Race & Culture

[Al-Quraishi]

Firstly your tone is very disrespectul, very reactionary and very deceptive as you try to convince me and others through your condescending, agressive and rude language and tone that what I'm saying doesn't make sense. I hope through the pictures and through what i say that someone comes to a clear understanding of this. As your bias, rudeness and obstinant ignorance seems unsurmountable.

Lol Firstly, I scoff at your comments, as we both know you?re trying to pin your own attributes onto me, reactionary? Disrespectful??? From the guy who insinuated I was a Kuffar because I said the New Testament was written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? And I?m sorry, but you simply cannot pin bias upon me! Perhaps my attitude is a bit understandable when I?m dealing with what can only be Free Mind?s Resident Racist?

Please look at what you have said in bold

Quote
that see black skin, big lips and a wide nose and immediately think it?s a black person. The people pictures in the thread ?Forgotten but Great Africans? in that forum which you are purporting to be an accurate source are in fact Australoids and not Negroids, just because Someone has a wide nose and dark skin does not mean that one is black,

Does that make sense? Have you seen these people? Do you have a different definition of black?

Yes as a matter of fact I do, I explained that to you but obviously you haven?t read what I said properly. You?re talking about black Africans, period. These people are not Africans. They may have come ?out of Africa? like everyone else but they certainly aren?t Negroids and certainly don?t fit your racist model.

There are even Black Africans in Africa that are technically not of the same race as other Black Africans.

Correct, they are the people I said were ?Capoid?. So you?ve just proved my point and disproved your own Do you have a different definition of black? Will we say they are not black. - You obviously have just made another definition of black.

Look at the Khoisaan(Bushman) and some of other groups in Sudaan. Are you trying to change the definition of Black now? I know that there are Astraloids and Negroids, the Khoisan, I'm sure have their own names, and the pygmies are technically not in the same classification of your normal "negroids" but they are all black brother. And all of them have origins that hearken back to a tyme when their ancestors were brothers, before they split off into separate sub-groups of black. Australoids, "Bantu(so caalled classical Negroe)", Pygmies, Nilo-Saharic(there is separate and better term for this), and the Khoisan.

Ho ho ho ? here we have it, I was wondering when, the racist?s retreat! Don?t pretend by changing your argument that you were right all along, your argument consists of The Ancient People of the World Were all Black and by that you meant African. Don?t try and wriggle yourself out of this one.

And ? you still have not presented one iota of your proof or even one of your magical Afrocentric websites to claim as a source for your ?Black Ancients? argument. I am telling you, the Sumerians, Harappans and Arabs were Caucasoid and I have shown you my proofs.

I?m still waiting Anwar.

Some claim that Somalis are an Arab country and not like the other Blacks, but they are still Blacks and very dark blacks with long noses and some with thin lips, but that does not take away from their blackness.

No, the Somalis are not black in the sense that they are Negroid, they occupy a middle region where Negroids and Caucasoids blend as 'racial' attributes are continuous.

The Somalis ARE Arabs in every sense of the word.

Definition of an Arab An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic

This definition goes back all the way to the Prophet?s time, he even told a group of Arabs not to call another group of people non-Arabs simply because they were first generation Arabic speakers. This definition also has cultural contexts but using it, the Somalis are definitely Arabs.

NOTE Every other definition of Arab I have made is of the Middle Eastern variety to which you were referring to originally.

The are many varieties of Caucasoids out there, some Arabs have very dark skin, it does not make them any less Caucasoid and any More African.

No, I said they were orignally black and they slowly mixed up. Nefertiti was around the same time as king tut which is very late in Egyptian history. It is also your mistake for thinking that people who have lighter skin and thinner noses are necessarily White. When Blacks mix with whites and then those mulatoes mix with mulatoes the chidlren can come out in all different colors and with varying features, from classic Negro to more European(Usually tanned or very tanned European style with black hair that ranges from curly straight to very curly). I know a girl personally (she is domincan) who could pass for that bust and both her parents are dark brown black dominicans, with African features. I know another girl who is a first generation Mulatoe (though her father is a very dark African American he still has European ancestry) who could also pass for that bust. Both of the first girl's parents are darker than me and look very African. But her daughter could pass for that Nereftiti Bust easily. This is the problem you are coming from miseducation and outside perspective. And the denial of the outcome of race mixture is what makes Europeans try to insist that Egyptiasn were not black based on some paintings of light skinned blacks. Have you ever seen the Fulani of Africa? As a black person in America I know what can happen with a mixed black people and how their children can come out looking. My mothers family is very light and some have more European features, talk to Damon or even Idol free and they will school you too. My wife is dominican (whose mother is black and whose father looks classical mulatoe (all of the kids are different colors), I know many puertoricans (a close Puerto rican family that calls me their son is made up of a Black Puerto Rican dad and one of the daughters looks completely black (American black) and her Mom is a very white puerto rican. I know exactly who I am, believe me I do not feel inferior nor am I fighting some inferiority complex I am just stating the rejected truth of the matter.

WOW You?ve been really stewing over this whole ?race? issue, seriously man, you?ve got problems BIG problems which you need to sort out otherwise you will be trapped in the prison that is race for the rest of your life.

Firstly they are not saying in that form. It is you that are either purposefully or unpurposeflly distorting their words and interpreting it as that. Besides what time did they have to leave Africa and what kind of black should they be to be considered black, or original African blacks?

All this depends on whether you believe in Evolution or not. And if you do, it would be very racist of you to think that all the rest of Humanity changed their features from ?Black African? and the poor old Africans have remained racially stagnant from time Immemorial.

You may call what I'm saying racist or ridiculous but these pictures prove more than your cynical, rebellious, and obstinant words could ever prove. I don't know your background or where you come from but fighting the blackness of these people is futile. It is with these people that northern Asian and Caucasian tribes mixed with to give us the dark asians and brown Middle-easterners that we have today.

Completely and utterly wrong ? I?m still waiting for your proof Anwar, and yes, you are Racist.

But just like every other coverer you?re simply blabbing on more than actually answering my arguments.

Now you are really showing your bias. the black panthers are not racist at all. If you had said the Nation of Islam I might have agreed with you. But the Black panthers were a group that believed in social justice, the right to self defence, social betterment of black people and all people, and the uplifting of the oppressed. They actually had a solid Euro-American following at the time. What gave them their bad fame was the same thing that gave Malcom X bad fame, they weren't afraid to stand up for themselves and challenge abused authority. So the slander campaign was launched against them, and what you (and many others) think about them is a result of this slander campaign.

Now you are really showing your ignorance, I agree with you that SOME of the Black Panthers DID start believing in Social Justice, the right to self defence, social betterment etc but that was a LONG time ago in the 1960?s the incredibly large and most likely majoritively racist element has always been there from the start and has grown to encompass it completely. It distrubs me how you think an organisation who?s members have committed murder, drug dealing, pimping and extortion as good.

As for Al-Jaahiz, you may find it racist if you like. But what he says gives you evidence of a signficant BLACK and even late African BLACK presence in Arab lands and other lands. He wrote this letter in response to the growing anti-black feeling in the Islamic and Arab world, that did not exist before the Arabs expansion into and acceptance of futher northern Caucasian areas and peoples. The Arabs didn't think like this when they were just in the pennisula.

Put it quite simply Anwar, if I had said

"We Whites have conquered the country of the Blacks as far as Mogadishu and governed them. The jungle swarm with the number of our men who married your women and who became chiefs and defended you against your enemies. You even have sayings in your language which vaunt the deeds of our kings - deeds which you often placed above your own; this you would not have done had you not considered them superior to your own. We defeated Shaka Zulu and killed all the Botswanan princes, but the Blacks and Yellows (from Asia) have never conquered our country. Our people, the Germanics (an Aryan race), revolted forty times in the Congo, driving the inhabitants from their homes...Whites are Intellectually Superior. A single one of us can think things of great difficulty and Calculate problems such as several Blacks could not think nor calculate between them. They are beautiful, intelligent...- these good traits are the gifts of God." .

I have simply replaced ?Black? with ?White?, ?Arabs? with ?Black?, ?Mecca? with ?Mogadishu?, ?Desert? with ?Jungle? (do not try and put racist connotations on from this one) ?Dhu Nowas? with ?Shaka Zulu?, ?Himyarite? with ?Botswanan?, ?African? with ?Aryan?, ?Euphrates? with ?Congo?, ?Physically? with ?Intellectually? and ?Stronger? with ?Superior?, ?Carry? with ?Calculate?, ?Burdens? with ?Problems?, ?Brave? with ?Beautiful? ?Strong? with ?Intelligent?

Quite simply Anwar if I or anyone else had said or quoted this, quite admirably to support an argument, or even quoted it at all for that matter, you would have went crazy and called us a racist.

That whole quote is completely ignorant, stupid, small minded, reeks with inferiority complex and it?s quite plainly wrong. It?s no secret that Arabs have made greater forays and governance into Africa than Blacks ? but I?m not going to be drawn into some petty ?racial? war, because quite frankly I?m not interested in saying one race is great and trying to convince everyone else, I?m interested in refuting a ignorant and racist bigot with HUGE inferiority complex.

This presence of these black people is not only because of the slave trade. That influx was later. In the case of the Mehri they are the original blacks of Southern Arabia, though to be the true descendants of the Himyarites. Theses are some of the original black Arabs I'm speaking of.

Again Anwar

http//www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=gdq

This is not proof.

http//www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter47/text47.htm

Neither is this. It?s confusing the works of Carelton S Coon.

http//kcm.co.kr/bethany_eng/p_code3/1653.html

This article is on the prayer habits of the Mehri people

Most Mediterranean people know that they have African blood.

Hmmm, I seriously doubt that, but let?s say your conjured up statement is correct ? it is not I repeat, just in case you didn?t read it the last 17 times Anwar, THIS IS NOT SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

They even share the same diseases that people with only African descent tend to have.

This comment is completely ambiguous, contains no figures, and no proof whatsoever that Mediterraneans have Negroid in them. I could say ?Most Asians have Blood Group B and Hardly any Caucasoids have Blood Group B so the ones that do are clearly descended from Asians? your statement didn?t even go as far as that so I have no idea what it?s supposed to achieve or support.

They get sickle cell and G6pd, which are disorders that Africans have.

Wow! I have 5 fingers! Africans have them too! I must be black!

You cannot make a conclusion regarding the genetic composition of peoples based on shared traits such as this unless you understand the mechanisms to wich such genes spread. Sickle Cell Anaemia is present in different degrees anywhere Malaria is present I could say to you that hose Mediterraneans raped Africans and gave them the disease. You?re forgetting ?Race? is a fickle issue, I?ve tried to explain that at various times in our discussion and others have said it outright, human variation is completely continuous around the world, no different peoples are any more than 1% varied in terms of DNA, genetic traits such as this do not simply have to pass (and generally do not anyway) by direct insertion of a foreign group of peoples into another group. In fact if you look at the evidence, it SUPPORTS the fact that sickle cell anaemia is a continuous trait.

And I'll give you more info on the blackness of the original acient people of Iraq.

I would LOVE to see some proof on this AND the Harappans AND the Arabs AND the Egyptians.

As far as those sculptures that you gave me of Arabs, there is one of the Arab king Phillip too, that looks pretty European. I wonder what Phillip is in Arabic? Anyway the greeks and the romans had policies of marrying the local women of places that they conquered and making kids. Secondly the area was under greek and roman control for the longest. So I wonder how the greeks or romans would have sculpted an Arab hero in their lands and territories? HMMMMM! Maybe so that he would look more like them. That's crazy idea I know. History is told (in this case sculpted) in the eyes of the victor.

The Nabateans were the most difficult opponents of the Romans in that area, nay perhaps one of their most difficult foes in the whole empire simply because of the way they lived and their home terrain. They were NOT ?under Greek and Roman control for the longest? Greece was not even Imperial at this time. The best the Romans could get was an Alliance NOT complete dominance; the province Arabia Petraea was one of the most short-lived in the Empire. Again Anwar, Wrong.

The northern Areas had been subject to the hyskos, the hittites, the greeks and the Romans (all known Caucasian peoples with some relative admixture(especially the greeks.) As far as the perisans the original black people there had long mixed into the Caucasian tribes that came down from the north to form their own distinct mixture. So doesn't it make sense that the Arabs in these areas would look more like those people because of the constant mixture?

So now you?re saying the Persians were originally black as well! Add that to my requested list of proofs please Anwar.

Believe me, what I'm saying isn't racist, as you are trying to make it.

Trust me on this one Anwar, to me and most other people who have been reading your ignorant tripe since post one it?s clearly racist. Do you wan me to requote your fine comment from Al-Jihaz again?

I grew up around mixed people, I've studied race in Latin America (there are still alot of classical negroes in Latin American) and I've studied the subject of blacks in Asia and Africa, Ameria and Europe. I've met black cambodians, bangladeshis, and blacks from many other lands who are native to those lands. What you are proposing is actually more racist then what I'm saying because you are disgusted by the fact that Blacks of all groups inhabited the most ancient of these civilizations first and then mixed in with migrating Caucasian groups from the north. Have you ever seen Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud. If that is not a light skinned black man, I don't know what a light skinned black man is!!

1. I am certainly not distgusted at the prospect, don?t you dare try and turn the racist tables on me ? what I am disgusted at is the distribution of these ignorant, unfounded and utterly racist ideas. Yes, Blacks were this, Blacks were that, We created civilization, we are stronger than Whites and Arabs. Seriously have you read up on Adolf Hitler? His ideas were similar equally baseless tripe.

2. Prince Bandar?s Mother was a black concubine slave of King Saud?s ? so I don?t know what you?re trying to prove from that, it?s obvious his traits are from his mother and not brought up from some Mythical black super-race that once inhabited All of Africa and Asia Minor.

Do you know about Guinea Spanish, a creolized form of Spanish that was spoken on West African coast during the early days of slavery. A number of West African were taken to spain as slaves (the kings even like to see plays in this creole spanish) and these Africans were absorbed by the popultaion in the south and Portugal and had a racial and linguistic affect on the Spanish spoken. Spains territory also included the Azores other catan islands to its east.

Right, again, nothing to do with your argument - merely gibberish regarding the new world. You still haven?t given me any proof, as a matter of fact, the inks you?ve posted in this thread were posted in your previous thread. Are you simply going to post me the same useless links over and over again until I give in to your racist ideas?

Futhermore if you actually read and observe what I've shown you you might understand but even if you don't someone else will. And I thank God for that.

I thank God for the fact I have been given the means to prove you wrong with what counts. People can see my Scientific evidence and then they can read your Black Panthers website and they can choose the better of the two.

Oh, and all of those links work.

They may now work, but they are useless and in no way constitute as proof.

I'll show you some more pictures, maybe it will click.

I do not want any more pretty pictures Anwar, I want PROOF.

And Last but certainly not least

Did I say that Europeans (mainly the more Northern Europeans) cannot distinguish between races? Did I ever say that? I certainly did not.

Yes you did.

Sometimes I don't even think that Euro-Americans recognize our different colors, its like they see us as black as coal no matter what the shades of brown, black or yellow we are (sometimes even almost white).

[progod]

From the guy who insinuated I was a Kuffar because I said the New Testament was written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

I never said this. Here you go starting your posts with falsehoods. I even explained the use of lakum deenukum wa liya deen to you and apologized if you took offense to it and took in the wrong way. And here you are bringing up old grudges.

Free Mind?s Resident Racist?

Let me note that you are name calling now. I could spill out a number of words that could be considered insults about you, and unfortunately would be true. But I won't, actually only to save face, because I know that the people on this forum don't like it when others, and especially me start calling names. It seems you have a grudge against me, it is now clear to me considering the other "conversations" we've had.
You are not the only one. So I'll quote the Quran for you (a little out of context but I mean these literal words ) moottoo fee ghaithikum. And I mean that in the royal antum.

Yes as a matter of fact I do, I explained that to you but obviously you haven?t read what I said properly. You?re talking about black Africans, period. These people are not Africans. They may have come ?out of Africa? like everyone else but they certainly aren?t Negroids and certainly don?t fit your racist model.

Still name calling, hunh? I guess somebody is going to buy this bogus negativity that you are putting out. I just hope God spares the intelligent and good at heart. Aditionally, now you are going to tell me what I'm talking about despite what I've said, hunh? Well so being. I'm talking about BLACKS, that includes your typical black African (you call them Negroid, others may call them Africoid), Australoids, Khoisan and othe types of black people. They are all BLACKS and that is plain as day. The common origin and connection of all these kinds of blacks is obvious in their blackness.

your argument consists of The Ancient People of the World Were all Black and by that you meant African.

And here is where YOU twist my argument out of your own bias. That is why you THINK that I'm retreating or contradicting myself. I did not state that they were the SAME black Africans in Africa. I am saying that they are the the same BLACK race, but DIFFERENT ethnicities. Let me look up Capoid, I think we may have referred to the same peole by different names. However, BLACK IS BLACK, bruh. Get it in your head. These people have the same ANCIENT ORIGINS.

http//kcm.co.kr/bethany_eng/p_code3/1653.html

This article is on the prayer habits of the Mehri people

I listed this site for the picture. Secondly you talk about confusing the works of Carelton S. Coon. The facts are there for those with eyes to see.

As for Al-Jahiz's work. I didn't say that I agreed with him. His statement about the superiority of black people is obviously an exaggeration. But within his statements is proof of the strong early presence of Blacks (some coming recently from Africa) in The Middle East. You picked the exaggerations out of his statement to try to prove everything wrong and form an argument against me. Maybe he was racist, but this letter is to other Arabs and the obviously non-exaggerated things have merit. You alwasy seem to argue the obviosly irrelevant part of discussions. Why is that?

And ? you still have not presented one iota of your proof or even one of your magical Afrocentric websites to claim as a source for your ?Black Ancients? argument. I am telling you, the Sumerians, Harappans and Arabs were Caucasoid and I have shown you my proofs.

You did not prove to me that they were (purely) Caucasiod at all. You showed me some statues and some genetic information about MODERN peoples. All you proved was that Palestinians and some other people have some similar genes with people in West Africa and so called "Bantu" peoples.

My point was that the original inhabitants of these lands were BLACKS, of all the different subgroups of blacks (Australoid, Bantu Negroid, Capoid etc.)

Let me show you what it said on Wikipedia

Capoid (named after Cape Province, South Africa) along with congoid are one of the two major divisions within the Negroid race.

Some people would say that Capoids are different than Negroids and Australoids different than Negroids. That is why they also have the term Congoid. Congoids, Capoids and Australoids can all be considered Negroid, as the basis of the term Negroid is Negro or Black. I never said that Congoids were Australoids or that Capoids were Congoids. However, I have always been saying that all these people are BLACK and have similar origins and are subgroups of the same Negroid or Black division of humanity.

I'll deal with the rest of this post later.

Godbless,
Anwar

Keep reading this post I will keep editing it.

[Al-Quraishi]

I never said this. Here you go starting your posts with falsehoods.

That's rich coming from the guy starting entire threads with pure falsehoods.

Let me note that you are name calling now. I could spill out a number of words that could be considered insults about you, and unfortunately would be true.

You are a veritable racist Anwar, that?s very true.

I won't, actually only to save face, because I know that the people on this forum don't like it when others, and especially me start calling names.

Well hey, you have to save face over something as you?ve clearly lost face over being exposed as having done no research whatsoever and distributing racist lies.

I'm talking about BLACKS, that includes your typical black African (you call them Negroid, others may call them Africoid), Australoids, Khoisan and othe types of black people. They are all BLACKS and that is plain as day. The common origin and connection of all these kinds of blacks is obvious in their blackness.

No it is not, have you not listened to a single thing I?ve said? Have a look at the genetic cluster graph you?ll see the Australoids up there, clearly distinct from Afroids/Negroids/Congoids or whatever you wish to call the majoritive sub-Saharan peoples. They are NOT directly related to each other.

And here is where YOU twist my argument out of your own bias. That is why you THINK that I'm retreating or contradicting myself. I did not state that they were the SAME black Africans in Africa. I am saying that they are the the same BLACK race, but DIFFERENT ethnicities. Let me look up Capoid, I think we may have referred to the same peole by different names. However, BLACK IS BLACK, bruh. Get it in your head. These people have the same ANCIENT ORIGINS.

The thing is, this is not the main issue, the main issue is your claims that every ancient civiliztion was black, something you haven't even made an attempt to prove, instead you insist on going on these tangents in order to lose the obvious fact that you clearly weren't doing 'extensive research'.

I listed this site for the picture. Secondly you talk about confusing the works of Carelton S. Coon. The facts are there for those with eyes to see.

Carleton S. Coon?s ideas are accurate but out of date, I said that earlier, I provide even better Genetic proof refuting your baseless claims.

You picked the exaggerations out of his statement to try to prove everything wrong and form an argument against me.

How the hell did I exaggerate? I requoted your quote, you used it as proof remember?

I can?t believe this, now you?re using your own proof against me! How the hell could I have exaggerated that any further, it was a ridiculous quote from some moronic racist ? and you were the guy who introduced it into our discussion as proof!

You alwasy seem to argue the obviosly irrelevant part of discussions.

How on Earth is that? I was arguing against your so called ?proof?, but it seems you?ve just done that yourself.

You did not prove to me that they were (purely) Caucasiod at all. You showed me some statues and some genetic information about MODERN peoples.

I gave you a simpletons refutation and then I gave a scientific refutation, I explained that about two posts back.

I?m not sure if you know this Anwar, but I was presenting scientific proof not links to forums or pictures. Please show me genetic information, you won?t because I?ve just presented it and I doubt you?ll find any University on this planet that has found anything otherwise, have a look at the Druze again, they?ve been living in the Lebanese mountains unmixing, look how African they are, there?s my proof.

My point was that the original inhabitants of these lands were BLACKS, of all the different subgroups of blacks (Australoid, Bantu Negroid, Capoid etc.)

This is not what you meant but let?s go along with your cowering and say this is what you meant, you?re still wrong, the Harappans were never Australoid, the Sumerians were never Bantu Negroid or Capoid.

I'll deal with the rest of this post later.

Well perhaps the last ditch attempt to talk some sense into you would be to email a top Anthropologist at a University (you know a place where people scientifically find the truth as opposed to reading up on Afrocentric websites and forums) and I?m going to get a statement from them refuting your racist claims.

Regards,

Al-Quraishi

[Angel]

Calm down guys,

And please end the name calling, ya beginning to sound like a couple of immature kids in a playground. -X

Al-Quraishi, just curious, do you believe in evolution? confused

peace

[Al-Quraishi]

Hmmm good question, erm I suppose a lot of it makes sense in a way.

I've read a bit of Harun Yahya's Evolution of Deceipt and was not impressed by certain conclusions that were being made - Darwinism is the cause of terrorism?

It seemed he wasn't tackling Evolution fairly, he should have dealt with evolution on it's own grounds when what I read was an attempt to promote Islam - far be it for me as a Muslim to criticise such attempts but he should have dealt with evolution only - in the Islamic promotion I saw a mistranslated verse and then saw the far fethced links being made with Darwinism and Terrorism and that how 'All societies who fight, are wittingly or unwittingly bowing to darwinism' The first thing that struck me was that the Prophet Muhammad's Medinan Society must have been Unwittingly Darwinist!

To be honest, I am not in the position to say Evolution is right or wrong, I simply don't have the necessary facts or understanding as I feel I haven't taken the time out to really look at the issue. I haven't even read EoD completely so I cannot completely promote or denounce it.

I prefer to stay on the fence however I am inclined to trust Scientists more than creationists due to my own background and experiences with both groups.

An argument in EoD said that all evolutionary scientists esp. Secular were biased whereas in my opinion it's more likely creationists are biased as they initially have a belief and then attempt to rationalise it whereas a secular scientist wouldn't have the same subjective state of mind.

There are a few questions I have regarding evolution that I have not asked experts, I'm inclined to believe that these queries can be explained by such people.

I suppose on a religious side I do not believe it effects me at all, if Evolution were true certain verses of the Qur'an can definitely be interpreted in a certain way (as they are by those who support evolution) and the same applies with creationism - either way if evolution or creationism were true I would still belive they're from God.

What about you?

[progod]

Angel,

That comment was unwarranted and not funny.

Al-Quraishy. You seem to just be against what Im saying at all cost. It's not the first time you've just been blatantly against anything I've told you however. That old saying that if you argue with a fool he will scorn the wisdom of your words is definitely at play here (That saying is actually from the Bible . . .oops I think I said a bad word & ). And yes I am now implying what you think I'm implying. Again for anyone who wants to know just look at these links. It is not the sources of the links that matter (sources that are unwarrantedly demonized by Al-Quranyshi as blatantly racist when he shows his ignorance of who is racist by called the blank pathers a black supremacist group. Now that is ridiculous!). What matters is what you can see with your own eyes. Genetic evidence is subject to alot of bias and is not as scientific as is always thought. Things are hidden or covered up because they don't go along with the interests of the person who pays for those studies. So again anyone who is willing to see the truth can easily see it. I will continue to post relevant posts or sites for those who are interested. I went to a leading University and witnesses first hand the blatant biases that can be interjected into "science" by scientist. Denying the blackness of these people and their connection to other blacks is nothing but back-peddling and cover up.

Al-Qurayshi would call me a racist because I quoted an overly defensive Black Arab of the 8th century. But for anyone who can read between the lines that quote says a whole lot more than his obviously overly zealous afrocentric value statments. But that is for those who can read between the lines (the true meaning of the word intelligent). The pictures that I've shown speak more than all the opposing words of Al-Quraishi could ever prove.

All i have to say is look at the pictures and study the phenotypes of mulatoes and it will all become clear to you. Al-Quraishi accuses me of being an Afro-centrist which I definitely refuse to be, as being Afro-centrist is just as bad as being Euro-centrist. However, he is anti-black and would rather deny the truth that the eyes can see by trying to create confusion through genetic talk that would seem to distingush these separate BLACK groups as completely different races (by siting some narrow genetic findings), but they are still black and again those pictures don't lie. Even Herodotus and other ancient greek historians spoke about the black people who like Ethiopians were all over the world in ancient times, they were the people of Egypt and even had colonies in greece. If Al-Qurayshi had read those article at backintyme.com the genetic outcome of Negroid-Caucasiod mixtures and the proportion of those mixtures would have answered the genetic "contradictions" he finds in my argument, even with the narrow genetic data he gave me. But I didn't expect him to generally read through this, just a quick glance and he had his mind made because of the messenger, not the message.

Look at them again. The Mahra/Mehri, the Daleets, and the Pygimies (The biggest proof of them all that you will notice Al-Qurayshi didn't touch). You would only find these pictures on Afro-centric sites as only Afro-centrists are interested in other BLACK people around the world. People like Qurayshi would hide their existence from you and are apart of the people out there trying to diminish the importance of these BLACK peoples in ancient history. And how the people of Southeat Asia, North Africa, Southwest Asia and Southern European are an the outcome of mixing of these Blacks withe Caucasiod peoples and Mongoloid peoples (Mongoloid sounds so wrong I wish there were another term for this).

Qurayshi whatever you say now is mute. Maybe the unintelligent will fall for your accusing style, word play and finger pointing but the intelligent never will.

By the way what is your background if I may ask? If you deny to tell me that will tell me alot on its own.

And what do the druzes have to do with anything. From what I know they are apart of the same Caucasian tribes that migrated down THOUSANDS of years ago. They also look like the rest of the people around them. These blacks in India, Arabia and south asia are isolated remnans of who used to be the main people in this area. Most of them mixed in.

Compare it to the fairly recent Afro-European mixture of Latin America and it all makes sense. Like I said I will continue to post relevant post for the intelligent.

Godbless,
Anwar

[Al-Quraishi]

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

1. having good understanding or a high mental capacity; quick to comprehend, as persons or animals an intelligent student.
2. displaying or characterized by quickness of understanding, sound thought, or good judgment an intelligent reply.
3. having the faculty of reasoning and understanding; possessing intelligence intelligent beings in outer space.
4. 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. .
5. 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.

[Zahrahabibi]

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]

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

[Al-Quraishi]

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?

[unknownuser]

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.

[Angel]

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

[savage_carrot]

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!

[Al-Quraishi]

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

[progod]

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.html

Peace, my next posts will be posts showing the phenotypes of recent Mulatoes (usually Congoid and Euro-Caucasian)

Godbless,
Anwar

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."

[Al-Quraishi]

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?

[progod]

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

[progod]

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

[Al-Quraishi]

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.

[progod]

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