Race & Culture
-
Peace Anwar
Just adding my comments to some more of your inquiries.
So what is all the aversion to blackness for?
People have their reasons. Some people are simply influenced by conditioning from cultural biases, et cetera. There are some mulattoes who are annoyed that black people try to include them into their culture or race when they are not black. I personally find it annoying when black people seem to assume that mulattoes are black or that the latin races (Spanish and Italian) are black.
So why is everyone trying to not be black when black blood is clearly in them and black people (at least in the America) are accepting of them and always have been (as long as they are true the what is real). Whereas their white parents have always reject them.
If you're not black then you're not black. If a european has a black ancestor from 2 centuries ago that does not make him or her black in my opinion. Just as an African may have a european ancester from 200 years ago it does not make him or her white. I'm not sure if a mulattoes white parent always rejects them. Perhaps it happened often in governments where systems of slavery were, but I doubt it happens often today or in places where slavery is non-existent. A black person can accept any mulattoe they want to, but that person is not a black person so long as s/he has a european parent or 2 mulattoe parents.
Joe
-
Peace Anwar and All,
I think its clear that "mixing" has, is and will probably continue in the future; if this wasn't the case, then there would just be three prime races with no subdivisions! And life would probably be a bit boring, don't ya think?
As everybody continues to "mix", I do think its important to know where I come from to get a better understanding of mankind, creation, where everything is going, and my place in this world. Preserving cultural history and acknowledging biological truths isn't separatist. If its truth, then its undeniable. It only becomes separatist when one race's characteristics are preferred over the other, for whatever reason. The latter should be avoided, not the former.
As an African American, I definitely strive to know about my past, remain comfortable in my "black" skin (despite many in the world who ignorantly think anything dealing with ?Blackness? is an atrocity), and celebrate similarities and differences of all races.
And you what's funny? Simply because I choose to be ?proud? of being black, many folk-black and otherwise-automatically think that I am prejudiced against other cultures...they see the afro and start assuming all types of things! And all I?m trying to do is have peace )
-
Salam Anwar,
From my extensive reseach it is clear that the ancient Egyptians, Ancient Arabs, Ancient Iraqis, Ancient Indians, Ancient Sumerians and all the original ancient peoples and civilzation of North Africa, southern Asia and south-eastern Asia were originally black.
Could you please provide us the proof of your extensive research.
The Caucasian race of human beings and its subdivisions came down into these areas through raids, immigrations, wars etc and mixed with these people creating the Arabs, Iranians, Berbers, and Indians of today. In the case of South eastern Asia it was mainly the Mongoloids and their subdivisions (who had also mixed with caucasians) that came down and mixed with the original black people.
This is pure fallacy, if you have a look at the scientific evidence you?ll find this is not the case at all, you seem to have a very small minded view of race, just because Arabs and Iranians are darker that does no necessarily mean they?re any less Caucasian and more Negroid, colour does not have that kind of dependence on race.
In all of these areas there is still a remnant of this black population. Go to bangladesh, Iraq, Saudi Arabi, Egypt, India, Malaysia, and the Philippines and you will find a remnant of these original black populations that haven't mixed in.
Any remnant populations you do find are the remnants of slavery from the middle ages, not from any prehistoric period, consider the Zanj of southern Iraq for example.
In fact, the only middle eastern ethnicity that has any sizeable African DNA are the Mozabites (no more than 25%), way after them are the Bedouins and Palestinians who only have slight traces of African DNA.
So Arabs are mulatoes with a small remnant black population.
Indians are mulatoes with a small remnant black population.
Egyptians are Mulatoes with a small remant black population
Berbers are Mulatoes with a significant black population
All southern Europeans have black in them by way of mulattoe Berbers, Arabs and Black African Muslims.
This is not the case, Arabs are Caucasoids with generally no more than 1% of Negroid and Mongoloid DNA; Indians from the Sub-continent are Caucasoids with around 10% Mongoloid DNA and practically no African DNA; Egyptians are essentially Caucasoids that increasingly observe continuous traits of Negroid DNA the further south one goes towards sub-sahara; the term ?Berber? is far to widespread to even state whether they have Negroid or Caucasoid traits (as is Arab for that matter but I?m assuming you mean the middle eastern variety). All Southern Europeans, as a matter of fact, have more mongoloid DNA and virtually no Negroid.
I can provide the scientific proof of this if you wish, however I'm interested in seeing the scientific proof of your extensive research first.
If Latin Americans or Arabs were born in this country they would suffer the same fate. They are saved by their "foreign" origin.
So whereas I recognize the multiracial background of my own people and obvioiusly see it in Latin Americans, Arabs, Indians, South Eastern Asians etc. I still am very disgusted and outraged that these people ESPECIALLY Arabs try to distinguish themselves from blacks and act as if they were superior and separate from Blacks. Whereas if they had been born in America (up until the recent globalization of the US) they would have just been black.
You seem to be harbouring some contempt, and I can tell you, as an Arab, or more precisely as an Anglo-Arabian on a racial perspective, the closest thing you and me share brother, is our Anglo-Saxon ancestry.
-
peace,
There is really no such thing as "race." The idea actually started in the 19th century and was promoted by Darwin's natural selection theory.
Is Barak Obama black? or is he white? (I'm classified as neither, btw)
Our differences are based on just looks. That's the only way you can divide people into races, by their looks. That's too superficial a thing for me to really care about.Do you know that individual penguins (they look exactly the same) are more different than each other than humans are from chimpanzees?
-
Peace Anwar,
You are probably right but this globalization won't go on if people don't realized where they truly come from, who and they truly are. It's this imagining one as a superior or pure race, and in the case of Europeans super-isolationist ideas that creates the unwillingness for people to mix.
I agree. Culture and race, as I see it, are time capsules. We choose what we "are" based on the last cultural traditions that we've inherited and the current pigment manifestation we embody (aka, skin color). But go back far enough and we're all brothers and sisters, I suppose, or at least cousins for that matter.
I believe part of our collective struggle entails breaking free from the tribal mentality that's been handed down. We take comfort in being with "our own kind", and that, taken to the extreme, is really the essence of racism.
Peace,
Tay -
I will do my best to try to provide some of this evidence to you but let me make some statements.
-
Not all Arabs are equal. Some Arabs are obviously more Caucasian and some more Negroid depending on the country. Towards the north they have more caucasian blood from the people from the Caucasius areas, the Hyskos, the Hittites etc all came from these northern areas and contributed to the ancestry of the Arabs. To deny that Arabs have significant negroid blood is a true error. Mulattoe races regularized their mixture as all people become mixed in. The statement that Blacks that remain in Arab countries are from Middle Age slavery is an error. Some are and alot of them are the original inhabitants. It just depends on who you talk to. Again Arabs like to distance themselves from their Black (Not necessarily African) ancestry by trying to view themselves as separate people or as you say mainly caucasian. I will post some links that show how mixed people in America, including African Americans through regularizing this mixture can have their African genetic codes disapear despite the fact of how they came to be.
-
Indians definitely have black in them. Northern Indians are more Caucasian and southern indians are Black. Their related to the Blacks of Africa but their existence hearkens back to a very ancient time when various subgroups of black people were all over this area. Look up the Blacks of south india and you will see. There are also blacks in Southeast asia that do not hail from Africa but are still very Black all the same.
-
As for the Afro-American identity and the Mulatoe issue. In America, those Mulatoe families are considered black, and in America black doesn't mean to be a true Negro it means visible African ancestry. So of course a black person especially an American black person will see you, a mulattoe as black, as he has mulatoes in his family tree who were considered black. He sees you as a part of him and him as a part of you. But in this new age world you can now say, hey I'm not black because one of my parents isnt black. But that doesn't mean anything. you can be black in America and have one of your parents be white. It is the visible African ancestry that makes you black (In some cases the knowledge of immediate black ancestry). Being black is not just about color or features because black people highly vary in these aspects.The same with alot of Hispanics. Had their origin been in this country alot of them would have been considered black. The difference now, for you and other recent first generation mulattoes is the cultural connection to Black people not the ethnic facts. If you don't grow up in Black-American culture you don't feel black. There are other undeniable less mixed blacks who grow up in Euro-American environments as well and don't feel a cultural connect to American Black people but that still does not change the ethnic fact. It honestly seems like a scape-goat to do what many Afro-Americans have done in the past to distance themselves from the negative situation or perception of black people by disowning black people alltogether or if they were light enough by passing as white.
Godbless,
Anwar -
-
Salam Anwar,
Believe it or not, I do not like arguing, there are many things I do not agree with being said on Free Minds but I usually avoid the time out in having to dredge it all out with someone else. However, some issues I believe are very important, and sometimes I see the wrong idea being touted as the truth and fear how that ignorant view or incorrect information may affect people.
I read your first post on this thread, and was very disturbed, especially when you said your findings were in light of ?extensive research? what you?re spouting is basically narrow minded and ignorant Afro-centric blabbering, and is a reactionary belief to Eurocentric ideals which have caused the Black population of America so much suffering, much like how the Nation of Islam was spawned in a reactionary way and gave birth to many ignorant ideas. Nevertheless, to me it seems your extensive research has been done only by reading Afrocentric websites, I would like to see your proofs AND their sources sooner rather than later.
- The first point of your ?extensive research? comes to the conclusion that
From my extensive research it is clear that the ancient Egyptians, Ancient Arabs, Ancient Iraqis, Ancient Indians, Ancient Sumerians and all the original ancient peoples and civilzation of North Africa, southern Asia and south-eastern Asia were originally black.
This is completely and utterly wrong, and epitomizes the flawed Afro-centric argument; all the first civilizations and hence all civilization has to give us our dues as we were responsible for Sumeria, Harappa and Egypt etc.
I would like proof of this please Anwar, but due the lack of your proof at this time, I shall provide my proofs, so here goes.
If the Ancient Sumerians/Iraqis were black why were they making Caucasoid statues of their kings?
http//www.livius.org/a/1/mesopotamia/sumerian.JPG
My goodness! Look at the honker on that! Typically Middle Eastern wouldn?t you say?
Also on nearly all Sumerian statues you see joined Eyebrows, typical of the communities of Men and Women where the Sumerians existed, show me Africans that have Joined Eyebrows.
Here is another Sumerian
http//imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/NGSPOD/133387~A-Sumerian-Carved-Figurine-Dating-from-3000-B-C-Posters.jpg
Joined Eyebrows, Caucasoid nose. Just how Iraqis look today.
In the Ancient Indians were black why were they making these statues?
http//www.accd.edu/sac/vat/arthistory/arts1303/India3.jpg
This is a Harappan ?Priest King? he looks more Chinese than Congolese, which supports my argument of sizeable Mongoloid DNA in Indian cultures, again where are the Black Features? Come on, you?re not going to tell me that they all had Michael Jackson syndrome and wanted too look whiter?
Here is an ?Ancient Arab? or more precisely a Nabatean (of An-Nabt people)
http//z.about.com/d/arthistory/1/0/P/N/petra_05.jpg
Yes, very black.
Now for the Ancient Egyptians, I do not agree with the extremists at the other end of the race spectrum, namely white supremesists etc that the Egyptians where 100% ?white? nor will I agree with the black supremesist end of the spectrum that they were all ?black?.
Here is an Ancient Egyptian statue
http//www.uribeer.com/images/Berlin%20Nefertiti.jpg
Again, it shows that Egyptians were not all Black.
So brother, your first argument, is not only the same blab that occupies the opposite end of the spectrum to Eurocentric pish posh but it is the same one used by black racists. This form of racism is reactionary to black oppression and the inferiority complexes the majority of these people hold, and I can see from the language of your posts and the resentment of the fact that - the Arabs and Latinos didn?t get it as bad as ?us? but if they were here they would ? and ? I have white in me but it is never recognized ? and ? I could pass for an Arab or Latino - that you also harbor these issues and this is what causes your racial bias, I?ve heard this being said time and time again by people who cannot resolve themselves so turn to made up theories of how the world should be. This discontent is always the source of racist ideas, post WWI Germany which spawned Nazism, Black Ghettos in America which spawned the Nation of Islam and such black supremacist ideas ? this is how serious what you?re saying is brother.
So, in light of what has been said, it is clear how this argument
In all of these areas there is still a remnant of this black population.
Is wrong. At the end of this post I will post the irrefutable argument which is the genetic study of these peoples so you can see how far your conjecture deviates from reality.
The same thing happened in Latin American in primarliy the carribean area (where African slavery was big business)
You?ve proved my argument that it was in fact slavery which is responsible for these populations and not some mythical primordial black super-race which spawned human civilization.
Seriously, read up on the Zanj of Iraq, you?ll be truly amazed and I?m guessing proud at what your black racial ?bretheren? achieved there.
- So we move on to the second point of your research
So Arabs are mulatoes with a small remnant black population.
Indians are mulatoes with a small remnant black population.
Egyptians are Mulatoes with a small remant black population
Berbers are Mulatoes with a significant black population
All southern Europeans have black in them by way of mulattoe Berbers, Arabs and Black African Muslims.
The main quarrel I have with this argument is your implication that ?Arabs?, ?Indians? and ?Egyptians? etc were born out of admixture of the ?original black Sumerians, Egyptians etc? with ?Caucasoid people from the north? below is a Genetic Cluster graph of certain ethnic groups. As I have shown quite simply and clearly, the Sumerians and Indians were certainly not black and that any black populations or DNA is from the slave trade.
Below is a Genetic Cluster Graph of certain ethnic groups, Blue is what we can call Caucasoid, Orange is Negroid and Pink is Mongoloid. Indians are certainly NOT Mulattos in the way you have described; only the Sindhi and Makrani show any African DNA and I tell you now, it?s no coincidence that they are groups who live on the COAST where Africans were deposited to these areas during the SLAVE TRADE all the way up the Asian coast to Beijing where Arabs and others were selling black slaves.
http//www.freewebs.com/lupas2/genetic_clusters2.jpg
Next we move on to the Middle East, notice I say Middle East and not North Africa, here we see the only category which shows a sizeable African DNA are the Mozabites, who are actually Berbers that live in Africa specifically M?zab (not the north African coast but further south into Africa) and not in the Arabian peninsula. The same can be said of the Bedouin/Bedu that include those of Africa. The only two true Southwest Asian groups or the Druze with next to nothing in terms of African DNA (they actually have more Asian) and the Palestinians who live on the trading coast with an Average of no more than 5% African DNA. Again, this can be attributed to the Slave trade and not the Mythical Black civilization, because if we use this argument the ancient Canaanites were Black too (or do you actually believe this as well?).
As you can see, in all of central and south Asia there is much more Asiatic DNA than African, if Africans were the original peoples of the Middle East, Mediterranean and Southwest India, there would be a much more sizeable proportion instead of an average of less than 1%.
Now to
All southern Europeans have black in them by way of mulattoe Berbers, Arabs and Black African Muslims.
As we can see, the French, Tuscans, Basques, Italians and Sardinians have nearly Zero African DNA esp. look at the Tuscans! So this argument is incorrect even in if we take my more factual view that these populations are a result of the slave trade.
This is a second reply to your first post, in reply to your previous post
To deny that Arabs have significant negroid blood is a true error.
I have shown that this statement is incorrect.
Again Arabs like to distance themselves from their Black (Not necessarily African) ancestry by trying to view themselves as separate people or as you say mainly caucasian.
I think, if you look at the evidence I have provided Arabs are nearly 100% caucasian by the way of race and the majority or barely black at all. And rediculous sweeping statements like that are completely out of order.
Indians definitely have black in them. Northern Indians are more Caucasian and southern indians are Black. Their related to the Blacks of Africa but their existence hearkens back to a very ancient time when various subgroups of black people were all over this area. Look up the Blacks of south india and you will see. There are also blacks in Southeast asia that do not hail from Africa but are still very Black all the same.
Again, pure fallacy, you?re describing the situation in certain small areas and making it a complete generalization of Indians, if you look at the evidence, you will find this is not true. As a matter of fact it is the Northern and North western Indians that have shown to have more Black DNA!!!
It seems from these comments
So my question is this? Why do Mulatoes always want to distinguish themselves from blacks and even think themselves to superior to the blacks from which they derive? What is this phenomenon and why does it exist? It honestly perplexes me and disgusts me.
I'm African American, I have European, African and Native American ancestry. In North America regardless of our actual color all of us who show African ancestry have been labeled as black by the Puritan Extremist Euro-Americans.
So I grew up in a culture that forced people with visible African ancestry to confront that ancestry and ONLY live with that ancestry.
If Latin Americans or Arabs were born in this country they would suffer the same fate. They are saved by their "foreign" origin.
So whereas I recognize the multiracial background of my own people and obvioiusly see it in Latin Americans, Arabs, Indians, South Eastern Asians etc. I still am very disgusted and outraged that these people ESPECIALLY Arabs try to distinguish themselves from blacks and act as if they were superior and separate from Blacks.
So what is all the aversion to blackness for?
That you do harbour a lot of resentment for the way black people are treat, however what I see you doing is what many people have done whether they?re black or white, and that is creating theories so that the word can fit into what you see it as rather than going to the harder route of seeing why it is the way it is. You?re trying to get other ethnicities to ?join the battle? as it were against ?Euro Americans?. For your information, the American government classifies Arabs as ?white? so there must be some ?Euro-Americans? out there that see the difference. And for your information there have been Arab communities living in the United States from 1800 and they were never put into slavery like Black people so again this argument is incorrect.
Quite frankly, the majority of Europeans aren?t as stupid as you?re painting them and can see the difference in qualities that would perhaps define this term of ?race?.
Seriously Anwar open your mind and do some proper research instead of spouting this racist black supremacist tripe.
-
These sources are my replies to all of that
Africans and their racial mixtures in the Americas (Also genetical charts showing the African blood in Spaniards from Spain)
The Blacks of India and Asia
http//www.itsabouttimebpp.com/Announcements/Daliti_Panthers_in_India.html
http//www.assatashakur.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14120
Look at this image of a native black Indian from India. In addition to that did you not see the lips on that statue?
http//www.cwo.com/~lucumi/yanadi.jpg
Look at what Al-jahiz (778-86 said in the 800's AD
http//www.cwo.com/~lucumi/jahiz.html
He also said
Famous Islamic scholar Al-Jihaz (778-86 wrote of the physical superiority of the Africans nations over all other nations. For example, he states
"We Blacks have conquered the country of the Arabs as far as Mecca and governed them. The desert swarm with the number of our men who married your women and who became chiefs and defended you against your enemies. You even have sayings in your language which vaunt the deeds of our kings - deeds which you often placed above your own; this you would not have done had you not considered them superior to your own. We defeated Dhu Nowas (Jewish ruler of Yemen) and killed all the Himyarite princes, but the Arabs and Whites (from Europe) have never conquered our country. Our people, the Zinges (an African race), revolted forty times in the Euphrates, driving the inhabitants from their homes...Blacks are physically stronger. A single one of them can lift stones of great weight and carry burdens such as several whites could not lift nor carry between them. They are brave, strong...- these good traits are the gifts of God." .This presence of these black people is not only because of the slave trade. That influx was later. In the case of the Mehri they are the original blacks of Southern Arabia, though to be the true descendants of the Himyarites. Theses are some of the original black Arabs I'm speaking of.
http//www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=gdq
http//www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter47/text47.htm
http//kcm.co.kr/bethany_eng/p_code3/1653.html
Most Mediterranean people know that they have African blood. They even share the same diseases that people with only African descent tend to have. They get sickle cell and G6pd, which are disorders that Africans have. I'll search for some more info on that. And I'll give you more info on the blackness of the original acient people of Iraq.
Alll you did in the case of Egpyt is prove what I"ve been saying. It was originally black and began to slowly mix and take on different already Mulatoe and Caucasian populations. So if you show me something from late in the ancient Egyptian period of course all Egyptians won't be black!!
Look at the the face of King Tut by discovery channel.com. And this was late in ancient Egpytian history. (however it is said the the Pharoahs resisted mixing in their line because of their royal airs"
http//dsc.discovery.com/anthology/unsolvedhistory/kingtut/face/face.html
Please look at all that I've shown you and readjust your thinking and your attitude. Futhermore don't think that a long-nose means you're not black. I'll show you how Blacks are divided up into different categories (True practically unmixed blacks) and how their features are not all the West African type.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Unfortunately, you changed your post half-way in-between when I was replying so I will use everything you have given me from that time, including some of the stuff you removed.
But here goes
The first 'source' you have given me is a Black Panthers website, you couldn't have shown me better that you've taken your views from black supremacists. None of this is scientific.
http//www.itsabouttimebpp.com/Announcements/Daliti_Panthers_in_India.htmlThe second 'source' you have given me is no more than a forum on an Afrocentric website with post stating further black supremacist gibberish. The person who posted can?t even write properly but I will forgive him if he?s from a non-English speaking country but I seriously doubt that. Again, completely unscientific.
http//www.assatashakur.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14120The third ?source? you have given me is on ?Afro-European Genetic Admixture in the United States? and in no way supports your utterly flawed views.
http//www.backintyme.com/essay040608.htmThe fourth ?source? you have given me was a broken link
The fifth ?source? you have given me is the racist gibberings of some guy 800?s and obviously had a serious inferiority complex with Arabs and Europeans and was INCREDIBLY racist, much like the jolly old fellows on the Black Panther?s website. I wouldn?t even be surprised if that was a forged statement.
The sixth ?source? you have given me is some linguistic website, and I fail to see how this proves the Sumerians, Egyptians and Harappans were black.
http//www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=gdqThe last source (not the King Tut one) is some random article on the ?Mahra?
http//kcm.co.kr/bethany_eng/p_code3/1653.htmlThe last one regarding King Tut is completely irrelevant to this discussion as I never said the Egyptians weren?t black it was you who said they were originally black and I refuted that with Queen Nefertiti.
The priniples behind all of this migration stuff falters on two things
The first is that these people are saying ?Black People? as in the people we know as being Black African today in their current form traveled out of Africa and settled in these places, I am not refuting the out of Africa theory, I am calling into question ?what the hell is an African at this point in time?. They base this principle on certain peoples having wide noses, which they are attributing ONLY to black people. This is the fist mistake, as the wide curling nose is not simply an African attribute, you will find in pure Mongoloid and to a much lesser extent pure Caucasoid people.
This principle is taking the simplistic view of humanity consisting of 3 distinct subgroups when in fact, it consists of 5, (these terms are now out of use, but we shall stick with them as broad classifications) these are Caucasoids, Negroids/Congoids, Mongoloids, Capoids, and the last and most important one we shall be dealing with now ? the Australoid.
The Irony of this is that you have stated Europeans cannot distinguish between races, when in reality it is you and these other Afrocentric Black Supremacists that see black skin, big lips and a wide nose and immediately think it?s a black person. The people pictures in the thread ?Forgotten but Great Africans? in that forum which you are purporting to be an accurate source are in fact Australoids and not Negroids, just because Someone has a wide nose and dark skin does not mean that one is black, and that is exactly what the first Europeans thought when they saw them, however after proper Scientific research they found in fact that they were closer related to Mongoloids and Caucasoids than Negroids and Capoids.
Those people you?re talking about in India are also Australoids, please just look it up and you?ll find out. Instead of looking at their skin in such a small minded way, European scientists studied their skulls, blood type, skeletal structure and many other things and have come to a completely different conclusion to the self-styled scientists at ?assatashakur.org?
Look at this image of a native black Indian from India. In addition to that did you not see the lips on that statue?
Again, just because someone has big lips doesn?t mean they?re from Africa, this is not a scientific way of doing things Anwar, I gave you a very simplistic argument in terms of the statues to refute your ridiculous theory, as it was clear to me you came to your conclusion in very simplistic terms, however I backed the claims I was making with SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE something you still haven?t managed to do 3 days after your first post.
Just to make it clear to you Anwar, this person is an Australoid NOT a Negroid
http//www.cwo.com/~lucumi/yanadi.jpg
All this has done Anwar, is prove what I immediately sussed when you wrote your first post, that you have done no ?Extensive Research? whatsoever and have simply read and regurgitated the ignorant and racist dogma spouted by these stupid Afrocentric websites.
You have not provided any proof and I?ve wasted enough of my time refuting your stupid ignorant racist BS, now at least others visiting this thread are not mislead by your posts and can see for themselves just how wrong you are.
-
Peace,
Firstly your tone is very disrespectul, very reactionary and very deceptive as you try to convince me and others through your condescending, agressive and rude language and tone that what I'm saying doesn't make sense. I hope through the pictures and through what i say that someone comes to a clear understanding of this. As your bias, rudeness and obstinant ignorance seems unsurmountable.
Please look at what you have said in bold
that see black skin, big lips and a wide nose and immediately think it?s a black person. The people pictures in the thread ?Forgotten but Great Africans? in that forum which you are purporting to be an accurate source are in fact Australoids and not Negroids, just because Someone has a wide nose and dark skin does not mean that one is black,
Does that make sense? Have you seen these people? Do you have a different definition of black?
There are even Black Africans in Africa that are technically not of the same race as other Black Africans. Will we say they are not black. Look at the Khoisaan(Bushman) and some of other groups in Sudaan. Are you trying to change the definition of Black now? I know that there are Astraloids and Negroids, the Khoisan, I'm sure have their own names, and the pygmies are technically not in the same classification of your normal "negroids" but they are all black brother. And all of them have origins that hearken back to a tyme when their ancestors were brothers, before they split off into separate sub-groups of black. Australoids, "Bantu(so caalled classical Negroe)", Pygmies, Nilo-Saharic(there is separate and better term for this), and the Khoisan.Some claim that Somalis are an Arab country and not like the other Blacks, but they are still Blacks and very dark blacks with long noses and some with thin lips, but that does not take away from their blackness.
The last one regarding King Tut is completely irrelevant to this discussion as I never said the Egyptians weren?t black it was you who said they were originally black and I refuted that with Queen Nefertiti.
No, I said they were orignally black and they slowly mixed up. Nefertiti was around the same time as king tut which is very late in Egyptian history. It is also your mistake for thinking that people who have lighter skin and thinner noses are necessarily White. When Blacks mix with whites and then those mulatoes mix with mulatoes the chidlren can come out in all different colors and with varying features, from classic Negro to more European(Usually tanned or very tanned European style with black hair that ranges from curly straight to very curly). I know a girl personally (she is domincan) who could pass for that bust and both her parents are dark brown black dominicans, with African features. I know another girl who is a first generation Mulatoe (though her father is a very dark African American he still has European ancestry) who could also pass for that bust. Both of the first girl's parents are darker than me and look very African. But her daughter could pass for that Nereftiti Bust easily. This is the problem you are coming from miseducation and outside perspective. And the denial of the outcome of race mixture is what makes Europeans try to insist that Egyptiasn were not black based on some paintings of light skinned blacks. Have you ever seen the Fulani of Africa? As a black person in America I know what can happen with a mixed black people and how their children can come out looking. My mothers family is very light and some have more European features, talk to Damon or even Idol free and they will school you too. My wife is dominican (whose mother is black and whose father looks classical mulatoe (all of the kids are different colors), I know many puertoricans (a close Puerto rican family that calls me their son is made up of a Black Puerto Rican dad and one of the daughters looks completely black (American black) and her Mom is a very white puerto rican. I know exactly who I am, believe me I do not feel inferior nor am I fighting some inferiority complex I am just stating the rejected truth of the matter.
The first is that these people are saying ?Black People? as in the people we know as being Black African today in their current form traveled out of Africa and settled in these places, I am not refuting the out of Africa theory, I am calling into question ?what the hell is an African at this point in time?. They base this principle on certain peoples having wide noses, which they are attributing ONLY to black people.
Again, just because someone has big lips doesn?t mean they?re from Africa, this is not a scientific way of doing things Anwar,
Firstly they are not saying in that form. It is you that are either purposefully or unpurposeflly distorting their words and interpreting it as that. Besides what time did they have to leave Africa and what kind of black should they be to be considered black, or original African blacks? Should I show you the Melanesians as well? They orignally came from Africa and are obviously black yet they have no recent memory of Africa, they came their more than thousands of years ago. There may have been a first migration out of African that led to the making of all people, but there were two later migrations (maybe thousands upon thousands of years apart) that separate the Australoid BLACKS and other Asian Blacks (including the Pygmies) from the other Blacks in Africa. The pygmies are the biggest proof of this migration. They are know found deep in the congo and in the lands and islands of Southeast Asia.
You may call what I'm saying racist or ridiculous but these pictures prove more than your cynical, rebellious, and obstinant words could ever prove. I don't know your background or where you come from but fighting the blackness of these people is futile. It is with these people that northern Asian and Caucasian tribes mixed with to give us the dark asians and brown Middle-easterners that we have today.
The fifth ?source? you have given me is the racist gibberings of some guy 800?s and obviously had a serious inferiority complex with Arabs and Europeans and was INCREDIBLY racist, much like the jolly old fellows on the Black Panther?s website. I wouldn?t even be surprised if that was a forged statement.
Now you are really showing your bias. the black panthers are not racist at all. If you had said the Nation of Islam I might have agreed with you. But the Black panthers were a group that believed in social justice, the right to self defence, social betterment of black people and all people, and the uplifting of the oppressed. They actually had a solid Euro-American following at the time. What gave them their bad fame was the same thing that gave Malcom X bad fame, they weren't afraid to stand up for themselves and challenge abused authority. So the slander campaign was launched against them, and what you (and many others) think about them is a result of this slander campaign.
As for Al-Jaahiz, you may find it racist if you like. But what he says gives you evidence of a signficant BLACK and even late African BLACK presence in Arab lands and other lands. He wrote this letter in response to the growing anti-black feeling in the Islamic and Arab world, that did not exist before the Arabs expansion into and acceptance of futher northern Caucasian areas and peoples. The Arabs didn't think like this when they were just in the pennisula.
As far as those sculptures that you gave me of Arabs, there is one of the Arab king Phillip too, that looks pretty European. I wonder what Phillip is in Arabic? Anyway the greeks and the romans had policies of marrying the local women of places that they conquered and making kids. Secondly the area was under greek and roman control for the longest. So I wonder how the greeks or romans would have sculpted an Arab hero in their lands and territories? HMMMMM! Maybe so that he would look more like them. That's crazy idea I know. History is told (in this case sculpted) in the eyes of the victor.
The northern Areas had been subject to the hyskos, the hittites, the greeks and the Romans (all known Caucasian peoples with some relative admixture(especially the greeks.) As far as the perisans the original black people there had long mixed into the Caucasian tribes that came down from the north to form their own distinct mixture. So doesn't it make sense that the Arabs in these areas would look more like those people because of the constant mixture?
Believe me, what I'm saying isn't racist, as you are trying to make it.
I grew up around mixed people, I've studied race in Latin America (there are still alot of classical negroes in Latin American) and I've studied the subject of blacks in Asia and Africa, Ameria and Europe. I've met black cambodians, bangladeshis, and blacks from many other lands who are native to those lands. What you are proposing is actually more racist then what I'm saying because you are disgusted by the fact that Blacks of all groups inhabited the most ancient of these civilizations first and then mixed in with migrating Caucasian groups from the north. Have you ever seen Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud. If that is not a light skinned black man, I don't know what a light skinned black man is!!
Do you know about Guinea Spanish, a creolized form of Spanish that was spoken on West African coast during the early days of slavery. A number of West African were taken to spain as slaves (the kings even like to see plays in this creole spanish) and these Africans were absorbed by the popultaion in the south and Portugal and had a racial and linguistic affect on the Spanish spoken. Spains territory also included the Azores other catan islands to its east.
Futhermore if you actually read and observe what I've shown you you might understand but even if you don't someone else will. And I thank God for that.
You see, I'm not saying that all of these BLACK people deny their own tribes, families and ethnicities. Nor am I saying that ll of the people that have mixed with blacks should deny their own tribes, families and ethnicities. I'm just saying that they should recognize the BLACK blood that runs through their veins and helped make them the people they are today.
But maybe you haven't seen really light skinned black people before or even mixed black people? So you can't imagine that this can be. You see the only difference between the Arabs and certain places in Latin America and even the U.S. (the creoles for instance) is how long ago they mixed. Latin American areas where there are few to no Blacks left (They've mixed completely in) are trying to also forge an identity independent of and incongnizant of their black roots. They may even late claim that they invented the bongo like Euro-Americans like to believe that they invented the banjo. They will easily recongize what part Spain and now even the Native Americans had to play in the formation of their people yet they deny the blacks all toghether. I'm sure at this rate a thousand years from now the Latinos (or atleast alot of them) won't even recongize that they originally came from Black people, despite the blacks that I'm sure will remain in significant numbers in different places.(unless they commit some form of genocide or import whites in very large numbers so that the black population dissappears as a distinct phenotype as in Argentina and what almost happened in Puerto Rico (large numbers of italian immigrants) made evened the balance between Euro and Afro phenoytpes, so that most people look mulatoe and a few look very European and a few look very African.
Lastly but least
The Irony of this is that you have stated Europeans cannot distinguish between races, when in reality it is you and these other Afrocentric Black Supremacists that see black skin, big lips and a wide nose and immediately think it?s a black person.
Did I say that Europeans (mainly the more Northern Europeans) cannot distinguish between races? Did I ever say that? I certainly did not. And since you are misquoting me to try to prove your point it seems that your bias against these facts is most likely irreconciliable. I said that Europeans saw the black in the Indians, the Arabs and even their own mulatoe children in the Americas. The problem is that they only see the black, and when they see that black it is a stain. That is why the Indians and the Arabs and even the heavily brown asians of South East asia were all called names that had ''nigger" in it. That is also why blacks in Americas haven't more heavily mixed in.
Fredrick Douglass the famous Black Freedom fighter was a mulatoe himself, but Whites did not like to hear about his European father as they didn't want to recognize that side and his marrying a white women cause a frantic. Because being black also includes being mulatoe for Native born Americans. Europeans have seen it that way since they began mixing with blacks.Even the Spaniards were called half-devils for the Moorish mixture (Arab mulattoe, Berber Mulatoe and Black African) in them, by the more northern Europeans. The inquisition was a way to wipe that mixture atleast from the faces of their people. I studied the influence of the Moors in spain as well, in spain it was called limpieza de sangre or (purification of the blood). They were supposedly cleansing the Jewish and Muslim influence from their blood and lands, only the very white (but still mixed) Jews and Moors who lied about that ancestry stayed alive. I have a mexican friend whose great grandparents came from spain and had Arabic names. Unfortunately the brown Spaniards didn't survive. The Sicilians are known for being very, very dark and having very curly hair. And they know well of their African admixture.
In the end study the phenotypes of Mulatoes (that is what that backintyme site was for but it seems that it went over your head) now imagine those mulatoes making kids and then the natural selection (genetic drifting) that takes place in different regions. These are the Arabs, Indians, South East asians and Latinos of today.
I'll show you some more pictures, maybe it will click.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Here's and intersting book. I'm going to read it through. I've seen the author's name mentioned and from what i've shown you you can probably see some truth in it.
http//www.sacred-texts.com/afr/we/index.htm
Oh, and all of those links work.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Firstly your tone is very disrespectul, very reactionary and very deceptive as you try to convince me and others through your condescending, agressive and rude language and tone that what I'm saying doesn't make sense. I hope through the pictures and through what i say that someone comes to a clear understanding of this. As your bias, rudeness and obstinant ignorance seems unsurmountable.
Lol Firstly, I scoff at your comments, as we both know you?re trying to pin your own attributes onto me, reactionary? Disrespectful??? From the guy who insinuated I was a Kuffar because I said the New Testament was written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? And I?m sorry, but you simply cannot pin bias upon me! Perhaps my attitude is a bit understandable when I?m dealing with what can only be Free Mind?s Resident Racist?
Please look at what you have said in bold
Quote
that see black skin, big lips and a wide nose and immediately think it?s a black person. The people pictures in the thread ?Forgotten but Great Africans? in that forum which you are purporting to be an accurate source are in fact Australoids and not Negroids, just because Someone has a wide nose and dark skin does not mean that one is black,Does that make sense? Have you seen these people? Do you have a different definition of black?
Yes as a matter of fact I do, I explained that to you but obviously you haven?t read what I said properly. You?re talking about black Africans, period. These people are not Africans. They may have come ?out of Africa? like everyone else but they certainly aren?t Negroids and certainly don?t fit your racist model.
There are even Black Africans in Africa that are technically not of the same race as other Black Africans.
Correct, they are the people I said were ?Capoid?. So you?ve just proved my point and disproved your own Do you have a different definition of black? Will we say they are not black. - You obviously have just made another definition of black.
Look at the Khoisaan(Bushman) and some of other groups in Sudaan. Are you trying to change the definition of Black now? I know that there are Astraloids and Negroids, the Khoisan, I'm sure have their own names, and the pygmies are technically not in the same classification of your normal "negroids" but they are all black brother. And all of them have origins that hearken back to a tyme when their ancestors were brothers, before they split off into separate sub-groups of black. Australoids, "Bantu(so caalled classical Negroe)", Pygmies, Nilo-Saharic(there is separate and better term for this), and the Khoisan.
Ho ho ho ? here we have it, I was wondering when, the racist?s retreat! Don?t pretend by changing your argument that you were right all along, your argument consists of The Ancient People of the World Were all Black and by that you meant African. Don?t try and wriggle yourself out of this one.
And ? you still have not presented one iota of your proof or even one of your magical Afrocentric websites to claim as a source for your ?Black Ancients? argument. I am telling you, the Sumerians, Harappans and Arabs were Caucasoid and I have shown you my proofs.
I?m still waiting Anwar.
Some claim that Somalis are an Arab country and not like the other Blacks, but they are still Blacks and very dark blacks with long noses and some with thin lips, but that does not take away from their blackness.
No, the Somalis are not black in the sense that they are Negroid, they occupy a middle region where Negroids and Caucasoids blend as 'racial' attributes are continuous.
The Somalis ARE Arabs in every sense of the word.
Definition of an Arab An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic
This definition goes back all the way to the Prophet?s time, he even told a group of Arabs not to call another group of people non-Arabs simply because they were first generation Arabic speakers. This definition also has cultural contexts but using it, the Somalis are definitely Arabs.
NOTE Every other definition of Arab I have made is of the Middle Eastern variety to which you were referring to originally.
The are many varieties of Caucasoids out there, some Arabs have very dark skin, it does not make them any less Caucasoid and any More African.
No, I said they were orignally black and they slowly mixed up. Nefertiti was around the same time as king tut which is very late in Egyptian history. It is also your mistake for thinking that people who have lighter skin and thinner noses are necessarily White. When Blacks mix with whites and then those mulatoes mix with mulatoes the chidlren can come out in all different colors and with varying features, from classic Negro to more European(Usually tanned or very tanned European style with black hair that ranges from curly straight to very curly). I know a girl personally (she is domincan) who could pass for that bust and both her parents are dark brown black dominicans, with African features. I know another girl who is a first generation Mulatoe (though her father is a very dark African American he still has European ancestry) who could also pass for that bust. Both of the first girl's parents are darker than me and look very African. But her daughter could pass for that Nereftiti Bust easily. This is the problem you are coming from miseducation and outside perspective. And the denial of the outcome of race mixture is what makes Europeans try to insist that Egyptiasn were not black based on some paintings of light skinned blacks. Have you ever seen the Fulani of Africa? As a black person in America I know what can happen with a mixed black people and how their children can come out looking. My mothers family is very light and some have more European features, talk to Damon or even Idol free and they will school you too. My wife is dominican (whose mother is black and whose father looks classical mulatoe (all of the kids are different colors), I know many puertoricans (a close Puerto rican family that calls me their son is made up of a Black Puerto Rican dad and one of the daughters looks completely black (American black) and her Mom is a very white puerto rican. I know exactly who I am, believe me I do not feel inferior nor am I fighting some inferiority complex I am just stating the rejected truth of the matter.
WOW You?ve been really stewing over this whole ?race? issue, seriously man, you?ve got problems BIG problems which you need to sort out otherwise you will be trapped in the prison that is race for the rest of your life.
Firstly they are not saying in that form. It is you that are either purposefully or unpurposeflly distorting their words and interpreting it as that. Besides what time did they have to leave Africa and what kind of black should they be to be considered black, or original African blacks?
All this depends on whether you believe in Evolution or not. And if you do, it would be very racist of you to think that all the rest of Humanity changed their features from ?Black African? and the poor old Africans have remained racially stagnant from time Immemorial.
You may call what I'm saying racist or ridiculous but these pictures prove more than your cynical, rebellious, and obstinant words could ever prove. I don't know your background or where you come from but fighting the blackness of these people is futile. It is with these people that northern Asian and Caucasian tribes mixed with to give us the dark asians and brown Middle-easterners that we have today.
Completely and utterly wrong ? I?m still waiting for your proof Anwar, and yes, you are Racist.
But just like every other coverer you?re simply blabbing on more than actually answering my arguments.
Now you are really showing your bias. the black panthers are not racist at all. If you had said the Nation of Islam I might have agreed with you. But the Black panthers were a group that believed in social justice, the right to self defence, social betterment of black people and all people, and the uplifting of the oppressed. They actually had a solid Euro-American following at the time. What gave them their bad fame was the same thing that gave Malcom X bad fame, they weren't afraid to stand up for themselves and challenge abused authority. So the slander campaign was launched against them, and what you (and many others) think about them is a result of this slander campaign.
Now you are really showing your ignorance, I agree with you that SOME of the Black Panthers DID start believing in Social Justice, the right to self defence, social betterment etc but that was a LONG time ago in the 1960?s the incredibly large and most likely majoritively racist element has always been there from the start and has grown to encompass it completely. It distrubs me how you think an organisation who?s members have committed murder, drug dealing, pimping and extortion as good.
As for Al-Jaahiz, you may find it racist if you like. But what he says gives you evidence of a signficant BLACK and even late African BLACK presence in Arab lands and other lands. He wrote this letter in response to the growing anti-black feeling in the Islamic and Arab world, that did not exist before the Arabs expansion into and acceptance of futher northern Caucasian areas and peoples. The Arabs didn't think like this when they were just in the pennisula.
Put it quite simply Anwar, if I had said
"We Whites have conquered the country of the Blacks as far as Mogadishu and governed them. The jungle swarm with the number of our men who married your women and who became chiefs and defended you against your enemies. You even have sayings in your language which vaunt the deeds of our kings - deeds which you often placed above your own; this you would not have done had you not considered them superior to your own. We defeated Shaka Zulu and killed all the Botswanan princes, but the Blacks and Yellows (from Asia) have never conquered our country. Our people, the Germanics (an Aryan race), revolted forty times in the Congo, driving the inhabitants from their homes...Whites are Intellectually Superior. A single one of us can think things of great difficulty and Calculate problems such as several Blacks could not think nor calculate between them. They are beautiful, intelligent...- these good traits are the gifts of God." .
I have simply replaced ?Black? with ?White?, ?Arabs? with ?Black?, ?Mecca? with ?Mogadishu?, ?Desert? with ?Jungle? (do not try and put racist connotations on from this one) ?Dhu Nowas? with ?Shaka Zulu?, ?Himyarite? with ?Botswanan?, ?African? with ?Aryan?, ?Euphrates? with ?Congo?, ?Physically? with ?Intellectually? and ?Stronger? with ?Superior?, ?Carry? with ?Calculate?, ?Burdens? with ?Problems?, ?Brave? with ?Beautiful? ?Strong? with ?Intelligent?
Quite simply Anwar if I or anyone else had said or quoted this, quite admirably to support an argument, or even quoted it at all for that matter, you would have went crazy and called us a racist.
That whole quote is completely ignorant, stupid, small minded, reeks with inferiority complex and it?s quite plainly wrong. It?s no secret that Arabs have made greater forays and governance into Africa than Blacks ? but I?m not going to be drawn into some petty ?racial? war, because quite frankly I?m not interested in saying one race is great and trying to convince everyone else, I?m interested in refuting a ignorant and racist bigot with HUGE inferiority complex.
This presence of these black people is not only because of the slave trade. That influx was later. In the case of the Mehri they are the original blacks of Southern Arabia, though to be the true descendants of the Himyarites. Theses are some of the original black Arabs I'm speaking of.
Again Anwar
http//www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=gdq
This is not proof.
http//www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter47/text47.htm
Neither is this. It?s confusing the works of Carelton S Coon.
http//kcm.co.kr/bethany_eng/p_code3/1653.html
This article is on the prayer habits of the Mehri people
Most Mediterranean people know that they have African blood.
Hmmm, I seriously doubt that, but let?s say your conjured up statement is correct ? it is not I repeat, just in case you didn?t read it the last 17 times Anwar, THIS IS NOT SCIENTIFIC PROOF.
They even share the same diseases that people with only African descent tend to have.
This comment is completely ambiguous, contains no figures, and no proof whatsoever that Mediterraneans have Negroid in them. I could say ?Most Asians have Blood Group B and Hardly any Caucasoids have Blood Group B so the ones that do are clearly descended from Asians? your statement didn?t even go as far as that so I have no idea what it?s supposed to achieve or support.
They get sickle cell and G6pd, which are disorders that Africans have.
Wow! I have 5 fingers! Africans have them too! I must be black!
You cannot make a conclusion regarding the genetic composition of peoples based on shared traits such as this unless you understand the mechanisms to wich such genes spread. Sickle Cell Anaemia is present in different degrees anywhere Malaria is present I could say to you that hose Mediterraneans raped Africans and gave them the disease. You?re forgetting ?Race? is a fickle issue, I?ve tried to explain that at various times in our discussion and others have said it outright, human variation is completely continuous around the world, no different peoples are any more than 1% varied in terms of DNA, genetic traits such as this do not simply have to pass (and generally do not anyway) by direct insertion of a foreign group of peoples into another group. In fact if you look at the evidence, it SUPPORTS the fact that sickle cell anaemia is a continuous trait.
And I'll give you more info on the blackness of the original acient people of Iraq.
I would LOVE to see some proof on this AND the Harappans AND the Arabs AND the Egyptians.
As far as those sculptures that you gave me of Arabs, there is one of the Arab king Phillip too, that looks pretty European. I wonder what Phillip is in Arabic? Anyway the greeks and the romans had policies of marrying the local women of places that they conquered and making kids. Secondly the area was under greek and roman control for the longest. So I wonder how the greeks or romans would have sculpted an Arab hero in their lands and territories? HMMMMM! Maybe so that he would look more like them. That's crazy idea I know. History is told (in this case sculpted) in the eyes of the victor.
The Nabateans were the most difficult opponents of the Romans in that area, nay perhaps one of their most difficult foes in the whole empire simply because of the way they lived and their home terrain. They were NOT ?under Greek and Roman control for the longest? Greece was not even Imperial at this time. The best the Romans could get was an Alliance NOT complete dominance; the province Arabia Petraea was one of the most short-lived in the Empire. Again Anwar, Wrong.
The northern Areas had been subject to the hyskos, the hittites, the greeks and the Romans (all known Caucasian peoples with some relative admixture(especially the greeks.) As far as the perisans the original black people there had long mixed into the Caucasian tribes that came down from the north to form their own distinct mixture. So doesn't it make sense that the Arabs in these areas would look more like those people because of the constant mixture?
So now you?re saying the Persians were originally black as well! Add that to my requested list of proofs please Anwar.
Believe me, what I'm saying isn't racist, as you are trying to make it.
Trust me on this one Anwar, to me and most other people who have been reading your ignorant tripe since post one it?s clearly racist. Do you wan me to requote your fine comment from Al-Jihaz again?
I grew up around mixed people, I've studied race in Latin America (there are still alot of classical negroes in Latin American) and I've studied the subject of blacks in Asia and Africa, Ameria and Europe. I've met black cambodians, bangladeshis, and blacks from many other lands who are native to those lands. What you are proposing is actually more racist then what I'm saying because you are disgusted by the fact that Blacks of all groups inhabited the most ancient of these civilizations first and then mixed in with migrating Caucasian groups from the north. Have you ever seen Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud. If that is not a light skinned black man, I don't know what a light skinned black man is!!
-
I am certainly not distgusted at the prospect, don?t you dare try and turn the racist tables on me ? what I am disgusted at is the distribution of these ignorant, unfounded and utterly racist ideas. Yes, Blacks were this, Blacks were that, We created civilization, we are stronger than Whites and Arabs. Seriously have you read up on Adolf Hitler? His ideas were similar equally baseless tripe.
-
Prince Bandar?s Mother was a black concubine slave of King Saud?s ? so I don?t know what you?re trying to prove from that, it?s obvious his traits are from his mother and not brought up from some Mythical black super-race that once inhabited All of Africa and Asia Minor.
Do you know about Guinea Spanish, a creolized form of Spanish that was spoken on West African coast during the early days of slavery. A number of West African were taken to spain as slaves (the kings even like to see plays in this creole spanish) and these Africans were absorbed by the popultaion in the south and Portugal and had a racial and linguistic affect on the Spanish spoken. Spains territory also included the Azores other catan islands to its east.
Right, again, nothing to do with your argument - merely gibberish regarding the new world. You still haven?t given me any proof, as a matter of fact, the inks you?ve posted in this thread were posted in your previous thread. Are you simply going to post me the same useless links over and over again until I give in to your racist ideas?
Futhermore if you actually read and observe what I've shown you you might understand but even if you don't someone else will. And I thank God for that.
I thank God for the fact I have been given the means to prove you wrong with what counts. People can see my Scientific evidence and then they can read your Black Panthers website and they can choose the better of the two.
Oh, and all of those links work.
They may now work, but they are useless and in no way constitute as proof.
I'll show you some more pictures, maybe it will click.
I do not want any more pretty pictures Anwar, I want PROOF.
And Last but certainly not least
Did I say that Europeans (mainly the more Northern Europeans) cannot distinguish between races? Did I ever say that? I certainly did not.
Yes you did.
Sometimes I don't even think that Euro-Americans recognize our different colors, its like they see us as black as coal no matter what the shades of brown, black or yellow we are (sometimes even almost white).
-
-
From the guy who insinuated I was a Kuffar because I said the New Testament was written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
I never said this. Here you go starting your posts with falsehoods. I even explained the use of lakum deenukum wa liya deen to you and apologized if you took offense to it and took in the wrong way. And here you are bringing up old grudges.
Free Mind?s Resident Racist?
Let me note that you are name calling now. I could spill out a number of words that could be considered insults about you, and unfortunately would be true. But I won't, actually only to save face, because I know that the people on this forum don't like it when others, and especially me start calling names. It seems you have a grudge against me, it is now clear to me considering the other "conversations" we've had.
You are not the only one. So I'll quote the Quran for you (a little out of context but I mean these literal words ) moottoo fee ghaithikum. And I mean that in the royal antum.Yes as a matter of fact I do, I explained that to you but obviously you haven?t read what I said properly. You?re talking about black Africans, period. These people are not Africans. They may have come ?out of Africa? like everyone else but they certainly aren?t Negroids and certainly don?t fit your racist model.
Still name calling, hunh? I guess somebody is going to buy this bogus negativity that you are putting out. I just hope God spares the intelligent and good at heart. Aditionally, now you are going to tell me what I'm talking about despite what I've said, hunh? Well so being. I'm talking about BLACKS, that includes your typical black African (you call them Negroid, others may call them Africoid), Australoids, Khoisan and othe types of black people. They are all BLACKS and that is plain as day. The common origin and connection of all these kinds of blacks is obvious in their blackness.
your argument consists of The Ancient People of the World Were all Black and by that you meant African.
And here is where YOU twist my argument out of your own bias. That is why you THINK that I'm retreating or contradicting myself. I did not state that they were the SAME black Africans in Africa. I am saying that they are the the same BLACK race, but DIFFERENT ethnicities. Let me look up Capoid, I think we may have referred to the same peole by different names. However, BLACK IS BLACK, bruh. Get it in your head. These people have the same ANCIENT ORIGINS.
http//kcm.co.kr/bethany_eng/p_code3/1653.html
This article is on the prayer habits of the Mehri people
I listed this site for the picture. Secondly you talk about confusing the works of Carelton S. Coon. The facts are there for those with eyes to see.
As for Al-Jahiz's work. I didn't say that I agreed with him. His statement about the superiority of black people is obviously an exaggeration. But within his statements is proof of the strong early presence of Blacks (some coming recently from Africa) in The Middle East. You picked the exaggerations out of his statement to try to prove everything wrong and form an argument against me. Maybe he was racist, but this letter is to other Arabs and the obviously non-exaggerated things have merit. You alwasy seem to argue the obviosly irrelevant part of discussions. Why is that?
And ? you still have not presented one iota of your proof or even one of your magical Afrocentric websites to claim as a source for your ?Black Ancients? argument. I am telling you, the Sumerians, Harappans and Arabs were Caucasoid and I have shown you my proofs.
You did not prove to me that they were (purely) Caucasiod at all. You showed me some statues and some genetic information about MODERN peoples. All you proved was that Palestinians and some other people have some similar genes with people in West Africa and so called "Bantu" peoples.
My point was that the original inhabitants of these lands were BLACKS, of all the different subgroups of blacks (Australoid, Bantu Negroid, Capoid etc.)
Let me show you what it said on Wikipedia
Capoid (named after Cape Province, South Africa) along with congoid are one of the two major divisions within the Negroid race.
Some people would say that Capoids are different than Negroids and Australoids different than Negroids. That is why they also have the term Congoid. Congoids, Capoids and Australoids can all be considered Negroid, as the basis of the term Negroid is Negro or Black. I never said that Congoids were Australoids or that Capoids were Congoids. However, I have always been saying that all these people are BLACK and have similar origins and are subgroups of the same Negroid or Black division of humanity.
I'll deal with the rest of this post later.
Godbless,
AnwarKeep reading this post I will keep editing it.
-
I never said this. Here you go starting your posts with falsehoods.
That's rich coming from the guy starting entire threads with pure falsehoods.
Let me note that you are name calling now. I could spill out a number of words that could be considered insults about you, and unfortunately would be true.
You are a veritable racist Anwar, that?s very true.
I won't, actually only to save face, because I know that the people on this forum don't like it when others, and especially me start calling names.
Well hey, you have to save face over something as you?ve clearly lost face over being exposed as having done no research whatsoever and distributing racist lies.
I'm talking about BLACKS, that includes your typical black African (you call them Negroid, others may call them Africoid), Australoids, Khoisan and othe types of black people. They are all BLACKS and that is plain as day. The common origin and connection of all these kinds of blacks is obvious in their blackness.
No it is not, have you not listened to a single thing I?ve said? Have a look at the genetic cluster graph you?ll see the Australoids up there, clearly distinct from Afroids/Negroids/Congoids or whatever you wish to call the majoritive sub-Saharan peoples. They are NOT directly related to each other.
And here is where YOU twist my argument out of your own bias. That is why you THINK that I'm retreating or contradicting myself. I did not state that they were the SAME black Africans in Africa. I am saying that they are the the same BLACK race, but DIFFERENT ethnicities. Let me look up Capoid, I think we may have referred to the same peole by different names. However, BLACK IS BLACK, bruh. Get it in your head. These people have the same ANCIENT ORIGINS.
The thing is, this is not the main issue, the main issue is your claims that every ancient civiliztion was black, something you haven't even made an attempt to prove, instead you insist on going on these tangents in order to lose the obvious fact that you clearly weren't doing 'extensive research'.
I listed this site for the picture. Secondly you talk about confusing the works of Carelton S. Coon. The facts are there for those with eyes to see.
Carleton S. Coon?s ideas are accurate but out of date, I said that earlier, I provide even better Genetic proof refuting your baseless claims.
You picked the exaggerations out of his statement to try to prove everything wrong and form an argument against me.
How the hell did I exaggerate? I requoted your quote, you used it as proof remember?
I can?t believe this, now you?re using your own proof against me! How the hell could I have exaggerated that any further, it was a ridiculous quote from some moronic racist ? and you were the guy who introduced it into our discussion as proof!
You alwasy seem to argue the obviosly irrelevant part of discussions.
How on Earth is that? I was arguing against your so called ?proof?, but it seems you?ve just done that yourself.
You did not prove to me that they were (purely) Caucasiod at all. You showed me some statues and some genetic information about MODERN peoples.
I gave you a simpletons refutation and then I gave a scientific refutation, I explained that about two posts back.
I?m not sure if you know this Anwar, but I was presenting scientific proof not links to forums or pictures. Please show me genetic information, you won?t because I?ve just presented it and I doubt you?ll find any University on this planet that has found anything otherwise, have a look at the Druze again, they?ve been living in the Lebanese mountains unmixing, look how African they are, there?s my proof.
My point was that the original inhabitants of these lands were BLACKS, of all the different subgroups of blacks (Australoid, Bantu Negroid, Capoid etc.)
This is not what you meant but let?s go along with your cowering and say this is what you meant, you?re still wrong, the Harappans were never Australoid, the Sumerians were never Bantu Negroid or Capoid.
I'll deal with the rest of this post later.
Well perhaps the last ditch attempt to talk some sense into you would be to email a top Anthropologist at a University (you know a place where people scientifically find the truth as opposed to reading up on Afrocentric websites and forums) and I?m going to get a statement from them refuting your racist claims.
Regards,
Al-Quraishi
-
Hmmm good question, erm I suppose a lot of it makes sense in a way.
I've read a bit of Harun Yahya's Evolution of Deceipt and was not impressed by certain conclusions that were being made - Darwinism is the cause of terrorism?
It seemed he wasn't tackling Evolution fairly, he should have dealt with evolution on it's own grounds when what I read was an attempt to promote Islam - far be it for me as a Muslim to criticise such attempts but he should have dealt with evolution only - in the Islamic promotion I saw a mistranslated verse and then saw the far fethced links being made with Darwinism and Terrorism and that how 'All societies who fight, are wittingly or unwittingly bowing to darwinism' The first thing that struck me was that the Prophet Muhammad's Medinan Society must have been Unwittingly Darwinist!
To be honest, I am not in the position to say Evolution is right or wrong, I simply don't have the necessary facts or understanding as I feel I haven't taken the time out to really look at the issue. I haven't even read EoD completely so I cannot completely promote or denounce it.
I prefer to stay on the fence however I am inclined to trust Scientists more than creationists due to my own background and experiences with both groups.
An argument in EoD said that all evolutionary scientists esp. Secular were biased whereas in my opinion it's more likely creationists are biased as they initially have a belief and then attempt to rationalise it whereas a secular scientist wouldn't have the same subjective state of mind.
There are a few questions I have regarding evolution that I have not asked experts, I'm inclined to believe that these queries can be explained by such people.
I suppose on a religious side I do not believe it effects me at all, if Evolution were true certain verses of the Qur'an can definitely be interpreted in a certain way (as they are by those who support evolution) and the same applies with creationism - either way if evolution or creationism were true I would still belive they're from God.
What about you?
-
Angel,
That comment was unwarranted and not funny.
Al-Quraishy. You seem to just be against what Im saying at all cost. It's not the first time you've just been blatantly against anything I've told you however. That old saying that if you argue with a fool he will scorn the wisdom of your words is definitely at play here (That saying is actually from the Bible . . .oops I think I said a bad word & ). And yes I am now implying what you think I'm implying. Again for anyone who wants to know just look at these links. It is not the sources of the links that matter (sources that are unwarrantedly demonized by Al-Quranyshi as blatantly racist when he shows his ignorance of who is racist by called the blank pathers a black supremacist group. Now that is ridiculous!). What matters is what you can see with your own eyes. Genetic evidence is subject to alot of bias and is not as scientific as is always thought. Things are hidden or covered up because they don't go along with the interests of the person who pays for those studies. So again anyone who is willing to see the truth can easily see it. I will continue to post relevant posts or sites for those who are interested. I went to a leading University and witnesses first hand the blatant biases that can be interjected into "science" by scientist. Denying the blackness of these people and their connection to other blacks is nothing but back-peddling and cover up.
Al-Qurayshi would call me a racist because I quoted an overly defensive Black Arab of the 8th century. But for anyone who can read between the lines that quote says a whole lot more than his obviously overly zealous afrocentric value statments. But that is for those who can read between the lines (the true meaning of the word intelligent). The pictures that I've shown speak more than all the opposing words of Al-Quraishi could ever prove.
All i have to say is look at the pictures and study the phenotypes of mulatoes and it will all become clear to you. Al-Quraishi accuses me of being an Afro-centrist which I definitely refuse to be, as being Afro-centrist is just as bad as being Euro-centrist. However, he is anti-black and would rather deny the truth that the eyes can see by trying to create confusion through genetic talk that would seem to distingush these separate BLACK groups as completely different races (by siting some narrow genetic findings), but they are still black and again those pictures don't lie. Even Herodotus and other ancient greek historians spoke about the black people who like Ethiopians were all over the world in ancient times, they were the people of Egypt and even had colonies in greece. If Al-Qurayshi had read those article at backintyme.com the genetic outcome of Negroid-Caucasiod mixtures and the proportion of those mixtures would have answered the genetic "contradictions" he finds in my argument, even with the narrow genetic data he gave me. But I didn't expect him to generally read through this, just a quick glance and he had his mind made because of the messenger, not the message.
Look at them again. The Mahra/Mehri, the Daleets, and the Pygimies (The biggest proof of them all that you will notice Al-Qurayshi didn't touch). You would only find these pictures on Afro-centric sites as only Afro-centrists are interested in other BLACK people around the world. People like Qurayshi would hide their existence from you and are apart of the people out there trying to diminish the importance of these BLACK peoples in ancient history. And how the people of Southeat Asia, North Africa, Southwest Asia and Southern European are an the outcome of mixing of these Blacks withe Caucasiod peoples and Mongoloid peoples (Mongoloid sounds so wrong I wish there were another term for this).
Qurayshi whatever you say now is mute. Maybe the unintelligent will fall for your accusing style, word play and finger pointing but the intelligent never will.
By the way what is your background if I may ask? If you deny to tell me that will tell me alot on its own.
And what do the druzes have to do with anything. From what I know they are apart of the same Caucasian tribes that migrated down THOUSANDS of years ago. They also look like the rest of the people around them. These blacks in India, Arabia and south asia are isolated remnans of who used to be the main people in this area. Most of them mixed in.
Compare it to the fairly recent Afro-European mixture of Latin America and it all makes sense. Like I said I will continue to post relevant post for the intelligent.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Al-Quraishy. You seem to just be against what Im saying at all cost.
I?m against the blatant factually errors of your posts. The fact that Caucasians have black DNA just as blacks have Caucasian DNA, the fact that Black people have been treat unfairly, the ignorance some people attribute to race I agree with all of that.
I certainly do not agree with
From my extensive reseach it is clear that the ancient Egyptians, Ancient Arabs, Ancient Iraqis, Ancient Indians, Ancient Sumerians and all the original ancient peoples and civilzation of North Africa, southern Asia and south-eastern Asia were originally black.
That old saying that if you argue with a fool he will scorn the wisdom of your words is definitely at play here (That saying is actually from the Bible . . .oops I think I said a bad word ). And yes I am now implying what you think I'm implying.
Ok, now you?ve lost all face you?ve reduced yourself to name calling, I?m now a fool because I don?t believe your 'Every Ancient Civilization was Black' tripe.
Again for anyone who wants to know just look at these links. It is not the sources of the links that matter (sources that are unwarrantedly demonized by Al-Quranyshi as blatantly racist when he shows his ignorance of who is racist by called the blank pathers a black supremacist group. Now that is ridiculous!).
Now you?re getting all Zionist on me, ?anyone who disagrees with my Afrocentric ideas hates black people? well with your logic the following respectable online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia is ?racist?
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_supremacy#New_Black_Panthers
Answers.com is ?racist?
http//www.answers.com/topic/black-supremacy
AllExperts.com is also ?racist?
http//en.allexperts.com/e/b/bl/black_supremacy.htm
What matters is what you can see with your own eyes.
No it doesn?t, that?s the preoccupation of the racist, what really matters is whether people are good or bad, not how they look.
Genetic evidence is subject to alot of bias and is not as scientific as is always thought.
I cannot believe you?ve just said this after your previous sentence, trust me, Genetics is a tad more reliable than subjective viewing, you?ve proved that yourself in your numerous rantings over how different ?races? get mixed up and how you could ?be mistaken for an Arab or Latino? .
Things are hidden or covered up because they don't go along with the interests of the person who pays for those studies.
This must be why your proof regarding the ?Black Ancients? theory is so hard to find!
again anyone who is willing to see the truth can easily see it.
It?s as clear as day to me brother.
I will continue to post relevant posts or sites for those who are interested.
I doubt after being so blatantly proven wrong that anyone is going to buy any more of your Black Supremacist BS.
I went to a leading University and witnesses first hand the blatant biases that can be interjected into "science" by scientist. Denying the blackness of these people and their connection to other blacks is nothing but back-peddling and cover up.
Yes because me and the anthropologists at the ?Leading University? are all in on the conspiracy hiding that every ancient civilization was black.
Al-Qurayshi would call me a racist because I quoted an overly defensive Black Arab of the 8th century.
Overly Defensive? Change that to Outright Offensive please Anwar.
But for anyone who can read between the lines that quote says a whole lot more than his obviously overly zealous afrocentric value statments.
Yes, ?reading between the lines? perhaps if they read the obvious of my proofs they?ll get a lot more than what?s in-between Al-Jihaz?s lines.
But that is for those who can read between the lines (the true meaning of the word intelligent).
Intelligent
in?tel?li?gent ?adjective
- having good understanding or a high mental capacity; quick to comprehend, as persons or animals an intelligent student.
- displaying or characterized by quickness of understanding, sound thought, or good judgment an intelligent reply.
- having the faculty of reasoning and understanding; possessing intelligence intelligent beings in outer space.
- Computers. pertaining to the ability to do data processing locally; smart An intelligent terminal can edit input before transmission to a host computer. Compare dumb (def. .
- Archaic. having understanding or knowledge (usually fol. by of).
Nope, nothing there about ?reading between the lines?
The pictures that I've shown speak more than all the opposing words of Al-Quraishi could ever prove.
No they do not, the pictures are NOTHING next to the Genetic evidence.
Even Herodotus and other ancient greek historians spoke about the black people who like Ethiopians were all over the world in ancient times, they were the people of Egypt and even had colonies in greece. If Al-Qurayshi had read those article at backintyme.com the genetic outcome of Negroid-Caucasiod mixtures and the proportion of those mixtures would have answered the genetic "contradictions" he finds in my argument, even with the narrow genetic data he gave me. But I didn't expect him to generally read through this, just a quick glance and he had his mind made because of the messenger, not the message.
And also, out of curiosity, do you also believe that Greece was started off by Black people too?
Qurayshi whatever you say now is mute. Maybe the unintelligent will fall for your accusing style, word play and finger pointing but the intelligent never will.
Lol whatever you say? rotfl
By the way what is your background if I may ask?
lol Whatever, I already told you, One of my parents is Arab (Middle East) and the other is English.
If you deny to tell me that will tell me alot on its own.
What radical conclusions would you have conjured up from that I wonder?
Hey Anwar, can you show me proof that every Ancient Civilization was black?
Al-Quraishi accuses me of being an Afro-centrist which I definitely refuse to be,
Regardless of what you say, your argument epitomises Afrocentric ignorance.
You have not proven with one Iota any evidence from your ?extensive research? which concludes
From my extensive reseach it is clear that the ancient Egyptians, Ancient Arabs, Ancient Iraqis, Ancient Indians, Ancient Sumerians and all the original ancient peoples and civilzation of North Africa, southern Asia and south-eastern Asia were originally black.
Also, are you going to apologise to Europeans for your sweeping remarks?
Did I say that Europeans (mainly the more Northern Europeans) cannot distinguish between races? Did I ever say that? I certainly did not.
Yes you did.
Sometimes I don't even think that Euro-Americans recognize our different colors, its like they see us as black as coal no matter what the shades of brown, black or yellow we are (sometimes even almost white).
I think you should.
-
I think the original discussion was about mulatoes. Which comes from the word Mule, since this animal was a mix of a donkey and a horse. And the term is old fashioned and considered rude to use in public.
If you go by genetics, the deep ancestry of all mankind came from the original Eve, which is somewhere in East Africa. Does that make all mankind African? No, it just says we all have a distant common ancestor.What the original poster was getting at, my assumption, is that we tend to still divide ourselves according to color and place of national origins. I have seen this even today. And it's very sad. In America we at least address our race issues and have tried to work it out. A difficult and ongoing task, but at least we are there. I have had Arabs try to tell me that they have no prejudice, and Iranians the same, and East Indians the same. Yet, in their cultural milieu they only associate with either their own or Caucasians. With the idea that Caucasian association puts you up the societal ladder. Marrying a white person improves your standing, improves your offspring by making them less ethnic and therefore more acceptable. People are basically ignorant about genetics and race mixing and make many assumptions about who Caucasians are and so forth.
Yes, many Pakistani's and East Indians are very "color" concious, I've read many articles about Indian women bleaching their skin. And to be black, or dark is a strike against you literally.
My problem with all this as a woman of African ancestry is that when black men step across the color line to marry, it offends me, because it leaves no balance in certain venues. And then add to that the knowledge by caucasian women that they are "an item" and it gets pretty ugly. It feeds into the believe that black women are less than pretty, intelligent and acceptable. There are some women of color married to Arabs that I know of and they appear to have happy marriages. If after all you are looking for someone who is pious, and a good person why should color matter?
angel -
Angel,
That comment was unwarranted and not funny.Anwar it was not suppose to be funny, what made you think it was suppose to be ???.
I think you should drop the debate, it?s getting ridiculous now.
So what is all the aversion to blackness for?
but can you elaborate on this point please? before I comment on that, because I think I may have misunderstood you.
And Al-Quraishi I do believe in evolution, we should always derive the best meaning when understanding the Quran, the argument for creationism is pseudoscientific and backwards IMO. As for Harun Yahaya he seems to spend all his time shooting blanks at Darwin, his arguments are daft, he seems to be blaming the whole worlds problems on Darwin ;D.
God Bless
peace