Why do whites continuosly justify superiority?

[Minstrel]

France conquered almost all Europe when Europe was all there was to conquer.

I do not doubt napoleans military skill, its just its rather pointless to conquer all of that territory only to loose it rather quickly. Napoleon should have read "The art of war", there is to war than just sheer military prowess.

[Adrian]

Minstrel said:

Why, is there a secret formula to history that only you and a select few others know? Enlighten me as to "why people write and study history". That has to be one of the stupidest statements I've heard so far.

)))

You wrote that whites write history books and make historical movies to justify superiority. ))

To justify superiority to what people? You think you are of any importance?

But I can see that some people write comic history books and make funny movies trying to fool themselves that they played any role on the first stage of history.

For example the hallmark movie "Jason and the Argonauts". Orpheus as played by Adrian Lester who is btw a good actor but Orpheus was a mythical hero from Thrace, N of Greece.

It is very funny to imagine blacks on Jason expedition. The final point of expedition was just across the sea in modern day Georgia and at that time it was an unprecedented adventure to the end of the world who was told for countless generation, the Greeks at that time probably never sow any ss African and ss Africa was something that they even didn't knew it existed.

Hollywood historical movies are full of this kind of examples: Spartacus, The Gladiator, Robin Hood etc

Not to mention a discovery documentary about the spear of Jesus in witch saint Maurice was played by an ss African. First it is very probable that saint Maurice didn't really existed but anyway even if he is a true historical figure it is told that he was a roman officer from Thebes Egypt does this make him black as long as is no description or proof of his existence from contemporaneous sources.

It is very clear that you have no idea why people should study history. Real history.

Please prove me wrong.

Another funny thing: "white history", black history"... Very funny.

Sorry for my English it's not so easy to express myself as it is for you.

And Napoleon was one of if not the gratest general in history. But if i say he was just the greatest general i don't do to him any justice.

He sold Luisiana to USA, so what? At least England never got it what would probably had happened after his first abdication.

Again sorry for my grammar ;D

[Minstrel]

It is very clear that you have no idea why people should study history. Real history

Again, what are you trying to say?

The final point of expedition was just across the sea in modern day Georgia and at that time it was an unprecedented adventure to the end of the world who was told for countless generation, the Greeks at that time probably never sow any ss African and ss Africa was something that they even didn't knew it existed.

"it is undoubtedly a fact that the Colchians are of Egyptian descent. I noticed this myself before I heard anyone else mention it ... My own idea on the subject was based first on the fact that they have black skins and woolly hair... and secondly, and more especially, on the fact that the Colchians, the Egyptians and the Ethiopians (black africans) are the only races which from ancient times have practiced circumcision."

-Greek historian Herodotus

The greeks did know of ss africans, in fact, you jason and the argonauts story is where he made his comments on the colchians.

[mike2]

All that means is that the Colchians weren't anymore Negroid than the Egyptians. You have to put color terms in context or you will end up thinking ridiculous things that have been turned into Nordicist or Afrocentric propaganda. This is exactly the type of thing that has happened with the blond Aryan invasion of India "evidence."

In order to make sense to the ears of the present era, the passage should be translated "dark-skinned and woolly haired" or "dark-skinned and very curly-haired" or something to that effect. The Egyptians and Colchians could have been part Negroid, I don't know. But they certainly didn't look like Herodotus's Ethiopians.

[Crimson Guard]

Firstly Minstrel , your using a mis-quote or altering some words, of Herodotus's passage .

Secondly the Colchian's where Georgians and in no way negroid,not even close.

Mike the "Dark Skinned" and "Curly haired" is in fact the correct version.They where a Eastern meditterrean people.

[alexandrian]

Exactly, Herodotus never associated the appearance of egyptians or Colchians with that of Ethiopians in his description. Later on, he goes on to say that EThiopians had the wooliest hair of all men, meaning Colchians and Egyptians had hair less wooly. Furthermore, I think this quote rather justifies the Caucasian nature of Egyptians, unless you're willing to believe that a Negroid tribe lived in Caucasia. Furthermore, black-skinned held various definitons. At times, Turks and Jews were referred to as "black" by Euorpeans- clearly they were not. Usually, SSAs were referred to as being "purple-faced" or "purple-skinned". The Colchians were certainly not Negroid.

[Minstrel]

Firstly Minstrel , your using a mis-quote or altering some words, of Herodotus's passage .

Secondly the Colchian's where Georgians and in no way negroid,not even close.

Whether or not the colchians were "negroid" is irrelevant, and it was'nt the reason I posted that quote. I merely brought it up to show that the greeks had knowledge of SSA's.

Exactly, Herodotus never associated the appearance of egyptians or Colchians with that of Ethiopians in his description

Lol not you again, popping out of the woodwork with your refutations of anyone challenging or questioning status-quo egypt, and then moving back into the woodwork from whence you came. Jeez give it a rest.

[mike2]

Well, of course the Greeks had knowledge of sub-Saharan Africans. They knew of the Western Ethiopians (Meroites) and surely heard tales of pygmies. But they had no knowledge of West Africans.

[amksa]

Minstrel said:

With name like "Amska" Im not sure what your trying to say. Resorting to personal attacks huh? A rather low-blow I would say. I never said they "twist" history, just mis-represent it. I said history should reflect all of history, not just mainly a single geographical area. If thats what you want, dont call it "history" call it european studies. Pay attention "Amska".

Also its not so much "white americans", the masses don't write history books, a class of scholars called "historians" do.

Now where is the "market" for such "multicultural" books. They are not "multicultural", its history, like anything else. People are probably tired of european history, because they only read about it, similar to this guy www.farlops.com/games/allohistory.html (who is white, and probably american) it will be refreshing to hear about somebody elses history.

such name like Amksa are real African name, pay attention to what the real African tells you, and respect yourself first.
in my view, if you want to read something about real History, you had to learn French, because it's one of the rarest languange in which you could find proper materials.
i can tell you that this discipline is all about method and you have to examine constantly your sources of information, you have to do your own researchs : there isn't such thing like an elite group or class of historians, ministrelle... there is just a method.
i don't know what is multicultural history, there is just History.

[Adrian]

Mike said:

Well, of course the Greeks had knowledge of sub-Saharan Africans. They knew of the Western Ethiopians (Meroites) and surely heard tales of pygmies. But they had no knowledge of West Africans.

Hard to say about the knowledge of the Greeks who lived in the Jason time, after all between Jason and Herodotus is about 1000 years probably.