This is topic Some Historic Shots from Asia in forum Deshret at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=008043

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Sniff to the black Asian thread long gone but in homage to threads of days gone by peruse this finest collection of vintage internet photo anthropology......

The land of Soul.... Korea.
 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/2419972390/in/set-72157604582452397

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/2421805439/in/set-72157604582452397

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/2422617754/in/set-72157604582452397

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/2419972934/in/set-72157604582452397

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/2422617982/in/set-72157604582452397

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/2422617300/in/set-72157604582452397

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/2421804669/in/set-72157604582452397/
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
"sniff to the black asian thread"?

How are these people "black"? They are clearly mostly Mongoloid.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
he is using the definition that black = any dark skinned person that is not European
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ I seriously question these photos as proof of black Asians, considering that these are supposedly Koreans and I have never seen or heard of black indigenes in Korea or in any part of northeast Asia. That there are folks darker in color than the usual pale or 'yellow' complexions, sure even such dark complexion are found among Siberians but I wouldn't exactly call them 'black'.
 
Posted by Son of Ra (Member # 20401) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I seriously question these photos as proof of black Asians, considering that these are supposedly Koreans and I have never seen or heard of black indigenes in Korea or in any part of northeast Asia. That there are folks darker in color than the usual pale or 'yellow' complexions, sure even such dark complexion are found among Siberians but I wouldn't exactly call them 'black'.

Wouldn't dark skin not be needed for the type of environment Korea is located in?
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ True. Not only Korea but even northern Asia around the arctic where there is very little sunlight. Yet there are populations in the region where dark or tan-like complexions do occur. The reason why is because these people supplement their diet with vitamin D. Vitamin D is produced in the skin using UV rays from the sun. Fair skin is an adaptation to areas with little UV so the skin can get as much UV as possible. In areas where there is a lot of UV like in the tropics, too much UV damages the skin so more melanin is needed for protection.

Examples of dark north Asians

Kirgiz Turk
 -

Khalka Mongol
 -

Inuit men
 -
 -

The problem with black-and-white photos is they often give a false impression of actual complexion.

 -

Thus the Inuit man above looks black in the above photo.
 
Posted by Son of Ra (Member # 20401) on :
 
^^^I see and good post as usual.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
sighh!! Even is Asia. Dark are to the South and light skin to the North. You cannot eyeball modern peoples and make assumptions.

Many Koreans, Chinese etc..are new migrants to the South.

indigenous people to the south eg Taiwan, Philopinnes are negritos ie dark. idigenous inhabitants of Taiwan are negritos.

Good god people!!!

Similarly many darks migrated north. STOP IT!!!! PLEASE!!!
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
.


 -
Korean soccer player Jong Tae-Se


.
 -
Khoisan man (note a brother in the background)


 -
Korean archer Im Dong-Hyun


 -  -
Nigerian Actress Mona Lisa Chinda

 -
Algerian Mozabite berber

 -
Tuareg berber


^^^ Djehutie says that these people aren't black because they are not dark enough to be black


 -
____1______2______3________4______5______7______8______9_____10______11



^ Djehutie I understand "brown" is not a desireable term.
If that is the case of which number does "black" begin?


.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
 -
Ethiopian
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Yes the Ethiopian above looks Asian due to his epicanthic eyelids which is not uncommon among many Africans. This is why there are many Africans with almond or even slanted eyes. Even many ancient Egyptians had such type eyes.

As for the whole color issue yes there are many North Africans who are 'brown' or quite light obviously due to admixture. The same is true for some West Africans. I don't know about that Nigerian actress, but her very light complexion is unusual for Nigerians unless she bleaches her skin.

So your attempt to obfuscate the label of 'black' is still a failure.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:


So your attempt to obfuscate the label of 'black' is still a failure.

 -
____1______2______3________4______5______7______8______9_____10______11


To the contrary, you are on this thread saying some people are black others aren't ( the True Blackism concept)
You say the black is simply a range of certain browns and nothing more. And we have a chart here for you to clarify what is black and what isn't.
But you want the term to be obfuscated so you can silently use criteria other than color in your determinations and move the goal posts whenever you feel like.

It's very simple it's out on the table. You said black is certain range of browns, here are some browns what's the range?


_______________________________________________________
 -

 -

^^^^ This guy for instance is darker than the Nigerian man above him yet you call him 'dark' and not 'black'

Now all of the sudden the Nigerian man who the world regards as black is not black because you define black as very dark and he's not 'very dark' but you would be afraid to say that. You keep silent on this type of example which exposes your BS.
Now according to you definitions the Nigerian man above is 'mixed' not black but of course you will go silent on that.
When somebody is consistently silent about something what they are being consistently silent about starts to show.

Now all of the sudden 50% or more of African Americans aren't black according to your nonense

but you won't say that, you're not that honest, can't take the heat and while you claim black is just a color you leave it unspecified, purposely mysterious

-so you can have wiggle room
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
Djehuti,Lioness, et al.

The issue of "race" is complex. Nature does not delineate according to "race". Humans impose their own taxonomic criteria on human populations to come up with their racial classifications. European anthropologists have been the majority on this issue. Some of them have said there are 3 races while others have argued for over 30. European anthropologists Ripley and Coon have each written a book titled "The Races of Europe"--Alpine, Nordic, and Mediterranean. Some even argued for "Semitic" and "Hamitic" races. Even today some continue to argue for the simple-minded "Caucasoid", "Mongoloid", and "Negroid" races. Not very intelligent here.

Point is that you have human populations that have behaved like clouds over millennia: they split apart thereby creating "genetic drift" and quite often they encounter each other again.

So let us look at human populations as "breeding populations" that when split apart acquire genotypical and phenotypical traits based on concepts such environmental selection, assorted mating, etc.

The result is that you eventually get human population "isolates" that even so share certain phenotypical traits derived from similar environmental conditions--e.g. isolate populations that have long experienced tropical conditions often evolve heavily pigmented epidermises. As with tropical zone Africans and South Asians.

Think of human populations as intersecting sets[basic mathematical set theory] that share many genomic criteria but not all. Isolate populations may share skin colour but differ in hair form.

Analyses using Haplogroup analysis and MRCA help but not totally when populations are subject to genetic drift and environmental pressures.

The best analysis should be a loose one: in the case of Africa you will have East, West, North and Southern African populations. For Asia: North East Asian, South East Asia, South Asia, North Asia, etc.

So simple chromatic tests about "race" in terms of colour are simply unworkable. Hair form and eye forms may work most of the time but there are many exceptions.

That's Nature for you: always moving, adapting, evolving, sneaking in new traits, eliminating old ones, etc.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
^^^ Djehutie says race doesn't exist
but he says 'black' is a definable term, that it iis a particular range of browns
( but not browns that are too light)

-but it is a secret range of browns that he applies to people but won't tell us his standard, he won't tells us which browns are 'black' and which browns are too light to be black

It's like if he were to report the size of a bone he has.
He says it measures 8

Somebody asks 8 inches or 8 centimeters ?

But he refuses to tell you, it's a secret..

we can only hope it's 8
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
Interesting observation: one can stand at the corner of the exit point of any American university and pinpoint with an accuracy of p>0.95 the geographical origins of passing students.

As I wrote above "isolate" populations sometimes meet--in the past and present--and intermingle but often there is no phenotypical impact or variance as in the case of say someone who identifies as Zulu(South Africa) marrying someone who identifies as Wolof(Senegal). In this case the MRCA could be some 10,000 YA. But take the case of someone who identifies as Dogon*(Mali) marrying someone from Iran, say, the offspring would be immediately seen as anomalous in both areas even though the MRCA could be just as ancient as 10--12,000YA.
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ True. Not only Korea but even northern Asia around the arctic where there is very little sunlight. Yet there are populations in the region where dark or tan-like complexions do occur. The reason why is because these people supplement their diet with vitamin D. Vitamin D is produced in the skin using UV rays from the sun. Fair skin is an adaptation to areas with little UV so the skin can get as much UV as possible. In areas where there is a lot of UV like in the tropics, too much UV damages the skin so more melanin is needed for protection.

He,he,he:

Still at it eh? Are they paying you to post this Albino nonsense?

Please explain:

Many Arctic people live AWAY from the coasts and do not get vitamin "D" rich fish to eat.
They live instead on Reindeer meat which has no vitamin "D". Why are they still dark?
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Seeing as the old Asian blacks thread mysteriously disappeared I assume it is because some folks are uncomfortable with the truth.

Yes, I know old black and white photos sometimes do not accurately portray peoples complexions, but for some of these photos it is simply nonsensical to claim it is due to them being black and white.

For example this one with the bride having the pale white skin (which is painted) in contrast to the complexions (AND FEATURES) of those around her.

 -

Sure photos can alter color but lip shape and eye shape? I think not.

The reason I posted these is to show that most of the ideas of RACE are purely based on the political propaganda of Europeans since the 18th century. ALL features come from Africa, including the high cheekbone, slanted eyed so called Mongolian and all other Asian phenotypes.

Note that the folks who took these pictures were WHITES and if you notice almost ALL of their photos of many parts of Asia from the late 1800s to early 1900s clearly feature blacks and they even comment on it in their writings. So not only are they liars but they are consummate liars but unfortunately most of those in Asia today have been educated by these Europeans and therefore believe in that nonsense.

Africans:
 -

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/benedictedesrus02/5338597893/

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/statephotos/5922571987/

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27673812@N05/7407465718/

Aeta Philippines:
 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/currystrumpet/735347437/

Here is a book from the same time period when those photos were taken in Korea.
http://archive.org/details/fifteenyearsamon00undeiala

quote:


Being now settled for the time being in Seoul, I must introduce you to the Corean, not as a nation, you must understand, but as an individual. It is a prevalent idea that the Coreans are Chinese, and therefore exactly like them in physique and appearance, and, if not like the Chinese, that they must be like their neighbours on the other side the Japanese. As a matter of fact, they are like neither. Naturally the continuous incursions of both Chinese and Japanese into this country have left distinct traces of their passage on the general appearance of the people ; and, of course, the distinction which I shall endeavour to make is not so marked as that between whites and blacks, for the Coreans, speaking generally, do bear a certain resemblance to the other peoples of Mongolian origin. Though belonging to this family, however, they form a perfectly distinct branch of it. Not only that, but when you notice a crowd of Coreans you will be amazed to see among them people almost as white and with features closely approaching the Aryan, these being, the higher classes in the kingdom. The more common type is the yellow-skinned face, with slanting eyes, high cheek-bones, and thick, hanging lips. But, again, you will observe faces much resembling the Thibetans and Hindoos, and if you carry your observations still further you will find all over the kingdom, mostly among the coolie classes, men as black as Africans, or like the people of Asia Minor.

http://archive.org/details/coreaorchosenlan00landrich

Asia Minor probably means South Asia...

Now the thing to remember is that in most cases, the diversity of populations seen in these old photos were right around the same time some of the most RACIST Europeans started making up their theories of human origins. And OF COURSE in their world view, being conquerors, they (the white "RACE") had to be the superior or original race, or if not that, at the very least the superior of many different "races".

quote:

A decade before the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859), Samuel G. Morton stated flatly that “the question of the origin of species is [ a question or the origin] of the human species.” In the years between 1830 and 1859 the scientific theory known as polygenesis―which held that humans were divided into races, each with a separate origin and with fixed characteristics―had come to dominate the understanding of human history. Advocated most vigorously by a group of naturalists and doctors which came to be known as the American School, the polygenic theory of human origins was openly acknowledged by some of its proponents as a scientific justification for slavery. It used against the abolitionists, who often turned to the biblical account of humans having one single origin, or monogenesis, to support their cause.

http://until-darwin.blogspot.com/2012/09/darwin-slavery-species-question.html

And it is precisely due to the RACE SCIENCE that was created and became popular among the elites doing most of the conquering and pillaging around the world that Europeans began practicing Eugenics and ethnic cleansing in many native populations to rid them of their "impure" or "backwards" elements..... meaning black folks. Now keep in mind that the REAL REASON for all of this is to erase any and all evidence for the FACT that humans originated in Africa. This FACT went AGAINST the goals and aims of the white colonist as it proved that the white race was not superior. So what to do? Well just commit genocide and get rid of the evidence once and for all. But you know time and nature is funny. It just so happened that it was exactly around this same time frame that Europeans invented the camera and being the inquisitive and meticulous documentors of all the things and people and places they visited and conquered, we can see the truth that in many cases they have tried to hide or suppress.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
.

BLACK PEOPLE

 -

_________________________________________________________


 -

top row, left to right
Inuit, Turkic, Korean

bottom row, left to right
Inuit, African American, Tunisian
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
 -
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
 -

Lioness, you had better hope that Doxie or Cass are not around!

But yes, you are quite correct, Mongols can be Albino and Albino derived just like Dravidians (Europeans).


 -
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:


And it is precisely due to the RACE SCIENCE that was created and became popular among the elites doing most of the conquering and pillaging around the world that Europeans began practicing Eugenics and ethnic cleansing in many native populations to rid them of their "impure" or "backwards" elements..... meaning black folks. Now keep in mind that the REAL REASON for all of this is to erase any and all evidence for the FACT that humans originated in Africa. This FACT went AGAINST the goals and aims of the white colonist as it proved that the white race was not superior.

Charles Darwin was one of the first to propose common descent of living organisms, and among the first to suggest that all humans had in common ancestors who lived in Africa. Later anthropological discoveries were to provide supporting evidence for the theory
 
Posted by DHDoxies (Member # 19701) on :
 
Mike come off of it you stupid POS. That girl is NOT White she is NOT of my people & NEVER will be. Again we WHITES are NOT Albinos we are NOT Albino derived, we are NOT Dravidians either you stupid idiotic Kill Whitey POS. Lioness those girls are NOT White they are KOREANS (mongols)not part of my people & NEVER will be.
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
^Doxie darling, you poor redneck, White does NOT speak to ethnicity, it merely speaks to skin color. Therefore THEY can be Mongol WHITE and YOU can be Dravidian (European) WHITE without conflict.
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
^Of course because Africa has many ethnicity, Africa also has many TYPES of Albinos.

.

Nigerian Albino;

 -


 -


Tanzania Albino;

 -


 -



Mandinke people of Mali

 -
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
The point here is that ALL of European history is but one set of lies on top of another and has about as much to do with truth and scholarship as a pineapple has to do with catfish. Race theories of the 1800s were created to JUSTIFY conquest and subjugation and to promote the idea that it was justified in order to bring about progress. And that progress was always equated with the accumulation of wealth and resources in the hands of white men who would then go on and in their leisure create industry and innovation which would lead the world to a better age. Therefore, according to that so-called "philosophy", killing off Natives in any place unable to resist European expansion was justified. And the race theories were simply created at this time to promote scientific propaganda in support of the spread of colonial expansion. Colonies were companies and the point of these companies was to amass as much wealth as possible from the lands of conquered natives outside of Europe in order to create the economic and industrial framework which would go on to dominate the world economic system.

No other group on earth has EVER gone to such great lengths to cause so much death and destruction in the name of "progress" as these Europeans. To the point that they are synonymous with death, disease and destruction. Yet because of their creation of the so called "sciences" and the educational systems they built to teach it, they have been able to brainwash the whole entire world to believe in it. A perfect example of this brainwashing is the fact that people in the 1800s actually believed these scientists were actually trying to engage in "honest" and "unbiased" research into the history of man. But anyone with half a brain could plainly see they were doing anything but. They were really trying to erase and obfuscate the history of man and replace it with their own white washed version of history. But that only makes sense for people going around conquering and killing off people of color around the world. But that is only if you use common sense.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:


Here is a book from the same time period when those photos were taken in Korea.

[Corea; or, Cho-sen, the land of the morning calm (1895)
by Arnold Henry Savage Lando
English adventurer/painter/traveller/raconteur]


Being now settled for the time being in Seoul, I must introduce you to the Corean, not as a nation, you must understand, but as an individual. It is a prevalent idea that the Coreans are Chinese, and therefore exactly like them in physique and appearance, and, if not like the Chinese, that they must be like their neighbours on the other side the Japanese. As a matter of fact, they are like neither. Naturally the continuous incursions of both Chinese and Japanese into this country have left distinct traces of their passage on the general appearance of the people ; and, of course, the distinction which I shall endeavour to make is not so marked as that between whites and blacks, for the Coreans, speaking generally, do bear a certain resemblance to the other peoples of Mongolian origin. Though belonging to this family, however, they form a perfectly distinct branch of it. Not only that, but when you notice a crowd of Coreans you will be amazed to see among them people almost as white and with features closely approaching the Aryan, these being, the higher classes in the kingdom. The more common type is the yellow-skinned face, with slanting eyes, high cheek-bones, and thick, hanging lips. But, again, you will observe faces much resembling the Thibetans and Hindoos, and if you carry your observations still further you will find all over the kingdom, mostly among the coolie classes, men as black as Africans, or like the people of Asia Minor.

http://archive.org/stream/coreaorchosenlan00landrich/coreaorchosenlan00landrich_djvu.txt



 -
Pic: The Tibetan weather and Landor’s hardships leave their mark (early 1897 and late 1897)
( before and after his trip to Tibet)

"Almost certainly an agent of Empire in the Great Game, he was a success both on the trail and on the printed page, his best-selling books getting him lucrative lecture tours all over the world, and further travel opportunities, which suited this raconteur just fine."

The Great Game was a term for the strategic rivalry and conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire for supremacy in Central Asia.

In the 1990s, the use of the expression "The New Great Game" in reference to classical "Great Game" appeared;to describe the competition between various Western powers, Russia, and China for political influence and access to raw materials in Central Eurasia—"influence, power, hegemony and profits in Central Asia and the Transcaucasus"
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
 -

Crispy Catfish with Pineapple

_________________________________________________


http://www.answerbus.com/why-korean-people-obsessed-with-being-fair-cWEtMjAwOTA1MjQwMDI4NDFBQUkxaXJY.html

Question: Why are korean people obsessed with being fair?

Generally speaking, not saying every korean - why are they so obsessed with being white/fair? it's quite apparent in the photos they take on the internet, like they do all these pouts and photoshop the crap out of their photos?

Answer:

one word - "media"

95% of the portrayed celebrities and models have fair skin

korea's ideal women would be double eyelid or huge eye, small nose, small lips, straight hair, slim, and tall...
which most cultures do....

people in asia think that white skin hides imperfection. It's not just in Korea, it's in China, Japan, Thailand, Laos, Philippines and Cambodia too. For example, I'm a Cambodian girl and people over there worship white skin. In my culture, dark skin indicates that you're 'farmer'.

I think all skin tones are beautiful and everyone should appreciate what they have.

The trend you refer to is called baek-saek-mi-in (백색미인 or 白色美人).

What is considered "beautiful" and "ugly" in a country is generally based upon the way that most upper class/lower class people look.

For example, in Korea, the high-class people spend most of their time indoors. They have very light skin because they don't tan. Therefore, Koreans want to have light skin to look like the high-class people.

People with tan skin look like they might be farmers, construction workers, or parking lot ajeosshis. Therefore, dark skin here is associated with low income and status.

It used to be like this in the United States. In the United States, people used to try to keep their complexions light, because people with tans were like the farmers and parking lot ajeosshis of Korea today. However, as the United States became a post-industrial society, most people worked indoors, and tans became the fashion because only the upper class had enough leisure to spend enough time outdoors to have tans.

On a similar note, being plump in some East Asian cultures (especially China, and old Koreans sometimes still think this way) is still considered a good thing. It's healthy for child birth. Since poor people in China (and old Korea) are almost never plump, being plump was associated with status and health and childbirth capability.

So basically, in the end, beauty is determined by how the upper classes look. The standard of beauty is generally determined by how the upper class people look.

I predict that in Korea, tans will become fashionable within about 10 years. Korea is becoming a post-industrial society. Some of my evidence of this is in Japan. Japan became a post-industrial society a while ago, and at that point, the white-skinned geisha ideal waned and now many attractive Japanese women have tans because, similar to the change that American fashion went through, as Japan has become a post-industrial society, more and more people are working indoors, and a tan is a sign of class.

Korea, when it reaches full post-industrial status like Japan, will also consider tans trendy.

Light skin is a sign of wealth. Wealthy Koreans stay inside more often and are fairer skinned. Dark skin is considered the skin of the working class and farm laborers. It is part of their Confucian/feudalistic society. If you are light skinned then you are superior to someone who is dark skinned.

They may just as well ask you: Why are Americans obsessed with being tan? In Asia, the geisha is the symbol of beauty. Geisha's made a living off of their beauty and grace. These are just cultural differences. A hundred years ago, it was far more attractive to be pale even in America. In Africa, it is attractive to be overweight. Actually, fairer complexion being attractive makes more sense. Tan skin (as in not natural, from tanning) is far less healthy. They wear cream to make their skin lighter, we wear bronze and spray tans.

Fair skin indicates upper class and it gives a cleaner look in Korea.

It means beauty

Being fair is beauty - Korean's view.

______________________________________________

^^^ not really, look at how beautiful that Ethiopian man is
 
Posted by DHDoxies (Member # 19701) on :
 
Mike, I told myself I was gonna do this the next time you called me a redneck hehehehe, just couldn't help myself LOL. Enjoy the song LOL ROTFLMBO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82dDnv9zeLs


Anyhow, there is only ONE White race & that is my people.
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DHDoxies:
Anyhow, there is only ONE White race & that is my people.

.

 -
 
Posted by JujuMan (Member # 6729) on :
 
^ [Big Grin]
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Yes the Black Asian Thread was one of the best on the topic, to bad it was deleted.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:


Aeta Philippines:
 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/currystrumpet/735347437/

The Philipino Blacks have always intrigued me. They don't look like the Negritos, they look different and unique. The Hair and Skin tone.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Aeta are considered to be Negritos
 -
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Correct. I was just about to say that the Aeta aboriginal peoples of the Philippines ARE 'Negritos'.
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:


Aeta Philippines:
 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/currystrumpet/735347437/

The Philipino Blacks have always intrigued me. They don't look like the Negritos, they look different and unique. The Hair and Skin tone.
The people in the picture above are likely a mixture of Aeta (Negrito) and Malay. I know because I've seen some (Malay) Filipinos who've intermarried with Aetas and produced such people.

I've also seen a Filipina woman who married a Sudanese man from Africa and her baby son looked 'pure' Aeta in appearance including juvenile blondism.
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
You guys are right about the Aeta, but how come the Fillipino Aeta look different than the Andaman?

 -

or Is Negrito just a blanket term for the native blacks of S.E Asia
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ 'Negrito' like all racial terms coined by Western anthropologists IS a blanket term!

'Negrito' is Latin for 'little black' and is basically defined as a diminutive 'negro'. Thus 'Negrito' applied to Pygmies of Africa as well as aboriginal Southeast Asians of short stature.

Of course there is going to be diversity looks between the various aboriginal groups of Southeast Asia, so not all 'Negrito' groups will look alike anymore than 'Negro' groups of Africa are supposed to look alike. Therein lies the problem with racial thinking.

More Aeta

 -

 -

 -

 -

 -

 -

 -

 -

Color version of the photo lioness posted:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTz1T4WcEgfWvHJ2ujRhpRa1pwHyCvG98bMBxeQ9XCFTAzP4TwW
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
^^^Im not saying the Negritos should "Look Alike" persay just that the Fillipino Negritos and the Andaman look like they descend from two different sources, the Fllippinos look more "stereotypically Asian"(Long Hair, Eyes and Nose etc)

Also I was under the impression the Nigritos only applied to the Andaman..
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ [Confused] I have no idea what you're talking about. Filipino Negritos or Aeta don't look much like stereotypical Asians at all unless they are mixed. Many Aetas are mixed due to intermarriage with Malays (typical Filipinos).
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^Im not saying the Negritos should "Look Alike" persay just that the Fillipino Negritos and the Andaman look like they descend from two different sources, the Fllippinos look more "stereotypically Asian"(Long Hair, Eyes and Nose etc)

Also I was under the impression the Nigritos only applied to the Andaman..

Been here since 2007 and still don't know that the people we call Filipinos ARE Asians (Mongols), and are DIFFERENT from Negritos.


THESE ARE NEGRITOS, THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.


 -


 -


IN THE LATE 1200s THE MONGOLS INVADED: according to Wiki - "Native people of modern Taiwan and Philippines helped the Mongol armada but they were never conquered."

THESE MONGOL AND MULATTO FILIPINOS ARE THE RESULT OF THOSE INVASIONS AND SUBSEQUENT EUROPEAN INVASIONS.

 -


 -


 -
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
^It must be the Crack.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:

Been here since 2007 and still don't know that the people we call Filipinos ARE Asians (Mongols), and are DIFFERENT from Negritos.

And you've been here since 2005 and you don't know that 'Asian' is anyone living in the continent and associated islands of Asia which includes aboriginal groups like 'Negritos'. Racial terms like 'Mongol' and 'Negrito' are invalid anyway. I prefer the term 'Malay' to describe the stereotypical Filipino. And by 'Malay' I don't mean it in the racial sense Westerners used it but in the cultural or ethnic sense that stereotypical or 'Mongol' (I hate that term) Asians of the Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Malaysia all belong to the same cultural group or heritage.

quote:
THESE ARE NEGRITOS, THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.


 -


 -


IN THE LATE 1200s THE MONGOLS INVADED: according to Wiki - "Native people of modern Taiwan and Philippines helped the Mongol armada but they were never conquered."

THESE MONGOL AND MULATTO FILIPINOS ARE THE RESULT OF THOSE INVASIONS AND SUBSEQUENT EUROPEAN INVASIONS.

 -


 -


 -

LOL 'Mongoloid' peoples of Taiwan and the Philippines have NOTHING to do with Mongolians or Europeans but as I said are Malay people who immigrated to these islands thousands of years before the Mongols even existed! Of course the Aeta and other black aboriginals were the first inhabitants.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
 -
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
.North Asians are lighter than Europeans...isn't that a bitch.

 -


 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
LOL 'Mongoloid' peoples of Taiwan and the Philippines have NOTHING to do with Mongolians or Europeans but as I said are Malay people who immigrated to these islands thousands of years before the Mongols even existed! Of course the Aeta and other black aboriginals were the first inhabitants.

It sounds like you are trying to suggest that the Lapita people were of the Mongol (Chinese) phenotype. That is incorrect, they were stereotypical Blacks, their descendants are Solomon Islanders and such.


 -


Mongol people came recently (the current era).
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
^^^ similalry according to your teachings
American Blacks rather than being of recent
African origin are in fact primarily
Eurasians like 'whites' both recent to America,
go the fvck back to Germany, all of yall
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Lioness - European Albinos are NOT Eurasians, they are CENTRAL Asians. They spread from there and admixed with insitu populations that they encountered.

In the south, Negritos present an interesting logical problem:

Looking at South Asia and the Pacific: Conventional history tells us that the Australians left Africa first, then the Paupans, then the Negritoes, then the Austronesians (Lapita people), and then finally the Mongols.

But if you consider how peoples movements are actually controlled by their success and numbers, then that may not be true.

We know that Negritos (small Blacks - perhaps Pygmies) once populated all of South Asia. Australians and Paupans leaving Africa would not have had the strength to displace the Negritos, thus THEY would have been forced to move on to find land that they could claim for themselves. Which would mean that Negritos were the first out of Africa.

Of course it's also possible that the Negritos actually displaced them, and forced them to move on. But Negritos are not known to be warlike.

Note: Australians did not go directly to Australia, it was a process of discovery and settlement that probably took several thousand years.
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
What about these people..


Aeta Philippines:
 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/currystrumpet/735347437/

The look "Asian" to me..but you are saying they are mixed more than likely.

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ [Confused] I have no idea what you're talking about. Filipino Negritos or Aeta don't look much like stereotypical Asians at all unless they are mixed. Many Aetas are mixed due to intermarriage with Malays (typical Filipinos).


 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Unlike you Im willing to admit to where Im ignorant on a subject matter, my knowledge with Asia is lacking to say the least. That Said I don't buy the crap that comes out of your mouth considering your distortions on other subjects.

You know like how Lioness exposed you on the Hiriri thread..

quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:
[QB] blah blah


 
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:

Been here since 2007 and still don't know that the people we call Filipinos ARE Asians (Mongols), and are DIFFERENT from Negritos.

And you've been here since 2005 and you don't know that 'Asian' is anyone living in the continent and associated islands of Asia which includes aboriginal groups like 'Negritos'. Racial terms like 'Mongol' and 'Negrito' are invalid anyway. I prefer the term 'Malay' to describe the stereotypical Filipino. And by 'Malay' I don't mean it in the racial sense Westerners used it but in the cultural or ethnic sense that stereotypical or 'Mongol' (I hate that term) Asians of the Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Malaysia all belong to the same cultural group or heritage.
You just switched the name (Malay/Mongol) but kept the same concept: a term to designate a specific ethnic/racial stereotypical looking type (i.e. not negrito). At least Mike is honest, you on the other hand are simply playing language games.
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Unlike you Im willing to admit to where Im ignorant on a subject matter, my knowledge with Asia is lacking to say the least. That Said I don't buy the crap that comes out of your mouth considering your distortions on other subjects.

You know like how Lioness exposed you on the Hiriri thread..

distortions, Hiriri thread???

Yes you ARE ignorant, but now you show yourself to be delusional too!!!

Damn boy, pull up your pants and stay off the Crack.
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Yeah you are simply stupid. Its funny how you can't even see how stupid Lioness made you look, but Its not suprizing considering you are a fraud.
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
The Phillipines are no where near Mongolia. So why use "Mongol" for people who probably never seen a Mongol let alone consider themselves one. Malaysia is closer to the Phillipines, Malay can be used similar to Nilotic.

quote:
Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:

Been here since 2007 and still don't know that the people we call Filipinos ARE Asians (Mongols), and are DIFFERENT from Negritos.

And you've been here since 2005 and you don't know that 'Asian' is anyone living in the continent and associated islands of Asia which includes aboriginal groups like 'Negritos'. Racial terms like 'Mongol' and 'Negrito' are invalid anyway. I prefer the term 'Malay' to describe the stereotypical Filipino. And by 'Malay' I don't mean it in the racial sense Westerners used it but in the cultural or ethnic sense that stereotypical or 'Mongol' (I hate that term) Asians of the Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Malaysia all belong to the same cultural group or heritage.
You just switched the name (Malay/Mongol) but kept the same concept: a term to designate a specific ethnic/racial stereotypical looking type (i.e. not negrito). At least Mike is honest, you on the other hand are simply playing language games.

 
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
The Phillipines are no where near Mongolia. So why use "Mongol" for people who probably never seen a Mongol let alone consider themselves one. Malaysia is closer to the Phillipines, Malay can be used similar to Nilotic.

quote:
Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:

Been here since 2007 and still don't know that the people we call Filipinos ARE Asians (Mongols), and are DIFFERENT from Negritos.

And you've been here since 2005 and you don't know that 'Asian' is anyone living in the continent and associated islands of Asia which includes aboriginal groups like 'Negritos'. Racial terms like 'Mongol' and 'Negrito' are invalid anyway. I prefer the term 'Malay' to describe the stereotypical Filipino. And by 'Malay' I don't mean it in the racial sense Westerners used it but in the cultural or ethnic sense that stereotypical or 'Mongol' (I hate that term) Asians of the Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Malaysia all belong to the same cultural group or heritage.
You just switched the name (Malay/Mongol) but kept the same concept: a term to designate a specific ethnic/racial stereotypical looking type (i.e. not negrito). At least Mike is honest, you on the other hand are simply playing language games.

I agree, that would make geographic sense. But Mary was addressing the racial usage of the term by westerners and claimed that she was somehow different by using another term which of course is not true since she just switched terms but kept the concept, i.e. stereotypical Asians who are not negritos.
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
The Phillipines are no where near Mongolia. So why use "Mongol" for people who probably never seen a Mongol let alone consider themselves one. Malaysia is closer to the Phillipines, Malay can be used similar to Nilotic.

My initial response to this was another tirade against your kind - dope doing slackers. But upon second thought, I realized that if insult hasn't caused you to change your ways after all these years, then it's not likely to work now.

So patiently:

Mongol does NOT relate to the country of Mongolia, it relates to one of the three major racial categories of humans; i.e. Black, White (Albino), and Mongol (previously Yellow).

And Filipinos do indeed know that they are Mongol.


What Djehuti (and Mongols in general) are trying to do, is the same thing as the Amazigh in North Africa, and the Turk mulattoes in the middle-east and Arabia are trying to do. That is, to confuse the issue so that it appears that they are original people.

To this end, Mongols have demanded that they be called "Asians". But as some of us know, Black Australians, Paupans, Negritos, and Austronesians were there long before the Mongols. So if Mongols are "Asian" then what are the Black original inhabitants?
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
The Phillipines are no where near Mongolia. So why use "Mongol" for people who probably never seen a Mongol let alone consider themselves one. Malaysia is closer to the Phillipines, Malay can be used similar to Nilotic.

My initial response to this was another tirade against your kind - dope doing slackers. But upon second thought, I realized that if insult hasn't caused you to change your ways after all these years, then it's not likely to work now.

So patiently:

Mongol does NOT relate to the country of Mongolia, it relates to one of the three major racial categories of humans; i.e. Black, White (Albino), and Mongol (previously Yellow).

And Filipinos do indeed know that they are Mongol.


What Djehuti (and Mongols in general) are trying to do, is the same thing as the Amazigh in North Africa, and the Turk mulattoes in the middle-east and Arabia are trying to do. That is, to confuse the issue so that it appears that they are original people.

To this end, Mongols have demanded that they be called "Asians". But as some of us know, Black Australians, Paupans, Negritos, and Austronesians were there long before the Mongols. So if Mongols are "Asian" then what are the Black original inhabitants?

ASIANS
 -
 -

 -

 -
 -
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Mike you are a f-king joke. Do you even know what the "OID" in MONGOL-OID the Racial category means dummy.

You keep bringing up Crack, is this a freudian slip? Now I understand your dazzling stupidity...Your feeble brain is cooked from the Crack-Cocain.

quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:

Mongol does NOT relate to the country of Mongolia,


 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
^Lioness - That barely scratches the surface.
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Mike you are a f-king joke. Do you even know what the "OID" in MONGOL-OID the Racial category means dummy.

You keep bringing up Crack, is this a freudian slip? Now I understand your dazzling stupidity...Your feeble brain is cooked from the Crack-Cocain.

quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:

Mongol does NOT relate to the country of Mongolia,


Jari - "OID" means something resembling a (specified) object or thing.

So a Mongoloid resembles a Mongol:

Okay, so what's your point?

Are you trying to say that Black Asians resemble Mongols - maybe?

I don't get it, so lets try this. Wait till you sober up, then try explaining what you mean.
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Mike talking to you is like talking to a dumb animal which is why I avoid it as much as possible.

Let me make it easy for you..

Mongol-oid=Some one who resembles a Mongol, a Mongol is an inhabitant of Mongolia. Mongol=Inhabitant of Mongolia. Thus the racial Category Mongoloid is applied to anyone who resembles a Mongolian Native.

So how can your stupid ass say Mongol has nothing to do with Mongolia...?

Are you this fucking dumb, I mean really.

Just stick to Lioness, she makes a fool out of your clown ass daily..lol
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Here let me make it easy for you...

quote:
The term "Mongoloid" comes from the Mongol people who caused great terror throughout Eurasia during the Mongol Empire invasions, and the new appearance of the Mongols and paranoia was used throughout the Western world to create a new racial classification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid

BTW I thought whitey was a lying albino, why you using his terms..lmao. Lay off the Crack.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
etymology

Mongol
1738 (n.); 1763 (adj.), native name, said to be from mong "brave."

Mongolian
1738 (adj.); 1846 (n.), from Mongol + -ian. As a classification for "the Asiatic race," it is from 1868.

_____________________________________________________

wiki claims this:

The earliest systematic use of the term Mongoloid was by Blumenbach in De generis humani varietate nativa (On the Natural Variety of Mankind, University of Göttingen, first published in 1775, re-issued with alteration of the title-page in 1776). Blumenbach included East and South East Asians, but not Native Americans or Malays, who were each assigned separate categories.

^^^ Not sure if this is correct


more:

The concept of a Malay race was originally proposed by the German scientist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752–1840), and classified as the brown race.[1] Since Blumenbach, many anthropologists have rejected his theory of five races, citing the enormous complexity of classifying races. The concept of a "Malay race" differs with that of the ethnic Malays centered around Malaysian Malay Peninsula and parts of the Indonesian island of Sumatra.

The term Malay race was commonly used in the late 19th century and early 20th century to describe the Austronesian people.
By 1795, Blumenbach added another race called 'Malay' which he considered to be a subcategory of both the Ethiopian and Mongoloid races. The Malay race were those of a "brown color, from olive and a clear mahogany to the darkest clove or chestnut brown." Blumenbach expanded the term "Malay" to include the native inhabitants of the Marianas, the Philippines, the Malukus, Sundas, Indochina, as well as Pacific Islands such as Tahitians. He considered a Tahitian skull he had received to be the missing link; showing the transition between the "primary" race, the Caucasians, and the "degenerate" race, the Negroids.
Blumenbach and other monogenists such as Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon were believers in the "degeneration theory" of racial origins. Blumenbach claimed that Adam and Eve were Caucasian (Georgian) and that other races came about by degeneration from environmental factors such as the sun and poor dieting—for instance, he claimed Negroid pigmentation arose because of the result of the heat of the tropical sun, while the cold wind caused the tawny colour of the Eskimos, and the Chinese were fair skinned compared to the other Asian stocks because they kept mostly in towns protected from environmental factors. He believed that the degeneration could be reversed if proper environmental control was taken and that all contemporary forms of man could revert to the original Caucasian race.[12]

Blumenbach did not consider his "degeneration theory" as racist and sharply criticized Christoph Meiners, an early practitioner of scientific racialism as well as Samuel Thomas von Sömmerring who concluded from autopsies that Africans were an inferior race.[13]

He also wrote three essays claiming non-white peoples are capable of excelling in arts and sciences in reaction against racialists of his time who believed they couldn't.[14]

The term "Mongoloid" comes from the Mongol people who caused great terror throughout Eurasia during the Mongol Empire invasions, and the new appearance of the Mongols and paranoia was used throughout the Western world to create a new racial classification. The words "Mongol", "Mongolian", "Mongoloid" were extensively used throughout European history since the 13th century usually in a negative manner. However in the modern sense, "Mongol" refers to the Mongol ethnic group and "Mongolian" refers to something related with the country of Mongolia not necessarily in terms of ethnicity. The first use of the term Mongolian race was by Christoph Meiners in a "binary racial scheme". His "two races" were labeled "Tartar-Caucasians", which comprised Celtic and Slavic groups, and "Mongolians".[8]

Johann Blumenbach said he borrowed the term Mongolian from Christoph Meiners to describe the race he designated "second, [which] includes that part of Asia beyond the Ganges and below the river Amoor [Amur], which looks toward the south, together with the islands and the greater part of these countries which is now called Australian".[9]
 
Posted by mena7 (Member # 20555) on :
 
In Al Jazeera news this month, 300 armed Philipinos invaded part of the territory of Malaysia located in the Indonesian Island of Kalimantan because it was part of their precolonial kingdom seized by the British and given to the Malaysian after their independance.

What was the original name of the Philipine before it was renamed by the European after King Philipe I Habsburgh of Spain ? What was the religion of precolonial Philipine before being converted to Roman Catholicism?.What was the native language of the Philipine before adopting the Spanish and English language ?.
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
BTW I thought whitey was a lying albino, why you using his terms..lmao. Lay off the Crack.

I personally don't care what they call themselves - as long as they know their place.

Hopefully you read the article that you posted: therefore you should know that actual Mongols at about 3 million people, represent a tiny percent of the people referred to as Mongols, or if you prefer Mongoloids. Example the Han Chinese are about 1,2 BILLION! The Japanese are about 100 million. That makes me wonder what the word actually means and where it came from.

Anyway, even to your drug damaged brain it must be obvious that the other terms are impractical. i.e. Yellow people is insulting, Chinese leaves half of the worlds Mongol types out, Asian combines the Mongol types with Blacks, which is incorrect. Okay - NOW do you get it???
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:


Mongol does NOT relate to the country of Mongolia, it relates to one of the three major racial categories of humans; i.e. Black, White (Albino), and Mongol (previously Yellow).

And Filipinos do indeed know that they are Mongol.



Mike its sounds like you susbscribe to the European concept of three major races

As an example, I will illustrate just one of these categories

the black race:

 -


 -
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mena7:
In Al Jazeera news this month, 300 armed Philipinos invaded part of the territory of Malaysia located in the Indonesian Island of Kalimantan because it was part of their precolonial kingdom seized by the British and given to the Malaysian after their independance.

What was the original name of the Philipine before it was renamed by the European after King Philipe I Habsburgh of Spain ? What was the religion of precolonial Philipine before being converted to Roman Catholicism?.What was the native language of the Philipine before adopting the Spanish and English language ?.

mena7, is there something which prevents YOU from looking that information up?
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
BTW I thought whitey was a lying albino, why you using his terms..lmao. Lay off the Crack.

I personally don't care what they call themselves - as long as they know their place.

Hopefully you read the article that you posted: therefore you should know that actual Mongols at about 3 million people, represent a tiny percent of the people referred to as Mongols, or if you prefer Mongoloids. Example the Han Chinese are about 1,2 BILLION! The Japanese are about 100 million. That makes me wonder what the word actually means and where it came from.

Anyway, even to your drug damaged brain it must be obvious that the other terms are impractical. i.e. Yellow people is insulting, Chinese leaves half of the worlds Mongol types out, Asian combines the Mongol types with Blacks, which is incorrect. Okay - NOW do you get it???

WHITE PEOPLE
 -
 -
 -

______________________________________

YELLOW PEOPLE
 -
 -
 -
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:

Mike its sounds like you susbscribe to the European concept of three major races

Yes, I most certainly do.
But you err in describing them, in this case science leads the way.

From this Study, science discovered that the test for European/White/Albino was much simpler than we thought. It's just a question of susceptibility to Sunburn. The easier you Sunburn, the closer you are to being a "Pure" Albino. The harder it is for you to Sunburn, the more Black admixture you have.

He,he,he:
Doxie has said that she rarely Sunburns.


 -


With Central Asian Albinos out of the way, then it is only a matter of excluding Asian Albinos or near Albinos who can Sunburn.

 -  -  -

After that you are left with all the worlds non-defective (Black or near Black Humans) - Humans who do NOT Sunburn.


 -  -  -  -
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:


Mongol does NOT relate to the country of Mongolia, it relates to one of the three major racial categories of humans; i.e. Black, White (Albino), and Mongol (previously Yellow).

And Filipinos do indeed know that they are Mongol.



 -
 -


Mike your talk about sunburn does not relate to
" three major racial categories of humans; i.e. Black, White (Albino), and Mongol "
 -

 -
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
YELLOW PEOPLE
 -
 -
 -

YES!

Indeed you are right - at least partially.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
YES! Mike you endorse a Mongol race yet as we can see it is not defined by skin color and you increasingly come off dumb


 -

 -

__________________________________________________


 -
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
^Today, mostly because of Negro complaints, we have turned our backs on scientific categories based on skin color - because the Albinos didn't tell us what they meant!

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752–1840), came up with the five color typology for humans: white people (the Caucasian or white race), more or less black people (the Ethiopian or black race), yellow people (the Mongolian or yellow race), cinnamon-brown or flame colored people (the American or red race) and brown people (the Malay or brown race). Blumenbach listed the "races" in a hierarchic order of physical similarities: Caucasian, followed by American, followed by Mongolian, followed by Malayan, followed by Africoid peoples. Rand McNally's 1944 map of races describes Amerindians as being the copper race or copper people.


This is the reason why Mongols were called the "Yellow" race.


THIS:

 -


PLUS THIS:


 -


EQUALS THIS "Yellow tinted" Human.


 -


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But "YELLOW" is very imprecise and can describe "ANY" Mulatto.

THIS"

 -

PLUS THIS:

 -


EQUALS THIS "Yellow tinted" human.

 -
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
^^^^ and you're telling me this woman is the product of parent each of whom looked different form one another?
 -


 -
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^^^ and you're telling me this woman is the product of parent each of whom looked different form one another?
 -

 -


Miscegenation has always been common wherever Albinos went, so is this child the result of miscegenation? I don't know. But I do know that the San, like all Africans, had to endure sex with Albinos.


 -
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:

It sounds like you are trying to suggest that the Lapita people were of the Mongol (Chinese) phenotype. That is incorrect, they were stereotypical Blacks, their descendants are Solomon Islanders and such.

 -

Mongol people came recently (the current era).

Where did I say anything about Lapita? I was talking about MY people, the Malays who settled Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. The Lapita are an entirely different people who are suggested to be ancestral to Polynesians. I don't know about them being "stereotypical blacks" but they were likely quite dark. So-called 'Mongoloids' in Southeast Asia were there long before the 'Modern Era'.
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

What about these people..


Aeta Philippines:
 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/currystrumpet/735347437/

They look "Asian" to me..but you are saying they are mixed more than likely.

Yes that is exactly what I'm saying. The Aeta in the picture above are mixed, as many Aeta nowadays have intermarried with Malays. I personally have seen mixed marriages between Malays and Aeta who produced people who look like the above. I already posted pictures of how 'pristine' Aeta look like. They have shorter, kinky or frizzy hair, round eyes etc. Many Aeta look no different from Africans or even African Americans which many are mistaken as when they come to America.
quote:
Originally posted by anguishofbeingadumbwhore:

You just switched the name (Malay/Mongol) but kept the same concept: a term to designate a specific ethnic/racial stereotypical looking type (i.e. not negrito). At least Mike is honest, you on the other hand are simply playing language games.

How am I playing games? 'Mongol' is a defunct racial term like 'Negro' or 'Negrito' which is why I use them loosely in quotes. Malay is a more accurate ethnic term for the non-black Southeast Asians of the Philippines and other related peoples. Aeta is the accurate term for the aboriginal people of the Philippines. Like Lyinass you seem to be reading things in my post that aren't there, Eva. [Embarrassed]
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Mike I put up a nice link another thread called ONLINE FACIAL MORPHING so you can play your 'this plus this equals this" games
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Where did I say anything about Lapita? I was talking about MY people, the Malays who settled Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. The Lapita are an entirely different people who are suggested to be ancestral to Polynesians. I don't know about them being "stereotypical blacks" but they were likely quite dark. So-called 'Mongoloids' in Southeast Asia were there long before the 'Modern Era'.

Sorry Djehuti, if the Wiki on Malay people is correct, then you are in the same category as those Sand-Niggers of north Africa with the phoney made-up name and heritage - the so-called Amazign people. Who because of just a little Berber admixture, now claim that they themselves are Berbers.

The Malay Wiki:

Malays are an ethnic group of Austronesian people predominantly inhabiting the Malay Peninsula including the coastal Indonesian including eastern Sumatra, southernmost parts of Thailand, south coast Burma and island of Singapore, coastal Borneo, including Brunei, West Kalimantan, coastal Sarawak and Sabah, and the smaller islands which lie between these locations - collectively known as the Alam Melayu. These locations today are part of the modern nations of Malaysia, Western Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, Southern Burma and Southern Thailand.

Historically, the ethnic Malays population is descended from several genetically related peoples who were largely of Animist, Buddhist or Hindu origin — the Austronesians, the Mon-Khmer peoples, the Orang Laut, the Orang Asli, the Cham people, the ancient Kedahans, the Langkasukans, the Tambralingans, the Gangga Negarans, the ancient Kelantanese, the Srivijayans, the ancient Bruneians, the Batak groups, the Dayak peoples and various other tribes inhabiting the Malay world.

The golden age of Malay sultanates beginning in the 15th century, saw the construction of the common identity that binds Malay people together; language (with variant of dialects exist among them), Islam and their culture. The commercial diaspora of these sultanates, effectively brought much of the Maritime Southeast Asia under the massive wave of Islamisation and Malayisation. Due to its fluid characteristics and the assimilation of the later immigrants from various part of the archipelago, Malay culture absorbed numerous cultural features of other ethnic groups, such as those of Minang, Aceh, and to some degree Javanese culture; however it differs by being more overtly Islamic than the Javanese culture which is more multi-religious.


Austronesian peoples

The Austronesian-speaking peoples are various populations in Southeast Asia and Oceania that speak languages of the Austronesian family. They include Taiwanese aborigines; the majority ethnic groups of East Timor, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei, Madagascar, Micronesia, and Polynesia, as well as the Polynesian peoples of New Zealand and Hawaii, and the non-Papuan people of Melanesia. They are also found in Singapore, the Pattani region of Thailand, and the Cham areas of Vietnam (remnants of the Champa kingdom which covered central and southern Vietnam), Cambodia, and Hainan, China. The territories populated by Austronesian-speaking peoples are known collectively as Austronesia.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As with the Amazign in North Africa, the Albino man is quite happy to muddy the water by throwing everyone in. But that is not truth:

Note above, the Albino boys at Wiki start of talking about Austronesian peoples, but then talk about "Austronesian-speaking peoples" this is the same bullsh1t they pull with the Amazign, because as with the Amazign, there is NO SUCH THING AS MALAY PEOPLE. There are only mulattoes of the following original Black people, and later arriving Mongols.


An original Hawaiian:

 -


A Mon of Thailand:


 -


A Khmer of Cambodia:


 -


A Cham of Vietnam:

 -


 -
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Hawaiian Mulattos:

 -


Hawaiian Mongol:


 -


Modern Thais showing Mongol and non-Mongol traits:

 -  -


Modern Cambodians showing Mongol and non-Mongol traits:

 -  -


Modern Vietnamese showing Mongol and non-Mongol traits:


 -  -
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Described as an example of a Proto-Malay.


 -


Malay with non-Mongol features:


 -


Malay with Mongol features:

 -


Malay with mixed features:


 -
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
Posters are always getting bamboozled by the invented lettering of groups according haplogroups--as if differing haplogroups signify anything definitive about phenotype.

Andaman Islanders bear the phenotype of parts of Africa but their Y haplogroup is D--which is found in strong incidence with the Ainu of Japan, Tibetans(Tibet) and parts of Sumatra. But in Africa less than 0.005% are D. But found mainly in Nigeria and Guinea Bissau. In other words D is "Asian" not "African" even though the D carriers in the case of the Andaman Islanders are phenotypically African.


 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
^As I have said many times, genetics cannot be used to identify race, since race is merely Albinism or lack of Albinism as determined by the condition of the "P" gene.

Having said that, if one remembers that the Ainu that we see today is the result of thousands of years of admixture with Mongols, then they are in line with the Andaman Islanders and the original Black Chinese like the Shang, and the Jomon of Japan.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:
^As I have said many times, genetics cannot be used to identify race, since race is merely Albinism or lack of Albinism as determined by the condition of the "P" gene.

Having said that, if one remembers that the Ainu that we see today is the result of thousands of years of admixture with Mongols, then they are in line with the Andaman Islanders and the original Black Chinese like the Shang, and the Jomon of Japan.

Many people now argue that internal genetic differences between people are more fundamental and important than superficial old European school phenotypic definitions of race
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Many people now argue that internal genetic differences between people are more fundamental and important than superficial old European school phenotypic definitions of race

In a purely scientific environment that may be correct, but to us, the layman, the racial implications are the only reason for our interest. Therefore the old European school phenotypic definitions are the most important.

The problem is the most people don't understand what the genetic data is telling us. Note this example:

The San - Various Y-chromosome studies showed that the San carry some of the most divergent (oldest) Y-chromosome haplogroups. These haplogroups are specific sub-groups of haplogroups A and B, the two earliest branches on the human Y-chromosome tree.

Mitochondrial DNA studies also showed evidence that the San carry high frequencies of the earliest haplogroup branches in the human mitochondrial DNA tree. The most divergent (oldest) mitochondrial haplogroup, L0d, has been identified at its highest frequencies in the southern African San groups.

In a study published in March 2011, Brenna Henn and colleagues found that the ǂKhomani Bushmen, as well as the Sandawe and Hadza peoples of Tanzania, were the most genetically diverse of any living humans studied. This high degree of genetic diversity indicates that Southern Africa is the origin of anatomically modern humans.


That means diversity equals old, lack of diversity equals young. I take that to mean that Humans did not always produce Albinos, who have very little diversity. Meaning that there must have been a widespread event which caused a glitch in human genes causing Albinos to be produced. An extreme solar event (Solar flair) could have been the culprit.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Many people now argue that internal genetic differences between people are more fundamental and important than superficial old European school phenotypic definitions of race

In a purely scientific environment that may be correct, but to us, the layman, the racial implications are the only reason for our interest. Therefore the old European school phenotypic definitions are the most important.


Therefore you are defending being an ignoramus.

If you were building a modern suspension bridge and a scienist told you the design had a dangerous structural flaw would you say "well we are layman we don't know about that scietntific stuff, we are layman so we must do things the layman's way" If somebody said use steel would you say "no we only use traditional materials we only know about iron, we are layman."
It's a non argument

quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:


That means diversity equals old, lack of diversity equals young. I take that to mean that Humans did not always produce Albinos, who have very little diversity. Meaning that there must have been a widespread event which caused a glitch in human genes causing Albinos to be produced. An extreme solar event (Solar flair) could have been the culprit. [/QB]

what you are saying doesn't make sense
 -
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
^Black people didn't invent racism, the Albinos did. Black people didn't invent dumbing down captive populations so as to steal and acquire their history, the Albinos did. Black people didn't invent doing injury to other humans, simply because they were different, the Albinos did. With knowledge and understanding of what actually happened, those done injury may want retribution, will that be my fault simply because I helped expose the truth by investigating the racial aspects?
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:
^Black people didn't invent racism, the Albinos did. Black people didn't invent dumbing down captive populations so as to steal and acquire their history, the Albinos did. Black people didn't invent doing injury to other humans, simply because they were different, the Albinos did. With knowledge and understanding of what actually happened, those done injury may want retribution, will that be my fault simply because I helped expose the truth by investigating the racial aspects?

quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:


Mongol does NOT relate to the country of Mongolia, it relates to one of the three major racial categories of humans; i.e. Black, White (Albino), and Mongol (previously Yellow).
And Filipinos do indeed know that they are Mongol.


of what race is this person?

 -
one word answers only please
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
To Mike, your problem is obvious.

Not only do you subscribe to debunked racial theories like 'true Mongoloid' which denies East Asians possess diversity of features, but you know little to nothing about Southeast Asian history as well.

Archaeologically the homeland of the Malay people lie in southern China. The Malay people are thus closely related to other so-called 'Mongoloid' peoples like Chinese whom they diverged from farther north. Of course the aboriginal people of Southeast Asia including southern China before northern types were aboriginal black peoples. By the way, Malays should not be confused with proto-Austronesians who originated in the Oceanian islands probably Melanesia and were thus definitely black aboriginals. There were two waves of Malays. Proto-Malays and Deutero-Malays who colonized the islands in to two main waves. These ancestral Malays adopted the language and certain customs of the aboriginal proto-Austronesians.

Some of these aboriginal Austronesians created the first kingdoms in Southeast Asia like the kingdoms of Funan and Champa. Even the oldest legends say blacks were the ones who created the megalithic structures dating to mesolithic times.
 
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
^ Wait, wait, you're saying that Austronesian languages came from Melanesia? I thought the consensus among linguists was a Taiwanese (or Formosan) origin.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ The Formosan theory is for the origin of Malay speaking branch of Austronesian. But proto-Austronesian itslef originated in Melanesia as that is the location of the most diverse languages of the phylum.

Thus the Malay people originated from southern China and spread from the coasts to Formosa and other islands encountering and assimilating the language and some culture of the black aborigines who were the original Austronesian speakers.
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
of what race is this person?

 -

That is a very good question;

This is what makes it complicated.


quote:
Originally posted by DHDoxies:
Mike come off of it you stupid POS. That girl is NOT White she is NOT of my people & NEVER will be. Again we WHITES are NOT Albinos we are NOT Albino derived, we are NOT Dravidians either you stupid idiotic Kill Whitey POS. Lioness those girls are NOT White they are KOREANS (mongols)not part of my people & NEVER will be.

It's those damn delusional Dravidian Albinos!
No matter how many time I try to get the truth out, they always try to sabotage it.
Stay tuned, I will break it down anyway.
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
This is the Albino of a standard Black.

 -


This one too.

 -


This is the Albino of a Mongol mulatto.

 -


This is the Albino of a Black Dravidian.


 -


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly all of the above are in fact "WHITE" people because they have little or "NO" melanin. But because the Albinos of Dravidians insist on being considered separate people, the whole thing is screwed up.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:


Mongol does NOT relate to the country of Mongolia, it relates to one of the three major racial categories of humans; i.e. Black, White (Albino), and Mongol (previously Yellow).
And Filipinos do indeed know that they are Mongol.

of what race is this person?

 -
one word answers only please

^^^Mike I sesne you are preparing a large picture spam instead of dealing with this individual here.
Is he not Mongoloid?
You had outlined 'Black, White (Albino), and Mongol (previously Yellow)"
The man has yellow hair and perhaps could be described as yellowish

.
 -
^^^ this woman is most definatley yellowish
Is she a Mongoloid?

 -
^^^ This man is Negroid correct?
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Damn lioness, you sure are a stupid piece of sh1t. Must you take everything to the absurd.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:

It sounds like you are trying to suggest that the Lapita people were of the Mongol (Chinese) phenotype. That is incorrect, they were stereotypical Blacks, their descendants are Solomon Islanders and such.

 -

Mongol people came recently (the current era).

Where did I say anything about Lapita? I was talking about MY people, the Malays who settled Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. The Lapita are an entirely different people who are suggested to be ancestral to Polynesians. I don't know about them being "stereotypical blacks" but they were likely quite dark. So-called 'Mongoloids' in Southeast Asia were there long before the 'Modern Era'.
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

What about these people..


Aeta Philippines:
 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/currystrumpet/735347437/

They look "Asian" to me..but you are saying they are mixed more than likely.

Yes that is exactly what I'm saying. The Aeta in the picture above are mixed, as many Aeta nowadays have intermarried with Malays. I personally have seen mixed marriages between Malays and Aeta who produced people who look like the above. I already posted pictures of how 'pristine' Aeta look like. They have shorter, kinky or frizzy hair, round eyes etc. Many Aeta look no different from Africans or even African Americans which many are mistaken as when they come to America.
quote:
Originally posted by anguishofbeingadumbwhore:

You just switched the name (Malay/Mongol) but kept the same concept: a term to designate a specific ethnic/racial stereotypical looking type (i.e. not negrito). At least Mike is honest, you on the other hand are simply playing language games.

How am I playing games? 'Mongol' is a defunct racial term like 'Negro' or 'Negrito' which is why I use them loosely in quotes. Malay is a more accurate ethnic term for the non-black Southeast Asians of the Philippines and other related peoples. Aeta is the accurate term for the aboriginal people of the Philippines. Like Lyinass you seem to be reading things in my post that aren't there, Eva. [Embarrassed]

Why do they have to be mixed? Don't you know that there are native blacks in Asia with straight hair? Don't you know the original Malays had straight hair and were black? What about all the blacks in the Pacific with straight hair and not to mention the people from Australia.

THAT is the problem with white European racial doctrines. They try to lump certain features in humans as being unique to one population or other but it is all pure pseudo science. Are black Africans with flat faces, high cheekboones and slanted eyes mongols? Of course not. And you got Africans all over Africa with features like that. Not to mention that the original people of the Philippines were ALL black and a combination of black aboriginal types with straight hair and black aboriginal types with tight kinky hair. These Aeta look no different than many of the dark skinned people of the philippines in old pictures from 100 years ago, when a large part of the population was STILL black and they never were called AETA. But now because of the last 200 years of racism these people have been segregated and lumped together with the AETA as outcasts.

For example these kids from the Marshall Islands:
 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lancat/581607928/

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25662036@N00/484464690/

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/skurfee/3069554634/in/set-72157607777386234

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/61454359@N00/211984230

They are often called "mixed" because they don't conform to the stereotype of what blacks are supposed to look like. But they are an example of what many South Asian populations looked like before white European conquest and the arrival of Northern Chinese. Just like the Tasmanian people had features different from the Australian Aborigines and different from the natives of new Zealand even though ALL of them were originally black. Asian diversity like all human diversity originates with aboriginal black populations all over the world. Not the other way around. It is the black populations that are the most diverse as well. The whole point of the racists is to try and cover that up with fake race science.

And yes the original people of South Asia were blacks. Period. Stereotypical and non stereotypical.
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Doug M - The Aeta girls are declared "Mixed" because of the range of Mongol and non-Mongol features evident in the picture, not because of their hair.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
What is a "mongol feature" that ONLY mongol people have Mike?

Please explain.

And do the black mongols have mongol features?
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
What is a "mongol feature" that ONLY mongol people have Mike?

Please explain.

And do the black mongols have mongol features?

Aeta people

 -

Note the woman in the center rear: I don't believe that this gulf can be bridged without admixture


Aeta people

 -


Not to say that admixture is necessarily a bad thing.


 -
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
None of the people above are 'Black', there is nothing Negroid about them.

If 'Black' = dark skin, then is the following person by the same retarded logic 'white'?

 -

So 'whites' are more diverse than 'blacks' by this logic - 'whites' can have epicanthic fold, higher nasal indices, and facial flatness. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
^Cass, why not sit quietly and let Doxie and Lioness do the talking. We can only take so many fruity Albinos.
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
Mike, when will you accept race is more than skin hue? Its bone morphology to hair texture.

If you want to play the 'blacks = dark only' game, then it can be reversed and actually backfires on as just shown above. Through the same logic, 'whites' actually have the most physical variation in the world.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Mike says race is skin color, goes on and on about albinim and sunburn

Then he whenever he feels like switches to features as race

 -

 -

Djehuti says there is no such thing as race but "black" and "white" are valid terms and based strictly on skin color,

Yet when presented with people who defy expectations such as the people above he goes silent and won't apply his defintion. "no comment"
And if pressed with an example he doesn't want to deal he then moves the goal posts, you have to be as dark as an Andaman Islander to be black

If you then try to apply his standard people like Malcom X. Minister Farrakhan and Winnie Mandela aren't black enoungh to be black

lioness productions
all day
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
What is a "mongol feature" that ONLY mongol people have Mike?

Please explain.

And do the black mongols have mongol features?

Aeta people

 -

Note the woman in the center rear: I don't believe that this gulf can be bridged without admixture


Aeta people

 -


Not to say that admixture is necessarily a bad thing.


 -

And there have always been blacks with features like straight hair which has absolutely nothing to do with Mongols. If so why are those Aeta COAL BLACK?

Dumb behind morons are silly.

Original Philippine woman 100+ years ago matching the description of "chinese looking BLACKS" of European writers.... Now why is she mixed and mixed with what?

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/2937553892/sizes/o/in/set-72157607976452610/

And another one:
 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/2967542327/in/set-72157607976452610

Some of you clowns claim to be rejecting European race thinking but turn right around and cling to it at every turn. LOL!

And getting back to the topic of the thread, I guess these make your head hurt. Cant figure out what to make of them huh since they don't fit your "race models"..... LOL!


http://www.vintag.es/2013/03/old-photographs-of-life-in-korea-more.html

Nice vids of old photos some of which are coal black.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v71AXp21m-Q

And we all know what happened to these "shadows" in the old black and white photos....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OhwzwM4qas

And to summarize....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvlmEjPDDQ0
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
^ Doug, according to your logic, this women is 'white'?

 -
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Doug thinks

white is not merely pale skin

He thinks that white = pale skin + European descent

Which is what he calls "European race thinking"
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
^ lol.

so according to the afroloons like doug:

'black' = anyone with dark skin

'white' = europeans only

[Roll Eyes]

If his retarded logic was at least consistent it would be

'white' = anyone with pale skin

So these people are 'white':

 -

 -
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Doug's view is that whites are the oppressors so that "white" should be specific to them. It's a political definition.
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Original Filipino

 -


Mulatto Filipino

 -


Original Seminoles

 -


Mulatto Seminoles

 -


Half way around the world, certain types of mulattoes look the same.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Actual Black history before Mike erased the African element:

 -

look it up



Seminole women - 1877
 -

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://sirismm.si.edu/naa/24/

___________________________________________________

Doug you may not like me but regardless Mike often alters history as he sees fit. He just goes in and changes things.
problem is he does it on his website, passes it off as history and his stuff is wide spread amoung black folk.
Sure he will speak against oppressive white folk but at the same time when you're not looking he'll sneak in and remove the African element out of African American history.
Ironically when he has his chest puffed out about 'lying albinos' he is at the same time brain washed by white supremacy to be ashamed of his Africaness.
He takes the African out of history and posts it on his website which he passes off as black history, miseducating the youth.
So while it may look like he's supporting the idea of indigenous blacks of American he's doing his motive is that they are not African, in actuality maroons, people of African descent who freed themselves

You will find him in his fantasy land where he's a European noble
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
^He,he,he;
Damn lioness, how did you get so stupid?
Don't you know that I always keep data at my fingertips?

Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World
by Walter A. Neves* and Mark Hubbe


Stupid bitch: please note where the first North Americans were located - Seminole territory!

 -


Stupid Bitch: Note how they are described.

The earliest South Americans tend to be more similar to present Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans (narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses).

Stupid Bitch - What's that you were saying about ESCAPED SLAVES???
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
JAN CAREW - Black Seminoles - pt. 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfTYCqa5_a4


pt 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfIFCzKArRw

pt 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=469KNnacA4Q
 
Posted by DHDoxies (Member # 19701) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:
This is the Albino of a standard Black.

 -


This one too.

 -


This is the Albino of a Mongol mulatto.

 -


This is the Albino of a Black Dravidian.
 -


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly all of the above are in fact "WHITE" people because they have little or "NO" melanin. But because the Albinos of Dravidians insist on being considered separate people, the whole thing is screwed up.

No Mike you stupid dumb a$$ those people are NOT White and never will be. The negro albino is still Black,the Asian albino is still a Mongol, that Dravidian albino is still a Dravidian not White. We will not accept your Albinos & the albinos of other races as one of us. We Whites are the only White race , we are NOT Albinos nor are we Dravidians, nor do we come from Central Asia. Yes I will continue to bust you White people hating ass & expose you to my people so they don't fall for your lies. I already busted you for being the maker of that video you have on your site (that you claim a White person made lol) about Whites being Albinos and your claiming to be White in it so my people would accept it. Not only that but you thanked your own self in on of your videos on your ancienthistorian1 channel lol. Just admit that you are a fraud, a phoney, hate Whites/& Asians, a thief, a liar, a Black racist.
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Damn Doxie, that's quite a mouthful.
But as I told you, I don't hate White people (Albinos), I love them. Okay, maybe love is a little too strong. I like White people (Albinos) very much. Err, I like White people (Albinos) more than I like Monkeys???
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
^^^ Mike please be honest, you're full of ****
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

Why do they have to be mixed? Don't you know that there are native blacks in Asia with straight hair?..

Yes, but the Aeta were not one of them. I'm telling you as someone familiar with that region of the world that 'pure' Aeta do not have such features. I have already provided pictures of what 'pure' Aeta look like and they look stereotypically 'Negrito'. Those Aeta with straight or hair and slanted eyes are admixed.

Aboriginal blacks with straight hair or wavy hair are found in the mainland.

quote:
..Don't you know the original Malays had straight hair and were black?
If by 'Malays' you mean the aborigines of Malaysia, then yes. These are different from the 'Malay' proper who originated further north.

quote:
What about all the blacks in the Pacific with straight hair and not to mention the people from Australia...
What about them? I don't deny their existence, my point is that Aeta of the Philippines were stereotypically 'Negrito'.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

Why do they have to be mixed? Don't you know that there are native blacks in Asia with straight hair?..

Yes, but the Aeta were not one of them. I'm telling you as someone familiar with that region of the world that 'pure' Aeta do not have such features. I have already provided pictures of what 'pure' Aeta look like and they look stereotypically 'Negrito'. Those Aeta with straight or hair and slanted eyes are admixed.

Aboriginal blacks with straight hair or wavy hair are found in the mainland.

quote:
..Don't you know the original Malays had straight hair and were black?
If by 'Malays' you mean the aborigines of Malaysia, then yes. These are different from the 'Malay' proper who originated further north.

quote:
What about all the blacks in the Pacific with straight hair and not to mention the people from Australia...
What about them? I don't deny their existence, my point is that Aeta of the Philippines were stereotypically 'Negrito'.

So if you admit that many blacks in Asia have had straight hair going back thousands of years as aboriginal populations then why do you claim these women are "mixed"? My point is that the black population of the Philippines was killed off, mixed with Chinese or Europeans and isolated in remote areas. Hence those "Aeta" you see today are simply the remaining pockets of the "pure" black aboriginal type both straight haired and curly haired as both types were present in the islands since many thousands of years ago. So Aeta today is just an umbrella term for any black aboriginal type, not just the negrito.

And as for Malay, it always meant black or brown skinned South Asian. It NEVER meant northern light skinned Asian. That nonsense came later after the indigenous south Asians started mixing with Northern Chinese types. Go to any south Asian nation today and it is mostly ruled by Chinese or Mestizos(mixed native and Chinese/European) while the indigenous blacks are on the bottom as in the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Burma and so on...

quote:

Malays were once referred as "Kun-lun people" in various Chinese records. Kunlun was originally referring to a fabled mountain range that was believed to span parts of Tibet and India. It was used by the Chinese as reference to black, wavy-haired barbarians of the mountains and jungles from the remote part of geographically known world. The Champas and Khmers were called Kunlun people by the Chinese before the term being applied to the Malays or more accurately Austronesians as a whole. In 750, Jianzhen (688–765) noticed the presence of many "Brahmans, Persians and Kunluns in Canton". The Book of Tang reported that "every year, Kunlun merchants come in their ships with valuable goods to trade with the Chinese"

In his 1775 doctoral dissertation titled De generis humani varietate nativa (On the Natural Varieties of Mankind), Blumenbach outlined four main human races by skin color, namely Caucasian (white), Ethiopian (black), Native American (red), and Mongolian (yellow).

By 1795, Blumenbach added another race called 'Malay' which he considered to be a subcategory of both the Ethiopian and Mongoloid races. The Malay race were those of a "brown color, from olive and a clear mahogany to the darkest clove or chestnut brown." Blumenbach expanded the term "Malay" to include the native inhabitants of the Marianas, the Philippines, the Malukus, Sundas, Indochina, as well as Pacific Islands such as Tahitians. He considered a Tahitian skull he had received to be the missing link; showing the transition between the "primary" race, the Caucasians, and the "degenerate" race, the Negroids.

Blumenbach writes:

Malay variety. Tawny-coloured; hair black, soft, curly, thick and plentiful; head moderately narrowed; forehead slightly swelling; nose full, rather wide, as it were diffuse, end thick; mouth large. upper jaw somewhat prominent with the parts of the face when seen in profile, sufficiently prominent and distinct from each other. This last variety includes the islanders of the Pacific Ocean, together with the inhabitants of the Marianne, the Philippine, the Molucca and the Sunda Islands, and of the Malayan peninsula. I wish to call it the Malay, because the majority of the men of this variety, especially those who inhabit the Indian islands close to the Malacca peninsula, as well as the Sandwich, the Society, and the Friendly Islanders, and also the Malambi of Madagascar down to the inhabitants of Easter Island, use the Malay idiom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_race
So like I said, most of that crap about Malays is based on pure European race science and eugenics. All the original so-called "Malays" are simply black south Asians with straight hair.
And it is the remnants of these historic blacks that you see in the photos of 100+ years ago, before they were almost completely wiped out. Note that the Chinese even noted the blacks of the Himalayas. So much for your "mongols".

Again all of these terms are designed to obscure and cover up the true origins of these peoples which ultimately is from Africa. That is why they had to eradicate and replace the native blacks and create "new" races from the offspring of mixed parents as part of a systematic program of Eugenics, which the Europeans practiced almost everywhere they colonized. If they can make up races and claim that these populations have features unique and distinct to themselves then they can claim these people are not related to the ancient African blacks who settled these areas, which is precisely what they tried to do.

Trust me, there is a reason why you see so many "black looking" folks from many parts of South Asia in old 100+ year old photos that are no longer there today and it is because they have been wiped out on purpose. A lot of it having to do with white European racism and preaching that in order for a society to modernize they had to get rid of their black populations, especially after the Europeans conquered and created their corporate plantations there..... Colonial companies were always engines of white supremacy allowing the Europeans to move populations around and force groups to mix in order to attain a "white" standard of beauty and progress. And if you read the history of South Asia: Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Burma, Vietnam, all of them had large black populations. These people were not isolated in remote villages and they were not "savages" they were the primary population: the priests, the kings, the queens, the villagers, the singers, the artists, the warriors and so forth. But after white folks, they are only left in pockets as outcasts. Those who want to live with everyone else had to assimilate and become mulattoes...

And for the rest of the clowns, I guess straight hair on black folks means they are mixed? So blacks from India are mixed? Mixed with who? And why are they so black if they are mixed, why did they only aquire the straight hair and facial features and not the light skin if they are so mixed? Because they aren't mixed. Black Indians are part of the same ancient aboriginal population of Asia as the Australian aborigine. But nobody claims the aborigine as mixed and they have straight hair. So who is kidding who? And note the difference between the aborigines of Australia and the Aborigines of Papua. Totally different looking people..... But some black folks don't understand that black populations are historically the most diverse in features on the planet and it is from that diversity in features that all other populations ultimately originate. Not the other way around. White populations got their features from their ancient black aboriginal ancestors.

And we have talked about this before:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=002426;p=1
 
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
 
Thailand burma etc.. was not conqured by whites,so how whites influenced asians to kill of the blacks there?
Let me guess,it always the whites pulling the strings,nobody else has a brain.
Wrong thinking.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Thailand was the only country not colonized. However, they lost large parts of their lands to the British and French.

The first to colonize parts of South Asia were the Spanish and Portuguese, followed by the Dutch and then English and French.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
 -
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
 -

I miss you logic here lioness;

Regardless of whether you Albinos accept it or not, people without melanin (or skin pigmentation) are White! The other name for that condition is Albinism!

So idiot, are you saying that just because they are all Mongols, then the females cannot be White?

That is pure asinine European hubris and nonsense.
Get it through your heads, you are simply pigmentless Albinos, just like the rest.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
yes Mike, the female Koreans here are "albinos"

fvcking retard
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Some examples of Asian diversity in color so folks cant claim it is a trick of b/w photography:

Burma
 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickmarghe/7307367388/in/pool-burma

Black Karen Burma
 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9225819@N07/2519755698/in/pool-2086774@N21

Cambodia:
 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mboogiedown/264474434/in/set-1096286

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mboogiedown/360466844/in/set-1096286

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mboogiedown/355721373/in/set-1096286/

Burma again
 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/weaselville/8581452922/in/pool-2086774@N21/

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/weaselville/8572103503/in/set-72157633069018745

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordipinyol/7970140240/in/pool-burma

Note that the constant wars in Southern Asia (even if you don't know about them) are what has done a lot to wipe out this diversity. Burma is a good example.
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
yes Mike, the female Koreans here are "albinos"

fvcking retard

Lioness, like many Albinos you try to confuse the issues so as to give yourselves deniability as regards to your Albinism. But I will not allow you to get away with it!

These are all Albinos:

 -


 -


 -


 -


Do you notice that they have different skin shades? Yet they are all still Albinos, just like you.

BTW - I wondered why there was so many Dravidian Albinos (Europeans) like yourself. It seems that you people simply make more "Pure" Albinos than everyone else.


Parvez family from Coventry - there are 16 Albinos in the family.


 -
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
it's amazing, I had known about Black Turks and Black Peruvians but
Doug has dicovered black Asians. I never knew that existed
 -
 -

^^^ the diversity of the black race

.

__________________________________________________

compare to the white race:

 -

 -
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Some examples of Asian diversity in color so folks cant claim it is a trick of b/w photography:

Damn Doug M, if you're going to do Asian diversity in skin color; then DO Asian diversity in skin color!


Albino Korean:

 -


Vietnamese

 -


Naga people (India/Burma)

 -


Cambodian

 -


Japanese

 -
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Lioness - CLEARLY all of the people above are Mongols.

Yet some of them are very dark, and some of them are just as Albino as any European.

Proof positive that "Normal" Humans, regardless of feature type are Blacks.
Those without pigmentation, regardless of feature type, are Albinos or near Albino mulattoes.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
A good example of the diversity that once exited in South Asia is in the Pacific (marshall islands).

 -
https://picasaweb.google.com/101057305738168011225/MarshallIslands#5574402054234329458


BTW there are some very black people in Peru(of course).

Uros Peruvians in Peru:
 -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Uros.jpg

 -
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Titicaca_9921a.jpg
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
 -

Yes. Doug believes 'whites' have the most physical diversity (I mean look - they have epicanthic fold, wide noses, wooly hair [see the other photos you posted], and facial flatness now, but also wavy hair, thin noses). [Wink]

Doug fighting 'eurocentrism' but is claiming 'whites' are the most physically diverse? [Confused]
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
quote:
people without melanin (or skin pigmentation) are White!
quote:
Those without pigmentation, regardless of feature type, are Albinos [Whites]
So 'whites' then have the most physical diversity on the planet?

Look at the above 'whites' they have the full scope of physical features from thin to wide noses, prognathism, epicanthic fold, facial flatness, all hair textures...

Mike & Doug why aren't you at Stormfront?
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
what Doug doesn't unerstand is that according to Mike no matter how dark a person is if they have straight hair that is a sign of mulattoism and that such persons are not true blacks
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

So if you admit that many blacks in Asia have had straight hair going back thousands of years as aboriginal populations then why do you claim these women are "mixed"?

Because they ARE! Why do you make many assumptions and argue with me who is actually FROM that region and more familiar about it than you??!

I'm telling you the fact that the black aboriginals of that region don't have long straight hair or epicanthic (slanted) eyes unless they are mixed. Pure Aetas are round eyed and have short kinky or frizzy hair.

quote:
My point is that the black population of the Philippines was killed off, mixed with Chinese or Europeans and isolated in remote areas. Hence those "Aeta" you see today are simply the remaining pockets of the "pure" black aboriginal type both straight haired and curly haired as both types were present in the islands since many thousands of years ago. So Aeta today is just an umbrella term for any black aboriginal type, not just the negrito.
What you say is blatantly wrong. The Aeta were not killed off but were pushed into more isolated regions. The mixing was largely with mainstream Malay Filipinos NOT Chinese or Europeans who came way after! Those girls in the picture do NOT represent pure Aetas not only due to their obvious mixed features but also the clothing they wear.

quote:
And as for Malay, it always meant black or brown skinned South Asian. It NEVER meant northern light skinned Asian. That nonsense came later after the indigenous south Asians started mixing with Northern Chinese types. Go to any south Asian nation today and it is mostly ruled by Chinese or Mestizos(mixed native and Chinese/European) while the indigenous blacks are on the bottom as in the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Burma and so on...
There seems to be confusion on the word 'Malay'. The aboriginal peoples of Malaysia and southeast Asia called themselves by a variety of names like Bateng, Semang, Mani, or Asli. The non-black Austronesian speaking Southeast Asians such as mainstream Filipinos like myself are 'Malay' people who originated further north likely in China. Our ancestors came down and assimilate and/or mixed with aboriginals who had thriving neolithic cultures. This took place thousands of years ago in the late neolithic to chalcolithic NOT 'recently'. After the Malays, came a variety of peoples from further north with lighter skin like the Tai peoples etc. These reecent immigrants from north Asia are easily recognized by fair or pale skin.
quote:
Malays were once referred as "Kun-lun people" in various Chinese records. Kunlun was originally referring to a fabled mountain range that was believed to span parts of Tibet and India. It was used by the Chinese as reference to black, wavy-haired barbarians of the mountains and jungles from the remote part of geographically known world. The Champas and Khmers were called Kunlun people by the Chinese before the term being applied to the Malays or more accurately Austronesians as a whole. In 750, Jianzhen (688–765) noticed the presence of many "Brahmans, Persians and Kunluns in Canton". The Book of Tang reported that "every year, Kunlun merchants come in their ships with valuable goods to trade with the Chinese"

In his 1775 doctoral dissertation titled De generis humani varietate nativa (On the Natural Varieties of Mankind), Blumenbach outlined four main human races by skin color, namely Caucasian (white), Ethiopian (black), Native American (red), and Mongolian (yellow).

By 1795, Blumenbach added another race called 'Malay' which he considered to be a subcategory of both the Ethiopian and Mongoloid races. The Malay race were those of a "brown color, from olive and a clear mahogany to the darkest clove or chestnut brown." Blumenbach expanded the term "Malay" to include the native inhabitants of the Marianas, the Philippines, the Malukus, Sundas, Indochina, as well as Pacific Islands such as Tahitians. He considered a Tahitian skull he had received to be the missing link; showing the transition between the "primary" race, the Caucasians, and the "degenerate" race, the Negroids.

Blumenbach writes:

Malay variety. Tawny-coloured; hair black, soft, curly, thick and plentiful; head moderately narrowed; forehead slightly swelling; nose full, rather wide, as it were diffuse, end thick; mouth large. upper jaw somewhat prominent with the parts of the face when seen in profile, sufficiently prominent and distinct from each other. This last variety includes the islanders of the Pacific Ocean, together with the inhabitants of the Marianne, the Philippine, the Molucca and the Sunda Islands, and of the Malayan peninsula. I wish to call it the Malay, because the majority of the men of this variety, especially those who inhabit the Indian islands close to the Malacca peninsula, as well as the Sandwich, the Society, and the Friendly Islanders, and also the Malambi of Madagascar down to the inhabitants of Easter Island, use the Malay idiom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_race

So like I said, most of that crap about Malays is based on pure European race science and eugenics. All the original so-called "Malays" are simply black south Asians with straight hair.
And it is the remnants of these historic blacks that you see in the photos of 100+ years ago, before they were almost completely wiped out. Note that the Chinese even noted the blacks of the Himalayas. So much for your "mongols".

Yes, which is exactly why I use the word 'Malay' in its original context as an ethnic or cultural designation NOT a racial one! The same goes for the word 'Mongol'!! The Champa and Funan are other examples of the ancient black centers in Southeast Asia.

quote:
Again all of these terms are designed to obscure and cover up the true origins of these peoples which ultimately is from Africa. That is why they had to eradicate and replace the native blacks and create "new" races from the offspring of mixed parents as part of a systematic program of Eugenics, which the Europeans practiced almost everywhere they colonized. If they can make up races and claim that these populations have features unique and distinct to themselves then they can claim these people are not related to the ancient African blacks who settled these areas, which is precisely what they tried to do.
This makes no sense. The African origins of these black people are the same as for all non-black peoples in Eurasia. There was no cover up or obfuscation of African origins.

quote:
Trust me, there is a reason why you see so many "black looking" folks from many parts of South Asia in old 100+ year old photos that are no longer there today and it is because they have been wiped out on purpose. A lot of it having to do with white European racism and preaching that in order for a society to modernize they had to get rid of their black populations, especially after the Europeans conquered and created their corporate plantations there..... Colonial companies were always engines of white supremacy allowing the Europeans to move populations around and force groups to mix in order to attain a "white" standard of beauty and progress. And if you read the history of South Asia: Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Burma, Vietnam, all of them had large black populations. These people were not isolated in remote villages and they were not "savages" they were the primary population: the priests, the kings, the queens, the villagers, the singers, the artists, the warriors and so forth. But after white folks, they are only left in pockets as outcasts. Those who want to live with everyone else had to assimilate and become mulattoes...
There was no mass genocide of black indigenes in Southeast Asia. Most were either pushed into more rural areas OR enslaved or mixed by incoming invaders. This is why the Semang people of Malaysia are called 'Sakkai' meaning 'slave' in Thai language because the Thai enslaved them.

quote:
And for the rest of the clowns, I guess straight hair on black folks means they are mixed? So blacks from India are mixed? Mixed with who? And why are they so black if they are mixed, why did they only aquire the straight hair and facial features and not the light skin if they are so mixed? Because they aren't mixed. Black Indians are part of the same ancient aboriginal population of Asia as the Australian aborigine. But nobody claims the aborigine as mixed and they have straight hair. So who is kidding who? And note the difference between the aborigines of Australia and the Aborigines of Papua. Totally different looking people..... But some black folks don't understand that black populations are historically the most diverse in features on the planet and it is from that diversity in features that all other populations ultimately originate. Not the other way around. White populations got their features from their ancient black aboriginal ancestors.

And we have talked about this before:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=002426;p=1

You are beginning to sound like Lyinass with these jumps to conclusion and taking things out of context. I never said that just because a black person has straight hair they are mixed. My point is about the Aetas specifically because straight hair and slanted eyes are NOT part of their features. I'm telling you as a fact because I know Aeta people and I know mainstream Filipinos who mixed with them. YES there are blacks in Asia with wavy or straight hair but these are other populations NOT the Aetas. And yes I know that non-black Asians and even white Europeans and everyone else descend from blacks.

What's your point?? You seem to be attacking nothing but imaginary strawmen. Blacks are aboriginal to the tropics and ancestral to all populations but that does not change anything I said about the Aeta.

Non-mixed Aeta

 -

 -

 -

 -

 -

 -

 -

Admixed Aeta

 -

People who actually KNOW about the Aeta know the difference.
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
people without melanin (or skin pigmentation) are White! Those without pigmentation, regardless of feature type, are Albinos [Whites] So 'whites' then have the most physical diversity on the planet?

Look at the above 'whites' they have the full scope of physical features from thin to wide noses, prognathism, epicanthic fold, facial flatness, all hair textures...

He,he,he:

Yes Cass, you finally have me, see what facing the truth can do for you?

Once you understand what being "White" really is, and what it truly means, then indeed the realities of the world take on new meaning.

So yes, Whites do indeed encompass all of the worlds Humans, but so do Blacks, the tie breaker is how do you want to treat the condition of the "P" gene.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
You are beginning to sound like Lyinass with these jumps to conclusion and taking things out of context. I never said that just because a black person has straight hair they are mixed. My point is about the Aetas specifically because straight hair and slanted eyes are NOT part of their features. I'm telling you as a fact because I know Aeta people and I know mainstream Filipinos who mixed with them. YES there are blacks in Asia with wavy or straight hair but these are other populations NOT the Aetas. And yes I know that non-black Asians and even white Europeans and everyone else descend from blacks.

What's your point?? You seem to be attacking nothing but imaginary strawmen. Blacks are aboriginal to the tropics and ancestral to all populations but that does not change anything I said about the Aeta.

Non-mixed Aeta

 -

 -

 -

 -

Admixed Aeta

 -

People who actually KNOW about the Aeta know the difference.

You contradict yourself Djehuti. I said that ALL of the BLACK aboriginals of the Philippines are grouped together as outcasts under the term Aeta whether they are actually AETA (negrito, meaning short with curly hair ) or not.

My point is that the MAJORITY of the BLACK people that Europeans encountered 200-300 years ago in the Phillipines were NOT Aeta. They were NATIVE STRAIGHT HAIRED BLACK ASIAN people and they said it clearly in their own words.

I understood your point. Your point is that the aboriginal population that YOU claim most Philippine people descend from was a SEPARATE population of people with epicanthic folds and straight hair who were NOT black and somehow a SEPARATE aboriginal group from the aboriginal blacks of Asia. You are simply following the white European model of the history of the Philippines which is false. And it was the whites, most specifically the Americans who had a whole LOT to do with wiping out the native straight haired black populations of the Philippines using their Eugenics argument that these people were ignorant savages. Look at your history book and stop denying the facts.

All I am saying is that ALL of the native blacks of the Philippines are now lumped together as Aeta, because they are black, whether they have straight hair or whether they have curly hair. And no, it is not necessarily because they are mixed. I am not saying that there is no such thing as a mixed Aeta. What I am saying is that those mixed Aeta LOOK MIXED with lighter skin and other features which are indicative of mixture. Showing me group of coal black people and claiming they are mixed just because they have epicanthic folds is BS. There are blacks in Africa and all over South Asia with epicanthic folds and high cheekbones. Where do you think those features originated? Mongolia? NO.

2 Simple questions to ponder. Are there any other black aboriginal populations of the Philippines other than the Aeta?
And if not then who were all the blacks that the Americans under William Mckinley were determined to wipe out? Aetas?

Answer that question and you will show what I am talking about.

Some examples of the blacks the Americans were trying to "ethnically cleanse":
 -
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Judge_06-10-1899.jpg

Or this.
 -
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md2jfq9v8j1qifq8yo1_1280.jpg
(NO THAT IS NOT AN AETA AND IT HE IS NOT "MIXED")

Like I said before, who was it that took pictures of and wrote about the blacks they found in Asia? Who were the avowed racists? And who were in the process of subjugating blacks as part of their idea of "manifest destiny"? And it is these SAME PEOPLE who created the history books and made up all the LIES about the history of Asia to make it more WHITE. These images make it clear what they thought the origins of many Asian populations was.... And it was these same people who made it their job to ETHNICALLY CLEANSE these people to remove all traces of blackness..... THAT is why those blacks from old photos in most of South Asia aren't there any more. What is the point of even trying to deny the obvious?

quote:

One of the most banal and brutal manifestations of racial exterminism was U.S. soldiers’ imagination of the war as hunting. The Manila occupation and early conventional warfare had frustrated U.S. soldiers’ martial masculinity; the metaphor of the hunt made war, at last, into masculine self-fulfillment. [96] All at once, a language of hunting animalized Filipinos, made sense of guerrilla war to American troops, and joined them in manly fraternity. “I don’t know when the thing will let out,” wrote Louis Hubbard one week into the war, “and don’t care as we are having lots of excitement. It makes me think of killing jack rabbits.” [97] Earl Pearsall jotted in his diary on the third day of the war that “[o]ur boys kept them on the run and shot them down like rabbits.” [98] John F. Bright described one advance near San Juan Bridge: “As we advanced they would jump up like rabbits only a few feet from us, dead game ready to sell their lives as dearly as possible, but we shot them down before they could do any damage.” [99]

Racial terms explicitly linked hunting to exterminism. “There is no question that our men do ‘shoot niggers’ somewhat in the sporting spirit,” admitted Wells. “It is lots of sport to hunt these black devils,” wrote Louis Hubbard just three weeks into the war. [100] Private George Osborn of the 6th Infantry wrote home from Negros on January 15, 1900: “Just back from the fight. Killed 22 niggers captured 29 rifels [sic] and 1 shotgun and I tell you it was a fight… we just shot the niggers like a hunter would rabbits…” [101] In April 1899, Lieutenant Tefler wrote from Marilao that night-time scouting raids were his men’s only relief from the boredom of guarding a railroad, that it was “great fun for the men to go on ‘nigger hunts.’” [102]
Racial-exterminist sentiment of this kind was not uncommon in U.S. soldiers’ songs, diaries and letters. It was at the very center of the most popular of the U.S. army’s marching songs, which marked the Filipino population as a whole as the enemy and made killing Filipinos the only means to their “civilization.”

Damn, damn, damn the Filipino
Pock-marked khakiac ladrone;
Underneath the starry flag
Civilize him with a Krag,
And return us to our own beloved home. [103]

One Nebraskan soldier boasted to his parents of his comrades’ bold, aggressive fighting spirit, restrained only by officers’ reticence. “If they would turn the boys loose,” he wrote, “there wouldn’t be a nigger left in Manila twelve hours after.” [104] Henry Hackthorn explained to his family that the war, which he regretted, had been avoidable but “the niggers got in a hurry.” “We would kill all in sight if we could only receive the necessary orders,” he wrote. [105] A dramatic monologue entitled “The Sentry” written and published by a U.S. soldier, features a sympathetic portrayal of a lonely U.S. sentry on watch-duty. “If I catch one of those bolo-men slinking around me, I’ll just plug the son-of-a-gun full of holes,” he says, just before he is treacherously killed. “I hate the very sight of their black hides.” [106] Eggenberger reported happily in March 1900 that Macabebes had killed 130 “ladrones” without one escape. “[L]et the good work go on we will have the damn bug eaters sivilized [sic] if we have to bury them to do it,” he wrote. [107] The year before, he had casually urged his family to have an old friend write to him. “[T]ell him if he don’t rite [sic] to me when i get back i will take him for a nigger and bombard him, tell him no Amegoes (friends) will go then, ha ha.” [108] A war of “no amigos” was a war without surrender.

Race and Atrocity

Just as imperialists had mobilized racial ideologies to defend the war’s ends, so too was race made to defend its means, undermining moral and legal claims against American soldiers accused of “marked severities” in the halls of U.S. governance, in press debates and in courts-martial. [109] When Senate hearings between January and June 1902 raised the question of U.S. atrocities, the U.S. Army’s defenders repeatedly held that abuses were rare; that where they occurred they were swiftly and thoroughly punished; and that testimony to the contrary was characterized by partisan and cowardly—possibly traitorous--exaggeration. But racial arguments, in at least three varieties, were central to the administration’s defense.

The first variant claimed that the Filipinos’ guerrilla war, as “savage” war, was entirely outside the moral and legal standards and strictures of “civilized” war. Those who adopted guerrilla war, it was argued, surrendered all claims to bounded violence and mercy from their opponent. Captain John H. Parker employed this line of argument in a November 1900 letter to President Roosevelt complaining that the U.S. Army should not “attempt to meet a half civilized foe… with the same methods devised for civilized warfare against people of our own race, country and blood.” [110] This point was also made at Senate hearings in 1902, when General Hughes described the burning of entire towns by advancing U.S. troops to Senator Rawlins as a means of "punishment," and Rawlins inquired: "But is that within the ordinary rules of civilized warfare?..." General Hughes replied succinctly: "These people are not civilized."

http://japanfocus.org/-paul_a_-kramer/1745

I would also like to point out that there is no evidence that "Negritoes" or the Aetas if you want to call them that, took any large scale part in the war of the Philippines. They were primarily limited to the remote areas of the Islands. So what BLACKS are these Americans referring to? It most certainly was NOT the Aetas.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Yes. There are black Peruvians and White East Asians. It is called science ..  - [/qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by xyyman:
.North Asians are lighter than Europeans...isn't that a bitch.

 -
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M:
[QB] A

BTW there are some very black people in Peru(of course).

Uros Peruvians in Peru:
 -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Uros.jpg

QUOTE]
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
Yes. There are black Peruvians and White East Asians. It is called science ..  - [QUOTE]Originally posted by xyyman:
.North Asians are lighter than Europeans...isn't that a bitch.

 -
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M:
A

BTW there are some very black people in Peru(of course).

Uros Peruvians in Peru:
 -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Uros.jpg

QUOTE]

Actually it is called biological diversity due to environmental adaptation. Science is the process of studying it and understanding how it works and manifests itself on a biological level.

But you must remember that when white folks weren't writing science in the 18th and 19th century. They were writing racist propaganda to omit and cover up the fact that as a species humans ultimately originate in a tropical environment which makes black skin among humans the the aboriginal state of ALL human populations no matter where they are on the planet. THAT is what the whites are trying SO hard to destroy and cover up because THEY want to be PRIME human which they cannot be because they only just got here not even 10,000 years ago. (Of course "they" were here as humans but they weren't white).
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Doug M - Thank you for posting on the Uros of Peru, I had never heard of them before.

In reading their Wiki some interesting things were said:


The Uros are a pre-Incan people who live on forty-two self-fashioned floating islands in Lake Titicaca Puno, Peru and Bolivia.

I wonder what they mean by that, the culture before the Inca was The Sicán (800-1375) A.D, and that was a society of farmers, ceramic artisans, fishermen, and metalworkers. They built brick (adobe) platform mounds for ceremonial and funerary purposes. Like their Moche precursors, the people of Sicán built monumental temples and palaces, where rituals and funerals demanded splendid paraphernalia.


The Uros descend from a millennial town that, according to legends, are "pukinas" who speak Uro or Pukina and that believe they are the owners of the lake and water. Uros used to say that they have black blood because they did not feel the cold. Also they call themselves "Lupihaques" (Sons of The Sun). Nowadays, Uros do not speak the Uro language, nor practice their old beliefs but keep some old customs.

The purpose of the island settlements was originally defensive, and if a threat arose they could be moved. The largest island retains a watchtower almost entirely constructed of reeds.

The Uros traded with the Aymara tribe on the mainland, intermarrying with them and eventually abandoning the Uro language for that of the Aymara. About 500 years ago they lost their original language. When conquered by the Inca empire, they had to pay taxes to them, and often were made slaves.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uros
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
The hypothesis that humans have a single origin (monogenesis) was published in Charles Darwin's Descent of Man (1871).[2] The concept was speculative until the 1980s, when it was corroborated by a study of present-day mitochondrial DNA, combined with evidence based on physical anthropology of archaic specimens.


 -
 -
 -
 -
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
The hypothesis that humans have a single origin (monogenesis) was published in Charles Darwin's Descent of Man (1871).[2] The concept was speculative until the 1980s, when it was corroborated by a study of present-day mitochondrial DNA, combined with evidence based on physical anthropology of archaic specimens.

No lioness, that is NOT what the science says, there was NO Adam, and there was NO Eve.

Are you Blonde?
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Mike say something unstupid

thanks, lioness
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Original Filipinos that the Americans were fighting at the turn of the 20th century (little short straight haired Chinese looking blacks.)
This is your so called "Malay race". Straight haired short black folks. As opposed to curly haired short black folks. They are simply two different types of aboriginal blacks in South Asia. They aren't a separate "race".

 -
http://heritagefestival.ph/files/images/slideshow/bangsa-moro-exhibit.html

 -

 -


 -

http://heritagefestival.ph/files/images/slideshow/bangsa-moro-exhibit.html

More of these kinds of images can be found in many research collections in the Philippines and America. One good collection is the William Eastman collection, as below:

http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/library/special/eastman.htm
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

 -



^^^^wait a minute are the woman of the aboriginal black race ???

it's that same old pattern again

 -

.
 -

^^^^ look at this guy, he's darker than king Tut
 
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
The history that Doug presented is a hellaova lot more interesting than comparing phenotype for one African Americans took part in that conflict and yes they were the famed Buffalo soldiers some defected because of the raw anti black racism meted out against the Filipino populous who they equate with blacks of whatever origins.
 -
Captain David Fagen
quote:
Within the organization of the "World Serrada Escrima Federation" there is a special division set aside that is strictly devoted to historical research within the field of combative martial arts. The following story centers around an almost untold story about one of the most celebrated "African/American" soldiers who fought on the side of the courageous Filipino revolutionaries during the American occupation in the Philippines. "General Fagen" as many of his loyal Filipino troops called him, was one of the most effective & one of the most masterful African American jungle guerrilla warfare fighter's & military strategist that had ever set foot on Filipino soil.
quote:
The densely forested area around the Rio de la Pampanga River was a scene of great bloodshed. Dozens of Filipinos lay dead, massacred by the advancing US forces. It was August 1899, when Filipino Insurrectos under Gen. Maximino Hizon were making a futile stand against the vastly superior American army. In a few weeks, Hizon would be captured. He would be replaced by another Pampango general, Jose Alejandrino. Alejandrino would regroup his almost decimated forces and head toward Mount Arayat, for another bloody confrontation with the Americans. In the lull of battle, Alejandrino meets a “Black” American defector, Cpl. David Fagen. A highly skilled guerrilla fighter (he was a veteran in Cuba during the Spanish-American War of 1898), Fagen would raise havoc with his former comrades in the US army. For the next two years, his actions would give hope to the losing “Filipino cause.”
quote:
An incredible story? Yes. And it all happened during the Philippine-American War of 1899-1902. Fagen was one of the 7,000 “Black American” soldiers sent to the Philippines to secure the islands for the United States. Originally called “Buffalo Soldiers,” a monicker given by the American-Indians because of their combat prowess and bravery, four regiments of “Black American” soldiers were sent: the 9th and 10th cavalry, and the 23rd and 24th infantry regiments. Fagen belonged to the 24th. In June 1899, Fagen’s regiment was sent to Central Luzon to fight the Insurrectos.

During the course of the battle, two factors would change Fagen’s perspective of the war. First, his constant quarrel with his superiors. Second, the “racist” manner in which the Americans conducted the war, oftentimes calling Filipino soldiers racial slurs like “niggers,” “black devils” and “gugus.”

On Nov. 17, 1899, Fagen defected to the side of the Insurrectos. On Sept. 6, 1900, he was promoted from corporal to captain by his commanding officer, General Alejandrino. “Captain Fagen” would clash with the American army at least eight times, from Aug. 30, 1900 to Jan. 12, 1901 (twice against Frederick Funston, the fabled general who captured Aguinaldo). His most famous action was the daring capture of an American steam launch on the Rio Grande de la Pampanga River. Along with 150 of his men, Fagen seized its cargo of guns and disappeared swiftly into the dense forest before American reinforcements could arrive. It was after this episode that he was referred to as “General Fagen” by the New York Times.

http://www.myfma.net/forum/topics/david-fagen-a-black-american?commentId=3158179%3AComment%3A66880&xg_source=activity .
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
there is also racism that is particular to being used against Asians. For example aginaisnt Chinese immigrants in the 1900s. "yellow peril" etc
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
Doug M is using the Afrocentric Trojan Horse again.

"The word/term "black" or "Black" (capitalized). Afrocentrics will use this term ad nauseum when describing dark skin people. They have run that term to the ground, so much so that people have become aware of this. It is actually the preeminent trojan horse these fvckers use; it is their trojan horse of choice.

I neglected to mention "why" Black is a trojan horse. The word has become a colloquial term to denote the African Negro of sub sahara. In the lingua franca of the commoner, when one hears the word "Black," one will naturally associate it with the African Negro of sub sahara. This is most advantageous for the Afrocentrist as will plainly be seen.

The untrained ear of the uneducated only knows the colloquial definition. The term "Black" acts as a back door and it is this back door entrance to history that these loons will rush though their Trojan horse.

Many indigenous dark skinned people have a glorious past [not Negroids]. Many of these indigenous people happen to be people of color or dark people. Afrocentrists will only refer to these people as "black." If they can get you to accept them placing that term [black] on those people, they can hijack the history; they can tie African Negroes into the history, by way of the term "Black."

Why not merely use the term "Dark" when describing people of color outside sub sahara? You will never get a straight answer from these Afroloons. They will obfuscate or try to drown you in a sea of words. I experienced this at the hands of one resident loon at EgyptSearch.com who wrote a miserably crafted, lengthy missive on the reality of a "black phene." Unfortunately for him, I was not as gullible as the dumb, death and blind crowd he was so accustomed to. I rejected what was patently absurd; other dark skinned people are a distinct set of people or different races from African negroes who happen to have color. The two groups are NOT one!"

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/41187-The-Afrocentric-Trojan-Horse-Dark-skin
 
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Original Filipinos that the Americans were fighting at the turn of the 20th century (little short straight haired Chinese looking blacks.)
This is your so called "Malay race". Straight haired short black folks. As opposed to curly haired short black folks. They are simply two different types of aboriginal blacks in South Asia. They aren't a separate "race".

 -
http://heritagefestival.ph/files/images/slideshow/bangsa-moro-exhibit.html

 -

 -


 -

http://heritagefestival.ph/files/images/slideshow/bangsa-moro-exhibit.html

More of these kinds of images can be found in many research collections in the Philippines and America. One good collection is the William Eastman collection, as below:

http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/library/special/eastman.htm

Good one Doug... [Smile]
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
The history that Doug presented is a hellaova lot more interesting than comparing phenotype for one African Americans took part in that conflict and yes they were the famed Buffalo soldiers some defected because of the raw anti black racism meted out against the Filipino populous who they equate with blacks of whatever origins.
 -
Captain David Fagen
quote:
Within the organization of the "World Serrada Escrima Federation" there is a special division set aside that is strictly devoted to historical research within the field of combative martial arts. The following story centers around an almost untold story about one of the most celebrated "African/American" soldiers who fought on the side of the courageous Filipino revolutionaries during the American occupation in the Philippines. "General Fagen" as many of his loyal Filipino troops called him, was one of the most effective & one of the most masterful African American jungle guerrilla warfare fighter's & military strategist that had ever set foot on Filipino soil.
quote:
The densely forested area around the Rio de la Pampanga River was a scene of great bloodshed. Dozens of Filipinos lay dead, massacred by the advancing US forces. It was August 1899, when Filipino Insurrectos under Gen. Maximino Hizon were making a futile stand against the vastly superior American army. In a few weeks, Hizon would be captured. He would be replaced by another Pampango general, Jose Alejandrino. Alejandrino would regroup his almost decimated forces and head toward Mount Arayat, for another bloody confrontation with the Americans. In the lull of battle, Alejandrino meets a “Black” American defector, Cpl. David Fagen. A highly skilled guerrilla fighter (he was a veteran in Cuba during the Spanish-American War of 1898), Fagen would raise havoc with his former comrades in the US army. For the next two years, his actions would give hope to the losing “Filipino cause.”
quote:
An incredible story? Yes. And it all happened during the Philippine-American War of 1899-1902. Fagen was one of the 7,000 “Black American” soldiers sent to the Philippines to secure the islands for the United States. Originally called “Buffalo Soldiers,” a monicker given by the American-Indians because of their combat prowess and bravery, four regiments of “Black American” soldiers were sent: the 9th and 10th cavalry, and the 23rd and 24th infantry regiments. Fagen belonged to the 24th. In June 1899, Fagen’s regiment was sent to Central Luzon to fight the Insurrectos.

During the course of the battle, two factors would change Fagen’s perspective of the war. First, his constant quarrel with his superiors. Second, the “racist” manner in which the Americans conducted the war, oftentimes calling Filipino soldiers racial slurs like “niggers,” “black devils” and “gugus.”

On Nov. 17, 1899, Fagen defected to the side of the Insurrectos. On Sept. 6, 1900, he was promoted from corporal to captain by his commanding officer, General Alejandrino. “Captain Fagen” would clash with the American army at least eight times, from Aug. 30, 1900 to Jan. 12, 1901 (twice against Frederick Funston, the fabled general who captured Aguinaldo). His most famous action was the daring capture of an American steam launch on the Rio Grande de la Pampanga River. Along with 150 of his men, Fagen seized its cargo of guns and disappeared swiftly into the dense forest before American reinforcements could arrive. It was after this episode that he was referred to as “General Fagen” by the New York Times.

http://www.myfma.net/forum/topics/david-fagen-a-black-american?commentId=3158179%3AComment%3A66880&xg_source=activity .

Thanks Brada. A lot of people in Asia and elsewhere have bought into the lies and propaganda of white racists wholesale and this is why you see the attitudes you see today towards the facts. Some claim the original Filipinos were "non black" aboriginals from South China but all of this contradicts the written accounts and pictorial evidence from just 100 years ago, not to mention the accounts of Magellan of the "black armies" swarming down to meet him in the Islands.

But that is because the population today has had 100 years of American racism taught to them (starting the racist William McKinley). They have been taught in American built schools and indoctrinated to believe in the lies of the conqueror to the point where they have the same mindset of the conqueror and insult themselves and their own history in the process.

That is how you can have a T.V. program called Nita Negrita with a girl in black face playing a mixed African American/Filipino person facing ridicule from her classmates.....

And there is also a history of Sino-assimilation as well where everything south Asian gets portrayed as Chinese in origin when it isn't primarily because of the wealth and power of the Chinese in most South Asian populations.


Some vids of the so called "non black" original Filipinos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUfsIbxsO94

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eJgIhns62I

quote:

Abe Ignacio said he couldn't believe his eyes when he saw the century-old illustration for sale on eBay.

The cover of an 1899 issue of Judge magazine shows President William McKinley scrubbing a Filipino child saying, "Oh, you dirty boy!" The caption reads: "The Filipino's First Bath."

Ignacio of San Leandro bought the rare image and others from the era that are now part of a Berkeley exhibit of depictions of Filipinos in mainstream media -- as savages to be civilized by the United States as part of the colonization of the Philippines.

"It's revisiting a terrible period that most historians have ignored," said Ignacio, who works as a Federal Express driver and has collected about 400 images from that period since the late 1980s. "It's important to show that there was a very ugly side to America's rise as a world power."

"Colored: Black n' White," at exhibit at Pusod, a community arts and environmental center, includes drawings, editorial cartoons, photos and news clips from prominent magazines and newspapers that covered the U.S. annexation of the Philippines in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It was put together by Ignacio, his wife, Helen Toribio, who is a college instructor, and Jorge Emmanuel, an environmental scientist.

The Philippines had declared its independence from Spain in 1898 when the archipelago was ceded to the United States for $20 million. Filipino revolutionaries rejected the U.S. colonial regime, but their resistance was suppressed in a bloody war of conquest that claimed at least 250,000 lives, mostly Filipino civilians.

To justify the use of military force in the Philippines, many pro- annexation politicians, writers and artists portrayed the Filipinos as primitive, childlike and incapable of governing themselves.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Images-of-racism-How-19th-century-U-S-media-2898040.php#ixzz2PDZEju5g
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Thanks Brada. A lot of people in Asia and elsewhere have bought into the lies and propaganda of white racists wholesale and this is why you see the attitudes you see today towards the facts. Some claim the original Filipinos were "non black" aboriginals from South China but all of this contradicts the written accounts and pictorial evidence from just 100 years ago, not to mention the accounts of Magellan of the "black armies" swarming down to meet him in the Islands.

But that is because the population today has had 100 years of American racism taught to them (starting the racist William McKinley). They have been taught in American built schools and indoctrinated to believe in the lies of the conqueror to the point where they have the same mindset of the conqueror and insult themselves and their own history in the process.

That is how you can have a T.V. program called Nita Negrita with a girl in black face playing a mixed African American/Filipino person facing ridicule from her classmates.....

And there is also a history of Sino-assimilation as well where everything south Asian gets portrayed as Chinese in origin when it isn't primarily because of the wealth and power of the Chinese in most South Asian populations.

Hate to keep harping on it, but the late comers are the issue.

This cute little pink mongol Filipino girl is in no way related to original Filipinos.


 -


Like THESE original people:


 -


 -



But as shown by Djehuti and "Near-White" mulattoes in the Philippines, North Africa, the middle-east and Arabia; these Mulattoes are no longer willing to be what they are: Mulattoes!
Now the want to be considered "ORIGINAL" people.
As we all know, such monumental lying is emblematic of Albinos, so obviously these Mulattoes are much closer to their Albino parentage.


Just look how these mulatto monkeys try to please their Albino Gods.


 -
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:

This cute little pink mongol Filipino girl is in no way related to original Filipinos.


 -



Ethnic Chinese sailed around the Philippine Islands from the 9th century onward and frequently interacted with the local Filipinos. Chinese and Filipino interactions initially commenced as bartering and item exchanges done on Chinese sampans. This is evidenced by a collection of Chinese artifacts found throughout Philippine waters, dating back right up to the 10th century.

Many Chinese subsequently created settlements in Luzon and in the Visayas, some of which became the biggest and most powerful barangays, or city-states in the Philippines. Many datus, rajahs, and Lakans (indigenous rulers) in the Philippines were themselves a product of the intermarriage between the Chinese merchant=settlers and the local Filipinos. They eventually formed the group which is to be called Principalia during the Spanish period, and were given privileges by the Spanish colonial authorities.

Contact with the Philippine islands began when Japanese traders/merchants first settled in the archipelago during the 12th century AD.The Japanese population in the Philippines has since included descendants of Japanese Catholics and other Japanese Christians who fled from the religious persecution imposed by the Tokugawa shogunate during the Edo period and settled during the colonial period from the 17th century until the 19th century.

Many of the Japanese men intermarried with Filipino women (including those of mixed or unmixed Spanish and Chinese descent), thus forming the new Japanese mestizo community.The recent Japanese Filipinos are descendants of 1980s and 1990s Japanese settlers usually businesspeople, most of whom are men, and (mostly female) locals. Many are children of thousands of overseas Filipino workers, who went to Japan mostly as entertainers.
 
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
 
^OMG Jehuti is one fuching liar!

An indo-sino house boy claiming to be ancient Kings of Malayas!

Where is his lying indo-chinese lying ass to defend his talk about ancient Malaya this and that...
 
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IronLion:
^OMG Jehuti is one fuching liar!

An indo-sino house boy claiming to be ancient Kings of Malayas!

Where is his lying indo-chinese lying ass to defend his talk about ancient Malaya this and that...

The Philippines is a microcosm of race relations in many parts of the world. The "Near-White" Mulattoes in the Philippines (descendants of Chinese and Japanese traders/merchants who first settled in the archipelago starting at about the 12th century A.D. and interbred with the original Black People): Are like the Mulattoes in North Africa, the Middle-east and Arabia. These Mulattoes are no longer willing to be what they are: Mulattoes! Now they want to be considered "ORIGINAL" people. (As we know, such monumental lying is emblematic of Albinos, so obviously these Mulattoes are much closer to their Albino parentage). Filipino television mirrors the racial confusion and mores of the Filipino people, in that those closest to the Albinos (both oriental and occidental) try to, and often succeed, in getting the darker, more standard Mulattoes, to identify with them instead of the original Filipinos.


 -



To this end, Filipino writer Agnes Gagelonia - Uligan, created a television show for GMA Network of the Philippines called "Nita Negrita" The story revolves around a Filipino/African-American girl named Nita (Barbie Forteza). Her mother is Filipina and her father is African-American Filipino. At an early age, she was separated from her mother and was raised at an orphanage. With her (dark) complexion, she is always being teased and humiliated.


 -
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Funny thing I notice is that as you back to photos 100 years or more ago, the more you run into black folks among them.....

Some groups mentioned: black yi, miao, mongols, manchu, etc... and quite often you see a pattern where the ethic group is split into 'black' and 'white' subgroups, where the meaning is obvious. So going as far back in time as you want in even mainland Chinese history there have been black people recognized and identified among the populations there.

Some pages referencing these groups with pics:
http://www.gokunming.com/en/blog/item/636/yunnans_ethnic_minorities_at_the_end_of_the_qing_dynasty

Yi people:
http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4519

http://www.china.org.cn/e-groups/shaoshu/shao-2-yi.htm

quote:

Many of the Yi in Liangshan and northwestern Yunnan practiced a complicated form of slavery. People were split into the nuohuo or Black Yi (nobles), qunuo or White Yi (commoners)
.....
During Sui and Tang dynasty, the local aborigines of present-day Yunnan and Liangshan were distinguished by Chinese Han as Wuman (Chinese: meaning black barbarian) and Baiman (Chinese: meaning white barbarian)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_people

Black mongols/tibetans... here is an example from a video about the dalai lama. Scroll to the 1:08:30 mark and you will see a few in the streets of Tibet(modern video, no question these are black mongols/tibetans):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=322SFh6d3iA

One of the photographers to take pictures in old China was Auguste Francois. His pictures from the time are priceless..... Of course those who want to deny the ancient blacks of Asia (not just negritos) have good reason. The black folks don't want to admit that there has been a genocidal and eugenics based agenda against blacks in many parts of the world over the last few hundred years or more(so they need to get their sh!t together else people will be asking what happened to them just like the blacks in old b/w photos). And the rest just want to hide it and cover it up. BTW, if you look up Cham dancing in Tibet you will see dancers with fierce black masks..... Those are basically from the Cham people of South Asia, the "little blacks".... or Khamites....
http://www.gokunming.com/en/blog/item/595/auguste_franois_yin_xiaojun_and_kunming_at_the_end_of_the_qing_dynasty


quote:

In retirement, he wrote texts elucidating his images. François's work has been an invaluable means of documenting China's state palaces in the last decade of the empire. His photography is the earliest, largest and most extensive and complete collection of photographs documenting Chinese society at the end of the Qing Dynasty. Armed with what was then state-of-the-art photographic and cinematic equipment, François traveled extensively throughout southern China and eventually followed the Yangtze from Yunnan to its terminus in Shanghai. His photographs are some of the earliest and most thorough photographic records of China and the motion pictures he took are thought to be the earliest motion pictures taken in China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Fran%C3%A7ois

 -
http://www.villerslesnancy.fr/fr/auguste-francois.html

But you must also understand that China has had a policy of assimilation since the Qing dynasty which has allowed for intermarriage of Chinese populations into many ethnic groups. This has made many modern ethnic groups less diverse than they were 100 years ago, with the black faces now either mixed out of existence or kept in isolation or censored to the outside world. And this goes both within China proper and in many parts of South Asia. To the point where many south Asians identify more with the Chinese phenotype than the native "aboriginal" phenotype.

Interesting discussion on an asian message board.
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=255874

Video of Cham villages in South Asia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhi0n3qMbeo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Obajcrjgs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=H3eM3pWUqqs&NR=1
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
 -

Mike your albino theorizing aint working. The albino in theis picture is just as "original" as thae dark skinned man. The come form the same place, have the same ancestry
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
 -

Mike your albino theorizing aint working. The albino in theis picture is just as "original" as thae dark skinned man. The come form the same place, have the same ancestry
 
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Doug have posted some pretty interesting links with a wealth of new info for us to look into and you respond with the same picture spam of Albino vs non Albino..come on Lioness get into the meat of what he posted will ya??

Yes Doug I found especially the tall old Black man at the end of the vid is reminiscent of the Black Mongolian below

 -

Interesting and yet appalling was the Yi system of slavery based of bloodlines and color and the Black being the nobles.
Below is a discussion from one of the links

quote:
Nuohuo," meaning "black Yi," was the highest rank of society. Being the slave-owning class, Nuohuo made up 7 per cent of the total population. The black Yis controlled people of the other three ranks to varying degrees, and owned 60 to 70 per cent of the arable land and a large amount of other means of production. The black Yis were born aristocrats, claiming their blood to be "noble" and "pure," and forbidding marriages with people of the other three ranks. They despised physical labour, lived by exploiting the other ranks and ruled the slaves by force.

"Qunuo," meaning "white Yi," was the highest rank of the ruled and made up 50 per cent of the population. This rank was an appendage to the black Yis personally and, as subjects under the slave system, they enjoyed relative independence economically and could control "Ajia" and "Xiaxi" who were inferior to them. "Qunuo" lived within the areas governed by the black Yi slave owners, had no freedom of migration, nor could they leave the areas without the permission of their masters. They had no complete right of ownership when disposing of their own property, but were subjected to restrictions by their masters. They had to pay some fees to their masters when they wanted to sell their land. The property of a dead person who had no offspring went to his master. Though the black Yi slave owners could not kill, sell or buy Qunuo at will, they could transfer or present as a gift the power of control over Qunuo. They could even give away Qunuo as the compensation for persons they had killed and use Qunuo as stakes. So, Qunuo had no complete personality of their own, though they were not slaves.

"Ajia" made up one third of the population, being rigidly bound to black Yi or Qunuo slaveowners, who could freely sell, buy and kill them.

"Xiaxi" was the lowest rank, accounting for 10 per cent of the population. They had no property, personal rights or freedom, and were regarded as "talking tools." They lived in damp and dark corners in their masters' houses, and at night had to curl up with domestic animal to keep warm. Supervised by masters, Xiaxi did heavy housework and farm work all the year round. They wore rags and tattered sheepskins, and lived on wild roots and leftovers. Slave owners inflicted all sorts of torture on those who were rebellious, fettered them with iron chains and wooden shackles to prevent them from escaping. Like domestic animals, Xiaxi could be freely disposed of as chattels, ordered about, insulted, beaten up, bought and sold, or killed as sacrifices to gods.

http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4519
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=255874
quote:
If Laos is the only country that still distinguishes ethnic Laotians from Laotian nationals in general, then please explain why Thai people use ethnic Chinese and Laotian to represent Thai media instead of their own Siamese people? Obviously, ethnic Laotians and Chinese do not look like Siamese of Thailand so evidently Thailand is also aware of its multi-ethnic population. The difference is that Thailand is ashamed of its own Siamese people because of their dark Thai complexion in favor of lighter-skinned ethnic Laotians and Chinese.
This line of discussion is also reminiscent of multiple discussions we have here about folks of African decent.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
A few more nuggets I found on youtube from the archives of old German missionaries in Korea preaching white supremacy. Like I said before these folks have the facts in their vaults and research archives... But they are still the biggest liars on the planet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91s_32-V3PY

(Kinda funny how the video ends in Africa....)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6L1hmpsCoY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk27mv4amR0
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Couple more from other parts of Asia:

Japan photos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9VA171l2Yc

SOAS film archive rare footage of life in China in the early 20th century:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZRhDmUn3m4

China and the Chinese 1920:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIJYEaBH1Yk

Old Chinese Cities in 1935:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuetuYD-3Vg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgq_WAvqEgA

Orang asli in Malaya's jungle in 1947
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXujiGhUlUU

Malaysia 1970s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spmXB7ElILM

Buddhist Ceremonies Cambodia 1910:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kphRLvCUVaQ
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
A few more nuggets I found on youtube from the archives of old German missionaries in Korea preaching white supremacy. Like I said before these folks have the facts in their vaults and research archives... But they are still the biggest liars on the planet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91s_32-V3PY


(Kinda funny how the video ends in Africa....)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6L1hmpsCoY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk27mv4amR0

.


So how did the white supremacists pull off this transformation only 95 years later ?


 -

 -


 -
 
Posted by Narmerthoth (Member # 20259) on :
 
Man, I've become addicted to Korean culture.

Having meet many Koreans in New York, Washington DC, Durham, NC, and Baltimore, MD, I've found that they and African Americans have much in common.

In Washington, there is a large Korean community and they embrace African American culture, even cooking and eating many African American dishes like Fried Chicken, Chitterlings, Collared greens and cornbread, and they cook them as well and sometimes better than black folk. They say they like it and do it become they are Soul brothers. LOL.

Recently, I'm hooked on their TV series depicting Korean, Chinese and Japanese history. Unlike Europeans, Koreans show their history raw, the good and bad.

One show I'm particularly addicted to is;

The Kingdom of The Winds

The drama about the life of Jumong's grandson, Moo Hyul, who was born with a curse to kill his parent, siblings, son and destroy Goguryeo. Moo Hyul, who later became Daemusin. Its background is Korean history.
The story unfolds, centering on the third king of Kogooryeo, "Daemooshin," who intended to expand his country beyond the Booyeo, Nakrang and Chinese Han Empire, and for his son Hodong.

The story may develop through wars with neighboring countries and in its characters' adventures. But Land of the Wind shows their sadness and agony in epic proportions, as well.

It's strange that the characters in the 2009 series don't look anything like those shown above, Perhaps it's TV make-up, darkening the actors, but these Epics always show the Korean males, especially the ruling king as dark skinned while the females are lighter.

The script is very powerful with some of the most eloquent language I've even seen used in a movie and definitely a TV series.

Below, king of Kogooryeo, Yuri is shown on horseback.

 -
 
Posted by Narmerthoth (Member # 20259) on :
 
Malay Moors

 -

 -

 -
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Narmerthoth:
Man, I've become addicted to Korean culture.

Having meet many Koreans in New York, Washington DC, Durham, NC, and Baltimore, MD, I've found that they and African Americans have much in common.

In Washington, there is a large Korean community and they embrace African American culture, even cooking and eating many African American dishes like Fried Chicken, Chitterlings, Collared greens and cornbread, and they cook them as well and sometimes better than black folk. They say they like it and do it become they are Soul brothers. LOL.

Recently, I'm hooked on their TV series depicting Korean, Chinese and Japanese history. Unlike Europeans, Koreans show their history raw, the good and bad.

One show I'm particularly addicted to is;

The Kingdom of The Winds

The drama about the life of Jumong's grandson, Moo Hyul, who was born with a curse to kill his parent, siblings, son and destroy Goguryeo. Moo Hyul, who later became Daemusin. Its background is Korean history.
The story unfolds, centering on the third king of Kogooryeo, "Daemooshin," who intended to expand his country beyond the Booyeo, Nakrang and Chinese Han Empire, and for his son Hodong.

The story may develop through wars with neighboring countries and in its characters' adventures. But Land of the Wind shows their sadness and agony in epic proportions, as well.

It's strange that the characters in the 2009 series don't look anything like those shown above, Perhaps it's TV make-up, darkening the actors, but these Epics always show the Korean males, especially the ruling king as dark skinned while the females are lighter.

The script is very powerful with some of the most eloquent language I've even seen used in a movie and definitely a TV series.

Below, king of Kogooryeo, Yuri is shown on horseback.

 -

Yes, Korean historical dramas are good. The production values are good and costumes very well done. I see that they have started subs on youtube so I will check them out.
 
Posted by Narmerthoth (Member # 20259) on :
 
Most of the English subtitles can be found at
http://subscene.com/

YouTube video quality is terrible, when you can download the 720/1080 versions from Asian torrents.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Asian people know more about some of this history than many people realize. But it is something you may have to research in Korean or Chinese contexts versus western. But the point is that black populations are easily destroyed through systematic eugenics programs because of their lack of control of resources and economics. The main tool of white supremacy in pushing their agenda is their economy which is of course based on wealth stolen from other people's lands and labor.

Singapore crossroads of the East:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvvhY6DtfZs
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
I'm trying to figure out what Doug's point is here.
Is he saying that a white supremacist eugenics program was depoloyed to the East Asian populations?
 
Posted by Narmerthoth (Member # 20259) on :
 
^ Come on Lionese. Stop playin'!
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Finally found some good shots of black "Malays" from Malaysia.

 -
https://www.flickr.com/photos/balkis/7656697584/in/photostream/

 -
https://www.flickr.com/photos/balkis/7656791456/in/album-72157630776656096/

 -
https://www.flickr.com/photos/balkis/20534701501/
 
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Finally found some good shots of black "Malays" from Malaysia.

 -
https://www.flickr.com/photos/balkis/7656697584/in/photostream/

 -
https://www.flickr.com/photos/balkis/7656791456/in/album-72157630776656096/

 -
https://www.flickr.com/photos/balkis/20534701501/

The Malays are already very dark

.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
bump
 


(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3