...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Black-headed Sumerians and Black-headed Tut - a re-evaluation
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yonis: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by blackman: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol: [qb] [QUOTE] Blackman, LOTR, et. al, I sincerely find it hard to believe that you can't see how silly this stuff is. [/qb][/QUOTE]Rasol, With all due respect. I only comment on the truth I find in the post in reference to the trolls. As I stated before and again, they weren't Africans. However, they were Black. I will welcome and appreciate if you or anyone can prove me otherwise. [/qb][/QUOTE]Even if they were "black"(whatever that means) they were still not related to any group in africa more than the groups who lived next to them. I don't understand with this fascination of "blacks" as if it had any meaning scientifically. The Sri lankans and south Indian Tamils are also black, but what do they have to do with you or other blacks outside south asia? It's like trying to prove that the ancient chinese royalty were fat and thus had more connection to other fat people of africa than the thin people of ancient china, it doesn't make sense. These people were genetically and culturally not closer to other africans than their immediate neighbours, so calling them black, blue or yellow is totally irrelevant, they were still indigenous to west asia and closely related to other west/central asians than to any other people outside this region regardless if you call them black, green, white or yellow . [/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