Race & Culture

[progod]

Peace,

I'm sorry but I just had get things off my chest. This is a criticism of culture and not of the actual races or better said breeds of humanity.

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. 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.

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. The same thing happened in Latin American in primarliy the carribean area (where African slavery was big business) but even in Mexico and South America (where Native Americans were also in the mix still forming the major population of upper Mexico today. Mexicans are a mixture of mestizos (Native American and Caucasian) and mulatoes (African and Caucasian). There are still blacks in the south of Mexico today and many honest Mexicans in the north can tell you of black ancestors. (despite that I've found the Mexicans to be among the most racist against blacks(and mulatoes with highly visible African Ancestry) in Latin America)

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 inquisitions did their best to kill off all those who showed African ancestry which meant that an ancestor was a North African Jew or Muslim).

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. There still are groups of people like the Melungeons ( http//www.melungeon.org/) who have signficant African ancestry and who would be classified as white in Latin American and other counties who struggle with their identities and just want to be considered white, and ignore their African ancestry, but cannot because Euro-Amerian society will not accept "white" people with visible African ancestry.

Foreigners are considered foreigners and there is not that much of a problem with that classification because the essential view is that all that is not white is not American anyway.

So I grew up in a culture that forced people with visible African ancestry to confront that ancestry and ONLY live with that ancestry. This widened the definition of black in our country to include people who would not be black in others, even with that visible African ancestry. I recognize my European and Native American ancestry even though Euro-Americans may not recognize or acknowledge this ancestry in me because my features (in my case) favor the African side but also show other sides (I've been told all my life that I could be taken for Puerto Rican, Latino and Arab) despite the fact that I am clearly black according to American standards. 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). 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.

Although I understand, it also outrages me when first generation mulatoes and mixed children with a black parent claim that they are not black or try to distinguish themselves from being black when there are 4th, 5th and 6th generation mulatoe families that have been black since they had a black parent, who know this and recognize this and know that being black in America means having visible (and sometimes known) African ancestry.

So what is all the aversion to blackness for?

European and European Americans have always been on the most part biased towards anyone with African ancestry. They saw it in the Arabs so they called them Sand-niggers, they saw it in the Indians and they called them coolie-niggers they saw it in the South Eastern Asians and they see it in many Hispanics and they call them Spic-niggers.

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.

I wish Euro-America could change but they are a long way from it. But I would like to see you guys responses to these issues.

Godbless,
Anwar

[salgan]

Peace Progod

We have to get away from this splitting of races ,we are all the same race Homoesapian. we might be diffrent shades of colour but we are still the same race some of might be taller or shorter but we are still homosapian.

Only people of hate and fear split us so that they can take advatage of us.

Peace Salim earth citizen and fellow human

[Tay]

Peace Anwar,

If globalization keeps on it's course, wouldn't it be interesting to look into the future, say, 1000 years? Who knows, we could all be the same "color" then, and we'd be separating into clicks based on the amount of body hair we have.

Peace,
Tay

[jankren]

In the next 1000 years I think everybody in the world will be either of Chinese blood or Indian blood. Anyway, I dont see anything wrong with being 'conscious' of the fact of the existence of many different races in the world for we are all created by God on purpose so we can get to know each other.

"O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other."
(Al Quran 4913)

[Andya_Primanda]

Ultimately, we're all descendants of Africans, anyway.

[progod]

Tay,

If globalization keeps on it's course, wouldn't it be interesting to look into the future, say, 1000 years? Who knows, we could all be the same "color" then, and we'd be separating into clicks based on the amount of body hair we have.

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. If Indians, Arabs, Afro-Americans, Latin Americans and South East Asians realized what they really are and whose blood they have in them, and stop trying to be something they are not or kissing up to cultures of people who could give a damn about them maybe they could learn to respect all equally and mix freely.

Globalization goes on when one or more people meet in the same place and either rape each other, idolize each other, or honestly respect each other and want to have kids with each other. This last thing happens very UNOFTEN.

The Mixture in Latin America is attributed to alot of rapings, but also to the fact that the Spaniards and the Portuguese didn't bring women with them when they came to the Americas and met with the Native Americans and later brought Africans.

In the U.S. some mixture happened but it mixing was outlawed early on, and looked at as a punishable act. Mixed Caucasians were relegated to the lower class "blacks" which mainly consisted of enslaved Africans many of whom mixed with Native Americans and Caucasian European Americans to varying degrees in different areas of North America. Since the time of Jim Crow laws when mixing was declared a punishable crime in America, Euro-Americans have looked at their European Heritage as a badge of superiority and have segrated themselves from Non-Euro-Americans, in the past forcefully, now they just try to get as far away from us as possible, run us out of their neighborhoods or treat us as their token "black" neighbors so they can claim they are not racist while they would have a fit if their sons or daughters wanted to marry the children of those neighbors or have kids with them. Things are not really changing either, its just not a crime to do this any more and segration is not forced anymore. It is now a recent popular thing for Euro-Americans with Native American ancestry to be proud of it. The hippies and their earth conscious movements made this acceptance possible, by classifiying them as good,earthly, peaceful people. (Whereas really they are troubled and frustrated in most places). It's really actually kind of insulting the way I see it. But that is the way the world works.

I've known many East indians who say that their children can only marry Euro-Americans or Europeans or other Indians. Anyone besides that (especially Afro-Americans) are clearly marked not worthy and off limits. I've met some good pakistanis though, but I can't speak for all of them.

Godbless,
Anwar

[progod]

Peace,

Ultimately, we're all descendants of Africans, anyway
.

That is true. But does that mean that we are all descendants of BLACK Africans? That is the real idea that causes people problems when dealing with this issue. It's not the place of origin it is the PEOPLE of origin.

But I'm not talking about the origin of humanity. That is too far back. I'm talking about when we were already formed into our different breeds. I'm talking about the origins of ancient civilizations (that spawned our modern civilizations) and the ancient people of these civilizations whose descendents still survive in some and sometimes many forms today, i.e. Indians, North Africans, Berbers, Arabs, Iranians, Cambodians, Malaysians, Philipinos etc.

Godbless,
Anwar

[TheNabi]

Peace Anwar

I'm not certain all mulattoes are racist against blacks. I'm mulattoe and there are others who are not racist against blacks. I do think it is okay to distinguish ourselves from blacks because even though we may have a black parent, or grandparent (if both parents are mulattoe) it does not make us black people. Mulattoes can of course look black, or nordic, or in between which people often assume is the Spanish look. Spanish people are europeans however.

Joe

[TheNabi]

Peace

Mulattoes do seem to lack a culture. It seems some are lost as to who they are or where they fit. Such as the guy from the show Prison Break. Here's something interesting if you like, a community of mulattoes of French origin living in Natchitoches, Louisiana from back in the day. According the the definition I go by, a mulattoe is anyone who has mulattoe parents or is born to a person of African descent and a person of european descent.

http//memory.loc.gov/pnp/fsa/8c30000/

Check the pictures in the above link to the mulattoe community.

Joe

[TheNabi]

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

[salikahDC]

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 )

[Al-Quraishi]

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.

[phoenix1]

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?

[Tay]

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

[progod]

I will do my best to try to provide some of this evidence to you but let me make some statements.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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

[Al-Quraishi]

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

[progod]

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

[Al-Quraishi]

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.html

The 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=14120

The 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.htm

The 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=gdq

The last source (not the King Tut one) is some random article on the ?Mahra?
http//kcm.co.kr/bethany_eng/p_code3/1653.html

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.

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.

[progod]

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

[progod]

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