Afro
Full Member
Posts: 248
|
Post by Afro on Jun 6, 2004 16:19:25 GMT -5
Sure, but nobody can erase or alter ALL traces of real history. If there were large numbers of Negroids from ancient times in Europe or Egypt, somebody would have found them. It's not like there are groups of black archaeologists doing any researches on the spot anywhere... that leads me to the conclusion that the heads of afrocentrist thought KNOW that they're bullshitting. If their or nordicist preaches weren't bullshit, at least, they'd finance some real archaeological excavations, not just bookworming.
I personally don't think that Egypt was a SSAfrican majority population civilization, I do however believe that there very well was probably a (possibly significant) black population living there. At least as slaves or merchants or something, I've also heard that Egypt probably started more South of Africa then where Egypt is today, this leads me to believe that maybe some of the earlier pharoahs could have possibly been SSAfricans and maybe SSAfricans had alot to do with the BEGINNING of its civilization.
I don't find any of this afro centric, I believe that a majority of Egypt and its pharoahs were caucasian. A big majority at that.
I bet that Afrocentrists and Nordicist pseudo-historians made much of their texts with the help of google, entering the words BLONDE or BLACK and GREEK or EGYPTIAN.
I agree, alot of there stuff is silly.
I think Ethiopids are a separate race, not a mixture.
Lots of people try to show Ethiopians as this caucasian/Negro mix.
I doubt that. The statues' face surface would then appear much 'younger' than the rest of the body. An independent laboratory could do the testing.
Also, any sculptor can tell you about how much material it is needed to chisel a figure or especially a head. I think that Negroid heads are much smaller than those of caucasoids, and the proportions are different. Negroids have much longer limbs, while Mongoloids have shorter and even larger heads. Any Greek or Roman sculpture is proportioned like Caucasoids, not any other race.
Well when I brought this up it was really just one of those folklore/rumored things, but I do think that there was cases of whitening history. Maybe not chizzling sculpures, but definitely written in history. Lots of stuff in our history books are just first hand accounts from some "unbiased" European conqueror.
I was talking about those face sculptures though BTW, you know the ones that just show the neck up?
Arthur Kemp already said this. He doesn't count.
Isn't Arthur Kemp that black South African Nordicist??? Or am I thinking of someone else??? Whats his story anyways??? Do people really believe this guy???
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 6, 2004 16:43:17 GMT -5
Awar, I thought this thread was a negro mind wank. Not a serious discussion. The admixture in East Africans took place long before there was any a Middle East containing semitic speaking people that is in the Prehistoric. Looking for markers of existing modern Middle Eastern people in existing modern East Africans is stupid. What do those f*ckers have to do with the prehistoric folks who contributed their genes to ancient East Africans. These ancient folks could have wandered off to Manchuria. What on earth makes you think they lingered in the Middle East or that they contributed any genes to the present population of Arabia? There are lots of stupid assumptions there. Not very logical and the basis of the study is flawed because of it. Trust that rootless, illegimate humanoid to bring it up trying to prove yet another crock theory of his. I posted genetic studies to affirm my position and as usual you spend your stupid ass time attacking me and Afrocentrism but not the data. If the admixture in east Africans happened long before Semitic speaking peoples were there why assume the mixture to be Caucasoid? The earliest west asians and South Arabians certainly were not caucasoid looking people so why call it caucasoid mixture? Do you have any proof of this admixture anyway or are you just talking out of your ass as usual propsing theories when you have no proof in your ad-hominem war against Afrocentrism AWAR cccould agree all he wants, but as he admitted he knows virtually nothing about east Africans or Ethiopian DNA. It says alot about him to agree with a troll like you who never posts any studies to prove anything.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 6, 2004 16:55:17 GMT -5
I agree totally. Instead of accepting their own unique culture which developed in the US, many black Americans feel the need to identify with Africans from Africa with which they have very little in common other than skin colour. What is even worse, bordering on insanity, is when black American "scholars" attempt to paint mostly caucasian North African civilizations as being the product of black African "genius".. I think you have that the other way around for it is white Americans who do that, praising Greeks, romans, etc. It is white people calling NA Caucasian and acting as if North Africa is some extension of Europe or west asia, not afrocentrsist doing the opposite. I swear its the same shit with some of you in here, get into a debate you can't win and you start attacking Afrocentrism and start saying shit about what african-Americans should take pride in, it was europeans who distorted our history so why should I listen to a European or European descended person talking as if they know about African-americans based on the stupidity of a handful of Afrocentrists. If you can't say anything relevant to the topic, don't comment, this thread isn't Afrocentrsim and what African-americans should take pride in and embrace, especially from people who don't know or have not spent any time around around African Americans. Culturally, Afro-Americans are basically a variant of the North American Anglo-Saxon culture, which incidentally also has a white branch known as the "WASPS" but which in reality includes people of various (mostly northern) European ethnic origins, often mixed in varying proportions. Many of the latter also have a very distorted view of the cultural diversity which exists in Europe. They think that because people in Europe look like them Europe is basically the same as the USAYeah, the Nordicists and afrocentrists are messed up, but the Meds are always right, more bs.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jun 6, 2004 16:59:10 GMT -5
It is white people calling NA Caucasian and acting as if North Africa is some extension of Europe or west asia, Said - who's ancestors have been in Africa longer - yours, or Igu's?
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 6, 2004 17:04:26 GMT -5
In fact, there exists some historical continuity between the Portuguese African slave trade which commenced in the 1400s and the trans-Saharan Arab slave trade, with which the Portuguese (and other Iberians) had contact with since the days of Moorish domination. This lucrative trade, dominated by the Arabs, was one of the factors which originally lured the Portuguese to explore the African coast. Therefore, the Islamic/Arabic culture which these guys so admire was one of the causes of their eventual enslavement by Europeans. no you have it wrong and this is nothing more than mudslinging Arabs and Moslems to detract from the fact that the Portuguese were some of the biggest enslavers of Africans, hell most of Europe was. Shit, blacks shouldn't be Christians either, we should have no religion using your logic. Arabs and Muslims were not enslavers of African-Americans and blacks in the Carribbean and South America. And black Americans do NOT have some romanticized view of Islam, oh ye of little knowledge about black Americans, most are Christains not Muslims. African americans that are Moslems form a minority among African americans, that shows how much you and AWAR know about African Americans. i swee the debate tactics here on dodo-dona, this thrwead was about Ethiopids, not the bs we're discussing here. Its funny how a stupid troll with an ad-hominem attack on my original post and no studies to back them up can destroy a thread.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 6, 2004 17:05:23 GMT -5
Said - who's ancestors have been in Africa longer - yours, or Igu's? i have recent my parents are African. I don't know Igu's ancestry.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jun 6, 2004 17:13:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 6, 2004 17:17:07 GMT -5
It doesn't matter anymore on this board, f*ck dodona, it was a waste of time posting here. Anytime trolls can sidetrack the point of the original post with ad-hominem attacks on something irrelevant to the discussing, its not worth my time going through the trouble of referncing material to post. I'm ending my account here. this is my last post.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Jun 6, 2004 17:55:20 GMT -5
He will be missed. Amen.
;D
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jun 6, 2004 18:10:14 GMT -5
He will be missed. Amen. ;D Don't speak too soon.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 6, 2004 18:13:59 GMT -5
He will be missed. Amen. ;D I thought about leaving, but the more I think about it, you and graeme look stupid. You know nothing about Africa or East Africans, but you agree with a troll who is equally as ignorant about Africa as you are. I'm dealing with a portuguese whinner who feels a need to generalized about black people because a few Afrocentrists misrepresented the history of his country, so now he ad-hominem attacks Afrocentrism without providing facts aginst specific points. Sounds more like a disfunctional family I'm debating than knowledgeable people. ;D
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Jun 6, 2004 18:23:44 GMT -5
Well when I brought this up it was really just one of those folklore/rumored things, but I do think that there was cases of whitening history. Maybe not chizzling sculpures, but definitely written in history. Even the heads of the Negroids or Mongoloids have different features and proportions compared to Caucasoids. I don't see how a sculptor could chisel around an ancient sculpture and change these features: Negroids have low-rooted, wide noses. Most ancient sculptures have high-rooted caucasoid noses, that can't be altered with reduction of material, just with adding. So, to make a Negroid nose into a Caucasoid, one would have to add some material in the root of the nose, and remove some from the width ( nostrils ). Nobody can add more stone onto a stone sculpture. Negroids are strongly dolichocephalic. Long and narrow-headed with totally different, smaller foreheads. This means that ,again, a sculptor who messes around with an ancient sculpture would have to ADD more material, which is impossible. This also goes for the chins of every sculpture, since Negroid chins are less pronounced, which again brings us to adding more material. Chiseling wouldn't work. Even a very elaborate reconstruction wouldn't work without adding more material.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Jun 6, 2004 18:34:58 GMT -5
I thought about leaving, but the more I think about it, you and graeme look stupid. You know nothing about Africa or East Africans, but you agree with a troll who is equally as ignorant about Africa as you are. I'm dealing with a portuguese whinner who feels a need to generalized about black people because a few Afrocentrists misrepresented the history of his country, so now he ad-hominem attacks Afrocentrism without providing facts aginst specific points. Sounds more like a disfunctional family I'm debating than knowledgeable people. ;D You're a drama queen, dude Anyway, we put 'fun' in dysfunctional here ;D
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 6, 2004 18:46:27 GMT -5
Let's see what Said will say about this. What should I say about it? African-Americans know they have some white ancestry, but unlike southern Europeans who try to deny any non-white ancestry, they don't waste their time trying to deny whatever little non-black ancestry and engage in simplistic "He's a Nordicist" ad-hominem. They accept the fact they have white ancestry despite the legacy of how they acquired it. You know, in fact there is evidence of Negroids in Egypt and in fact I even quote a well known peer-reviewed anthropologist(Shomarka Keita) on this. Even Mary Leftokowitz quoted him so what are you talking about? Once again you show your ignorance, put up or shut up, its not about Nordicism and Afrocentrism vs Meds, thats the simplistic way of thinking. Because someone says Negroids figured prominentally in Ancient Egypt doesn't make that person pro-Afrocentric or anti-white/Eurocentric, your thinking is just as simplistic as those morons on stormfront who use the same logic. Yeah, more of the same "us against the Nordicists and Afrocentrists" mumbo jumbo. You sound paranoid. LOL, coming from the same person who said this: Well, I don't know mostly anything about Ethiopian DNA, so I wanted to see if someone else would contribute a good counter-argument. He really provided a great counter-argument Believe what you want but you have provided no proof for this. You make little sense and lack consistency. Bedouin and Indians look the fartherest thing somatically from Europeans and no one would mistake them for being the same race, at least most of the time, yet you want to say you THINK Ethiopians are a separate race, presumably from Negroids because they don't look as extreme as so-called "Congoids?" Yeah buddy, you know very little about Ethiopians and east Africans. I can post Copts who show noticeable Negroid traits, but Upper egyptians are the closest. In fact, the gurna population has a genetic profile similar to that of mixed Ethiopians. Anthropolgical evdience supports this in that Predynastic Upper egyptians were more similar to Nubians, Beja, and populations of the Horn of Africa. You can cry Afrocentrism all you want, but this evidence is irrefutable.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 6, 2004 18:48:50 GMT -5
You're a drama queen, dude Anyway, we put 'fun' in dysfunctional here ;D ::)On the contrary, your stooge Graeme is a drama queen, look at his response to my original post to Afro and all of his responses to me.
|
|