...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
True History vs False History
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by xyyman: Explorer/KIK: does NOT matter what they look like. Since they don’t belong to African lineage (genetically) then they are not Africans. Believe the ancients are the ancestors of the present occupiers. [/QUOTE]As a longstanding poster here, I can say that for anyone who has read my posts, that this is a simplistic assessment of a variety of issues I've tried to get through. For example, from my standpoint, "they" has to be defined first and foremost, before anyone can reach any meaningful conclusion of a discussion. Furthermore, if the "they" are humans, then [i]technically[/i], as preponderance of tangible genetic material and paleontology show, [i]all[/i] humans belong to African lineage [i]genetically[/i]. Being one or several steps removed from the most common recent African ancestor does not change this fact. This obviously contradicts your assessment above. Non-Africans are [i]not[/i] Africans, not because of the just mentioned fact, but quite simply, because they are not African natives--it is more of socio-political thing than a genetic connection. Additionally, the continent we call "Asia" is marked by complex demographic events, as is the case for many other landmasses. Some sections of the populations therein descend from more recent episodes than others. Some sections may have recent common ancestry that [i]post-date[/i] the proposed successful upper Paleolithic OOA genetic fission of a subset of African gene pool, while others may trace such ancestry to said Paleolithic background. Is the just-mentioned synonymous with [i]"Believe the ancients are the ancestors of the present occupiers."[/i]? It is safe to say that while the former doesn't necessary contradict the latter in absolute terms, the former cannot easily be summarized into the latter; for instance, it comes down to the specifics of [i]which populations[/i], which sections [i]within[/i] populations, and [i]how ancient[/i] is "ancient". There is no single answer to this question. This still stands: xyyman, I think you are missing the substance of my questions, in relation to your comment. I'm asking you, why the so-called "negroid" Asians, as you called them, cannot simply be "negroes"? What is the distinction between "negroids" and "negroes"? Remember, avoidance of answers to questions that seek clarity of one's [i]own[/i] terms and stated-position is really a sign of inability to defend oneself. Of course, one is free to care or not care about their own credibility, but don't expect to be taken seriously by others. ;) [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3