Race & Culture
-
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 -
his arguments are daft, he seems to be blaming the whole worlds problems on Darwin
Yeah! This is what I though when I read his book, yes Darwinism influenced some racist ideas however to go as far as what he's saying is completely rediculous! rotfl
Have you read all of his book Angel?
-
Peace Be Upon You All
How consumed we are with our bodies and egos! Our identities do not lie on the outer form of us!
Go deeper!
I agree with Bro Salgan. We are all ONE! Look past the deceptive outer shell and you'll see it!
Growing up in usa, i had alot of serious issues with my identity as far as race went. My parents are both Egyptian and I carry a "mixed look". For a few years i thought egyptians must be african-american because egypt is in africa! And this came at a time where the school i went to had a small but very dominating black population so i'm sure this had something to do with my conclusion. I began to call myself African-American ;D WOW what a response i got!!!
I remember some people very curious about me to the point where they wanted to pull my long hair to see if it was real ;D
People were baffled how i could claim to be 100% African and look the way i looked. But i was soooo sure my conclusion was right!
Nobody would look at me and think i'm white either. Perhaps a southern Italian but even then it would seem that i must have been mixed along the way.
The fact that i couldn't be placed in any category troubled me for quite a very very long time.
Even when i stayed in egypt, egyptians had a hard time thinking of me as egyptian! although now that i am more out of the "fitting in" phase i look alot more egyptian than ever lol
Today i've come to terms that my race is separate from my true identity. My true identity cannot be seen with the naked eye. My true identity is my essence of God! This gives me great content because my brothers and sisters are everywhere and not only the ones that look like me. In fact, very few people really look like me. And nobody looks exactly like me! So i'm unique in that my DNA and gene combination are extremely rare ... only one "BOOST"! As there are only one of each of you! This makes us all very special (not different) but all one. D When we let go of all those things that distinguish us from one another we notice alot of anxiety and anger and tension is released thru the process. A sense of content envelopes you that you can take with you in your meetings and interactions with other brothers and sisters that may or may not "look like you" in this big home we call earth. You also naturally embrace your ancestry without conflict. I no longer felt the need to look a certain way. i just naturally fell into the way i was made to look. It just becomes a natural by-product without you even trying with effort and force. This gives you a much more balanced approach. However, with this embrace you are not tied to this identification with your ancestry. You realize that you are in fact none of that. So all at once you become very (fill in the blank with your ancestry) and yet your identity goes well over and beyond it that it seems like a very insignificant addage to what you are.
Break down the barriers in your minds and you will find that they are broken down around you as well. Live with the barriers in your mind and you will not be able to connect with "others" around you. The difference is night and day.
-
sun Excellent post sis Boost! sun
Yeah! This is what I though when I read his book, yes Darwinism influenced some racist ideas however to go as far as what he's saying is completely rediculous! rotfl
Have you read all of his book Angel?
I?ve read some of his books, he has done a lot of work, some of it is good but most of it is rubbish. I think he spends far more time on the beautiful presentation of his books/sites then he does on the actual contents ;D. He?s not actually a scientist, he has studied Arts and philosophy at University but has no science degree, but then again the i think the awesome presentation of his books make up for his lack of knowledge ;D. Edip Yuksel wrote a very controversial and revealing article about Harun, Harun sued him for it and the article is now removed, ask Edip about what it said >. Haruns documentaries are shown on the Islam channel nearly everyday (ski channel 813), I occasionally watch them, only coz I am impressed by the visual depictions, but the actual content is not particularly great. I don?t trust him when it comes to science, as for other subjects he does make some interesting points but he should be taken with a pinch of salt, but his science work promoting creationism should be taken with a whole bag of salt ;D. At the end of the day I think he is pseudo-intellectual, that has a few interesting points to make.
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.
I find this obsession for white skin sickening, I?m from a Pakistani origin and most Pakistani?s I know are obsessed with the subject of skin color. I remember my aunty being upset that her daughter is darker then my sisters, it?s a stupid thing to be upset about. Last year in the summer I spent more time in the sun, so naturally my skin tanned more then it usually would in the summer and my uncle disapproved that I let it get that dark, he was telling me like it was something to be ashamed of. As a child I remember adults in the summer saying ?don?t spend too long in the sun or else you will go too dark?, the color of my skin is the very last thing I ever think about when I am enjoying the sunshine.
Throughout my childhood family members and strangers constantly compared my skin tone to other Pakistani?s my age, it?s insane, I should have spoke up but back then it happened so often I found it normal.
Skin lightning creams are so popular, and labels on those creams that say things like ?white and wonderful? sound racist IMO. And these creams are harmful for your skin too, but people will pay a ridiculous amount of money for them. In India they have hour long advertisements about them on TV!
Some families stoop so low as not letting their child marry someone who has a darker tone of skin (even though they are from the same ethnicity!) because they want light grandchildren.
As long it is healthy, skin looks beautiful in all color?s. )
peace
peace -
This thread has some quite odd moments but I have to thank Al Quraishi for bringing up the blood groups bit as that led to my conclusions when I read up on them. I recently discovered that my blood type is a genetic impossibility but in certain extremely rare cases there are exceptions. I will be getting further testing done but it all started with this; imagine a thread saving someone's life someday!
-
I'm glad I have been able to help savage, although I didn't comment much on it here I have spent a little time looking into blood groups as it is yet another silly thing fascists such as the Nazis used to try and divide humanity.
Race is such a fickle thing, and any organisation or people who spend their lives, black or white thinking their race is the best are wasting their lives because at the end of the day there is more variation within our 'races' than between our 'races' obviously showing that humanity is but one species with continuous variation.
And great post BOOST.
Also on the Harun Yahya issue and his excellent presentation skills has anyone seen his bizarre publicity photos? He looks like a waxwork model! Very scary! & I like the one where he's apparently writing one of his works on that tiny table. lol
-
Al-Qurayshi,
Conversations are good had you been respectful in your converstaion shown your points and agreed to disagree that would have been one thing. But you are persistent with your disrepectful, quarrelsome and confrontive attitude. It take alot away from the conversations.
Secondly, though I find you eloquent and very good with your words it is a waste. You cite charts and certain studies without knowing the root of those studies. You also argue the issues that are not the point.
You think I'm a racist, and you have right to think what you want. I never said that Blacks were superior. I don't believe that at all, I believe that we are all human and what matters in the end is our relationship with God and how we live our lives. Al-Jahiz says that blacks are superior and just because I quote him doesn't mean that I agree with all of his opinions. I quoted him because of the age of the document it must be considered an artefact and his statements that blacks are spread out all throughout the Arab middle east are facts. Him saying that blacks are superior is an assertion and not a fact. But this goes back to the definition of intelligence that I was speaking of. You have to be able to read between the lines and take what is true from what is false. But your logic is guilty by association and honestly that is the logic of children and animals, not intelligent human beings.
Intelligence comes from latin and is broken up into Inte(l) = between/within and Ligence (reading). You see you can go to a dictionary all you want but if you don't know the root of things or know how to correct read into things then it is all in vain. You look smart because you quote but your stupidity actually shows through because you don't even know or see the root of the thing.
Again you are quite elogant but it is a waste because of your ignorance, arrogance and aggressive attitude.
You've assumed alot throughout my posts, mostly about my thoughts, and intentions. You are not a very good assumer so it would help you to be calm less insultive and try to come to a mutual understanding. You could learn alot from me if you would actually listen.
You tried to confuse what I said about mixing and genetic evidence. The genetic evidence that you used to try to prove what you are saying is based on a certain method. That method is by looking for certain genes, seeing if they are common in a certain population, comparing it to other populations and then making assumptions on those findings. How many genes do you think are in the human gene code. Do you think that because they use a certain set of genes that that says everything. No, those findings are limited. Genetic science still ahs a long way to go and it will never be open to everyone. So please you can keep those findings, they say something but they don't say everything.
Secondly I did say people mix, but here is where I see you did not even try to study the most important site, the backyntime site, nor do you know very much about genes. In addition to something called genetic drift along with that is the phenomeon that when a mixed people continue to mix they can actually lose the genes of their parent "race" after a while. Someone like you would claim, he look they don't have African in them, whereas we know from logic and history that they definitely do. Again it is one thing to point to studies and another to know how to intelligently use logic.
Laslty, let's talk about the definition of black. In this category you accused me of some many things that I never said. And when I clarified you automatically said I was contradicting myself. You see how you had your mind made up about me even before we started talking?
The term Negroid is vague. It comes from the word Negro which means black and can be redefined at any time. The term Congoid is more particular and describes the kind of BLACKS to be found in most of Africa, another group is the Capoid, to be found in Africa as well who are very genetically different than the Congoid, Even within the Congoid and the Capoid you will find high levels of genetic differences. But remeber what I said to you before with time and isolation similar parent genes can dissapar completely.
So the Australoid are BLACK. However they are not Congoid, nor Capoid. Something that I never said or implied.
But you said that I implied that and continue to argue that. Do you see how unintelligent and counterproductive assuming wrongly is. Then there are the pygmies of Africa and Asia.Let me quote this to you from http//www.1911encyclopedia.org/Pygmy
There seems little doubt that at one time the Negrito element was fairly widespread throughout Malaysia, though there is no positive evidence in support of de Quatrefages's contention that the Negrito race once inhabited a vast domain in Indo-oceanic Asia, extending from New Guinea up to the Persian Gulf, and from the Malay Archipelago to Japan. The Malay Peninsula, and possibly some parts of India, are the only portions of the Asiatic mainland where traces of a distinct negroid substratum have been discovered.
. The distribution of the Asiatic pygmies is mainly Oceanic. The following are the three principal tribes. (t) The Aetas (Philippine Islands). The name "Aetas" is derived from the Malay word hitam, meaning black.
You see though you may say this is old, don't you see how they are classified as negroid. Just because they have different genes from Congoids and Capoids (both of which have distinctive genes) that does not mean that they are not negroid. They are Australoid, and all three are apart of the negroid peoples, whose origins extend very, very far back, and who have evolved as each of these substratums have evolved separately on there own. But they are still black and AS FAR AS THIS CONVERSATION GOES that is what matters. The Congoids and Capoids have had some admixture (though they were essential distinct peoples) and the Australoids have mixed with their Asiatic/Mongoloid neigbors. Both groups have remained relative pure where they did not mix, as is expected.
Additionall there is this site that I quoted for you identifying other types of blacks, I'm sure you will try to say that they are not Negroid as well if you find that they have distinct genes from Congoids, Capoids or Australoids
Veddoids and Andamese (Asian ) negritos with similar same hair and features of Congoids. Listen, in the end whatever your opposition maybe it is not based on logic and intelligence but on a bias of your own agains Afro-centrist or against Blacks in general, which is why you would like to exaggerate the differences by not even calling them Black.I am not an Afroc-centrist I've seem alot of the exaggerations, falsehood etc. I think God should be center not Africans. However, I know who I am and it interest me to know who I am, my roots and about the other Black people, and even beyond that other peoples around the world. I don't think that any man is better than another based on his color or features or ethnicity. THe one who is better is the atqaa or the most prudent.
Again I like to know who I am and where and what I come from. Whether you like it or not all that I've shown is enough, and anyone who knows about the phenotypes of Mulatoes and sees Arabs, Indians etc, knows that these people are Mulatoes (much respect to all Mulatoes peoples around the world). If you were so illogic we might be able to move on and be able to talk about the Asiatic or Mongloid subgroups and the Caucasian subgroups. But talking to you is like talking to an obstinant wall, and its really not worth it.
Yes by your background I can tell alot, but it would fall on deaf ears anyway. I've been around alot of Arabs and alot of Euro-Americans and have talked even to Europeans from different places. Your aggression is only a reaction to the truth, and partly a reactions to your own wrong assumptions.
For everyone who wants to know here are all the sites that I posted earlier. If anyone is interested we can study them and continue to talk.
Before I put them I will reiterate my points
Capoids are Black, Congoids are Black and Australoids are black.
Because of the wide meaning of the word Negroid they can all be considered Negroids.
They all hearken back to a time when all these people were one people and then branched off. Those original people were obvioulsy black and stretched through Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
Black poeple are in NO way superior to other peoples. God says that the superior person is the most prudent. Al-Jaahiz was wrong and unquranic about this however his document can serve as a historical artefact about the presence of Blacks in the Middle East in the 800's and most likely a very long time before that.
The phenotypes of Mulatoes makes it obvioius that the Berbers Arabs, Indians and many South East Asians are Mulatoes (between Blacks (Australoids, Congoids and other types of blacks who have not been specifically categorized yet) and Caucasoid and Mongoloid groups). Genetic drift can account for both genetic distinctions and slight phenotype differences. The Many blacks in these lands are the remnants of these old populations who were the originators of many of the earliest civilizations of these areas. In the late histories of these civilizations can be found statues and evidence of more caucasoid people, because of the mixture. Even Mulatoes depending on how the mixing happend can end up with very Caucasiod features and minimal features from Australoid, Congoids, Capoids or other types of blacks. What happened in these lands can be seen in our recent history in Latin America. And again i know Mulatoes of Latin America and the United states who have long noses and can fit the description of these statues which are from LATE in the periods of those ancient civilizations, which slowly began to mix up and display mixed phenotypes and phenoytpes of both the old negroids and the later coming Caucasiods.
Futhermore the occurence of genetic phenomenons such as G6PD and Siclke Cell cannot be minimized. They are not to be found in regions just where Malaria is found as these genes are found only in particular peoples despite the climate. The absence of these genes in Native Americans in the carribean and Mexico (where in many regions they have remained very isolated to the point that they don't even speak spanish) attests to that. The cover up will not work Qurayshi the truth is clear as day despite your investment in the Euro-centric view of things. It offends you that I say you have Black blood in you and that a significant proporition of that black bloods is what made the Arabs and many others in that region, along with the Caucasiod blood. Again I will post all of the sites that I listed before and for those who have eyes to see, let them see
http//www.1911encyclopedia.org/Pygmy
http//www.assatashakur.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14120
http//www.itsabouttimebpp.com/Announcements/Daliti_Panthers_in_India.html
http//www.assatashakur.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14120
http//www.cwo.com/~lucumi/yanadi.jpg
http//www.cwo.com/~lucumi/jahiz.html
(admitedly Al-Jahiz can take it too far, but it is still a valuabe document)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.htmlPeace, my next posts will be posts showing the phenotypes of recent Mulatoes (usually Congoid and Euro-Caucasian)
Godbless,
AnwarIn the words of the singer India Arie
"I am not my hair. I am not my skin. I am the soul that lives within."
-
You also argue the issues that are not the point.
Again, ascribing your own attributes to me, this whole discussion between you and me started when I asked you for proof of your ridiculous claims, you continually persist to change the course of the argument over issues that we don?t even disagree on, this typifies your cowardly nature and inability to own up to your own ignorance.
Yes by your background I can tell alot, but it would fall on deaf ears anyway. I've been around alot of Arabs and alot of Euro-Americans and have talked even to Europeans from different places. Your aggression is only a reaction to the truth, and partly a reactions to your own wrong assumptions.
How arrogant and presumptuous, I see you harbour a lot of prejudice towards Arabs, Europeans and ?Euro Americans? since I?m half Arab half European I must really epitomise your hatred.
It?s been four days now Anwar, and you still haven?t shown me any proof.
Your last post is full of even more lies, insults, inaccuracies and plain ignorance, however I will not give you any more chances to digress, and I?m going to ignore all your personal attacks - I don?t want links on pygmies, I don?t want to read any more of the Afrocentric BS by John Doe on those forums, I want full, clear scientific proof.
4 Days and counting?
-
To Al-Qurayshi,
Sure Buddy, I don't really care what you say anymore. Lakum deenukum wa liyaa deenee. Take it how you like, but it's your assumption, not mine.
Again I will post my points and the sites for anyone to see, as well as a little bit on Afro-American history and ethnicity
My points
Capoids are Black, Congoids are Black and Australoids are black.
Because of the wide meaning of the word Negroid they can all be considered Negroids.
They all hearken back to a time when all these people were one people and then branched off. Those original people were obvioulsy black and stretched through Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
Black poeple are in NO way superior to other peoples. God says that the superior person is the most prudent. Al-Jaahiz was wrong and unquranic about this however his document can serve as a historical artefact about the presence of Blacks in the Middle East in the 800's and most likely a very long time before that.
The phenotypes of Mulatoes makes it obvioius that the Berbers Arabs, Indians and many South East Asians are Mulatoes (between Blacks (Australoids, Congoids and other types of blacks who have not been specifically categorized yet) and Caucasoid and Mongoloid groups). Genetic drift can account for both genetic distinctions and slight phenotype differences. The Many blacks in these lands are the remnants of these old populations who were the originators of many of the earliest civilizations of these areas. In the late histories of these civilizations can be found statues and evidence of more caucasoid people, because of the mixture. Even Mulatoes depending on how the mixing happend can end up with very Caucasiod features and minimal features from Australoid, Congoids, Capoids or other types of blacks. What happened in these lands can be seen in our recent history in Latin America. And again i know Mulatoes of Latin America and the United states who have long noses and can fit the description of these statues which are from LATE in the periods of those ancient civilizations, which slowly began to mix up and display mixed phenotypes and phenoytpes of both the old negroids and the later coming Caucasiods.
Futhermore the occurence of genetic phenomenons such as G6PD and Siclke Cell cannot be minimized. They are not to be found in regions just where Malaria is found as these genes are found only in particular peoples despite the climate. The absence of these genes in Native Americans in the carribean and Mexico (where in many regions they have remained very isolated to the point that they don't even speak spanish) attests to that. The cover up will not work Qurayshi the truth is clear as day despite your investment in the Euro-centric view of things. It offends you that I say you have Black blood in you and that a significant proporition of that black bloods is what made the Arabs and many others in that region, along with the Caucasiod blood. Again I will post all of the sites that I listed before and for those who have eyes to see, let them see
http//www.1911encyclopedia.org/Pygmy
http//www.assatashakur.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14120
http//www.itsabouttimebpp.com/Announcements/Daliti_Panthers_in_India.html
http//www.assatashakur.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14120
http//www.cwo.com/~lucumi/yanadi.jpg
http//www.cwo.com/~lucumi/jahiz.html
(admitedly Al-Jahiz can take it too far, but it is still a valuabe document)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
Peace, my next posts will be posts showing the phenotypes of recent Mulatoes (usually Congoid and Euro-Caucasian)
As for my Afro-American Heritage (this being separate but not fully separate from all of my previous posts)
At the Congress of Angostura in 1819, liberator Simon Bolivar was elected president of Venezuela and planned a strategy that would free the Americas of European domination. He also found it necessary to clarify America?s racial heritage ??It is impossible to say to which human family we belong. The lager part of the Native population has disappeared, Europeans have mixed with the Indians and the Negroes, and Negroes have mixed with the Indians. We were all born of one mother America, though our fathers had different origins, and we all have differently colored skins. This dissimilarity is of the greatest significance.?
The 1920s estimate that a third of African Americans have Indian blood requires new research. Today just about every African-American family tree has an Indian branch. The number of Afro-Americans with an Indian ancestor was once estimated at about one third of the total. In Latin America the percentage is much higher. This means that an important page in history has been missing. Three great races - red, white, and black - built the Americas together. Their contributions and their interrelationships have filled libraries with scholarly studies, history texts, and novels.
From the book Black Indians
In the lower south, mulattoes appeared later and built their numbers slowly but continuously in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. An important number were born of well-to-do white fathers, and many of these were recognized and sponsored by their fathers, sometimes as slaves, sometimes as free. Mulattoes in the lower South before the Civil War never became so numerous as those in the upper South, and not nearly so many of them were free. Yet when they were free, they tended to dominate the free Negro community both in numbers and influence until emancipation became general. The topmost few, the lightest and the brightest, quite literally the cr?me de la cr?me, lived very well- nearly on a par with their white neighbors, to whom they were tied by bonds of kinship and culture.
It was the elite of the free mulattoes who touched most intimately the skin of white society. In the upper South, whites came to regard the lightest of free mulattoes as often dissolute and difficult people. In the lower South before the 1850?s, the white elite seemed to value them in important ways. Especially in South Carolina around Charleston and in lower Louisiana- the places where free mulattoes were most numerous, most affluent, and most cultivated- were they appreciated. In the 1850?s that relatively tolerant order would rapidly deteriorate. But until then free mulattoes in these enclaves enjoyed a status markedly elevated above that of the black mass, slave and free.
Free mulattoes of the more affluent sort in the lower South were treated by influential whites as a third class, an acceptable and sometimes valuable intermediate elment between black and white, slave and free. In the lower South mulatto relations had a distinct West Indies into eastern Carolina and lower Louisiana during the first years of colonization and continuing contact between the islands and the continent. Unlike early settlement in the Chesapeake world, first settlement in the lower South was characterized by great plantations employing large numbers of Negro slaves. The great number of slaves gave abundant sexual opportunity to white masters and overseers. Those liaisons produced children, but not so many as in the upper South because the number of whites involved was limited to a relatively small number of white men. Some of these children the masters cared for and made free. Some they established in trades or business in the cities. Many remained slaves and filled the ranks of domestic servants. Over time free mulattoe clans emerged, especially in Charleston and New Orleans, interlocking rings of families almost as prosperous, nearly as cultured, and fully as exclusive as those of their planter kin. Just as the planter class dominated white culture, the elite free people of color dominated free Negro culture.Mulatto planters in Louisiana were an impressive group, but it was in New Orleans that the continuing interchange between blacks and whites, sexual and otherwise, reached the highest and most fascinating level.
As in Latin America, there was a steady surplus of whites males and mulatto females in the city. So common was mixing among the elites of both races that it came to be institutionalized in ?quadroon balls.? These were regular and public affairs at which he agreed to maintain the woman in a certain style and provide for any children who might be born of the union. If his offer was accepted, the woman was established in a household of her own, less than a wife and a bit more than a concubine. Sometimes the arrangement evolved into a permanent one; more often it endured a matter of months or years. Liaisons also occurred between white woman and mulatto men, but, true to the Latin pattern, these were notably less frequent.
The period between 1850 and 1915 marked a grand changeover in race relations in America. It was a time in which America switched form what might be called a slave paradigm of race relations to one that was characterized by separation and greater freedom.
Essentially, what happened in the changeover was that the dominant white society moved from semiacceptance of free mulattoes, especially in the lower South, to outright rejection. As mulatto communities in the 1850s confronted an increasingly hostile white world implementing increasingly stringent rules against them in the form either of laws or of social pressures, they themselves moved from a position of basic sympathy with the white world to one of guarded antagonism. In the movement the mulatto elite gave up white alliances and picked up black alliances. The change accelerated in the Civil War, took its set during the critical year 1865, and continued through Reconstruction, post-Reconstruction, and into the twentieth century.
By the end of the period, roughly in the two decades between 1905 and 1925, mulattoes led by the mulatto elite had allied themselves rather totally with the black world. Meanwhile the white world had arrived at an almost total commitment to the one-drop rule. In white eyes, all Negroes came to look alike.
The great fact about mulattoes that emerges form a comparison of the census of 1860 with that of 1850 is a massive increase in the number of mulattoes who were slaves. During the decade of the 1850?s slavery was becoming whiter, visibly so and with amazing rapidity. White people were enslaving themselves, as it were, in the form of their children and their children?s children. While black slavery increased in numbers only 19.8 percent in the decade, mulatto slavery rose by an astounding 66.9 percent. The raw number of slaves visibly mulatto grew impressively from 247,000, to 412,000, and their percentage in the total slave population increased from 7.7 percent to 10.4 percent.
Mulatto freedom was the other side of the coin, and the statistics there offered no encouragement. In the South the count of free mulattoes hardly grew at all, rising from 102,000 to 107,000. Without doubt, some mulattoes had gone underground and others had fled.
The total number of mulattoes, rising form 406,000 to 588,000, was keeping pace with the increase of population in the United States as a whole, but the rapid rise in mulatto slavery and the less than average increase of free mulattoes portended a dismal future for mulattoes in America.
Mulatto slavery gaining strength throughout the South in the 1850?s, but publicly white people seemed unconcerned about white blood mixing with black and being held in slavery. On the other hand, they went into a rage against white blood mixed with black and being free. During the decade whites attacked the free mulatto population in the South with unprecedented virulence. As the lower South joined the upper South in the assault on free mulattoes, the line between the two, the line that had been formed by a Latin-like tolerance of mulattoes in the lower South, tended to dissolve.
Taken from
http//www.frenchcreoles.com/CreoleCulture/mulattoes,%20mixed%20race,%20creoles/mulattoes,%20mixed%20race,%20creoles.htm
If you are interested in this and would like to know more about Afro-Americans and to see Mulatoe phenotypes check out the above site.
In the words of the singer India Arie
"I am not my hair. I am not my skin. I am the soul that lives within."Godbless,
Anwar -
Look at this
Both parents are mixed and look at these two sisters
http//z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/W/E/pic19814.jpg
Look at the people of San Sombrero, a mixture of African(Congoid), Spaniard (Caucasiod with slight Congoid blood) and Native American, and read their ancestry
http//www.molvania.com/sansombrero/people.html
Depending on the balance of the mixture it is easy for certain areas or population to look completely Arab or indian-like completely.
And they are all the same people.
Godbless,
Anwar -
WOW!
Anwar I have to say, I am finally convinced!!!
Finally convinced that you cannot bring up one iota of proof regarding your original claims.
Again, more gibberish regarding the new world, the ancient civilizations you were talking about are not located in the world. There is no disagreement between me and you with respect to the existence of 'black' 'white' mixing, don't pretend this is the issue because it clearly isn't. Showing me pictures of babies cannot prove your claims. People are reading this thread Anwar, they've read what I asked of you days ago and they know you haven't been able to prove your lies.
Just be a man and admit you're wrong. If you can't do that then provide some proof instead of continually changing the subject, you've stated that I am a fool among other lowly personal attacks, just as you stated that every ancient civilization was black, I however have proven that you're a fool, just like I proved every ancient civiliztion clearly wasn't black.
-
Al-Quraishi. I'm done speaking you. This is for those who are interested and who can see the logic of what I'm saying. You don't even know what proof is, so keep on counting the days.
But again, I never said every ancient civilzation was black. That is another miscontruance of yours, in which you feel justified. You have contunous miscontrued what I have said and will continue to do it and then scream contradiction. I indeed implied that you were a fool, number one in retaliation for all of your condescending, aggressive and insulting comments about what I was saying. That is just tit for tat. But also because it is appropriate despite you eloquence. So are you going to keep crying out that I am insulting you when it is only a taste of your own medicine? Furthermore it's not that I'm wrong about many ancient civilizations of SOUTHWEST, NORTH ARICAN AND SOUTHEASTERN asia being black it is that this topic is over your head. So go, and be in peace,
Godbless,
Anwar -
Al-Quraishi. I'm done speaking you.
That doesn't surprise me seeing as though you cannot defend your lies in light of the truth.
You don't even know what proof is, so keep on counting the days.
Seeing as though I'm the only one of us to have presented any what you say is untrue.
So is this
But again, I never said every ancient civilzation was black.
Yes you did you pretentious liar.
From what I've seen there are really just 3 races of human beings on earth and each one has different sub-divisions. 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.
Perhaps it's best of you to give up seeing as though I'm going to continually show you and your lies up in front of everyone here at free minds.
And again, you still have not apologised for your European slurs which you denied saying and which I proved you said in exactly the same manner as this.
So are you going to keep crying out that I am insulting you when it is only a taste of your own medicine?
I called you a racist, which I have proven you clearly are, you've practically called me everything under the sun.
As I expected, no proof whatsoever of your Black Supremacist myths, perhaps you'll think twice next time before you decide to dish out your baseless lies and BS.
-
Peace all,
I dont know why all this fighting since according to modern science the first humans were BLACK AFRICANS so we all evolved from them. Ive seen that on a scientific channel as well and it is almost undoubtable now. This has nothing to do with racism. It's science. GOD Bless! -
Johnny K,
You're right. However, what is pissing Al-Qurayshi off so much so that he twists what i say and calls me a liar, ridiculous, etc. etc. Is that I am claiming that after the first migration of humany beings out of Africa from which which the Caucasiods and Mongoloids evolved (for lack of a better word) there was a second migration of Black Africans out of Africa and within Africa that formed the earliest civlizations in the Middle East and South East Asia. I further claim that later in the histories of these civilizations the lighter human beings being the Caucasiods and Mongoloids migrated down and mixed in with these black populations, the proof of which shows in the presence of these indigenous Blacks in North Africa, the Middle East and South East asia in isolated areas.
What the argument turned into was that Australoids are not Black, as he sees black as only Congoid and most likely also Capoid. He says that the Australoids have totally separate genes from Congoids and Capoids so they cannot be commonly grouped as subgroups of Negroids. However, the Capoids are not related to the Congoids either (They are still Negroid). Furthermore many Australoids have the same general features and characteristics of many Congoids and Capoids (though slightly different). I am saying that thousands of years of genetic drift due to isolation is enough to make their genes distinct from each other, but that these people are definitely conneced and are all genetic drifts from the original black population.
He quotes certain genetic studies having to do with Congoids only as it concerns the peoples of the middle east which actually shows their presence in a few people of the Middle East including the Palestinians and others.
Then because now Congoid blood shows in peoples of southern Asia, he says HA HA! I told you they didn't have black blood. But I never said that they had Congoid blood. Which he will claim I did say and call me a liar. I said they have black blood which is the Australoid black. Futhermore I showed him black populations in the middle East they haven't yet been fully classified (as far as I know) the Mehras of the Arabian peninsula is one such group.
But what Qurayshi says is a lie, without really proving me wrong, though he claims to have is that
the peoples of the middle east are a varying mixture of Caucasiod peoples and Negroid peoples as well as the people of india, including also the Mongoloid peoples of Asia into the mixture. In some areas these Negroid peoples are still very isolated and their connection to Capoids and Congoids can clearly be seen. Such the need for the pictures.
The sights that I showed included pictures of these Black peoples, charts on the resulting colors and features of mulatoes (Congoid and European) depending on the balance of the mixture and pictures of mixed peoples which when one sees and compares to the people of the middle east and india, the similarity is clear as day.
All this he calls lies. And he denies that the earliest great civilizations of Africa, lower Asia and the middle east were created by the above subgroups of Blacks.
He shows me pictures of a bust of Nefertiti which comes from the late period of Egypt when the mixings had been fully rooted in the people. To which I showed him a picture of a reconstruction of King Tut's face (in the same era of Nefertiti) clearly showing a black person. But he things that if a face has European features it cannot be a mulatoe it has to be a purely Caucasiod person. I don't have to state the wrongness of this opinion.
He also shows me statues from only Sumeria and because they have long noses and are tanned they must be caucasiod. But I continued with my point to say that these features can still occur in the resulting mixed peoples from Caucasiod and Negroid mixtures (Congoid, Australoid and Capoid and the other oids that exist). But this is blasphemy to Qurayshi and Afrocentric BS. And according to him I've said that Blacks have started all the ancient civilizations. And though the presence of blacks has been widespread in the ancient world I could never claim this for the Chinese, the Mayans the Romans etc.
Now the greeks did mix with the Egyptians (and vice-versa) herodotus and others commented both on the blackness of the Egyptians (during early times) being like the Ethiopians and how the Egyptians had sent Colonies to this area. But however minimal their mixture may have been they are the ones who created their own society despite the fact that alot of their great men studied in Egpyt for years. The Greeks further comment later on the Mulatoes look of lower Egpytians a look which comes about from direct and copious mixture with Blacks. Something they seemed to have known about.
Despite that the mixture of Europeans and Congoids (maybe some other Black oids) is what created the Mediterreanean look. They had been trading and mixing for a long time.
But all this to Al-Qurayshi is pretentious lies and falsehoods, racist rantings and maybe even blasphemy. Again like I said lahu deenuhu wa liya deenee. I didn't really want to rehash this futile argument I just wanted to clarify. Again I'll post the links from my earlier posts if you want to check them out
http//z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/W/E/pic19814.jpg
http//www.molvania.com/sansombrero/people.html
http//www.1911encyclopedia.org/Pygmy
http//www.assatashakur.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14120
http//www.itsabouttimebpp.com/Announcements/Daliti_Panthers_in_India.html
http//www.assatashakur.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14120
http//www.cwo.com/~lucumi/yanadi.jpg
http//www.cwo.com/~lucumi/jahiz.html
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
http//www.frenchcreoles.com/CreoleCulture/mulattoes,%20mixed%20race,%20creoles/mulattoes,%20mixed%20race,%20creoles.htm
http//www.1911encyclopedia.org/Pygmy
In the words of the singer India Arie
"I am not my hair. I am not my skin. I am the soul that lives within."
God evolved us as he willed. In the end these bodies do die and we go back to God. But analyzing the truth of our roots and how much we have to do with each other and don't even know it is very important if we are to give up those biases and look at other races as equal people who we would even marry and have children with. When the Euro-centric scientific world gives up this bias against Blacks and their contributions to the world we live it these truths will come out. But believe it or not the world is still heavily influenced by a discriminory Euro-centric mindset. It is the product of the past 500 years, and is not that easy to shake.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Check out this site, it talks about racial intermixture and the resulting skin colors, as well as racial mixture in ancient times among the Romans
http//multiracial.com/site/content/view/459/27/
If you check the following site about the Melungeons you will learn about Tri-racial and bi-racial ethnicities in the US. In most Afro-American families we have an uncle or great uncle or even more than this who look like the people you will find on these sites, being very very light skinned Afrom-Americans. Some of the people I've seen on these sites I would classify as light skinned Afro-American /Black as I have people in my family who look like that.
Though some of thse people just want to classify themselves as white (not all of them, and to which some may have a right to based on skin color and not ethnicity) many have been considered as Black by other Euro-Americans for their obvious Black(in this case Congoid) ancestry (the mulatoe look is an obvious indication of that ancestry in all peoples), which causes them to look like anything from a light skin Black, to Arab, to "typical" latin American.
Something I found interesting is that my last name is among the list of Melungeon names. But they don't seem to be very likely to accept those of their kind who through the addition of African blood are now wllfully classify themselves as Afro-Americans or Black. But as the site on French creoles stated and these sites state the mixture of Afro-American was very rampant, however there was also segragation between light-skinned/mulatoe blacks and more purely Congoid blacks. The difference can usually be seen today through economic status, the higher you go the more mixed we look. The lower you go the more Congoid we look. Though this is not a hundred percent true rule. Things have changed alot since the seventies, we are more united on coming to a common, shared ethnicity and you will find light skinned Afro-Americans looking for darker Afro-Americans as a way to ratify their Blackness/Africaness whereas though when it happened in the past it was disdained on. Apparently my very light skinned grandfather (grey eyes and reddish hair) wasn't "supposed" to marry my more Congoid looking milk-chocolate color grandmother.
Some of those white looking Melungeon guys could be my distant cousins if you think about it. It's too bad racial politics was as disgusting as it was in this country (and all around the world unfortunately). When I read about the whole miscegenation policy I am utterly disgusted.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Again swerving the argument to something completely different.
All this he calls lies. And he denies that the earliest great civilizations of Africa, lower Asia and the middle east were created by the above subgroups of Blacks.
Show me proof of this please, not BS regarding people mixing, this is not proof, regardless, I don't deny that and you know it.
-
Al-Qurayshi,
I'm sure you've read a lot of these explanations specifically dealing with contexts of these civilizations and have disagreed with them all. I'll post them at my own leisure, don't worry. Just look for them as they come. I'll be posting direct links or even books, and some of them will be from Afro-centrist, to which you will say they are just racists and they don't know where they come from or who the are. They are just reactionary victims fighting illogically and over-reacting against the European paradigm which defined them and made them feel less. You will say they are grabbing at straws to try to uplift themselves. I've seen the fault in Afro-centrists arguments and in anti-afro-centrists arguments. However, I do not wish to continue to debate with you. We can agree to disagree and if you disagree with what I post you can say that you disagree and that you don't think I've proved anything. That is your right, but for the numerous reasons I've stated already I do not want to continue discussing this with you.
Furthermore as this topic is about race and culture I have been offering bits on those i consider as my people and my culture. Of course I am going to connect racial mixture to the phenomenon of the Arabs, Indians etc. whatever I can quote for you on the original inhabitants of the areas I mentioned and the civilizations they built I will. But as for now my posts will be a mish-mash of a bunch of things. I'd appreciate it if you got off your one-track mind for now, and agree to disagree. I have my reasons to believe what I do and I think they are true and clear and will only get clearer with time and true analysis, as people take interest in this. Hard to find does not mean wrong, and the truth is often very hard to find in a world of half-truths and lies.
Godbless,
Anwar