
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: [Marc writes]
The straight / wavy hair of Australians is surely the result of white men sleeping around:
Actually Marc, as told you over and over this is the same outdated view held by Eurocentrists so why do you adhere to it?
Eurocentrists also posit that straighter hair in Africa is due to admixture with white men which we know from genetic analysis is certainly NOT true, so why do you adhere to it?
Genetics (Y-dna and Mtdna) disprove all of your erroneous claims Marc, Mike and Clyde too bad so sad...There is no evidence for these people being admixed with white men sorry guys.
[Marc writes]
The human being some 7 million years ago emerged from what was then the human being/chimpanzee clade: i.e. a single ancestor from which a branch came leading to human beings along one line and chimpanzees along the other.
As chimpanzees have straight hair along with other apes, it does stand to reason that the first human beings had straight hair.
However, my point was that some rather assume the aborigines have naturally wavy / straight hair but that does not take into account that in a single generation, an African parent with woolly hair and a white parent with straight hair almost invariably produces offspring who WILL NOT have woolly hair.
The hair of offspring will be wavy / straight - sometimes very curly.
It is a fact that when Captain Cook and the other white men entered the Pacific, they had sex with every woman they could get their hands on and this resulted in offspring who naturally would be in large numbers and show a phenotypic shift from original aborigine characteristics to white.
It must be a fact that some degree of the wavy / straight character seen in Australian aborigine hair reflects hundreds of years of white men's sperm just as there are millions of Americans passing for white who trace their ancestry to African slaves but racial dilution washed the black skin color and kinky hair away.
Brown and tan Afro Americans have white men who monkeyed around with the black women in their ancestry.
But, based on the pictures the arrogant, presumptuous, racist Doug showed of early aborigine (not the penciled, faulty drawings but photograph)
aborigine hair was more like African hair, i.e. when not fashioned, standing out like a ball/bush or helmet on the head:
In the 1800s, it looked more curly, wavy and tightly curled and more often puffy and rounded bush-like than the loose wavy, purely straight version we see so often today.
But, my argument is not with the aborigine. I speak of the full-featured, woolly haired people, that dimension of Africans as my definition is constructed, who stand at the foundation of world cultures.
. .
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Marc. You are simply making up stuff as you go. First you said that ALL blacks with tight curly hair are Africans everywhere in the world. Now you say that these BLACK aborigines are mixed with whites because they have straight hair.
So they aren't Africans then no? They must be white hybrids then huh?
So that means you need to take that set of pictures you posted earlier showing Africans world wide and trim it down to just Africa. Because MOST of the other populations you listed as Africans are AS YOU CLAIM hybrids. This includes your beloved dravidians
These Pacific people are NOT Africans because they are white hybrids FROM YOUR OWN MOUTH:
The fact is that these people have less admixture than many African Americans, yet most African Americans don't have straight hair. Including your Barak Obama. Therefore, there is no way that the SOLE TRAIT that these people inherited from their "white blood" is straight hair, while everything else about them is still black aboriginal. LOL!
You just like some racist white folks, cant stand the idea that black people don't come in one shape size and color so you make up all sorts of ludicrous notions in order to get around the facts.
Of course there has been a white genetic impact in the pacific. But how on EARTH are you suggesting that aboriginal COAL BLACK people have white blood because of their hair, without ANY OTHER features from whites? That is nonsense.
These people are not Africans and weren't Africans even before the whites or northern Asians came and no matter how curly their hair was. And bottom line, straight hair does not originate with white people.
Your statement about hair didn't make sense to begin with and makes even less sense now as you try and redefine it which only makes you contradict yourself.
However, let me be clear. I agree that parts of the pacific did have aboriginal populations 300 years ago that had tight curly hair that have now been replaced with more straighter haired, lighter skinned Eurasian types. There is no debate about that. Hawaii is a perfect example. However, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the features of the Aboriginal people of Australia. The pacific is one of the most DIVERSE populations on earth and this is among PURELY aboriginal populations. So you should not make to many generalizations without understanding that fact.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Even the tasmanian people had straight to curly hair.
Marc. You are simply making up stuff as you go. First you said that ALL blacks with tight curly hair are Africans everywhere in the world. Now you say that these BLACK aborigines are mixed with whites because they have straight hair.
So they aren't Africans then no? They must be white hybrids then huh?
[Marc writes]
Doug. Of course they are African. In my last post I wrote:
But, my argument is not with the aborigine. I speak of the full-featured, woolly haired people, that dimension of Africans as my definition is constructed, who stand at the foundation of world cultures.
As feline have hundreds of species as do roses or pine, if you aren't concerned with the entire group, you speak of a portion of it - perhaps lions alone, or Red Canopies, or Douglas Fir.
I am not speaking about the whole range of Africans. I wrote above the group I primarily address.
. .
. .
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: However, my point was that some rather assume the aborigines have naturally wavy / straight hair but that does not take into account that in a single generation, an African parent with woolly hair and a white parent with straight hair almost invariably produces offspring who WILL NOT have woolly hair.
Yea and the kid most likely will have lighter skin and different facial features than its Aborigine ancestor and European ancestor somewhere inbetween, but we don't see that with Australian aborigines, we see they have straighter hair but their skin is dark, and they resemble all other aborigines before any other group they're not intermediate between Europeans and Aborigines cranio-facially, and indeed as I've told Mike Y-dna and Mtdna doesn't correlate with your point of view it contradicts it fully....
Answer me this Marc, why did the white mans genes (which aren't present) only affect their hair and not their skin color, facial features or tropical body proportions?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: [Doug writes]
Marc. You are simply making up stuff as you go. First you said that ALL blacks with tight curly hair are Africans everywhere in the world. Now you say that these BLACK aborigines are mixed with whites because they have straight hair.
So they aren't Africans then no? They must be white hybrids then huh?
[Marc writes]
Doug. Of course they are African. In my last post I wrote:
But, my argument is not with the aborigine. I speak of the full-featured, woolly haired people, that dimension of Africans as my definition is constructed, who stand at the foundation of world cultures.
As feline have hundreds of species as do roses or pine, if you aren't concerned with the entire group, you speak of a portion of it - perhaps lions alone, or Red Canopies, or Douglas Fir.
I am not speaking about the whole range of Africans. I wrote above the group I primarily address.
. .
. .
But the aborigines ARE part of the founder cultures in Asia and the Americas. So again, according to YOUR definition, they aren't African.
The problem isn't with the facts, Marc. It is with you who is trying to over emphasize Africanness based on arbitrary constructs of your own making which ARE NOT NECESSARY to begin with. EVERYBODY agrees that Africans are the parents of humanity. That fundamental fact isn't denied. And the fundamental fact of blacks worldwide being a major part of many of the earliest civilizations is also fact. But all these people did not have the same features, so trying to create a fake typology in order to claim them all as AFRICANS, which implies a CLOSE CONTINUOUS DIRECT relationship with Africa is NONSENSE. Not only does it really reflect the historical complexity of population relationships across a wide range of cultural, physical and political landscapes, it is fundamentally false to begin with.
For example, the early Islamic world featured wide ranging trade between many cultures with significant black populations from Africa to Asia. Be they the Moors of North Africa or the AfroArabs of Arabia or the Africans of East Africa, Madagascar, Zanzibar and Monempotapa, there were significant interactions that will not be understood properly from your false typologies. People cultures and populations grow change and interact over time and space, which is what you are trying to understand by studying anthropology. Nothing stays the same forever.
In terms of true history versus false history, the last 400 years of European so-called "scholarship" has created a boatload of falsehoods.
As an example, the Europeans coined the term Malay "race" as a way of identifying the origins of certain peoples in South Asia. They almost always associated them with more civilized white Asian groups. But the fact is that when the Spanish under Magellan first arrived in the Malay peninsula, it was inhabited mostly by blacks. Since that time not only has Malaysia been repopulated by lighter skinned Asian types but the same has happened in other places they went, like the Philippines.
But of course the fools who go round the world making genocide keep pushing crack and dope to the folks to keep them thinking that they are trying to make a better day for everyone.
These people even went so far as to concoct the notion of 24 stone age populations being discovered in the remote forest of Mindanao. The Tasaday is the name of this so-called stone age group, with many claiming the whole thing was a hoax.
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! The brotha is thick. Afronut reminds me of Clarence Thomas. Was being "lynched" only when he was attacked by the "man". Of course NOT Clarence's intelligence
Thanks for clearing that up.
Great Forum but tough to choose over my toddlers, work and business.. . . .
plus it is football season
quote:Originally posted by astenb: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: [qb] bump...
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: RE-READ the thread stupid. Understand and observe the argument. By now you should very well see proof of "Black People" that are aboriginal to ASIA. The issue at question is when pictures such as THIS:. . . .
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Just had to laugh at Marc calling these white 'hybrids':
Just had to laugh at Marc calling these white 'hybrids'
[Marc writes]
White sperm pervades Australian aborigine. Laugh? It's funny when mulatto children are born and removed from the aborigine parent as is still done today to "save" them from the social stigma of not being raised by "pure" white parents such as yourself?
That's your people.
Bloodshed, murder, and destruction is a laughing matter for you.
. .
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: . .
[Doug writes]
Just had to laugh at Marc calling these white 'hybrids'
[Marc writes]
White sperm pervades Australian aborigine. Laugh? It's funny when mulatto children are born and removed from the aborigine parent as is still done today to "save" them from the social stigma of not being raised by "pure" white parents such as yourself?
That's your people.
Bloodshed, murder, and destruction is a laughing matter for you.
. .
Nobody is denying the evils of white supremacy Marc. We know there have been many bad deeds done to the natives all over the planet.
However, calling these people white hybrids because they don't meet YOUR standard of what blacks should look like or the idea that all blacks of a certain type are Africans, is nonsense. In the eyes of whites, all these people are blacks or negroes and it doesn't matter what type of hair they had or other features.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Just had to laugh at Marc calling these white 'hybrids':
sounds like you are sagreeing that negro=negroid=black=african.
I have to admit Mike et are really making a stronger case.
was it Garvey who said Africa for Africans those at home and those abroad.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Explorer/KIK: does NOT matter what they look like. Since they don’t belong to African lineage (genetically) then they are not Africans. Believe the ancients are the ancestors of the present occupiers.
As a longstanding poster here, I can say that for anyone who has read my posts, that this is a simplistic assessment of a variety of issues I've tried to get through. For example, from my standpoint, "they" has to be defined first and foremost, before anyone can reach any meaningful conclusion of a discussion. Furthermore, if the "they" are humans, then technically, as preponderance of tangible genetic material and paleontology show, all humans belong to African lineage genetically. Being one or several steps removed from the most common recent African ancestor does not change this fact. This obviously contradicts your assessment above. Non-Africans are not Africans, not because of the just mentioned fact, but quite simply, because they are not African natives--it is more of socio-political thing than a genetic connection.
Additionally, the continent we call "Asia" is marked by complex demographic events, as is the case for many other landmasses. Some sections of the populations therein descend from more recent episodes than others. Some sections may have recent common ancestry that post-date the proposed successful upper Paleolithic OOA genetic fission of a subset of African gene pool, while others may trace such ancestry to said Paleolithic background. Is the just-mentioned synonymous with "Believe the ancients are the ancestors of the present occupiers."? It is safe to say that while the former doesn't necessary contradict the latter in absolute terms, the former cannot easily be summarized into the latter; for instance, it comes down to the specifics of which populations, which sections within populations, and how ancient is "ancient". There is no single answer to this question.
This still stands:
xyyman, I think you are missing the substance of my questions, in relation to your comment. I'm asking you, why the so-called "negroid" Asians, as you called them, cannot simply be "negroes"? What is the distinction between "negroids" and "negroes"?
Remember, avoidance of answers to questions that seek clarity of one's own terms and stated-position is really a sign of inability to defend oneself. Of course, one is free to care or not care about their own credibility, but don't expect to be taken seriously by others.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
That child has stiff nearly blond hair and obviously white blood. His mother is brown-skinned sitting is squalor, dirt, and poverty in their own native land.
My grandmother on my father's side is black-skinned. My several times great grandfather was a white French doctor. My family is Afro-American and brown-skinned as are most Afro-Americans
Your kind sleeping around with black women created the brown-skinned race as with the aborigines.
You are proud and feel vindicated you can post a few pictures of aborigines?
Vindicated, too, as well, to know that they are outlawed in their own land pushed off their property so whites can live in luxury?
Your kind committed genocide on those of Tasmania and other islands starving the aborigines to death? You are proud some of those who didn't die from gunshot and white diseases are alive and living in poverty?
What a fine person you are that you can post pictures of a brown-skinned people who'd otherwise be black-skinned had your Captain Cook kind not strewn its sperm around and kicked them off their land as happened worldwide wherever your ancestors went.
. .
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
And Marc, your petty appeals to emotionalism and empathy are meaningless. The idea that aborigines have straight hair because of white blood is false. The FACT is that WHITES have straight hair because of their aboriginal ancestors WHO WERE BLACK. But for some reason you don't want to understand that straight hair, blond hair and most other kinds of hair developed FIRST among black populations before anyone else.
And from your own example of your family it is easily shown that the premise is strictly false. Do YOU have straight hair? Does anyone in your family have STRAIGHT HAIR? Most blacks I know who have white blood STILL have tight curly hair. I know of NONE that have straight hair due to a white ancestor. Look at Barak Obama, look at any other number of mixed populations and YOU WONT see straight hair as a result of white blood. These people had straight hair before whites got there, so WHITE BLOOD has nothing to do with it.
Again, you are stuck on going off in MEANINGLESS directions that have NOTHING to do with the fundamental facts of the African origin of humanity. Trying to make up new categories and labels about features and being African are only a DIVERSION from the FUNDAMENTAL FACTS. YOUR definitions and attempts to define populations as being African or not based on features DOES NOTHING to further or help understand THE FUNDAMENTAL FACT of African origins of mankind. IN FACT it actually MUDDIES THE WATER with IRRELEVANT NONSENSE that is strictly of YOUR OWN making and actually creates CONTRADICTIONS that don't make sense.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Got to admit . . .nicely put. If these Asian "negroes" can be considered Africans then Europeans must also be considered Africans. Unless the premise is once they leave the tropics (ie morphed) they are no longer africans.
But Doug made a very interesting point. These black/"negro" Asians only disappeared or (assimilated)recently ie less than 1000ya.
So the question again is . . . .what happened? is 1000yrs enough to time for a people to be virtually disappear.
What is the similarity, if any, between northern asians and European Leucoderms.
Maybe Doug is right - they were exterminated. And that is the similarity.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by TheTruthHurts: So Doug M your saying that even if you look African and have dark skin and many other factors that come into effect that make them African.There not African?..
What he is saying is in fact essentially correct, they're non Africans just like Europeans and Native Americans are non Africans yet descend from Africans.
Oceanics I.e., Melanesians and Australians cluster genetically with mainland Asia, before Africans since Oceanic's carry ancestral genes to Asians which became non African after migrating OOA (out of Africa).
Oceanic's then cluster with Africans phenotypically I.e cranio-facial structure because Africa of course is the homeland of anatomically modern humans and hence certain Africans are ancestral to Oceanic's, Asians, and Europeans alike!
Oceanic's cluster phenotypically with Africans because after migrating out of Africa along the coast of south Asia, they (Oceanic's) continued to reside in a tropical environment like Africa and maintained said tropical features as noted resembling the earliest modern humans 60kya from Africa, but just like Europeans they are no longer Africans.
Early Asians, Europeans etc...all resembled Africans as do Oceanic's today, there would not have been much of a difference in the tropical phenotype amongst early humans who left Africa (as noted amongst Oceanic's) if they (early humans) didn't move into northern latitudes.
So if you're going to call Oceanic's African, then Europeans, Native Americans etc....are also Africans, which in all reality is true since all non Africans are basically Africans under the skin, and there would be no non Africans if Africans didn't leave the continent.....
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
the african origin of humanity, to the extent that it is true, is meaningless. Populations that evolved in different directions have no connection at all to those roots, too much time has passed.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: the african origin of humanity, to the extent that it is true, is meaningless. Populations that evolved in different directions have no connection at all to those roots, too much time has passed.
That would make sense if you could point to a "NEW" species of Humans that have evolved since then.
But there is no "NEW" species of Humans that have evolved since then, only hybrids (Mixes) of the ORIGINAL Humans.
What does THAT tell you?
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
the originial was once an ape Mike, what does that tell us? I suppose you could be traced back to a rodent 50 million years ago. The point is the evolution of different groups of people through mutations has left a world that in most respects has little to do with ancient man. The question then becomes if we evolved from africans ....so what. We are not africans today.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
.
[Marc writes]
As I have said for the third time and now quote my post from the last time you rose the point:
Doug. Of course they are African. In my last post I wrote:
My argument is not with the aborigine. I speak of the full-featured, woolly haired people, that dimension of Africans as my definition is constructed, who stand at the foundation of world cultures.
You want to say they came from Africa and also started culture, then add the aborigine to my list as well.
In all of these areas today, we no longer find the woolly haired African. Left in his place are the newcomers who took the land, wealth, committed genocide on some of the population and enslaved the remainder, and carried on their language, culture, religion, and civilization otherwise intact as they found it.
Except they faked things up and re-tooled themselves as civilization's founder.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
[Xxyman writes]
Got to admit . . .nicely put. If these Asian "negroes" can be considered Africans then Europeans must also be considered Africans.
[Marc writes]
Those who founded world civilizations were woolly-wiry haired and full facial featured. You can add the aborigine with their often wiry hair.
Europeans are not in that group.
Both you and Doug are to be lauded for your sympathies of the aborigine proven by the flickr shots you post; aborigine, slaughtered in past centuries as was the Bushman, forced from their lands and living in abject poverty.
Three cheers for your humanity.
. .
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: the originial was once an ape Mike, what does that tell us? I suppose you could be traced back to a rodent 50 million years ago. The point is the evolution of different groups of people through mutations has left a world that in most respects has little to do with ancient man. The question then becomes if we evolved from africans ....so what. We are not africans today.
The mutations that you are talking about took MILLIONS of years. Here we are talking about a MAXIMUM of 50-60,000 years.
To put a finer point on it...
These are Busts of Homo-Sapien-Sapiens from about that time period.
Romania - 35,000 B.C.
Ukraine - 34,000 B.C.
Russia - 26,000 B.C.
Hammer - Please point out the differences between THESE ANCIENT Humans and MODERN Humans. Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Most blacks I know who have white blood STILL have tight curly hair. I know of NONE that have straight hair due to a white ancestor. Look at Barak Obama, look at any other number of mixed populations and YOU WONT see straight hair as a result of white blood.
Take an example from the light bright and almost white Christopher "Kid" Reid from "Kid and play" surely with Marc's reasoning he should have straighter hair being that he is Jamaican on his fathers side and Irish on his mothers...
Marc why is "Kids" hair tightly curled being that he is a first generation offspring of one white parent and one black?
But to Marc, Christopher "Kid" Reid is more black than the following aborigine because "Kids" hair is tightly curled and the aborigines isn't meanwhile Kid has white blood and the aborigine doesn't...go figure!!
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
This is all meaningless crap. There needs to be a point or at least some sort of thesis question.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^What's meaningless crap? You know, for someone who talks a lot, you never really say anything!!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You are catching own, brother. Took us a few years to get to this point.
Just saw this. . . .
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: [QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan:
. . . . a Hg R1b bearing European will first cluster with a Hg R1b bearing Cameroonian, before he clusters with a Hg I bearing European from a Y-DNA standpoint. . . . . .
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Mindover, You tell me genius, what is the point?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: .
[Marc writes]
As I have said for the third time and now quote my post from the last time you rose the point:
Doug. Of course they are African. In my last post I wrote:
My argument is not with the aborigine. I speak of the full-featured, woolly haired people, that dimension of Africans as my definition is constructed, who stand at the foundation of world cultures.
You want to say they came from Africa and also started culture, then add the aborigine to my list as well.
And again this simply shows the crux of your empty argument. All world civilizations were not founded by Africans. The Indus Valley was founded by natives of that area who were primarily aboriginal blacks. Similarly, the civilizations of South Asia and the pacific were also founded by aboriginal blacks NATIVE to those regions. They all had various features even if they were black. Yes, many of them had curly hair but not all of them. But even if they did have curly hair, they were not recent migrants from Africa who went to these areas and suddenly caused civilizations to pop up.
They were populations who were native to those areas and had those features for thousands of years after migrating from Africa.
The civilizations of India were founded by blacks but most of them did not have curly hair. Dravidians are not a curly haired people. Most of the curly haired statues of the Buddha you see in South Asia reflect the negrito type of South Asia that adopted Buddhism from the Dravidian black aboriginal people of India. In fact, the curly haired Buddha is simply reflective of the fact that ANCIENT populations MANY MANY thousands of years ago settled Asia.
Similarly most of the aboriginal populations of the Americas maintained various Aboriginal features reminiscent of the aboriginal types found in Asia, most of whom had straighter hair like the Australian and Pacific aboriginal populations versus the curly negrito type aboriginal hair. But even then too all so-called "negritoes" did not have curly hair either. Many of them also had straighter hair like the Australian aboriginal populations. So again, even though it is true that many black populations have been reduced in Asia in modern times, it is not true that all these people had tight curly hair. And it is definitely not true that they were Africans, curly hair or not.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Mindover, You tell me genius, what is the point?
Point of what? Be specific! What is meaningless? This is what I meant by you talking a lot but never really saying anything...
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: .
[Marc writes]
As I have said for the third time and now quote my post from the last time you rose the point:
Doug. Of course they are African. In my last post I wrote:
My argument is not with the aborigine. I speak of the full-featured, woolly haired people, that dimension of Africans as my definition is constructed, who stand at the foundation of world cultures.
You want to say they came from Africa and also started culture, then add the aborigine to my list as well.
And again this simply shows the crux of your empty argument. All world civilizations were not founded by Africans. The Indus Valley was founded by natives of that area who were primarily aboriginal blacks. Similarly, the civilizations of South Asia and the pacific were also founded by aboriginal blacks NATIVE to those regions. They all had various features even if they were black. Yes, many of them had curly hair but not all of them. But even if they did have curly hair, they were not recent migrants from Africa who went to these areas and suddenly caused civilizations to pop up.
Wrong. The Indus Valley civilization was founded by Dravidian speaking people who came from Africa. This is supported by the archaeological evidence.
The Dravidians were very recent to India. They were part of the C-Group people.
.
.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Trying to figure ut where you are going. I see no directikon. Enlighten me.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Trying to figure ut where you are going. I see no directikon. Enlighten me.
With grammatical errors such as the ones above, it's really no wonder you're trying to "figure ut" and "see no directikon", of course just as I thought, you have no idea why you even made your comment lol, you post just to post...
The point is to provide clarification in laymen terms for those who have a misunderstanding about anatomically modern human evolution and the OOA event, you yourself are indeed one of these individuals who needs a lesson.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
note on the keyboard that the I and the K are within a finger span. You are ducking and bobbing to keep from answering my question.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: note on the keyboard that the I and the K are within a finger span.
Yea for a fat redneck lol, put the sandwich down!!
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: You are ducking and bobbing to keep from answering my question.
....again the point is to provide clarification in laymen terms for those who have a misunderstanding about anatomically modern human evolution and the OOA event, you yourself are indeed one of these individuals who needs a lesson.
Now, if you were referring to my post directly above your asinine comment well then the point in that was to note just because Australian aborigines have straighter hair doesn't mean whites came and admixed with them (as genetics show this is false as well anyway), and that it's natural because as you see even first generation offspring admixed black and white individuals still have tightly curled hair, while displaying features from both white and black parents, we don't see this with Australian aborigines, who are said to have a more than a few generations ago "white admixture", get it? We see that Australian aborigines look like all other aborigines regardless of straighter or curlier hair, they don't look white, their skin is dark and bodies tropically adapted. As you can see I noted an individual with a white and black parent to make my point...
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
and this is i,mportant for what reason?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: and this is i,mportant for what reason?
To you as a bigoted redneck, probably nothing...lol Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Just asking Mindover and as usual I get no rational answer.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: and this is i,mportant for what reason?
It was important until you saw that you had nowhere to go with the evolution nonsense.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Just asking Mindover and as usual I get no rational answer.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
ssssshhhh!!! . . .brothas are talking. Even the half brother KIK got it. "true or false history" relative to ancient artifacts. Are they African?
Shut up please!! Don't de-rail the thread.
As pointed out the only flaw in the all "negroids are negroes" premise is, Europeans will have to be included as Africans. Unless the new posit is " all natives south of the 48th (?) parallel are African". Therefore northern asians and Europeans as excluded as being Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: This is all meaningless crap. There needs to be a point or at least some sort of thesis question.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Europeans are not african, any moron knows that. That you want to go back to adam and eve to amke some kind of point is bizarre. You guys remind me of Little Black Sambo. You keep running in circles making points that have no application to anything. What humans were doing in 50,000 BC has no import whatsoever on the historical era.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Europeans are not african, any moron knows that. That you want to go back to adam and eve to amke some kind of point is bizarre. You guys remind me of Little Black Sambo. You keep running in circles making points that have no application to anything. What humans were doing in 50,000 BC has no import whatsoever on the historical era.
That is so if you mean the current period - of course it very much effected who ended up where; but our endeavor is scholarly investigation, as it has been for a long time. Is it only now, when you feel the facts going against your preconceived notions, that it becomes unimportant?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ TAP. ahem!! listen up! the topic started with the historical era. See St. Tigray's question. The whole premise is about "African" looking artifacts from about 500ad - 2000bc.
Pleeeassseee shut up!!
why don't you post in one of Jimmy Walker's or Derky's thread. We will jon you there later.
This could easily be mistaken for "African". But is it African in the contemporary sense?
As I said there are many who believe Anyone with these features are African regardless to their genetic lineage or place of birth.
The strength of that argument is . . .YES. . . all these people inherited these features from mother Afica.. . so they should be classified as Africans and since the white skin is NOT an African feature then Asian and European leucoderms are not "ancestral" ie Africans.
In other words ALL y-hg lineage may be African, it is the autosomal feature (genetics) that did not originate in Africa makes one NON-FRICAN.
Autosomal gene makes one non-African?
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
xyy, If I had a black woman in my family line 100 years ago I am not african. You guys get too wound up in this stuff. Have a drink and relax a bit. You are trying to create something that does not exist.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
xyyman quote: Autosomal gene makes one non-African?
Perhaps it would - if there was such a thing.
But I know of no such gene.
As a matter of fact, I know of no gene which cannot be attributed to admixture between Africans.
Need I remind you, that this too.. Is an African!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
I mean, you do understand that the DEFINING White haplogroup "R" is found in Africa - and they ARE Black people.
Posted by Clint EastWood (Member # 16969) on :
Mike, stop trying to be Black because you're not. I saw you and aint nobody whiter than you on this planet. You look white, you sound "white" and you act like a cracka ass crackkka.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
You are catching own, brother. Took us a few years to get to this point.
Just saw this. . . .
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan:
. . . . a Hg R1b bearing European will first cluster with a Hg R1b bearing Cameroonian, before he clusters with a Hg I bearing European from a Y-DNA standpoint. . . . . .
To be clear, what do you mean by "catching on"; I've been relating this point ever since before you joined the board.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Herodotus view of Eastern Ethiopians...aka Eastern Blacks
VII.70. The Eastern Ethiopians---for two nations of this name served in the army--were marshaled with the Indians. They differed in nothing from the other Ethiopians, save in their language, and the character of their hair. For the Eastern Ethiopians have straight hair, while they of Libya are more woolly-haired than any other people in the world. Their equipment was in most points like that of the Indians, but they wore upon their heads the scalps of horses, with the ears and mane attached; the ears were made to stand upright, and the mane served as a crest. For shields this people made use of the skins of cranes. Dravidians^Eastern Ethiops..see Herodotus
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Putting all the meandering response aside. . .
sounds like you are sagreeing that negro=negroid=black=african.
Sounds like you are not reading or capable of understanding what I'm saying.
As to the question of your "negro=negroid=black=african", you are clueless yourself about what you mean by these terms, as you have repetitively run away from clarifying your position; after all, you are the one who made a distinction between "negroid" and "negro", and now, in a direct contradiction, you write "negro=negroid=black=african". Why irrational people resort to using terms they don't have the slightest idea about, is any logical person's guess.
quote: I have to admit Mike et are really making a stronger case.
...about what?
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
Thats what really annoys me about the some of the ignorance that passes for scholarship in this group. 90% of the time people post pictures of when they have NO knowledge about the origin's of the people whose pictures they post. They just type a 'keyword' into google images and look for the phenotype that supports their argument. It can't be taken seriously as they have not even had a conversation with the subject so have no idea where the hell they come from or where come from migration-wise, culturally. The other 10% are posts like this that jump to ill-thought erroneous conclusions based on the 1 phenotype that supports their argument: As much as I DON'T agree with the assertion that straight hair comes from European admixture, I equally DO NOT agree with the assertion that ALL mixed race people end up looking phenotypically like 'Kid' or 'Barrack' Obama! I have mixed race friends who end up looking Indian, some that look White and others that look completely Black. My son is constantly mistaken for an Ethiopian, and myself and his mother are BOTH of West African stock. On that note, not too much of a conclusion should be drawn from that us being from Nigeria, as my Wife's father immigrated to Nigeria from Senegal and my family possibly from Northern Nigerian border only 2 generations ago! But if I was tested genetically, no one would collect this information. If you found my picture on Google under 'Nigerian' you would not have ANY of this information. Mixed race people do not share a single convenient phenotype, many have straight hair, others wavy, others kinky, some are dark, others pale, others brown. In the same way, a google image is TOTALLY useless without supporting literature and anthropological data to enable one to build a picture of the subject illustrated.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Most blacks I know who have white blood STILL have tight curly hair. I know of NONE that have straight hair due to a white ancestor. Look at Barak Obama, look at any other number of mixed populations and YOU WONT see straight hair as a result of white blood.
Take an example from the light bright and almost white Christopher "Kid" Reid from "Kid and play" surely with Marc's reasoning he should have straighter hair being that he is Jamaican on his fathers side and Irish on his mothers...
Marc why is "Kids" hair tightly curled being that he is a first generation offspring of one white parent and one black?
But to Marc, Christopher "Kid" Reid is more black than the following aborigine because "Kids" hair is tightly curled and the aborigines isn't meanwhile Kid has white blood and the aborigine doesn't...go figure!!
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Doug's "Indus valley aboriginal blacks" are (by phenotype) Africans, as he knows but his supremacist ego throws up at the thought.
If we were talking about whites in China , or the Philippines, or Zambia, he'd say not a word. But say African and he has a baby:
[Dr. Winters writes]: The Indus Valley civilization was founded by Dravidian speaking people who came from Africa. This is supported by the archaeological evidence.
The Dravidians were very recent to India. They were part of the C-Group people.
[Marc writes]: Look at the archeological evidence below and also compare pictures 3 and 4 from Africa and the Indus Valley above where the hair styles are identical:
And again this simply shows the crux of your empty argument. All world civilizations were not founded by Africans. The Indus Valley was founded by natives of that area who were primarily aboriginal blacks.
[Marc writes]: There you go again freaking out at the use of the phrase "African" for those who are woolly/wiry haired with full facial features. For the zillionth time, this is a physical description, not geographic.
What you call aboriginal blacks is a synonym for Africans as I use it.
Your life is devoted -- as has been your ancestors who committed genocide on Africans worldwide enslaving them and using their natural resources as their own -- to trying to keep the good feeling of being above Africans so you oppose the use of the word for positive things.
Again, three cheers for your devotion to liberating the aborigine though fickr postings.
Although, in their abject poverty, they'd probably much prefer that you kicked your white relatives out of Australia and give them their land back than posting a picture of them sitting naked in dirt and squalor with a near blond-headed boy with brown skin (as opposed to black) showing white genes in the lineage:
Here is a listing of woolly-haired, full-featured peoples, Africans, who began world civilizations.
Let's see your pictures for the founders of civilization in these places.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Thats what really annoys me about the some of the ignorance that passes for scholarship in this group. 90% of the time people post pictures of when they have NO knowledge about the origin's of the people whose pictures they post. They just type a 'keyword' into google images and look for the phenotype that supports their argument. It can't be taken seriously as they have not even had a conversation with the subject so have no idea where the hell they come from or where come from migration-wise, culturally. The other 10% are posts like this that jump to ill-thought erroneous conclusions based on the 1 phenotype that supports their argument: As much as I DON'T agree with the assertion that straight hair comes from European admixture, I equally DO NOT agree with the assertion that ALL mixed race people end up looking phenotypically like 'Kid' or 'Barrack' Obama! I have mixed race friends who end up looking Indian, some that look White and others that look completely Black. My son is constantly mistaken for an Ethiopian, and myself and his mother are BOTH of West African stock. On that note, not too much of a conclusion should be drawn from that us being from Nigeria, as my Wife's father immigrated to Nigeria from Senegal and my family possibly from Northern Nigerian border only 2 generations ago! But if I was tested genetically, no one would collect this information. If you found my picture on Google under 'Nigerian' you would not have ANY of this information. Mixed race people do not share a single convenient phenotype, many have straight hair, others wavy, others kinky, some are dark, others pale, others brown. In the same way, a google image is TOTALLY useless without supporting literature and anthropological data to enable one to build a picture of the subject illustrated.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Most blacks I know who have white blood STILL have tight curly hair. I know of NONE that have straight hair due to a white ancestor. Look at Barak Obama, look at any other number of mixed populations and YOU WONT see straight hair as a result of white blood.
Take an example from the light bright and almost white Christopher "Kid" Reid from "Kid and play" surely with Marc's reasoning he should have straighter hair being that he is Jamaican on his fathers side and Irish on his mothers...
Marc why is "Kids" hair tightly curled being that he is a first generation offspring of one white parent and one black?
But to Marc, Christopher "Kid" Reid is more black than the following aborigine because "Kids" hair is tightly curled and the aborigines isn't meanwhile Kid has white blood and the aborigine doesn't...go figure!!
Actually, that google image does prove the point and so do you.
Like you said, it takes more than eyeballing images on the net to make a general statement about the mixing of genes in populations. HENCE the idea that aborigines somehow have straight hair due to white blood when aborigines with almost NO white blood have this feature, is ridiculous.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: . .
Doug's "Indus valley aboriginal blacks" are (by phenotype) Africans, as he knows but his supremacist ego throws up at the thought.
If we were talking about whites in China , or the Philippines, or Zambia, he'd say not a word. But say African and he has a baby:
[Dr. Winters writes]: The Indus Valley civilization was founded by Dravidian speaking people who came from Africa. This is supported by the archaeological evidence.
The Dravidians were very recent to India. They were part of the C-Group people.
[Marc writes]: Look at the archeological evidence below and also compare pictures 3 and 4 from Africa and the Indus Valley above where the hair styles are identical:
And again this simply shows the crux of your empty argument. All world civilizations were not founded by Africans. The Indus Valley was founded by natives of that area who were primarily aboriginal blacks.
[Marc writes]: There you go again freaking out at the use of the phrase "African" for those who are woolly/wiry haired with full facial features. For the zillionth time, this is a physical description, not geographic.
What you call aboriginal blacks is a synonym for Africans as I use it.
Your life is devoted -- as has been your ancestors who committed genocide on Africans worldwide enslaving them and using their natural resources as their own -- to trying to keep the good feeling of being above Africans so you oppose the use of the word for positive things.
Again, three cheers for your devotion to liberating the aborigine though fickr postings.
Although, in their abject poverty, they'd probably much prefer that you kicked your white relatives out of Australia and give them their land back than posting a picture of them sitting naked in dirt and squalor with a near blond-headed boy with brown skin (as opposed to black) showing white genes in the lineage:
Here is a listing of woolly-haired, full-featured peoples, Africans, who began world civilizations.
Let's see your pictures for the founders of civilization in these places.
The aboriginal people of the Indus Valley were indigenous people of the Indus Valley and of course they were black, but they were not Africans. Even the blackest Indian in India does not consider themselves African and why should they? Even Indians who have lived in Africa and are dark black don't consider themselves Africans, so why are you talking such nonsense? Aborigines from Australia don't consider themselves African and neither do the negritoes of Asia. Simply put you are making up stuff that has absolutely no merit at all. While some of these people may identify with Africans as black people, they don't identify AS BEING African.
The aboriginal populations of Asia were and are black and share many features with Africans because of their ancient African ancestry. We all agree on that and there is no need to add any additional qualifiers to that in order to make it "more real". The fact of the African origin of humanity is real enough without having to apply the label African to all people OUTSIDE of Africa. If you were able to go to the various southeast Asian civilizations 1000 years ago and ask them who they were, they would NOT say African, FIRST because the word AFRICA did not exist and second because their primary identification would be with the geopolitical entity they were living in.
Heck, for that matter you can just go to the United States and see BLACK DIRECT DESCENDANTS of people from Africa not wanting to call themselves African, yet you want to expand this to people THOUSANDS OF YEARS removed from Africa as a term of common identity?
You don't make any sense.
And on top of that black people did not just get to India suddenly 3-5000 years ago and start civilization. The genes of Indian populations generally go back 30,000 years or more and India is one of the first places populated by people moving OUT of Africa, even before Australia. In a sense the south Indian "Dravidian" type is closely related Australian aboriginal type as branches of the same original out of Africa population that settled Asia.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Mike
I think Explorer missed the point. Setting aside the Albinos are Whites nonsense. . .
The argument that - the development of Leucoderms occured outside Africa, whether through the SLC45A(?) gene or whatever the northern Asians have(equivalent), makes one having that gene a non-African - is a plausible.
After all, all or most recognisable phenotypes originated inside Africa.
@ Explorer - how is that for another original premise?
Give me the data I will tell you what it means.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: xyyman quote: Autosomal gene makes one non-African?
Perhaps it would - if there was such a thing.
But I know of no such gene.
As a matter of fact, I know of no gene which cannot be attributed to admixture between Africans.
Need I remind you, that this too.. Is an African!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Mike
I think Explorer missed the point. Setting aside the Albinos are Whites nonsense. . .
The argument that - the development of Leucoderms occured outside Africa, whether through the SLC45A(?) gene or whatever the northern Asians have, makes one having that gene a non-African - is a plausible.
What the hell are you talking about; you are all over the map with no sense of direction. I don't buy into your albino-origin of Europeans type of crap, if that's what you are alluding to. In any case, I have made no reference to skin color in this thread; it's a figment of your imagination. I simply pressed you on your disconcordant claim to disavow race on one hand, and then, accept its use on another. I also asked you to clarify your purported distinction between the so-called "negros" and "negroids". On none of these issues, have you once offered an answer, save to talk about some mythical or another discussion that you and I are supposedly having.
quote: After all, all or most recognisable phenotypes originated inside Africa.
@ Explorer - how is that for another original premise?
How's what an "original" premise? Do you ever offer anything "original" aside from nonsense?
quote:
Give me the data I will tell you what it means.
???? Talk about talking to brick wall!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
This is my interpretation of negro vs negroid. As i said I do NOT adhere to this belief.
negro= conventional view is he has wooly hair, prognathous, black/brown skin, thick lips, flat nose, muscular, round face, less body hair.
negroid = full or thin lips, prognathous, brown skin, curly or straight hair, aquiline nose.
So.. .stop with the games. You should know what the conventional view of what the true negro is. Negroid is anyone who have "many" of these features. Hence terms like negroids for AE. negritos for melanesians or Olmecs. Mediterranean for Greeks and Iberians etc. These people have many of the features of the "true negro".
Since I just answered your question I hope you will now consider me "rational".
Let re-iterate. . .this is NOT my belief.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Putting all the meandering response aside. . .
sounds like you are sagreeing that negro=negroid=black=african.
Sounds like you are not reading or capable of understanding what I'm saying.
As to the question of your "negro=negroid=black=african", you are clueless yourself about what you mean by these terms, as you have repetitively run away from clarifying your position; after all, you are the one who made a distinction between "negroid" and "negro", and now, in a direct contradiction, you write "negro=negroid=black=african". Why irrational people resort to using terms they don't have the slightest idea about, is any logical person's guess.
quote: I have to admit Mike et are really making a stronger case.
...about what?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Now you are upset!! What is it with some of you brothas. So . . .emotional.
re-read my post. . . I am mocking the Alibinaos are white nonsense. (holding my head and shaking it).
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Mike
I think Explorer missed the point. Setting aside the Albinos are Whites nonsense. . .
The argument that - the development of Leucoderms occured outside Africa, whether through the SLC45A(?) gene or whatever the northern Asians have, makes one having that gene a non-African - is a plausible.
What the hell are you talking about; you are all over the map with no sense of direction. I don't buy into your albino-origin of Europeans type of crap, if that's what you are alluding to. In any case, I have made no reference to skin color in this thread; it's a figment of your imagination. I simply pressed you on your disconcordant claim to disavow race on one hand, and then, accept its use on another. I also asked you to clarify your purported distinction between the so-called "negros" and "negroids". On none of these issues, have you once offered an answer, save to talk about some mythical or another discussion that you and I are supposedly having.
quote: After all, all or most recognisable phenotypes originated inside Africa.
@ Explorer - how is that for another original premise?
How's what an "original" premise? Do you ever offer anything "original" aside from nonsense?
quote:
Give me the data I will tell you what it means.
???? Talk about talking to brick wall!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
This is my interpretation of negro vs negroid. As i said I do NOT adhere to this belief.
negro= conventional view is he has wooly hair, prognathous, black/brown skin, thick lips, flat nose, muscular, round face, less body hair.
negroid = full or thin lips, prognathous, brown skin, curly or straight hair, aquiline nose.
Firstly, which groups are "negroes" and which are not. Likewise with "negroids"? or Put it another way: which groups are "negroids" that are not "negroes" and vice versa. You implied earlier that "negroes" are limited to Africans, while Asians are "negroids". Do you still hold that view?
Secondly, if YOU don't adhere to the above descriptions, then whose work are you citing above? name the author.
quote: So.. .stop with the games.
More nonsense.
quote:
You should know what the conventional view of what the true negro is.
Well, I am aware of the pseudoscentific notion of a "negro" as a racial entity, but I have not come across your version of what constitutes a "negro" vs. "negroid". Hope that helps demystify your confusion about my standpoint.
quote:
Since I just answered your question I hope you will now consider me "rational".
Let re-iterate. . .this is NOT my belief.
Well, that remains to be seen.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Now you are upset!! What is it with some of you brothas. So . . .emotional.
It is not a matter of being upset. It is a matter of not understanding what you are talking about, since you don't specify what you are answering to or what you are referring to. You say I "missed the mark"; mark of what, and according what I've said?
quote: re-read my post. . . I am mocking the Alibinaos are white nonsense. (holding my head and shaking it).
Okay. But you can see where my confusion of that comes from I hope; since you invoked my name, and started rambling about albinos, which has *nothing* to do with our exchange.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
point is . . .for some negroes=negritos=negroid=black====AFRICAN.
If that is your belief then the answer to the topic starter(st. Tigray) question is YES.
Africans(indegenous) built these statues and monuments approx 1500 years ago in Asia. They were eventually replaced/exterminated by Leucoderms from Northern Asia.
Now the other view is - did Africans from the Africans continent leave Africa and build these monuments. . .according to Dr. Winters YES to Indus and Olmecs. He sites linguistic, archeology and some genetics (C group). there were undoubtedly Africans leaving Africa around that time. See Brada's ics/post.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
[Doug writes]: The aboriginal people of the Indus Valley were indigenous people of the Indus Valley and of course they were black, but they were not Africans.
[Marc writes]: You are a racist. You can't stand the word African used in a context your racist self can't stomach.
Here is the definition of definition:
A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a term (a word or phrase). Terms have different meanings in different contexts. A stipulative definition explains the speaker's immediate intentional meaning.
Here is my stipulative explanation of the word "African."
African:A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
You hate that word African, don't you? If you can have your foot on a black neck, then you are happy. You don't want a black man to stare you down or look down upon you.
By my definition, these are Africans worldwide who've engineered civilizations. e.g. the Indus Valley:
Again, you are to be commended for the compassion you've shown recognizing the humanity of the aborigine showing them sitting in squalor.
May you be blessed. But, do something more positive, get your people out of their land. Then you'd be truly blessed.
What do you call whites in France, Mexico, Alaska, Russia? As you don't call Africans African regarding general features, do you call whites aboriginal whites in those places rather than just white Mr. Double standard?
. .
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
Firstly, which groups are "negroes" and which are not. Likewise with "negroids"? or Put it another way: which groups are "negroids" that are not "negroes" and vice versa. You implied earlier that "negroes" are limited to Africans, while Asians are "negroids". Do you still hold that view?
For clarification: Is the above an accurate estimation of your post below:
Originally posted by xyyman:
If all the genetic information released thus far is true then. . . the logical conclusion is there is no such thing as RACE. This is supported by the phenotype of these Asian statues.
Some of these people may be classified as AA here in the US but they are not clsoely related to people of the African continent. They may look "negroid". They left the continent close to 50 kya. They may have MANY of the characteristics of being classified as "negros" but they are NOT.
...@ Mike/Explorer - it is very simple. These "negro" looking ancient looking Asians are .. . .that. Negroid looking asians. They may resemble me . .. on the surface. . . .but apparently, based on their genetic lineage they are VERY distantly related to me. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Just curious xyyman. Since you reject Albinos=Whites.
Please offer YOUR explanation for Whites.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^You DID say that it was nonsense, therefore the position MUST be very easy to disprove.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
No Response - Am I to assume then that you are a DJ disciple, and believe that it is something that MAGICALLY happen?
But of course you must know that if it MAGICALLY happened, it couldn't have MAGICALLY happened in Europe as they claim, because the skeletal record in Europe - pre-White invasion circa 1,200 B.C. - is ONLY of Black people!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^Am I to take it then, that your position really has no foundation, it was merely a knee-jerk response to a position that you saw as anti-White.
That, because your regard for the White man is such that any claim that you see as pejorative to him, must be dismissed as nonsense, out-of-hand. Have I covered it all?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I don't spend all day on this site bro. I work for the MAN for a living.
If you followed Marc's thread "Whites are new to Europe" also based on the unfolding genetic evidence posted by Evergreen and Explorer. Including the comment I made to Explorer about he is "catching on".
The SlC45A(?) gene originated above the 48th parallel due to UV pressures. According to e3b1c1(?) and Explorer this is marker found waaaay up north so .. . . . . . with hg-I. Plus hg-I are distantly related to hg-R1b. Do the math. Hitler may of had a point.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
xyyman - Maybe you should spend just a LITTLE more time here, especially if you want to give opinions that are worth a damn.
SLC45A2 gene
Membrane-associated transporter protein is a protein that in humans is encoded by the SLC45A2 gene.
The protein encoded by this gene encodes a melanocyte differentiation antigen that is expressed in a high percentage of melanoma cell lines. A similar sequence gene in medaka, 'B,' encodes a transporter that mediates melanin synthesis. Mutations in this gene are a cause of oculocutaneous albinism type 4. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
xyyman - Your thinking cap is obviously not working, so I will break it down for you.
This is your Gods position on his provenance.
POLYMORPHISM: Genetic variations in SLC45A2 are associated with variation in skin/hair/eye pigmentation type 5 (SHEP5) [MIM:227240]. Hair, eye and skin pigmentation are among the most visible examples of human phenotypic variation, with a broad normal range that is subject to substantial geographic stratification. In the case of skin, individuals tend to have lighter pigmentation with increasing distance from the equator. By contrast, the majority of variation in human eye and hair color is found among individuals of European ancestry, with most other human populations fixed for brown eyes and black hair.
But there is a big problem with your Gods position on his provenance. ALL of the evidence DISPROVES it.
If this were true....
In the case of skin, individuals tend to have lighter pigmentation with increasing distance from the equator.
Then how would you explain This???
Romania - 35,000 B.C.
(After 10,000 years in the North he is STILL BLACK!).
Ukraine - 34,000 B.C.
(After 11,000 years in the North he is STILL BLACK!).
Russia - 26,000 B.C.
(After 19,000 years in the North he is STILL BLACK!).
Bulgaria 4,600 B.C.
(After 39,000 years in the North he is STILL BLACK!).
{forum Idiots, please check the skull type before saying something stupid.}
BTW xyyman, where are the corresponding WHITE skeletons? Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^For the totally clueless; the timeframe for time in the north, is based upon Grimaldi entering Europe at 45,000 B.C. AND the fact that the Africans going to North Asia through Southern Asia would have reached the North by at least 45,000 B.C.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I do have to rely on my ”God”, as you put it, to get my scientific information. I am not, going to get into a pissing match. So I will let that ”god’ comment slide. The bottom line is the gene that causes white skin(SLCA45?) is different to what causes Albinism. And I believe with Asians it may be a different gene altogether. Nature finds a way.
Albinos and Leucoderms may suffer from the same desease caused by too much sunlight. But the latest scientific data points to the origin being in Scandinavian countries among hg-I. The epicenter of the white skin is the regions where Hitler said pure white race can be found. ”Selective sweep” occured about 3000ya which correlates to Marc’s premise.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Whoa there wise one, I thought hg-R was the defining White haplogroup, where did Scandinavian and hg-I come from?
(In the interest of fairness, that is bullsh1t and I am setting a trap for you, so be careful what you come back with).
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^Hint, I am hg-I (which is an Eastern European and later an Iberian gene).
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^Hint-2 The guy with the Gold adorned skeleton was hg-I, the others pictured were likely also hg-I. See how nice I am?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Haplogroup I
(Assuming that everyone knows how to parse the bullsh1t from White material, and inject data from other sources).
Haplogroup I is a branch of haplogroup F*. According to current theories, Haplogroup I first arrived in Europe around 20,000-25,000 years ago from the Middle East. It is believed to be associated with the Gravettian culture.
(example of White bullsh1t: Gravettian culture is Grimaldi culture, he entered Europe at 45,000 B.C.).
The highest frequency of the I Haplogroup can be found in Scandinavian and Croatian populations. This lends support to the hypothesis that the Adriatic region of modern-day Croatia served as a refuge for northern populations during the last glacial maximum. The hypothesis states that after the LGM there was a migration from the north east by the people whose offspring today form a significant portion of the Scandinavian populations. These groups seem to be the ancestors of about 38% of modern day Croats (75% of Bosnian Croats).
There are also indications that this haplogroup is tied to the Celtic culture. The spread of the I group in western Europe could be consistent with the Celtic expansion that occurred in the mid-first millennium BC.
Kinda proves that the Celts were Black, doesn't it.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: point is . . .for some negroes=negritos=negroid=black====AFRICAN.
If that is your belief then the answer to the topic starter(st. Tigray) question is YES.
Africans(indegenous) built these statues and monuments approx 1500 years ago in Asia. They were eventually replaced/exterminated by Leucoderms from Northern Asia.
Now the other view is - did Africans from the Africans continent leave Africa and build these monuments. . .according to Dr. Winters YES to Indus and Olmecs. He sites linguistic, archeology and some genetics (C group). there were undoubtedly Africans leaving Africa around that time. See Brada's ics/post.
Please stop trying to play impartial observer in order to present your own nonsense points of View....
Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China, the Maya civilizations or the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific. The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired.
That is simply retarded.
Indigenous natives of these areas, many of whom WERE BLACK built these civilizations.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I don't spend all day on this site bro. I work for the MAN for a living.
There is nothing wrong with making a living. But the fact is that this is old stuff that has been gone over several times.
You either missed it, or chose to ignore it. Either way, you had the temerity to refer to my position as nonsense.
My positions are based on research and careful thought. If you are going to refer to one of my positions as nonsense, then you are going to need to back it up. As you can see, I have no trouble backing up my positions.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ Doug. (will post on hg-I later Mike, if someone doesn't beat me to it. But check out the 50+page thread).
"Nonsense" point of view, maybe. The only point of view I emphaticaly posted on is. . . .I supported Marc on his premise "Whites are new to Europe". The genetic data coming out is now supporting my nonsense point of view that HG-I is the group that developed the white skin. This gene developed during the LGM probably through genetic bottleneck ie isolation via diet/lack of UV. From there the gene spread south into the rest of Europe. I beleive the paper said "selective sweep" occured around 1500BC.
Point is just as Melanese/Austialians may look similar to mainland Africans but are genetically very distant. The data is now coming out that HG-I and hg-R1b/a may be also genetically distant although they look very similar. That is MY nonsense point of veiw.
And as I did Explorer, let me spoon feed you.. . .looks like you missed it also.
To SOME people (I am on the fence with this)negroes=negritos=negroid=black====AFRICAN. Therefore IF you hold that point of view, YES, Africans built these ancient monuments.
IF you do NOT hold that point of view then Africans did NOT build these ancient monuments.
Both group agree that black people built these monuments. The debate is what they should be classified as... . .
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
[Doug writes]: Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China, the Maya civilizations or the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific. The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired..
[Marc writes]: You are a delusional racist to deny an existant reality. You can't stand the word African used in a context your racist self can't stomach.
Here is the definition of definition:
A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a term (a word or phrase). Terms have different meanings in different contexts. A stipulative definition explains the speaker's immediate intentional meaning.
Here is my stipulative explanation of the word "African."
African: A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
You hate that word African, don't you? If you can have your foot on a black neck, then you are happy. You don't want a black man to stare you down or look down upon you.
By my definition, these are whites (Joke. They’re not white) Africans worldwide who've engineered civilizations. e.g. the Maya:
You hate the word African so badly. Doug. Do you secretly belong to the KKK?
. .
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Doug M quote: "Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China, the Maya civilizations or the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific. The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired.
That is simply retarded."
I'm not sure of this is a case of semantics or not.
Doug M - perhaps we would all have a better understanding of your position, if you clearly defined these non-African Blacks. i.e. Who are they, how did they get where they are, when did they get where they are, where did they come from, who are their relatives.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Thats what really annoys me about the some of the ignorance that passes for scholarship in this group. 90% of the time people post pictures of when they have NO knowledge about the origin's of the people whose pictures they post. They just type a 'keyword' into google images and look for the phenotype that supports their argument. It can't be taken seriously as they have not even had a conversation with the subject so have no idea where the hell they come from or where come from migration-wise, culturally. The other 10% are posts like this that jump to ill-thought erroneous conclusions based on the 1 phenotype that supports their argument: As much as I DON'T agree with the assertion that straight hair comes from European admixture, I equally DO NOT agree with the assertion that ALL mixed race people end up looking phenotypically like 'Kid' or 'Barrack' Obama!
Errr wrong, there was no random Google search as I posted an individual that I knew had a white parent and black parent to show that just because one has a white parent doesn't mean the child will come out with straight hair as Marc tries to explain the Australian Aborigines hair being due to admixture with whites. I went straight to his pic I.e., Kid from "Kid and play", and since the discussion has been about Australian aborigines with straighter hair I also posted an aborigine, do you understand that? Dunce
Btw, where did I or anyone say "ALL" mixed race people end up looking like "Kid" or Obama? When they don't even look alike anyway? Lol
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
And as I did Explorer, let me spoon feed you.. . .looks like you missed it also.
To SOME people (I am on the fence with this)negroes=negritos=negroid=black====AFRICAN. Therefore IF you hold that point of view, YES, Africans built these ancient monuments...
You've "spoon-fed" me that nonsense a of number times. I am looking for the answer that actually answers what is being asked. Please re-read what I asked you in the last post, as I assume English is your first language, not the second or third.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: . .
[Doug writes]: Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China, the Maya civilizations or the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific. The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired..
[Marc writes]: You are a delusional racist to deny an existant reality. You can't stand the word African used in a context your racist self can't stomach.
Here is the definition of definition:
A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a term (a word or phrase). Terms have different meanings in different contexts. A stipulative definition explains the speaker's immediate intentional meaning.
Here is my stipulative explanation of the word "African."
African: A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
You hate that word African, don't you? If you can have your foot on a black neck, then you are happy. You don't want a black man to stare you down or look down upon you.
By my definition, these are whites (Joke. They’re not white) Africans worldwide who've engineered civilizations. e.g. the Maya:
Phenotype does not make people African. Being African is a world view, self identity, culture and ethnic/national term of identity as well as a biological ancestry. People who ARE African don't all self identify as the same ethnic/national identity. People in the former African slave DIASPORA don't all identify as African even though they are clearly descended from Africa. Yet you keep throwing around African for people, cultures and histories separated by HUGE gaps of time and space as if they all had a common identity and culture as African when they didn't. They did not.
And the fundamental reason you do this is because you really want to claim that all black populations outside of Africa are recent migrants FROM Africa who went elsewhere and founded civilizations when this generally is NOT the case. It is true in some cases, but in many cases it is not. Moorish Spain is one example where it is true. Southern Arabia is another example where it is true. Even Southern Mesopotamia is an example where it is true. However, going to India, South Asia, the Pacific and the Americas it is generally NOT true. Those civilizations were primarily founded by natives who were not Africans, even if they were black and had kinky hair.
The ancient Hawaiians were not Africans. The people of New Guinea are not Africans and neither are the people of the Melanesian islands. Yes the are related phenotypically to ancient aboriginal populations that left Africa many thousands of years ago, but that does not make them Africans culturally, linguistically, nationally or socially in any other sense. But don't take my word for it, ask the black Fijians if they are Africans. Ask the Aborigines if they are Africans. YOU keep trying to insert labels that these people do not identify with which is presenting a false view of reality.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Doug M - Now you are being disingenuous.
The Current native Americans (and others) that you posted above are obviously hybrid people and everyone knows it.
Australian aboriginals, regardless of what they call themselves ARE Africans, because there is no evidence of admixture with any other people. i.e. no evidence of change since they left Africa.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
[Doug writes]
Marc, these native Americans are not Africans:
[Marc writes]
African: A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair.[/b]
I wouldn't call them African as their hair is specifically straight.
I wouldn't call them African but I sure as heck would call you an African-hater. A possible KKK guy.
You get spooked when you hear the word African. Booo!
. .
[Doug writes]: Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China, the Maya civilizations or the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific. The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired..
[Marc writes]: You are a delusional racist to deny an existant reality. You can't stand the word African used in a context your racist self can't stomach.
Here is the definition of definition:
A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a term (a word or phrase). Terms have different meanings in different contexts. A stipulative definition explains the speaker's immediate intentional meaning.
Here is my stipulative explanation of the word "African."
African: A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
[Doug writes]: Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China
[Marc writes]: Yeah. Right. These guys are Martians.
[Doug writes]: The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired..
[Marc writes]: You are a delusional racist to deny an existant reality.
Hey Doug. Are Frenchmen not caucasian but white aborigines?
. .
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Yo, Doug. Where is the picture of the naked aborigine woman sitting in dirt and squalor with the blond-haired son?
Would you show the picture of a naked white woman sitting in dirt and squalor?
The black people of the world, why, they should sing your praises to the gods you are so pure, so righteous, so right on in your stunning intellect and razor-sharp analysis of indigenous blacks of the world.
Where do we find our indigenous whites? What can you say, oh great one, about them?
. .
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
BRAVO! You do understand that, inverting your argument, posting a picture of 'Kid' doesn't prove that a child of mix heritage cannot be born with straight hair, as I know many that DO have straight hair! So your picture proves nothing! Understand that, DUNCE!
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Errr wrong, there was no random Google search as I posted an individual that I knew had a white parent and black parent to show that just because one has a white parent doesn't mean the child will come out with straight hair...
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: . .
[Doug writes]
Marc, these native Americans are not Africans:
[Marc writes]
African: A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair.[/b]
I wouldn't call them African as their hair is specifically straight.
I wouldn't call them African but I sure as heck would call you an African-hater. A possible KKK guy.
You get spooked when you hear the word African. Booo!
. .
[Doug writes]: Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China, the Maya civilizations or the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific. The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired..
[Marc writes]: You are a delusional racist to deny an existant reality. You can't stand the word African used in a context your racist self can't stomach.
Here is the definition of definition:
A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a term (a word or phrase). Terms have different meanings in different contexts. A stipulative definition explains the speaker's immediate intentional meaning.
Here is my stipulative explanation of the word "African."
African: A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
[Doug writes]: Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China
[Marc writes]: Yeah. Right. These guys are Martians.
[Doug writes]: The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired..
[Marc writes]: You are a delusional racist to deny an existant reality.
Hey Doug. Are Frenchmen not caucasian but white aborigines?
. .
Marc, the point I am making is that you are delusional. The only reason you want to call these people world wide Africans is because you want everyone to believe that they JUST GOT THERE a few thousand years ago. The point I am making is that they DID NOT just get there a few thousand years ago and that they are ABORIGINAL meaning descendants of the FIRST people to arrive over 10,000 years ago. That distinction is critical because it defines a time and space continuum that is critical to understand their history and culture. They are not Africans just because they have black skin. Black Skin is an environmental issue not an African issue. Africa is a landmass that sits on the equator and hence has an enviroment that produces black skin. But that same environment exists world wide and is why many other populations who have NOT been in Africa for over 50,000 years still have black skin. Africa is a label that was created by Europeans within the last 1000 years. The word itself did not exist 3000 years ago. Therefore, trying to use this word as a label descriptive of something other than a label to describe the PEOPLE and DIRECT DESCENDANTS of the continent of Africa is strictly nonsense. The indigenous people of the Pacific are pacific people FIRST AND FOREMOST. Their history and culture is there and their identity is there. Africa is not the basis of their identity. The same goes for the aboriginal populations of the Americas and Asia as well. Calling these people Africans as if they all share the same identity, history, language, culture, world view, nationality and ethnicity is simply INCORRECT. And this is for those populations in Asia and elsewhere who truly are and were black.
Not only that, you also contradict your own self by saying blacks world wide are Africans if they have a certain look, but then CONTRADICT yourself by posting images of ancient people and calling them Africans when they DONT have the feature YOU SAID were required to be African. In fact, you cant even prove they were black to begin with.
Yes Marc, there were blacks in ancient China. But all of them were not blacks and there are STILL Chinese who aren't black with features EXACTLY like those above. So are they AFRICANS?
Here is something interesting I came across while reseraching HG-I. Are they more susceptible to AIDS?
"" Y-DNA haplogroup I has been researched in connection with HIV and AIDS progression. The research resulted in the finding that haplogroup I in general, and no specific subclade, had accelerated progression (in Y haplogroup I individuals) from HIV to AIDS. Suppression therapy also had a diminished effect on such individuals.""
SOURCE Association of Y chromosome haplogroup I with HIV progression, and HAART outcome". Hum. Genet.
@ Mike I will post on Hg-I soon.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
[Doug the delusionary racist writes]
Yes Marc, there were blacks in ancient China. But all of them were not blacks and there are STILL Chinese who aren't black with features EXACTLY like those above. So are they AFRICANS?
[Marc writes]
I am not going to play this silly game with you posing pictures of people you know I will say are not Africans as they don't fit the definition I made.
By the way. The second picture of the man with the deformed mouth and teeth. Would you post a picture of a white person like that?
. .
[Doug writes]: Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China, the Maya civilizations or the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific. The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired..
[Marc writes]: You are a delusional racist to deny an existant reality. You can't stand the word African used in a context your racist self can't stomach.
Here is the definition of definition:
A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a term (a word or phrase). Terms have different meanings in different contexts. A stipulative definition explains the speaker's immediate intentional meaning.
Here is my stipulative explanation of the word "African."
African: A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
[Doug writes]: Africans(indigenous) did not build the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific
[Marc writes]: Yeah. Right. These guys are from the battle ship Galactica.
[Dr. Winters writes]: The Indus Valley civilization was founded by Dravidian speaking people who came from Africa. This is supported by the archaeological evidence.
The Dravidians were very recent to India. They were part of the C-Group people.
[Marc writes]: Look at the archeological evidence below and also compare pictures 3 and 4 from Africa and the Indus Valley above where the hair styles are identical:
Yo Doug. Those people up in Ontario. They ain’t Caucasian but aboriginal whites from France?
Doug. I heard you are going to win the Nobel Peace Prize for your acts of great nobility showing destitute aborigines thrown into their plight by your relatives who stole their land but whom you have brought a liberty of sorts to because of all your flickr shots.
I heard they going to make a statue of you too, larger than and placed next to the Statue of Liberty for the inroads you’ve in single-handedly as a white guy (or are you an aboriginal white, too?) re-classifiying the black peoples of the world.
Shazamms. Me take me hat off to you.
. .
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Doug ... African! Boooo.
. .
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: point is . . .for some negroes=negritos=negroid=black====AFRICAN.
If that is your belief then the answer to the topic starter(st. Tigray) question is YES.
Africans(indegenous) built these statues and monuments approx 1500 years ago in Asia. They were eventually replaced/exterminated by Leucoderms from Northern Asia.
Now the other view is - did Africans from the Africans continent leave Africa and build these monuments. . .according to Dr. Winters YES to Indus and Olmecs. He sites linguistic, archeology and some genetics (C group). there were undoubtedly Africans leaving Africa around that time. See Brada's ics/post.
Please stop trying to play impartial observer in order to present your own nonsense points of View....
Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China, the Maya civilizations or the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific. The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired.
That is simply retarded.
Indigenous natives of these areas, many of whom WERE BLACK built these civilizations.
Doug
You sound illogical, pathetic and clueless. Sorry but this is pure garbage you are spoutng.
Lion!
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
Duh..Dough ...Here comez tha Africans...Boo!
Posted by Kaizen (Member # 16969) on :
^ Pathetic, yes. Without a doubt.
But clueless and illogical? Hell no. Defininitely not illogical. Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kaizen: ^ Pathetic, yes. Without a doubt.
But clueless and illogical? Hell no. Defininitely not illogical.
Oh, by all means illogical. The man is making a circular argument, appealling to emotions and unwaranted authorities, playing to the gallery, then seeking to set up a straw man.
Look, the dude breached every rule of arguments and formal logic. He is a dunce!
He should be sent to the dog-house like his pal Rashole.
Lion!
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: BRAVO! You do understand that, inverting your argument, posting a picture of 'Kid' doesn't prove that a child of mix heritage cannot be born with straight hair, as I know many that DO have straight hair! So your picture proves nothing! Understand that, DUNCE!
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Errr wrong, there was no random Google search as I posted an individual that I knew had a white parent and black parent to show that just because one has a white parent doesn't mean the child will come out with straight hair...
Perhaps you're having flashbacks from when I last intellectually whooped your a55 but get over it, your point in this thread about me posting a random picture was not only false but irrelevant and you got caught out there again.
You made up your own argument about mixed kids being able to come out with straight hair...and so what? lol That wasn't my point, I didn't post "Kids" pic to make an argument that mixed kids don't or can't come out with straight hair.
But rather the point was that just because one is mixed with white doesn't mean they will come out with straight hair, you halfwited dunce!!
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: . .
[Doug the delusionary racist writes]
Yes Marc, there were blacks in ancient China. But all of them were not blacks and there are STILL Chinese who aren't black with features EXACTLY like those above. So are they AFRICANS?
[Marc writes]
I am not going to play this silly game with you posing pictures of people you know I will say are not Africans as they don't fit the definition I made.
By the way. The second picture of the man with the deformed mouth and teeth. Would you post a picture of a white person like that?
. .
[Doug writes]: Africans(indigenous) did not build ancient China, the Maya civilizations or the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific. The indigenous people of these areas are not and were not Africans, no matter if they were black and woolly haired..
[Marc writes]: You are a delusional racist to deny an existant reality. You can't stand the word African used in a context your racist self can't stomach.
Here is the definition of definition:
A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a term (a word or phrase). Terms have different meanings in different contexts. A stipulative definition explains the speaker's immediate intentional meaning.
Here is my stipulative explanation of the word "African."
African: A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
[Doug writes]: Africans(indigenous) did not build the civilizations of South Asia and the Pacific
[Marc writes]: Yeah. Right. These guys are from the battle ship Galactica.
[Dr. Winters writes]: The Indus Valley civilization was founded by Dravidian speaking people who came from Africa. This is supported by the archaeological evidence.
The Dravidians were very recent to India. They were part of the C-Group people.
[Marc writes]: Look at the archeological evidence below and also compare pictures 3 and 4 from Africa and the Indus Valley above where the hair styles are identical:
Yo Doug. Those people up in Ontario. They ain’t Caucasian but aboriginal whites from France?
Doug. I heard you are going to win the Nobel Peace Prize for your acts of great nobility showing destitute aborigines thrown into their plight by your relatives who stole their land but whom you have brought a liberty of sorts to because of all your flickr shots.
I heard they going to make a statue of you too, larger than and placed next to the Statue of Liberty for the inroads you’ve in single-handedly as a white guy (or are you an aboriginal white, too?) re-classifiying the black peoples of the world.
Shazamms. Me take me hat off to you.
. .
I posted pictures of people in China matching the features of the SO CALLED black Chinese person that you posted. You simply don't want to admit that your specious arguments about labeling people as Africans with certain features is empty and meaningless. It does not thing to describe the FACTS about the distribution, features, culture or identity of many different black populations world wide. You simply want to use the label African as a way to avoid the critical research required to prove the presence of various populations world wide who were black. And in fact your African label actually would cause a lot of black populations that did exist to be EXCLUDED because you are stuck on meaningless labels as opposed to critical core facts. Not to mention you are identifying people as African that aren't/weren't even black to begin with based on flimsy illogical evidence. Case in point, that statue is black because the paint came off. There is nothing about that statue that PROVES the people portrayed were black in any way. Not only that, but that statue has none of the features YOU call African to begin with, yet that doesn't stop you from making your usual absurd posts.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
[Doug the delusionary racist writes]
you are identifying people as African that aren't/weren't even black to begin with based on flimsy illogical evidence. Case in point, that statue is black because the paint came off. There is nothing about that statue that PROVES the people portrayed were black in any way.
[Marc writes] Did I say they were black? No. No. No.
[Dougie Boy writes]:
I posted pictures of people in China matching the features of the SO CALLED black Chinese person that you posted. You simply don't want to admit that your specious arguments about labeling people as Africans with certain features is empty and meaningless.
[Marc writes] Thou shant put words into my mouth, Dougie Boy. And, I didn't make any post about SO CALLED black Chinese. You did. Didn't you know that?
Gee Willikers. For the sixth time I gotta repeat why I use the term African as you haven't gotten it yet. The trials we must go through in life.
Doug. You are really boring. The hoops you make me jump through you should be ashamed with yourself. The crosses we are called upon to bear are things sometimes not bargained for. Well. What the heck.
Hey Doug. Remember this exchange?
[Doug writes] Bottom line, all people with dark skin do not possess stereotypical negroid features and never have. That is both in and outside of Africa. So whatever it is you are talking about, it isn't based on facts. All dark skinned people are not African, whether or not they look Negroid or not.
[Marc writes] Doug. Your writing is non-sequitor. You write, “All dark skinned people are not African, whether or not they look Negroid or not.”
If they look Negroid and the definition of “African” is people who look Negroid, then they be African.
If they look Negroid, would you call them Russian? Me thinks not.
Hey Doug. Are you a white aboriginal?
Caoi.
. .
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
"intellectually whooped".... woah... is that what you did?! Someone is certainly suffering from delusions of grandeur! MoM, the only reason that I ceased to post in that thread is because unlike the prepubescent immature professional arguers like yourself who assume that pejorative banter and emoticon posting is a sign of superiority, I prefer to make my point and move on. Your inability to make rational and logical statements was enough for me to cease posting... my free time is more important to me than winning a debate with forum junkie. Another example being this thread: My initial post and follow-up post are more than logicial enough for those with half a brain to follow... but you being the pedantic attention seeker that you are will try to drag it out into another pointless argument to and fro. Please yourself, frankly, I haven't got the time. Your picture of 'kid' proves nothing, and the points that you make are rarely, if ever insightful beyond spam forwarding what you have read elsewhere. Keep posting google pics and making random conclusions based on them. Not impressed MoM. Not in the slightest. This is my last reply to you, so if you're going to rebut, make it count. ta ta.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: BRAVO! You do understand that, inverting your argument, posting a picture of 'Kid' doesn't prove that a child of mix heritage cannot be born with straight hair, as I know many that DO have straight hair! So your picture proves nothing! Understand that, DUNCE!
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Errr wrong, there was no random Google search as I posted an individual that I knew had a white parent and black parent to show that just because one has a white parent doesn't mean the child will come out with straight hair...
Perhaps you're having flashbacks from when I last intellectually whooped your a55 but get over it, your point in this thread about me posting a random picture was not only false but irrelevant and you got caught out there again.
You made up your own argument about mixed kids being able to come out with straight hair...and so what? lol That wasn't my point, I didn't post "Kids" pic to make an argument that mixed kids don't or can't come out with straight hair.
But rather the point was that just because one is mixed with white doesn't mean they will come out with straight hair, you halfwited dunce!!
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: "intellectually whooped".... woah... is that what you did?! Someone is certainly suffering from delusions of grandeur! MoM, the only reason that I ceased to post in that thread is because unlike the prepubescent immature professional arguers like yourself who assume that pejorative banter and emoticon posting is a sign of superiority, I prefer to make my point and move on. Your inability to make rational and logical statements was enough for me to cease posting... my free time is more important to me than winning a debate with forum junkie. Another example being this thread: My initial post and follow-up post are more than logicial enough for those with half a brain to follow... but you being the pedantic attention seeker that you are will try to drag it out into another pointless argument to and fro. Please yourself, frankly, I haven't got the time.
I'm pretty sure that you're slow, because your post was irrelevant to the point I was making. I said nothing about mixed kids not being able to come out with straighter hair, did I? Nope, I don't believe I did, so you make no sense as usual, too bad so sad...now go run along child!
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Your picture of 'kid' proves nothing, and the points that you make are rarely, if ever insightful beyond spam forwarding what you have read elsewhere.
Of course it proves my point as Doug also noted to you. It shows Marc that just because one has white admixture doesn't mean they'll come out with straight hair as Marc believes is the cause for Australian aborigines hair...understand?
Btw you must have me confused if you think I spam forward something I read elsewhere...mind showing me where I did or do this? If you can.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Keep posting google pics and making random conclusions based on them.
You clown, for the last time it wasn't a random search. I know who "Kid" is and I know he has a white and black parent what don't you understand about that?
Dunce! So how am I making random conclusions? Do tell...do you know something about "Kid" that I said wrong, if so let's hear it!!
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Narmer Menes wrote: ----------------------------- my free time is more important to me than winning a debate with forum junkie. -----------------------------
You are certainly right about MindoverMatter718. He posts under so many different accounts it makes peoples heads spin.
He also posts under a psychotic alias known as "The Explorer".
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: . .
[Doug the delusionary racist writes]
you are identifying people as African that aren't/weren't even black to begin with based on flimsy illogical evidence. Case in point, that statue is black because the paint came off. There is nothing about that statue that PROVES the people portrayed were black in any way.
[Marc writes] Did I say they were black? No. No. No.
[Dougie Boy writes]:
I posted pictures of people in China matching the features of the SO CALLED black Chinese person that you posted. You simply don't want to admit that your specious arguments about labeling people as Africans with certain features is empty and meaningless.
[Marc writes] Thou shant put words into my mouth, Dougie Boy. And, I didn't make any post about SO CALLED black Chinese. You did. Didn't you know that?
Gee Willikers. For the sixth time I gotta repeat why I use the term African as you haven't gotten it yet. The trials we must go through in life.
Doug. You are really boring. The hoops you make me jump through you should be ashamed with yourself. The crosses we are called upon to bear are things sometimes not bargained for. Well. What the heck.
Hey Doug. Remember this exchange?
[Doug writes] Bottom line, all people with dark skin do not possess stereotypical negroid features and never have. That is both in and outside of Africa. So whatever it is you are talking about, it isn't based on facts. All dark skinned people are not African, whether or not they look Negroid or not.
[Marc writes] Doug. Your writing is non-sequitor. You write, “All dark skinned people are not African, whether or not they look Negroid or not.”
If they look Negroid and the definition of “African” is people who look Negroid, then they be African.
If they look Negroid, would you call them Russian? Me thinks not.
Hey Doug. Are you a white aboriginal?
Caoi.
. .
Marc stop playing games. You are the one who says Africans look negroid. This is a stereotype that does not match reality. All Africans don't look alike and they all don't have stereotypical "negroid" features. Therefore "negroid" does not equal African. You are regurgitating white stereotypical concepts and trying to use it as a source of black pride which is silly. Just as all black Africans don't have "negroid" features, neither do all blacks outside of Africa. Therefore "negroid" does not equal black (as some people with "negroid" features are no black) and neither equals African as some blacks with stereotypical "negroid" features are not African.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. . Doug. I am not playing games. We've learned about black aborigines from you and I'd like to know if you are a white aboriginal.
. .
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Doug, what the hell is "negroid"? And why are you using that discredited pseudoscience term?
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Negroids are one of the three major racial groups in the world.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
^^And who are the Pinkoids?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: . . Doug. I am not playing games. We've learned about black aborigines from you and I'd like to know if you are a white aboriginal.
. .
White aboriginal is a contradiction in terms. It is like saying white black person.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
If there are black aboriginals there are white aboriginals. Contradiction in terms? Not, say I. Are you a white aboriginal?
Like, I mean, it's no double standard thing. Black aboriginals but not white. You are just being modest. Go ahead and say you're a white aboriginal. No one will laugh at you. I promise.
Say. You posted a picture of an aboriginal Australian woman sitting naked in dirt and squalor. Would you show a naked white woman sitting in dirt and squalor?
Like I say, while flickr pictures are fine, give the lady back her land from the whites that took it if you really want to do something good. It's not like I got a gripe with flickr pics.
Doug. Don't get spooked and throw up, but ... AFRICAN! Booo!
. .
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
Aboriginal: Ancestral, from nowhere else but that very land...
Blacks around the world are the aboriginal people of Africa that settled out into other parts of the world.
In other words, all aboriginal peoples of the earth are Africans.
Why is that such a difficult concept?
Formal Logic/ Deduction:
If X is Y and Y is X
then X and Y are the same!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^Much as I hate to admit it;
I agree with the mangy feline.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: Aboriginal: Ancestral, from nowhere else but that very land...
Blacks around the world are the aboriginal people of Africa that settled out into other parts of the world.
In other words, all aboriginal peoples of the earth are Africans.
Why is that such a difficult concept?
Formal Logic/ Deduction:
If X is Y and Y is X
then X and Y are the same!
Aboriginal blacks in Asia who have been there have been there as long as 50,000 years or more. They are no longer Africans in a geographic, cultural or linguistic sense.
They are Asians and other Asians derive from them. ALL humans come from Africa, therefore either ALL humans are Africans or only Africans are. Yes aboriginal populations world wide maintain many features associated with the first OOA migrants, but features does not make one African. Africa is a continent and therefore a term of geography. Calling someone African only means they originate in the continent of Africa. Seeing as aboriginal populations have been OUTSIDE of Africa for over 50,000 years, then this means that ALL humans are Africans as they all originate in Africa from the same time frame.
I don't call these people Africans because it implies a CONTINUOUS, DIRECT and CONSCIOUS connection between Africa. For example, Europeans in the world are Europeans because they have a continuous conscious direct connection to Europe in their culture, languages, art and lifestyles. Not to mention they also share a biological ancestry in Europe that is maintained through travel and intermarriage. Of course, this is a result of the colonial expansion over the last 500 years.
Aboriginal populations do not have a continuous conscious direct connection to Africa. Aboriginal Australians were CUT OFF from other populations for thousands of years. There is nothing in their culture, language or anything else that is tied directly to Africa. These aboriginal populations around the world have largely not been directly connected to Africa in terms of travel or trade for tens of thousands of years. So even though they are the remnants of the first populations out of Africa, they aren't Africans any longer. Therefore, if you can call aboriginal populations who have not been in Africa for thousands of years Africans, then all humans are Africans because they all originate in Africa thousands of years ago.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote: Where did we come from?
Part of the answer may lie in a new study that suggests Australian Aborigines and Europeans share the same roots—and that both emerged from a wave of African migrations more than 50,000 years ago.
Both populations can be traced back to the same founders, according to study co-author Toomas Kivisild of the University of Cambridge.
The finding may strike another nail into the coffin of the "multiregional" hypothesis—the idea humans evolved separately in different parts of the world.
The scientists took blood samples from modern Aborigines and Asian populations and compared their DNA. The researchers then traced the family tree backward through their mitochondrial DNA (the female lineage) and Y chromosome DNA (the male lineage).
All of the Australian lineages fell within four DNA branches, which are associated with the exodus of modern humans from Africa between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago.
As the theory suggests, Africans are believed to have migrated on foot to Eurasia, the large landmass where the European and Asian continents join. The descendants of these migrants may have been able to cross a land bridge between Australia and neighboring New Guinea when sea levels were lower 50,000 years ago (map of the region).
Doug M - you are trying to split hairs, and not always successfully.
Speaking of the Australian Aborigines... Their culture and lifestyle is very similar to the San; so on a cultural basis they are still African.
Again on the Australian Aborigines; There is no evidence of genetic discontinuity after leaving Africa; on that basis they are still African.
It seems to me that the only category where they are NOT African, is in place where they live.
On modern Asians (North and South), and the Americans; it may be said that they are NOT Africans, because there is ample evidence of genetic admixture.
BUT; the Original people in these places WERE Africans, AND the people who brought admixture, were themselves simply Africans who had previously admixed with dissimilar (read White and Mongol) Africans in their previous place of habitation.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: Aboriginal: Ancestral, from nowhere else but that very land...
Blacks around the world are the aboriginal people of Africa that settled out into other parts of the world.
In other words, all aboriginal peoples of the earth are Africans.
Why is that such a difficult concept?
Formal Logic/ Deduction:
If X is Y and Y is X
then X and Y are the same!
Aboriginal blacks in Asia who have been there have been there as long as 50,000 years or more..... They are no longer Africans in a geographic, cultural or linguistic sense.
They are Asians and other Asians derive from them. .....
ALL humans come from Africa, therefore either ALL humans are Africans or only Africans are.
Yes aboriginal populations world wide maintain many features associated with the first OOA migrants, . ........
Therefore, if you can call aboriginal populations who have not been in Africa for thousands of years Africans, then all humans are Africans because they all originate in Africa thousands of years ago.
There are no "white aboriginals"? Did you ever ask why?
But there are black aboriginals? One people, yah?
Who all come from Africa? Yah...
Where they derived 50,000 years ago? Yah..
And they have certain common features? Yah...
And have so many cultural traits in common? Like drums, wood drums, similar art carvings, similar architecture and community landscapping, folk stories of origins from East Africa like the Fijians?
Boy, ask your father why there are no white aboriginals?
Since even you admit the fact that there are no white aboriginals then you know without even realizing it, the essential difference between your whites non-aboriginals and the Global Blacks, also called the Negritos, the Negros, the Maures, the Ancient African Diaspora.
All the global aboriginal blacks whom we know arise from Africa are Africans.
All your non-aboriginal pink-whites azzes...well go define yourselves...don't seek to attach to I.
You are non-aboriginal; and pink-white. You know where you come from. You know what I mean.
Lion!
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote: Where did we come from?
Part of the answer may lie in a new study that suggests Australian Aborigines and Europeans share the same roots—and that both emerged from a wave of African migrations more than 50,000 years ago
.....blah blah blah ......
All of the Australian lineages fell within four DNA branches, which are associated with the exodus of modern humans from Africa between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago.
So show us a picture of a "pink-white" aboriginal?
Show us that picture and done the argument!!!
You know who you are...
Lion!
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: There are no "white aboriginals"? Did you ever ask why?
There are white aboriginals in Europe... Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: There are no "white aboriginals"? Did you ever ask why?
There are white aboriginals in Europe...
Like the man said;
SHOW us a picture!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: There are no "white aboriginals"? Did you ever ask why?
There are white aboriginals in Europe...
Like the man said;
SHOW us a picture!
Never saw a European before? Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: There are no "white aboriginals"? Did you ever ask why?
There are white aboriginals in Europe...
Like the man said;
SHOW us a picture!
Never saw a European before?
Never seen an aboriginal pink-white one since I was born and I am here past forty. Show us the pictures, if you got em! Dare!
Lion! Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: Never seen an aboriginal pink-white one since I was born and I am here past forty. Show us the pictures, if you got em! Dare!
Lion!
Show you pictures of Europeans? As if you never saw one? Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
I believe this type is what he is talking about Lion...
But for some reason, he won't say it...
I wonder why...
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: I believe this type is what he is talking about Lion...
But for some reason, he won't say it...
I wonder why...
Actually no, like I said Europeans are white and aboriginal to Europe I didnt say anything about Braziallian albinos.... Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
MindoverMatter718 - Forgive me for speaking for you...
But I just ASSUMED that you didn't mean THESE original Europeans...
So you MUST have meant the MODERN Europeans like I posted...
Romania - 35,000 B.C.
(After 10,000 years in the North he is STILL BLACK!).
Ukraine - 34,000 B.C.
(After 11,000 years in the North he is STILL BLACK!).
Russia - 26,000 B.C.
(After 19,000 years in the North he is STILL BLACK!).
Bulgaria 4,600 B.C.
(After 39,000 years in the North he is STILL BLACK!).
{forum Idiots, please check the skull type before saying something stupid.}
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^Yes Mike I am talking about those early Europeans who ultimately are the ancestors of modern "white" Europeans...note the EUP clustering with recent Africans while the LUP and MES cluster more with recent Europeans which was caused by subsequent climatic adaptation to colder conditions. ....
Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins*1
Trenton W. Holliday
quote:This study tests these predictions via analyses of osteometric data reflective of trunk height and breadth, limb proportions and relative body mass for samples of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP), Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP) and Mesolithic (MES) humans and 13 recent African and European populations. Results reveal a clear tendency for the EUP sample to cluster with recent Africans, while LUP and MES samples cluster with recent Europeans. These results refute the hypothesis of local continuity in Europe, and are consistent with an interpretation of elevated gene flow (and population dispersal?) from Africa, followed by subsequent climatic adaptation to colder conditions.
Posted by Kaizen (Member # 16969) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: There are no "white aboriginals"? Did you ever ask why?
There are white aboriginals in Europe...
Like the man said;
SHOW us a picture!
Aren't albinos as "original" as the black parents they come from?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Early Upper Paleolithic = c. 45,000 B.C.
This is Grimaldi Time
They looked like this...
Late Upper Paleolithic = c. 18,000 B.C.
That is Sungir time
They looked like this...
Mesolithic = 7000 B.C.
That is Hamangia time
They looked like this...
MindoverMatter718 - I'm having a hard time trying to make-out what your White Boy, Trenton W. Holliday is talking about.
I mean for sure the Khoisan looks like a Black man...
But the others look Black also, what do you suppose he was basing his opinion on??
Oh yea, I forgot, he is a WHITE researcher.
Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie.
Bullsh1t, Bullsh1t, Bullsh1t, Bullsh1t. Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ...
Mike do you know the difference between the study of cranio-metrics and osteology relating to tropical adaptations?
It seems as if you don't since the study I posted was talking about limb proportions in relation to tropical adaptation vs colder adaptation, and not how the populations cranio-facially looked.
Btw, Oceanic populations such as Australians and Melanesians resemble these early upper Paleolithic in Europe cranio-facially more than the Khoisan.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Mesolithic = 7000 B.C.
Gough's Cave 1 (Somerset, England): an assessment of body size and shape
TRENTON W. HOLLIDAY a1 and STEVEN E. CHURCHILL a2
Abstract
quote:Stature, body mass, and body proportions are evaluated for the Cheddar Man (Gough's Cave 1) skeleton. Like many of his Mesolithic contemporaries, Gough's Cave 1 evinces relatively short estimated stature (ca. 166.2 cm [5′ 5′]) and low body mass (ca. 66 kg [146 lbs]). In body shape, he is similar to recent Europeans for most proportional indices. He differs, however, from most recent Europeans in his high crural index and tibial length/trunk height indices. Thus, while Gough's Cave 1 is characterized by a total morphological pattern considered ‘cold-adapted’, these latter two traits may be interpreted as evidence of a large African role in the origins of anatomically modern Europeans.
Btw note that Cheddar man has a "white" European (cheddar man) descendant who lives not too far from where he was found!!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
MindoverMatter718 - I know what you are thinking...
But I need you to come right out and say it...
i.e. Mike, forget what you know and see... Who are you going to believe...
Me and good-ole Trent...
After all, he IS White!
Or your own LYING eyes!!!
Ask me nice, and I might.
NOT!!!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
But this part IS true: Quote - evidence of a large African role in the origins of anatomically modern Europeans.
Here is HOW....
Big Black Nigger...
little Albino Girl like this, after she has grown up...
Equals this....
Modern European...
I wonder if good-ole Trent knows?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Kaizen - Aren't albinos as "original" as the black parents they come from?
As you know, Albinos are produced when two people who EACH carry the recessive gene mate (though it is known to happen when only one person carries it).
Normally, Albinos are careful to mate with people who have no history of Albinism, so as to produce normal offspring.
Because Whites are an ancient group of Albinos who for whatever reason "Inbred"; thus Permanently FIXING Albinism, and then subsequently admixed with normal people. But because the Albinism was Permanently fixed, they could not produce a fully normal-pigmented offspring like ordinary Albinos. They could only produce hybrid pigmentation.
Therefore they DO represent a unique NEW group of Humans, and thus they are assigned status as a Race.
And there are undoubtedly skeletons of these ancient White people in their homeland of "Central Asia". (White Mummies from about 2,000 B.C. have already been uncovered there).
But in order to fully investigate this, and lay their rightful claim to this heritage; White people would have to admit that their claim to a European heritage, and the bogus history that they manufactured in order to support that claim, was all a lie.
They do not seem to be ready to do that just yet.
Posted by Bogle (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: There are no "white aboriginals"? Did you ever ask why?
There are white aboriginals in Europe...
Hey mindless, I thought you argued against this? I thought your Asian derived blacks or whatever was aboriginal to Europe? Don't you remember or are you going to accuse others of misrepresenting your position again. You do this sort of thing every time you forget what you previously argued. LOL
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
As long as folks beleive in a concept called race and that it is based on phenotypes this will always be a circular argument..never mind that the original Africans who travelled to new lands encountered flora,fauna and different environments to inspire new thoughts and and ways of doing things commonly called "culture " and that some by whatever genetic means began to diverge from the original looks,but the ancestors of both Blacks and folks of other complexions share the same common OOA ancestors and if you are going to call one group Africans and the other group something else when both are more related to each other genetically than either is to Africans, makes little sense in singling out one but not the other.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: As long as folks beleive in a concept called race and that it is based on phenotypes this will always be a circular argument..never mind that the original Africans who travelled to new lands encountered flora,fauna and different environments to inspire new thoughts and and ways of doing things commonly called "culture " and that some by whatever genetic means began to diverge from the original looks,but the ancestors of both Blacks and folks of other complexions share the same common OOA ancestors and if you are going to call one group Africans and the other group something else when both are more related to each other genetically than either is to Africans, makes little sense in singling out one but not the other.
That sounds nice, but what does it mean really?
Do you really believe that an original Australian is closer related to a White person than they are to Africans - really?
If so, then you really need to take a reality pill and leave the White mans bullsh1t behind - I mean that IS where such nonsense comes from - isn't it.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Do you really believe that an original Australian is closer related to a White person than they are to Africans - really?
Wow, you're slow, and you'll never learn. Too bad you're going to die as an ignorant fool in fantasy land...hopefully though nobody is dumb enough to follow in your footsteps. Well, atleast Brada Anansi won't!!
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Do you really believe that an original Australian is closer related to a White person than they are to Africans - really?
Wow, you're slow, and you'll never learn. Too bad you're going to die as an ignorant fool in fantasy land...hopefully though nobody is dumb enough to follow in your footsteps. Well, atleast Brada Anansi won't!!
You write innuendos in indirect speech forms because you have no arguments. You have only indoctrinations and brainwashing to go with. Use your eyes, use your head, tell your wicked heart the truth...
How can a black Australian Aboriginal be more related to a pink-white scottish Australian alien than to a black African Aboriginal?
How can African aboriginals be more related to pink-white scottish Afrikanner aliens than to their fellow black Australian aboriginal?
You and the rest of your genetics sucking gang can take it and shove it up the right place.
Your pink-white KKK australian brothers who fight aboriginal blacks in Africa, Americas and Australia know the reason why they do so?
We are still waiting for the picture of the pink-white aboriginal in Europe or in Canaan.
Where are the pink-white aboriginals?
Where are you from? You know who you are!!! Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Do Greeks carry African genetic material?.. say Benin Hbs? Africans and other north Meds to they now look anything alike for the most part?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: There are no "white aboriginals"? Did you ever ask why?
There are white aboriginals in Europe...
The first people in Europe were not white. Therefore whites cannot be aboriginal as aboriginal means first.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by IronLion:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote: Where did we come from?
Part of the answer may lie in a new study that suggests Australian Aborigines and Europeans share the same roots—and that both emerged from a wave of African migrations more than 50,000 years ago
.....blah blah blah ......
All of the Australian lineages fell within four DNA branches, which are associated with the exodus of modern humans from Africa between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago.
So show us a picture of a "pink-white" aboriginal?
Show us that picture and done the argument!!!
You know who you are...
Lion!
Simply put, if Aborigines have been outside of Europe for 50,000 years HOW are they Africans?
They have NOT been in Africa since then.
There has been to travel back and forth between Australia and Africa since then.
They have not maintained any connection with Africa since then.
So how are they African? Skin color and features are environmental. That is not unique to Africa even though black skin first arose in Africa.
And what PHYSICAL resemblance do they have to Africans other than being black?
Show me an African population that looks like Australian aborigines. For that matter, show me a population in Africa that looks like a aboriginal New Guinean.
The point is that you calling them African is over simplifying the LONG HISTORY that has separated the two populations. If you are going to call people from Australia who have not been in Africa for 60,000 years or more, then ALL humans must be called Africans because all humans have been outside of Africa for about the same time frame.
Features are due to environment and black skin is a function of environment. Black skin is not an African phenomena in so much as it is a tropical phenomena. Africa happens to straddle the tropics and the first humans were born in a tropical environment and therefore have black skin and are tropically adapted. Populations in similar environments outside of Africa maintained those features because of the environment.
But again, don't get it twisted, all aboriginal populations around the world were originally black due to the features they inherited from their ancient African ancestors. However, their descendants cannot simply be called African because their ancestors came from Africa 60,000 years ago and because they have tropical adaptation.
The point is that if you ask an Aboriginal Australian if they were African or not, I doubt very much that the answer would be yes.
Whether you call them African because of their skin color is irrelevant to this. Biologically ALL humans are Africans and that is the bottom line, black or white has nothing to do with it from a biological perspective. Australian aborigines are not more biologically African than non aborigines as the underlying biology shared by ALL humans arose in Africa and therefore is African. In fact the only difference between the aboriginal populations of the world and the modern populations is primarily skin color, the rest of the features were mostly already there. That is the point of the aborigines of Australia who are closer to the aboriginal Europeans and other populations originally looked like. The change in skin color is a relatively trivial change that does not undermine the fundamental facts of biology. A child can't NOT BE a descendant of the father. If the father was African and the son and daughter were aborigines and the children of the aborigines is everyone else, they are still African.
And don't get me wrong. I do feel that black populations of the world should stand up and fight the scourge of white supremacy. Don't make any doubt about it. I also feel that before anyone goes anywhere and calls anyone AFRICAN as a term of conscious connection to Africa, THEY TOO MUST FIRST BE CONSCIOUS.
It makes no sense to be worried about australian aborigines being African when most Africans are disunited, misled and oppressed by the claws of white supremacy and neocolonialism. It makes no sense to be calling ancient native americans African if African Americans don't even consider themselves African AND aren't conscious of who they are AS AFRICANS. If AFRICANS don't understand who they are then what is the point of calling people OUTSIDE of Africa Africans? From that perspective, it is better to clean YOUR OWN house and get it right before worrying about everyone else. I would worry more about Africans standing up and identifying as Africans with all the economic, political and social economic implications of such a stance before worrying about blacks world wide identifying as Africans.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Definition of delusional: Psychiatry. a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason.
Example of Doug being delusional in denying a fact he recognizes – i.e. Negroids are African. Doug writes:
Bottom line … All dark skinned people (this is Dougie’s trick as we didn’t mention dark-skinned people but those with woolly hair and full facial features as Africans. Substitute phenotype for his dark-skinned people) are not African, whether or not they look Negroid or not."
[Marc writes] I for one am interested in identifying Africans in the historical sense of noting those who began civilizations worldwide. I’m not all that concerned with populations after 1500 AD. Having said that, to deal with folks like Dougie Boy, I note: If folks are dark-skinned with straight hair (i.e. not wiry and Australians have wiry hair) they aren’t phenotypically African.
[Doug the delusional racist writes]: Calling someone African only means they originate in the continent of Africa.
[Marc writes]: Wrong, Dougie Boy. It doesn’t only mean they originate in the continent of Africa. Ever hear of the stative definition (of course you have but you pretend it doesn’t exist). It allows for one word with different meanings as bad meaning both “not good” as well as (in Michael Jackson’s album by the same name) good.
To get to our definition of African, by the way (for the third time), here is the definition of definition:
A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a term (a word or phrase). Terms have different meanings in different contexts. A stipulative definition explains the speaker's immediate intentional meaning.
Here is my stipulative definition of the word "African."
African:A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
In not recogning Africans outside of Africa, Dougie has carved-out a nice little world he has self-defined as a place he can feel safe and cozy in. But, it doesn’t exist in reality. Only in his head like a hallucination or illusion.
[Another example of Doug’s delusionalism and irrationalism. IronLion gives a bit of logic our dear Doug can’t stomach:
Aboriginal: Ancestral, from nowhere else but that very land...
Blacks around the world are the aboriginal people of Africa that settled out into other parts of the world.
In other words, all aboriginal peoples of the earth are Africans.
Why is that such a difficult concept?
Formal Logic/ Deduction:
If X is Y and Y is X
then X and Y are the same!
Sir Douglas, Africa here isn’t constrained geographically and doesn’t apply to country of origin but physical appearance. But, you’ve heard that dozens of times and deny it which is why you are delusional. Again, people of the ancient world with some combination of woolly / wiry hair and full facial features who formed world civilization and were, by phenotype, African. These are the examples:
You deny the above but where is your evidence to the contrary but your delusional words and senseless arguments?
[Doug writes]:
Aboriginal blacks in Asia who have been there have been there as long as 50,000 years or more [and] are no longer Africans in a geographic, cultural or linguistic sense.
[Marc writes]: Continents and countries are things that have only recently been given names (from between 3000 years ago and the Middle Ages). The concept of Asia was Egyptian identifying places to the East of them and had nothing to do with race. The continent of Africa is a relatively recent name given after whites migrated to Southern and Western Europe mostly after the 5th century AD.
Nations in Africa were given names mostly in the 19th century by whites carving-out resources and wealth-havens for themselves. America only known from the West since Chris Columbus got lost and found his way back home.
So, your concept of people being who they are because of where they are is hopelessly flawed and is also a product of the shenanigans of some really racist, bad people who used the world for their own power and glory. And, yes Australians have been there a long time and not 50,000 years like you say but, as most researchers say, but 60,000 years. [For instance, see: Art in Australia, 60,000 Years Ago, http://discovermagazine.com/1997/jan/artinaustralia601027 ]
MOSTLY THE ONLY TRIBAL NAMES AUSTRALIAN TRIBES HAVE IS AFRICAN TRIBAL NAMES
Every tribal name seen below is found in:
George Peter Murdock, Africa – its peoples and their cultural history, (McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1959). An Australian researcher wrote another book the Australian names came from:
But, they are also found in Australia, China, and otherwise in the Far East showing the ancestors of today’s population in those places even from 60,000 years ago, was African. It’s pretty exciting information. Read:
AUSTRALIA
The following paired tribal names are in an African/Australian order. Keep in mind that the books nams arose from were two different men at two different times on two different continents: Anna/Anna, Bemba/Bemba, Goa/Goa, Gogo/Gogo, Jang/Jang, Jawara/Jawara (Adaman Islands), Koko/Koko, Kuri/Kuri, Madi/Madi-Madi, Maori/Maori (New Zealand), Mau/Mau, Mau/Maui (Hawaii), Meru/Meru, Munga/Munga, Nana/Nana, Ngala/Ngala, Ngumbu/Ngumbu, Ngundi/Ngundi, Njao/Njao, Nyamba/Nyamba, Tura/Tura, Waka/Waka, Woga/Woga, Yang/Yang, Yao/Yao.
Several near duplicates in the order of African/Australian here follow: Ngaga/Ngadja, Ngalaga/ Ngalagan, Ngama/Ngamadi, Ngamatak/ Ngamatta, Ngan/Ngan:a, Nganda/Nganadjara, Ngiri/ Ngirla, Ngoal/Ngoala, Ngolo/ Ngolok, Ngombe/Ngombaru, Ngoni/Ngonde, Ngulu/ Ngulubulu and Nguludjara, Nguru/Nguro, Njamus/Njamat, Njanja/Njana, Njungene/Njung, Nyamang/Nyamba. In the 60,000 years Africans have been in Australia the tribal names remained intact.
CHINA An example of Chinese family names that are identical to African: Dui, Doo, Fang, Ga, Gao, Ge, Ha, Jang, Jen, Kim, Kir.
Dougie. Let’s have some fun. Before I wrote that you were boring and in a sense, it’s really true. But, your thinking is mindboggling. You wrote,
Aboriginal blacks in Asia who have been there have been there as long as 50,000 years or more [and] are no longer Africans in a geographic, cultural or linguistic sense.
Let’s see if I understand you. As your “aborigines” have been long gone from Africa and some things have changed (though Iron Lion and Mike have given a good list of things found in Australia that exist in Africa), that geographic (gosh, we note that, don’t we?) cultural, or linguist things changed.
Hummmm. Weeellll. What about Caucasians who live outside the homeland of whites on the Russian Steppes who today have different languages, culture, and linguistics. What do you call whites in France, Canada, America, Scandinavia who all have different languages, cultures, or linguistics?
Again. African:A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
. .
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Iron Lion
quote:How can African aboriginals be more related to pink-white scottish Afrikanner aliens than to their fellow black Australian aboriginal?
I know that it sounds counter intuitive..one should think that the closer one looked like the other the closer they should be..genetically but DNA says different..the only way to over come this arguement is to throw out the DNA evidence all together..and guys please remember Euraisa lays only twenty+miles at it's closest point from Africa so we are indeed geographically closer than says Austrailians and other Blacks far to the east.
One more thing just because we might be genetically more distant does not mean we are not or cannot be socially or politically close black is still black and after all we do suffer the same or similar kinds of abuse at the hands of others.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: . .
Definition of delusional: Psychiatry. a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason.
Example of Doug being delusional in denying a fact he recognizes – i.e. Negroids are African. Doug writes:
Bottom line … All dark skinned people (this is Dougie’s trick as we didn’t mention dark-skinned people but those with woolly hair and full facial features as Africans. Substitute phenotype for his dark-skinned people) are not African, whether or not they look Negroid or not."
[Marc writes] I for one am interested in identifying Africans in the historical sense of noting those who began civilizations worldwide. I’m not all that concerned with populations after 1500 AD. Having said that, to deal with folks like Dougie Boy, I note: If folks are dark-skinned with straight hair (i.e. not wiry and Australians have wiry hair) they aren’t phenotypically African.
[Doug the delusional racist writes]: Calling someone African only means they originate in the continent of Africa.
[Marc writes]: Wrong, Dougie Boy. It doesn’t only mean they originate in the continent of Africa. Ever hear of the stative definition (of course you have but you pretend it doesn’t exist). It allows for one word with different meanings as bad meaning both “not good” as well as (in Michael Jackson’s album by the same name) good.
To get to our definition of African, by the way (for the third time), here is the definition of definition:
A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a term (a word or phrase). Terms have different meanings in different contexts. A stipulative definition explains the speaker's immediate intentional meaning.
Here is my stipulative definition of the word "African."
African:A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
In not recogning Africans outside of Africa, Dougie has carved-out a nice little world he has self-defined as a place he can feel safe and cozy in. But, it doesn’t exist in reality. Only in his head like a hallucination or illusion.
[Another example of Doug’s delusionalism and irrationalism. IronLion gives a bit of logic our dear Doug can’t stomach:
Aboriginal: Ancestral, from nowhere else but that very land...
Blacks around the world are the aboriginal people of Africa that settled out into other parts of the world.
In other words, all aboriginal peoples of the earth are Africans.
Why is that such a difficult concept?
Formal Logic/ Deduction:
If X is Y and Y is X
then X and Y are the same!
Sir Douglas, Africa here isn’t constrained geographically and doesn’t apply to country of origin but physical appearance. But, you’ve heard that dozens of times and deny it which is why you are delusional. Again, people of the ancient world with some combination of woolly / wiry hair and full facial features who formed world civilization and were, by phenotype, African. These are the examples:
You deny the above but where is your evidence to the contrary but your delusional words and senseless arguments?
[Doug writes]:
Aboriginal blacks in Asia who have been there have been there as long as 50,000 years or more [and] are no longer Africans in a geographic, cultural or linguistic sense.
[Marc writes]: Continents and countries are things that have only recently been given names (from between 3000 years ago and the Middle Ages). The concept of Asia was Egyptian identifying places to the East of them and had nothing to do with race. The continent of Africa is a relatively recent name given after whites migrated to Southern and Western Europe mostly after the 5th century AD.
Nations in Africa were given names mostly in the 19th century by whites carving-out resources and wealth-havens for themselves. America only known from the West since Chris Columbus got lost and found his way back home.
So, your concept of people being who they are because of where they are is hopelessly flawed and is also a product of the shenanigans of some really racist, bad people who used the world for their own power and glory. And, yes Australians have been there a long time and not 50,000 years like you say but, as most researchers say, but 60,000 years. [For instance, see: Art in Australia, 60,000 Years Ago, http://discovermagazine.com/1997/jan/artinaustralia601027 ]
MOSTLY THE ONLY TRIBAL NAMES AUSTRALIAN TRIBES HAVE IS AFRICAN TRIBAL NAMES
Every tribal name seen below is found in:
George Peter Murdock, Africa – its peoples and their cultural history, (McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1959). An Australian researcher wrote another book the Australian names came from:
But, they are also found in Australia, China, and otherwise in the Far East showing the ancestors of today’s population in those places even from 60,000 years ago, was African. It’s pretty exciting information. Read:
AUSTRALIA
The following paired tribal names are in an African/Australian order. Keep in mind that the books nams arose from were two different men at two different times on two different continents: Anna/Anna, Bemba/Bemba, Goa/Goa, Gogo/Gogo, Jang/Jang, Jawara/Jawara (Adaman Islands), Koko/Koko, Kuri/Kuri, Madi/Madi-Madi, Maori/Maori (New Zealand), Mau/Mau, Mau/Maui (Hawaii), Meru/Meru, Munga/Munga, Nana/Nana, Ngala/Ngala, Ngumbu/Ngumbu, Ngundi/Ngundi, Njao/Njao, Nyamba/Nyamba, Tura/Tura, Waka/Waka, Woga/Woga, Yang/Yang, Yao/Yao.
Several near duplicates in the order of African/Australian here follow: Ngaga/Ngadja, Ngalaga/ Ngalagan, Ngama/Ngamadi, Ngamatak/ Ngamatta, Ngan/Ngan:a, Nganda/Nganadjara, Ngiri/ Ngirla, Ngoal/Ngoala, Ngolo/ Ngolok, Ngombe/Ngombaru, Ngoni/Ngonde, Ngulu/ Ngulubulu and Nguludjara, Nguru/Nguro, Njamus/Njamat, Njanja/Njana, Njungene/Njung, Nyamang/Nyamba. In the 60,000 years Africans have been in Australia the tribal names remained intact.
CHINA An example of Chinese family names that are identical to African: Dui, Doo, Fang, Ga, Gao, Ge, Ha, Jang, Jen, Kim, Kir.
Dougie. Let’s have some fun. Before I wrote that you were boring and in a sense, it’s really true. But, your thinking is mindboggling. You wrote,
Aboriginal blacks in Asia who have been there have been there as long as 50,000 years or more [and] are no longer Africans in a geographic, cultural or linguistic sense.
Let’s see if I understand you. As your “aborigines” have been long gone from Africa and some things have changed (though Iron Lion and Mike have given a good list of things found in Australia that exist in Africa), that geographic (gosh, we note that, don’t we?) cultural, or linguist things changed.
Hummmm. Weeellll. What about Caucasians who live outside the homeland of whites on the Russian Steppes who today have different languages, culture, and linguistics. What do you call whites in France, Canada, America, Scandinavia who all have different languages, cultures, or linguistics?
Again. African:A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
. .
This is especially for you Marc and Iron Lion:
The point is that if you ask an Aboriginal Australian if they were African or not, I doubt very much that the answer would be yes.
If you asked them whether they were black or not I am SURE the answer would be yes. Africa does not have ANY more meaning to them than it does to a non black Asian as they have not been in Africa for thousands of years. If the cultural traits they have originated in Africa then ALL non Africans are Africans because all NON AFRICANS have the same traits as well.
Whether you call them African because of their skin color is irrelevant to this. Biologically ALL humans are Africans and that is the bottom line, black or white has nothing to do with it from a biological perspective. Australian aborigines are not more biologically African than non aborigines as the underlying biology shared by ALL humans arose in Africa and therefore is African. In fact the only difference between the aboriginal populations of the world and the modern populations is primarily skin color, the rest of the features were mostly already there. That is the point of the aborigines of Australia who are closer to what the aboriginal Europeans and other populations originally looked like. The change in skin color is a relatively trivial change that does not undermine the fundamental facts of biology. A child can't NOT BE a descendant of the father. If the father was African and the son and daughter were aborigines and the children of the aborigines is everyone else, they are still African.
The problem with YOUR logic is that if the child of the aboriginal son and daughter are light skinned, they somehow still aren't biologically African. That is dumb. Where did their genes and everything else come from if not Africa? White skin does not change that. From your photo album above, note that the people in row 2 you call non Africans are descendants of the people in row 1 you call Africans. So how are they not Africans biologically? Skin color is not human biology Marc. It is one ASPECT of the biology of humans that arose in Africa, the COMPLETE biology of all humans arose in Africa and actually goes back millions of years in Africa to the earliest primate ancestors in Africa.
Basically you are applying the tactics of the Europeans in reverse, claiming skin color as the supreme trait of biology in identifying populations. ALL humans are Africans biologically. Differences in phenotype are primarily a result of environmental factors among blacks and non blacks, which does not change the facts above. What separates populations are based primarily social and cultural factors NOT biological ones.
And don't get me wrong. I do feel that black populations of the world should stand up and fight the scourge of white supremacy. Don't make any doubt about it. I also feel that before anyone goes anywhere and calls anyone AFRICAN as a term of conscious connection to Africa, THEY TOO MUST FIRST BE CONSCIOUS.
It makes no sense to be worried about australian aborigines being African when most Africans are disunited, misled and oppressed by the claws of white supremacy and neocolonialism. It makes no sense to be calling ancient native Americans African if African Americans don't even consider themselves African AND aren't conscious of who they are AS AFRICANS. If AFRICANS don't understand who they are then what is the point of calling people OUTSIDE of Africa Africans? From that perspective, it is better to clean YOUR OWN house and get it right before worrying about everyone else. I would worry more about Africans standing up and identifying as Africans with all the economic, political and social economic implications of such a stance before worrying about blacks world wide identifying as Africans. Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
[Doug writes]
The problem with YOUR logic is that if the child of the aboriginal son and daughter are light skinned, they somehow still aren't biologically African ... Skin color is not human biology Marc.
[Marc writes]
I said nothing about light-skinned / dark-skinned issues and NOTHING ABOUT BIOLOGY. This is all a hallucination, all an illusion in your head.
I wrote:
Definition of delusional: Psychiatry. a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason.
Example of Doug being delusional in denying a fact he recognizes – i.e. Negroids are African. Doug writes:
Bottom line … All dark skinned people (this is Dougie’s trick as we didn’t mention dark-skinned people but those with woolly hair and full facial features as Africans. Substitute phenotype for his dark-skinned people) are not African, whether or not they look Negroid or not."
[Marc writes] I for one am interested in identifying Africans in the historical sense of noting those who began civilizations worldwide. I’m not all that concerned with populations after 1500 AD. Having said that, to deal with folks like Dougie Boy, I note: If folks are dark-skinned with straight hair (i.e. not wiry and Australians have wiry hair) they aren’t phenotypically African.
This is another example of you being delusional seeing things that don't exist and denying realities that do.
Again, you are to be praised for your great humanity and love of aborigines. Praised for your flickr pictures.
Want to do something relevant? Get the whites out of Australia and South Africa that have made life so miserable for the (by phenotype) Africans that live there in poverty while the newcomers live in stolen wealth.
Other than that, you are commendable in your benevolence. Our Ghandi of the day.
. .
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Iron Lion
quote:How can African aboriginals be more related to pink-white scottish Afrikanner aliens than to their fellow black Australian aboriginal?
I know that it sounds counter intuitive..one should think that the closer one looked like the other the closer they should be..genetically but DNA says different..the only way to over come this arguement is to throw out the DNA evidence all together..and guys please remember Euraisa lays only twenty+miles at it's closest point from Africa so we are indeed geographically closer than says Austrailians and other Blacks far to the east.
One more thing just because we might be genetically more distant does not mean we are not or cannot be socially or politically close black is still black and after all we do suffer the same or similar kinds of abuse at the hands of others.
Brada-Anansi - I did ask you if you REALLY understood what the White mans Bullsh1t means.
Your answer says that you do not. But not to worry, that is why you have your Uncle Mike. Uncle Mike will explain.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Brada-Anansi - Before Uncle Mike explains; We must first go over the Basics.
DNA confirms Aboriginal Australian origins Tuesday, 8 May 2007
by Hamish Clarke Cosmos Online DNA confirms Aboriginal Australian origins
SYDNEY: Australian Aborigines descend from the same lineage as the first modern humans to migrate from Africa, DNA analysis has confirmed. The find is a further blow to the idea that the evolution of indigenous Australians was marked by many migrations from Asia.
Their analysis showed that DNA from people in New Guinea and aboriginal Australians could be traced back to early branches of the human phylogenetic tree, associated with the first humans to leave Africa 50,000 - 70,000 years ago. The study is revealed today in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The DNA analysis also revealed very little gene flow into Australia and New Guinea in the 50,000 or so years since the initial migration. Australians evolved in relative isolation compared to other parts of the Indian Ocean, which were subject to much more genetic mixing, said the study authors. This in turn suggests that developments in language and tool use were not influenced by outside sources, they said.
Haplogroup A (the Khoisan aka San Bushman; Because many San have the Slanty eyes, this lineage is likely the source of the Mongols).
Haplogroup A is found mainly in the Southern Nile region and Southern Africa. However at lower frequencies M91 is found in many areas of Africa, from Morocco, Egypt to Cameroon. Outside of Africa it has been detected in Caucasian males in England, and in the Eastern Mediterranean regions of Anatolia, Levant and Southern Arabia.
Haplogroup A represents one of two deep branches in the Y-chromosomal family tree, the other currently known as Haplogroup BT, therefore the lineage began evolving shortly after the time of Y-chromosomal Adam.
Haplogroup C; (Australians)
Haplogroup C seems to have come into existence shortly after SNP mutation M168 occurred for the first time, bringing the modern Haplogroup CT into existence, from which Haplogroup CF, and in turn Haplogroup C, derived. This was probably at least 60,000 years before present. Although Haplogroup C attains its highest frequencies among the indigenous populations of Mongolia, the Russian Far East, Polynesia, Australia, and at moderate frequency in the Korean Peninsula and among the Manchus, it displays its highest diversity among modern populations of India, and therefore it is hypothesized that Haplogroup C either originated or underwent its longest period of evolution and diversification within India or the greater South Asian coastal region.
It represents a great coastal migration along Southern Asia, into Southeast Asia and Australia, and up the Asian coast. It is believed to have migrated to the Americas some 6,000-8,000 years before present, and was carried by Na-Dené speaking peoples into the northwest Pacific coast of America. Some have hypothesized that Haplogroups C and D were brought together to East Asia by a single population that became the first successful modern human colonizers of that region, but at present the distributions of Haplogroups C and D are different, with various subtypes of Haplogroup C being found at high frequency among the Australian aborigines, Polynesians, Vietnamese, Kazakhs, Mongolians, Manchurians, Koreans, and indigenous inhabitants of the Russian Far East and at moderate frequencies elsewhere throughout Asia and Oceania, including India and Southeast Asia, whereas Haplogroup D is found at high frequencies only among the Tibetans, Japanese peoples, and Andaman Islanders, and has been found neither in India nor among the aboriginal inhabitants of the Americas or Oceania.
Haplogroup D (Non-Mongol Blacks; the Albinos may have been a part of this group).
Haplogroup D is believed to have originated in Asia some 60,000 years before present. While haplogroup D along with haplogroup E contains the distinctive YAP polymorphism (which indicates their common ancestry), no haplogroup D chromosomes have been found anywhere outside of Asia.
Like haplogroup C, D is believed to represent the Great Coastal Migration along southern Asia, from Arabia to Southeast Asia and thence northward to populate East Asia. It is found today at high frequency among populations in Tibet, the Japanese archipelago, and the Andaman Islands, though curiously not in India.
Haplogroup R (Whites - please note that these are the youngest Humans, and the most derived from other groups). See chart below.
This haplogroup is believed to have arisen around 26,800 years ago, somewhere in Central Asia or South Asia, where its ancestor Haplogroup P is most often found at polymorphic frequencies.
The R haplogroup is common throughout Europe and western Asia and the Indian sub-continent, and in those whose ancestry is from within these regions. It also occurs in North and Sub-Saharan Africa. The distribution is markedly different for the two major subclades R1a and R1b.
Haplogroup R1a is typical in populations of Eastern Europe and parts of Central Europe. R1a has a significant presence in Northern Europe, South and Central Asia (including Iran), Siberia, as well as India. R1a can be found in low frequencies in the Middle East
Haplogroup R1b predominates in Western Europe. R1b can be found at low frequency in Central Asia and in the Middle East, as well as North Africa. There is an isolated pocket of R1b in Sub Saharan Africa.
Human Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) haplogroups (by ethnic groups · famous haplotypes) most recent common Y-ancestor | A BT | B CT | CF DE | | C F D E | G H IJK | IJ K | | I J L MNOPS T | M NO P S | | N O Q R = (Whites) Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Brada-Anansi - First let's get the obvious out of the way.
As clearly stated above; Australian Aborigines are unchanged since they left Africa.
Thus as Lion said:
If X is Y and Y is X
then X and Y are the same!
i.e. The Australian Aborigines are inescapably African.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
N O Q R = (Whites) It includes the ancestors that would become whites . And how is what you posted conflicts with I have been saying??..I am also well awhere that Europe was the second to last place to be colonized by modern us the very last is supposed to be the America's, the question that was raised is, is there closer genetic links between Africans and relatively near by Europeans than between Africans more distant eastern Blacks.
Your answer is:
quote:Haplogroup R (Whites - please note that these are the youngest Humans, and the most derived from other groups). See chart below.
Of which I asked earlier do the Greeks and other meds carry African genetic material such as Benin hbs gene..meaning they were in contact with such folks, and the Camaroonians may well have the 1st dibs on R but i am not prepared to argue that.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
the only people who are african are those who live in africa. Neither race nor culture makes someone an african.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Brada-Anansi - Here is where you got confused by the White mans bullsh1t.
While it is true that Australian Aborigines are haplogroup "C": ALL haplogroup "C" are NOT Australian Aborigines!
The Australians are the pure-bloods that did not admix; BECAUSE they went to Australia!
Their Brothers, Sisters, Aunts, and Uncles, stayed in Asia, and their descendants admixed and migrated all over the place.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Iron Lion
quote:How can African aboriginals be more related to pink-white scottish Afrikanner aliens than to their fellow black Australian aboriginal?
I know that it sounds counter intuitive..one should think that the closer one looked like the other the closer they should be..genetically but DNA says different..the only way to over come this arguement is to throw out the DNA evidence all together..and guys please remember Euraisa lays only twenty+miles at it's closest point from Africa so we are indeed geographically closer than says Austrailians and other Blacks far to the east.
One more thing just because we might be genetically more distant does not mean we are not or cannot be socially or politically close black is still black and after all we do suffer the same or similar kinds of abuse at the hands of others.
Brada-Anasi
Much respect for the I. Seen.
But I man don't think inside the box. I over-stand, InI don't "understand".
This knowledge is straight and simple,. All them Pink geneticists like Dr. Underhill, Dr Sforza, Dr Gallo are all active closet racists from the same said tribe of Pink-Racists. Why?
Do you think they have some information they are not sharing with you?
Dr. Underhill is a racist, Dr. Sforza-Cavili is a racist, check their private lives and their inner murmurings; All, Dr Keita is one wannabe Tiger-Wood like apparition, who loves institutional success more than common sense.
Do you think they have some information they are not sharing with you?
I am an attorney by profession, I put Doctors in witness boxes and prove their lies and biases to them.
No bullshit.
Lion!
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: There are no "white aboriginals"? Did you ever ask why?
There are white aboriginals in Europe...
The first people in Europe were not white. Therefore whites cannot be aboriginal as aboriginal means first.
They descend from the first people in Europe...which makes them as aboriginal to Europe as an aborigine in Australia.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
OMG mindless, I thought it was a temporary memory lapse on your part or something but you really are going to begin to argue now that whites are aboriginal to Europe!!!!! So after all your denials you now come full circle to back Bowcock's racist junk approach: northern European sample, the "Caucasians of European descent", were chosen because they represented the aboriginal population there!!! Wow, mindless you really did good for yourself!
LMAO!!!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Brada-Anansi - As you can see from this chart;
Australian Aborigines definitely do NOT cluster closer with White people than they do with Africans.
But they do cluster with a lot of Asians and SOME BLACKS of EUROPE, Simply because those people are partially derived from the haplogroup "C" people who STAYED IN ASIA - AND some who went directly North to Europe from within Africa!!
NOT THE AUSTRALIAN haplogroup "C" people.
Pay special NOTE;
When these people left Africa.. ALL of their Kind did NOT leave Africa... ONLY SOME!!!
Their relatives who stayed behind in Africa were free to migrate North if they wanted to!
Human Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) haplogroups (by ethnic groups · famous haplotypes) most recent common Y-ancestor | A BT (original Africans) | B CT (Australians) | CF DE | | C F D E (Asians, Africans, Europeans - derived) | G H IJK | IJ K | | I J L MNOPS T | M NO P S | | N O Q "R" = (Whites)
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
from Marc's thread
QUOTE]Originally posted by xyyman: This is interesting - - -
So much for the white-skinned-half-naked-loin-cloth-bearing AE seen on National Geographic. But wait. . .they spend most of their time in the shade to get away from the UV rays. Sh1t the UV rays cannot possible get through the shade!!!! .. or cloth.
As for the 45th parallel bit. . . taking that premise. . .there is no reason for humans to be light skin until they went pass the 45th parallel. In other words dark skinned people through out Northern Africa, Southern Europe and Southern Asia. Sh1t that sounds like a familiar theme. Where have I heard that before?
What do you think Mike?? Hell are they saying there was no fishing in Southern (coastal)Europe??
As I said the white skin developed waaaaay up north.. . .during/at the LGM
Ultraviolet radiation (UV) catalyzes the synthesis of vitamin D, which is required for absorption of calcium and development of the skeleton. Vitamin D deficiency can lead to rickets, a crippling bone disease. But overexposure to UV radiation will break down vitamin B folate (folic acid), which is necessary for fetal neural development and fertility. Anthropologist Nina Jablonski theorizes that dark skin evolved near the equator. There, UV radiation penetration is high enough to stimulate vitamin D production while the dark skin protects against the breakdown of folate. Light skin evolved when early humans migrated to the high latitudes where UV radiation is much lower. The amount of melanin gradually decreased to facilitate vitamin D synthesis under low UV conditions. Today, as a result of recent migrations, many individuals do not live in the climate for which their skin is adapted. Dark-skinned people in high latitudes can get their vitamin D from sources like fish, while light-skinned people in the tropics can protect against folate breakdown by covering up with clothing
RACE--is a made up idea that does not exist genetically. Skin pigmentation arose depending on the UV radiation received in human populations depending on latitude so as to preserve folic acid levels in the blood and to maintain high enough levels of vitamin D production. Humans could not settle in areas north of 45 degrees north (or south of 45 degrees south) until the advent of fishing (to provide a source of Vitamin D). There are greater genetic differences between different populations of people than there are between people of different skin colors in a population.
Source: Jablonski, Nina G., Chaplin, George, The Evolution of Human Skin Coloration . Journal of Human Evolution Vol. 39 No. 1, pages 57-106 July 1, 2000 [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
QUOTE]Originally posted by xyyman: Conclusion:
“These conclusions agree with earlier findings in our laboratory, that intrusion(INVASION) of populations differentiated(EVOLVED) elsewhere has contributed (ADMIXED)an important element to the association between genetics and language in Europe
[/QUOTE]
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ Mike et al. Took me awhile to get this.
For several years the prevailing theory was that during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) the predecessors of the I1 group sought refuge in the Balkans.[4] For a time, the Ukraine was considered as an alternative. Yet, The Genographic Project claims that the founder of the I1 branch lived on the Iberian Peninsula during the LGM. Some have given southern France and the Italian peninsula as possible sites as well.[5] Although the locations vary, proponents of the refuge theories do seem to agree on one issue: that the I1 subclade is from 15,000 to 20,000 years old.[6]
However, professor Ken Nordtvedt of Montana State University believes that I1 is a more recent group, probably emerging after the LGM.[7] Other researchers including Peter A. Underhill of the Human Population Genetics Laboratory at Stanford University have since confirmed this hypothesis in independent research.[8][9]
The study of I1, which some had argued was largely ignored by the genetic testing industry in favor of "mega-haplogroups" like R, is in flux. Revisions and updates to previous thinking, primarily published in academic journals, is constant, yet slow, showing an evolution in thought and scientific evidence.[10]
The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of I1 lived from 4,000 to 6,000 years ago somewhere in the far northern part of Europe, perhaps Denmark, according to Nordtvedt. His descendants are primarily found among the Germanic populations of northern Europe and the bordering Uralic and Celtic populations, although even in traditionally German demographics I1 is overshadowed by the more prevalent Haplogroup R.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
xyyman - You really need to pay attention. This skeleton of a Black man of the Varna culture has been posted MANY times.
The Varna culture belongs to the late Eneolithic of northern Bulgaria. It is conventionally dated between 4,400-4,100 B.C, and is contemporary with Karanovo VI in the South.
Like most, if not ALL, of the original Eastern Europeans...
HE IS AN "I" and a BLACK MAN!!!
(Note the nasal opening of the skull).
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
xyyman - I will try to make this as simple as possible.
Imagine a map of Europe and Asia in your head.
It is about 1,500 B.C.
White people are leaving Central Asia and coming to Europe.
In order for them to get to Europe proper, they must first pass through Eastern Europe - Which is populated by Blacks of haplogroup "I".
Since ALL invaders like to fuch the women of the countries that they invade.
These White people pick-up the Black "I" gene as they pass through Eastern Europe.
Once IN Europe proper, they encounter OTHER Blacks with the "I" gene in Central Europe (the Celts), as well as Southern and Western Europe (the Gauls). So that by the time these White people head to North Western Europe, they have a good dose of Black blood.
Not to mention that there was probably "I" gene Blacks already in these Northern places when they got there.
Mystery solved!!
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
[Mike writes] Not to mention that there was probably "I" gene Blacks already in these Northern places when they got there.
[Marc writes] The first web page is of the population in those Northern areas and the mask in the upper left of the second web page also has an individual who was part of those of Northern populations:
The four standing figures in the canoe in England of 3000 BC would either classify as Celts or Proto-Celts.
. .
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
xyyman - Just so there is no room for misunderstanding - I don't want to have to repeat this.
If a Black man of haplogroup "I" fuchs a White woman (I never said that it was ONLY White men fuching Black women). And she has a Male child, the child will be haplogroup "I" but with a LIGHTER complexion than his father.
If that "mixed-race" Boy makes a male baby with a White Woman, then his son will be haplogroup "I" but LIGHTER complexioned than him, and pretty much the same color as the Mother.
If that LESS "mixed-race" Boy makes a male baby with a White Woman, then his son will be haplogroup "I" but the same color as the Mother.
That ONLY took THREE generations, imagine what you could do in 3,000 years.
Get It??
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Marc - I have no clue as to why some knuckle-heads STILL equate White skin with Europe or Cold weather, when the "WHITE" written history which disproves it, is readily available to all.
Scandinavian history (BLACKS)
The Scandinavian prehistory began when the area became free of ice, at the end of the last ice age, around 11000 BC, with the Ahrensburg culture and hunters living in near proximity to the ice. It took until the 7th millennium BC for forest, wildlife and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers to settle. In southern Scandinavia, a Maglemosian culture (ca 7500 BC–6000 BC) developed. The Maglemosian people lived in forest and wetland environments using fishing and hunting tools made from wood, bone and flint microliths. A characteristic of the culture are the sharply edged microliths of flintstone which were used for spear heads and arrow heads. Microliths finds are more sparse from ca 6000 BC and the period is said to transist into the Kongemose culture (ca 6000 BC–ca 5200 BC). The finds from this period are characterised by long flintstone flakes which were used for making the characteristic rhombic arrowheads, scrapers, drills, awls and toothed blades.
The Ertebølle culture (ca 5300 BC-3950 BC) is the name of a hunter-gatherer and fisher culture dating to the end of the Mesolithic period. It was followed by the Funnelbeaker culture (4000–2700 BC) a culture that originated in southern parts of Europe and slowly advanced up through today's Uppland. Tribes along the coasts of Svealand, Götaland, Åland, north-eastern Denmark and southern Norway learnt new technologies that became the Pitted Ware culture (3200 BC to 2300 BC).
Norsemen (WHITES)
Norsemen is used to refer to the group of people as a whole who speak one of the North Germanic languages as their native language. ("Norse", in particular, refers to the Old Norse language belonging to the North Germanic branch of Indo-European languages, especially Norwegian, Icelandic, Swedish and Danish in their earlier forms.)
The meaning of Norseman was "people from the North" and was applied primarily to Nordic people originating from southern and central Scandinavia. They established states and settlements in areas which today are part of the Faroe Islands, England, Scotland, Wales, Iceland, Finland, Ireland, Russia, Italy, Canada, Greenland, France, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Germany.
Norse and Norsemen are applied to the Scandinavian population of the period from the late 8th century to the 11th century. The term "Normans" was later primarily associated with the people of Norse origin in Normandy, France, assimilated into French culture and language. The term Norse-Gaels (Gall Goidel, lit:foreign Gaelic) was used concerning the people of Norse descent in Ireland and Scotland, who assimilated into the Gaelic culture.
Vikings has been a common term for Norsemen in the early medieval period, especially in connection with raids and monastic plundering made by Norsemen in Great Britain and Ireland. Northmen was famously used in the prayer A furore normannorum libera nos domine ("From the fury of the Northmen deliver us, O Lord!"), doubtfully attributed to monks of the English monasteries plundered by Viking raids in the 8th and 9th centuries.
Viking Range - pay special attention to the DATES!!
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Mike. Nice piece above. To get an idea about just how recently whites are to many northern areas, look at the bottom picture on this page showing (by phenotype) African women kayakers and such who were the "tour guides" as it were for a white fellow described as the first European in Greenland and this was in the 1820s and 1830s!!!!!!!!
And see picture 4. By phenotype, Africans still in Greenland in the 1900s!!!
. .
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Hey guys!! the point is not weather those different genetic bar codes exist in any given population..because all humans are not sub-species of each-other and I am not trying to sound all kumbayaa or anything of the sort just stating a fact that we "modern" us are all one people,there are variations in genetic bar codes and phenotype both within and out side Africa..and there seems to be slight changes in bar codes ever so often and the further and longer one travels away from the original population the greater the change..but those who remain in their original locations under-goes changes also..Africans have the greatest variety them being the oldest but did contact happend after the 1st migration out of Africa? of course it did you guys posted as much so there is no rm for argument with that,did Africans pass on more recent genetic bar codes to those closest to them? of course they did see Benin Hbs in Europeans as an exmaple.
The biological,cultural and the political need not be confused or mixed up with each-other.
I also realize that some of us don't trust the information at hand because of pass and in some cases recent corruption so arguing the point becomes..well pointless.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Some people just feel the only way to defeat white gibberish is to promote their own gibberish. I guess that makes them feel "equal" to whites.
Marc goes to absurd lengths of defining what AFRICAN means in terms of phenotype, but then turns right around and starts contradicting himself with images that don't match his own nonsensical labels. All of which boils down to trying to uphold a concept of "races" when there is no such thing as race.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Hey guys!! the point is not weather those different genetic bar codes exist in any given population..because all humans are not sub-species of each-other and I am not trying to sound all kumbayaa or anything of the sort just stating a fact that we "modern" us are all one people,there are variations in genetic bar codes and phenotype both within and out side Africa..and there seems to be slight changes in bar codes ever so often and the further and longer one travels away from the original population the greater the change..but those who remain in their original locations under-goes changes also..Africans have the greatest variety them being the oldest but did contact happend after the 1st migration out of Africa? of course it did you guys posted as much so there is no rm for argument with that,did Africans pass on more recent genetic bar codes to those closest to them? of course they did see Benin Hbs in Europeans as an exmaple.
The biological,cultural and the political need not be confused or mixed up with each-other.
I also realize that some of us don't trust the information at hand because of pass and in some cases recent corruption so arguing the point becomes..well pointless.
Brada
We know all about genes and admixtures. But noone has yet been able to satisfactorily explain where those pinkish people come from.
Why do I say Pink? Because that is closer to their true pig-skin look than white, which is the colour that they have used to confuse the world and themselves.
Where are the so-called white people from? How did they originate? What is the "refugim" from the LGM that you guys talk about?
Codes, my brada, codes.
I know for a fact that the "refugim from LGM" simply means a cave out of the ground. In other words, these are a people that came out of the underworld!
Why did they come out of the under-world, in the North, to cause so much pain and misery just like prophesied in the book of Isias; Jeremias, Revelations, and the Book of Hermes Trismegistus?
They were created just for that! Chaos! That is why them differn than the global black aboriginal sky worshippers like InI.
You are dealing with a people like no other. Don't let their witch-doctor scientists hoodwink anyone. There might have been admixture but originally we were differn.
Black Humans evolved underneath the sky. Pale humans evolved underneath the ground!
They came out of the cave, pink like noone else. That is why they are different from the above the ground dwelling aboriginals.
That is why the sun burns them up with cancer. Cause they belong underground not above ground.
When we put them back under, there will be peace on earth, at last.
Lion!
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Absurd? Absurd, you write? Have you perchance looked in your mirror recently? You who say that even if someone looks Negroid they might well not be (by phenotype, I say) African? Looks like not only absurdity but a case of delusionality.
Delusion: Psychiatry. a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason. See also illusion, hallucination.
Doug, you might as well have said that …
All scholars agree that there is no such thing as 'race'"
You’d agree that the University of Pennsylvania, one of the Ivy League schools, is full of scholars, right?
In their Museum Library, put in the word “race” and you get over 10,000 entries.
Now. You are presumably telling us that ALL SCHOLARS AGREE THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘RACE’’ and the Museum Library has over 10,000 books by scholars on race.
You are saying either these 10,000 sources don’t exist?
This is a case of a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason.
Tell the KKK, the US Census, tell the Jews, the Italians, and the French there is no such thing as race. Tell that to the white supremaists, and to those who write of racial profiling.
No race? It is all in your head, all illusion, all hallucination. It is delusion in your own mind alone.
For the absurd, look no further than your mirror.
. .
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
The above post dealing with absurdity, I meant to mention but left out, was directed to Mr. Doug who wrote:
Marc goes to absurd lengths of defining what AFRICAN means in terms of phenotype.
I am proud of the African phenotype and to restore it when, Doug, your ancestors were tickled to talk about old black Sambo with the big lips and wide nose.
You finally got the picture. African as I proudly use it is by physical appearance, phenotype and not as you use it referring to geography.
[Doug writes] but then turns right around and starts contradicting himself with images that don't match his own nonsensical labels.
[Marc writes] Oh really? Post some examples. I don't think you can.
. .
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Iron Lion
quote:Black Humans evolved underneath the sky. Pale humans evolved underneath the ground!
So you are saying they are mole people
Or Morlocks?
Lion !!they are just people..but great is their crimes against environment and people that is multiplied by the fact of technology..no need to make super villians or super-heroes out of them.
And I am saying this knowing full well that the technology that came into being for the last 300yrs is used for the greed of their elites in the most selfish and destructive manner. It is the greed of their elites and others and ooh yes ours that is the problem.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Lion - Interesting take, never heard that one before.
The most vulnerable always put up the biggest defenses, and do the greatest evil in the name of their defense.
But we can not put them back in Asia or Underground. They are Humans, therefore they are part of us, and as such, they must be reabsorbed.
Tiger is doing the dirty work for us - and paying the price, He, he.
Except Afronut - maybe underground IS the best place for him.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: . .
The above post dealing with absurdity, I meant to mention but left out, was directed to Mr. Doug who wrote:
Marc goes to absurd lengths of defining what AFRICAN means in terms of phenotype.
I am proud of the African phenotype and to restore it when, Doug, your ancestors were tickled to talk about old black Sambo with the big lips and wide nose.
You finally got the picture. African as I proudly use it is by physical appearance, phenotype and not as you use it referring to geography.
[Doug writes] but then turns right around and starts contradicting himself with images that don't match his own nonsensical labels.
[Marc writes] Oh really? Post some examples. I don't think you can.
. .
Marc, simply put you are spewing the nonsense of the Europeans you are supposedly arguing against and mimicking their ideologies and tactics in reverse. That does nothing to further anything concerning the struggles of African and black people world wide. Calling white mole people does not change the fact that these "mole people", albinos or whatever other racial terms you and others can come up with are dominating and oppressing blacks world wide.
There is a difference between a race-man and a race loon. A race loon tries to copy and emulate the racist ideologies and typologies of white supremacy in reverse, creating a form of "black supremacy" by trying to compete with whites over who is better at creating pseudo scientific racialist dogma. The problem with this is that it doesn't reflect reality on the ground only creates a temporary sugar high over name calling. It does nothing to further the agenda of black liberation anywhere on the planet.
A race-man, as in the ideas of Marcus Garvey, is about pursuing the agendas of black liberation in all aspects of life: socially, economically and politically. Historical reference is used to support this effort and is not an effort in itself.
The goal and agenda of black liberation is not to mimic white racists and their thought processes.
But that is the problem, some people believe that calling white folks albino mutant cave monkeys actually changes the fact that those so-called albino cave monkeys currently run the world and have done so by killing off the so-called superior mighty Africans.
Obviously such a train of thought is what you would expect from 4 year old children, not serious students of African liberation and or history.
And seriously, anyone who claims Africans are a sub species of the human race has to be considered a race loon, especially if they think that somehow is an attack on white supremacy. The racists have been saying that all along and you agree with them, which means you are one confused puppy.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Lion - Interesting take, never heard that one before.
The most vulnerable always put up the biggest defenses, and do the greatest evil in the name of their defense.
But we can not put them back in Asia or Underground. They are Humans, therefore they are part of us, and as such, they must be reabsorbed.
Tiger is doing the dirty work for us - and paying the price, He, he.
Except Afronut - maybe underground IS the best place for him.
I must agree wholly with you, Mike111 on your perspective.
Sometimes we agree sometimes we disagree, like brothers. Keep your fire burning!
Lion! Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Doug. Absurd? you write? Have you perchance looked in your mirror recently? You who say that even if someone looks Negroid they might well not be (by phenotype, I say) African? Looks like not only absurdity but a case of delusionality.
Delusion: Psychiatry. a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason. See also illusion, hallucination.
Doug, you might as well have said that …
All scholars agree that there is no such thing as 'race'"
You’d agree that the University of Pennsylvania, one of the Ivy League schools, is full of scholars, right?
In their Museum Library, put in the word “race” and you get over 10,000 entries.
Now. You are tell us that ALL SCHOLARS AGREE THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘RACE’’ and the Museum Library has over 10,000 books by scholars on race.
You are saying either these 10,000 sources don’t exist?
This is a case of a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason.
No race? It is all in your head, all illusion, all hallucination. It is delusion you carry.
. .
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Iron Lion
quote:Black Humans evolved underneath the sky. Pale humans evolved underneath the ground!
So you are saying they are mole people
Or Morlocks?
Lion !!they are just people..but great is their crimes against environment and people that is multiplied by the fact of technology..no need to make super villians or super-heroes out of them.
And I am saying this knowing full well that the technology that came into being for the last 300yrs is used for the greed of their elites in the most selfish and destructive manner. It is the greed of their elites and others and ooh yes ours that is the problem.
Brada
I once heard the south African ambassador to Canada once say, that in south Africa there is a wisdom which goes thus:
"Blacks were created underneath sunshine, so there were baked brown upon creation.
So-called whites were created at night (I say underground) so they remained pale."
Go back and read the LGM refugium theory again.
Read the caveman theory again.
Check out the neaderthals of neaderlands (aka neanderthals).
They told you their stories not I, the Lion! You may choose to believe them or disbelieve them.
My job is to undo the code. The I's job is to judge with sincerity.
Lion!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Doug M - Intelligent people do not disparage people with congenital defects - and that is what Albinism is - a congenital defect.
However, they also do not allow those same people to claim that the congenital defect somehow makes them special or superior - that's just common sense.
Since the previously naive (in thinking that they were harmless), and now "Beaten-Down" Black man; has many in his numbers who have accepted the defective Humans as being special or superior.
For Re-balancing to take place, it only makes sense to first try to lift the cloud of ignorance that this "weak-minded" portion of the Black population finds itself under. In order to do that, a accurate history is essential.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Tiger . . . . and Marc. LOL Sorry Marc couldn't resist, if what the say is true.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Lion - I. . . Tiger is doing the dirty work for us - and paying the price, He, he.
What does it tell you? HG-I is comparatively genetically very different to R1b/a the main southern European lineages. The immediate pre-cursor to hg-R1a/b is.. . .black African R-underived. The data shows that hg-I was isolated for a long time. The epicenter of hg-I1 is. . . Scandinavia area. . above the 45th parallel where most scientist agree that the white skin evolved. Scientist say it was a combination of diet and lack of sun that caused the Leucoderm mutation. But the Inuts don’t have the mutation because they ate . . .,fish. So what about Southern coastal Europeans. They should be eating a LOT more fish than Inuts. So we know the reported” trigger is . . .BS. The only reasonable explanation is the hg-I were isolated and had very little variety of food for a long time, this occurred where there is very little sunlight. We now know the mutation had selective sweep about 2000ya. Therefore mutation occurred in dark (sun deprived locations) ie Caves during the LGM. My guess is HG-I led to the demise of Neanderthals. They went extinct at and during the LGM . The Neanderthals were probably food for HG-I, after-all, the latest reports states both man and Neanderthals occupied these caves. Plus there is evidence that the Neanderthals were slaughtered and eaten. When HG-I emerged from the caves and started to spread they finished up the Neanderthals since they acquired a taste for them. According to some studies, per Dr. Nordvet, the HG-I spread mimic the spread of Germanic peoples after the fall of the Roman Empire. A reasonable explanation is the R1(Cameroonian) decedents(R1b) basically mixed with the southward migrating Hg-I peoples. Selective sweep for the skin occurred around 2000ya. As Meninarmer pointed out many times how can it be “natural” for a people to be allergic to the SUN. But I don’t agree with the Albino nonsense That is why a red-headed fair skin Ramses is hilarious. A bigots wet dream. Imagine a red-headed Nordic European running around in the deserts of Africa without sunblock and his shirt off(see wall pics). He will be red and blistered as a cherry. LOL. GTFOH. He wlll probably stick out like a sore thumb even in southern Europe.
Posted by Kaizen (Member # 16969) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Doug M - Intelligent people do not disparage people with congenital defects - and that is what Albinism is - a congenital defect.
However, they also do not allow those same people to claim that the congenital defect somehow makes them special or superior - that's just common sense.
Since the previously naive (in thinking that they were harmless), and now "Beaten-Down" Black man; has many in his numbers who have accepted the defective Humans as being special or superior.
For Re-balancing to take place, it only makes sense to first try to lift the cloud of ignorance that this "weak-minded" portion of the Black population finds itself under. In order to do that, a accurate history is essential.
Are your sly but constant insults towards Black people just your own pathetic way of dealing with the fact that you're an ugly ass, relatively dull and boring crackkka ass who does not like his white skin.... ? Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^Dirkie - is that you?
Posted by Kaizen (Member # 16969) on :
^ Naw, it's me mate Dave Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ Mike
Probably Clint Eastwood the hindu swami. A mixed up dude. He needs help.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
For Sure!
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: . .
Doug. Absurd? you write? Have you perchance looked in your mirror recently? You who say that even if someone looks Negroid they might well not be (by phenotype, I say) African? Looks like not only absurdity but a case of delusionality.
Delusion: Psychiatry. a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason. See also illusion, hallucination.
Doug, you might as well have said that …
All scholars agree that there is no such thing as 'race'"
You’d agree that the University of Pennsylvania, one of the Ivy League schools, is full of scholars, right?
In their Museum Library, put in the word “race” and you get over 10,000 entries.
Now. You are tell us that ALL SCHOLARS AGREE THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘RACE’’ and the Museum Library has over 10,000 books by scholars on race.
You are saying either these 10,000 sources don’t exist?
This is a case of a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason.
No race? It is all in your head, all illusion, all hallucination. It is delusion you carry.
. .
Bottom line Marc what I am saying is that you constantly regurgitate the absurd racists views of whites but claim it is somehow uplifting for blacks.
And for that matter your 4th grade chart doesn't even make any sense or reflect any views of the so-called scholars you believe in.
Posted by blackmanthinking (Member # 17520) on :
bump
Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
Hi Everybody,
I am new to this forum, and I wanted to say something about the picture of the First European. From what I understand of Forensics, everyone should be putting the emphasis on the actual remains of the skull itself. Has anyone ever put the cranial remains of Pestera cu Oase next to a Negro and Caucasian cranium to compare them, or the measurements. I have read in other forums that Richard Neave is either a fraud or is working faithfully as a true scientist. That isn't the issue at all. I compared the pictures of all four major races and took into account the measurements and I came to the conclusion that there is nothing greatly different between the Pestera cu Oase remains and the average European. The nasal width is 25 mm. perfectly within the specifications of Caucasians of any subtype. There is no prognathism and the chin is prominent. The nasal bones are narrow, but between flat and prominent (from what remains of the nasal bones). The nasal aperature is tear drop shaped, which is a Caucasian trait. The ramus is pinched, not straight, another Caucasian trait. The only trait of the skull that would not be defined as Caucasian is the shape of the orbits. They aren't as sloping as with Caucasians, but even a minority of Caucasians would have only slightly sloping orbits. I don't know why Neave rebuilt the face as the above picture, but that doesn't matter because the picture doesn't matter the actual remains do. The soft parts of the face are usually improvised, for example, the skin, the nostrals, the nose from the middle down is cartilage, which would lead to improvisation. The real Pestera cu Oase was a good 27,000 years separated from the African ancestors and his skin color would no doubt be the same as Caucasians from the Middle East.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
^^^You're wrong.
This is a picture of the first European according to your scientist. As you can see he was highly pigmented.
.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
rainburnice: Whether or not Africans were able to develop narrow noses is hypothetical (assumption) with as no examples proven in the real world.
^^COmplete and utter bullsh1tt. Plenty of "real world" examples have already been given.
. Eurasians entered Africa they mixed with the native inhabitants there and that's why you find mixed race remains of those time periods.Do you think that throughout all history the races were segragated and refused to mix with each other?
^^ANother bullsh1tt red herring. You still have not yet produced the credible scholarship that backs your claim of "mulatto" Africans, nor have you proved your claim that "Caucasoids" were in the Palestine area before tropical Africans. What's taking you so long?
Even if you are attempting to form a valid hypothesis the most parsimonious prevails. Your hypothesis attempts to disregard the fact that Africa was an open continent for bidirectional migration and that even though West Eurasian types were present at that time a completely independent evolution of a Caucasoid-like people occured in Africa. That isn't just a non-parsimonious hypothesis it is the most unlikely.
^^Your diversionary tactics won't work. We all know that Eurasians entered Africa at different times, that is not and never was at issue. You speak of "parsimonious' hypotheses but then turn around and spin a quite un-parsimonious "wandering Caucasoids" hypothesis to explain things like narrow noses in Africa when climate effects as well as Africa's native genetic diversity is close at hand. Brace 1993 already quoted shows things like that. Since you say that "most parsimonious prevails" then you have ironically succeeded in debunking your own claims.
The implication was that out of the two Haplogroups J and E, Haplogroup J was in the Levant first and Haplogroup E entered second.
^^Prove that tropical African people were not in the Levant before your Caucasoids. We have already asked you 3 or 4 times for credible scholarly proof. What's taking you so long?
This quote is too vague, which serves your purpose. Ohalo is in no way sub-Saharan African. It makes sense that you wouldn't provide a picture of Ohalo to confirm your hypothesis
Let's not deal with your eyeball anthropology that "expertly" can tell who is "mulatto" or not. Let's deal with credible mainstream scholarship. What's taking you so long?
And as for Nazlet Khater, which is of mostly W. Eurasian descent with moderate admixture with sub-Saharans. If you look at the skull, that is the most parsimonious explanation for the features.
^you keep making these claims like an empty echo chamber with little credible scholarship to back them up. Show us the scholarship that calls Nazlet Khater "Eurasian". What's taking you so long? Could it be that your eyeball anthropology is utter nonsense compared to the conclusions of credible mainstream scholars?
While you keep desperately searching for yet another "parsimonious" claims to dig you out of the hole, let us instruct you re Nazlet Khater:
QUOTE: Thoma concludes that the Nazlet Khater specimen is:
(a) indisputably anatomically modern with certain archaic characteristics; (b) related to the Nubian Epipaleolithic skeletal series from Wadi Halfa and Jebel Sahaba; and (c) displays Negroid characteristics such as alveolar prognathism and sub-nasal fossa." --P. Vermeersch 2002. Paleolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt
Please quote credible scholarship to back up your claim of how Nazlet Khater became "mostly Eurasian." We'll wait...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
[/QUOTE]
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
