|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 4, 2010 7:31:37 GMT -5
Never seen these vids before so I am intrigued..wonder what ol Mike would say??.. ;D
Last video is very interesting hunter gathers building cities..
|
|
|
|
Post by truth on Apr 4, 2010 11:16:11 GMT -5
No one denies this. I think the problem is when Afrocentrists attempt to use their trojan horse to anchor their [pseudo] claim on to the history of the various continents where civilizations arose.
The dark phoenotype is without doubt and without disputation, the aboriginal phoenotype of humanity. However, it is not the indigenous phoenotype of the various great ancient civilizations.
This is where Afrocentrists drop the ball (by design? you bet ya!). They indirectly suggest that the Negro is the originator of civilization of those same continents. By the time civilization came on the scene, there was no Negro precense in those areas. Natural selection took care of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 4, 2010 11:32:45 GMT -5
No one denies this. I think the problem is when Afrocentrists attempt to use their trojan horse to anchor their [pseudo] claim on to the history of the various continents where civilizations arose. The dark phoenotype is without doubt and without disputation, the aboriginal phoenotype of humanity. However, it is not the indigenous phoenotype of the various great ancient civilizations. This is where Afrocentrists drop the ball (by design? you bet ya!). They indirectly suggest that the Negro is the originator of civilization of those same continents. By the time civilization came on the scene, there was no Negro precense in those areas. Natural selection took care of that. Well I'll let you define who or what is a Negro..but I do know what a black person is..and Black people is still to be found all over the globe..now if you want to specify later African contributions independent of first OOA migrations then there is the question of European first farmers..but that will have to wait as I am logging off for the nite..un-less some one wants to pick-up the slack. |
|
|
|
Post by truth on Apr 4, 2010 12:48:17 GMT -5
Is an east indian Black? Let's tread a little... The following is a photo of an indigenous east Indian -  Afrocentrists will use her dark skin as a trojan horse to lay claim to her history. Is she "Black?" No. Is she dark skin? Yes. This is the kind of game that is being played by Afrocentrists. The term "Black" denotes a SPECIFIC people. It is a social term, not a biological one. All Black people are dark (relative) but not all dark people are "Black" (absolute). Do you understand this concept? |
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 4, 2010 23:15:54 GMT -5
Is an east indian Black? Let's tread a little... The following is a photo of an indigenous east Indian - Afrocentrists will use her dark skin as a trojan horse to lay claim to her history. Is she "Black?" No. Is she dark skin? Yes. This is the kind of game that is being played by Afrocentrists. The term "Black" denotes a SPECIFIC people. It is a social term, not a biological one. All Black people are dark (relative) but not all dark people are "Black" (absolute). Do you understand this concept? Well Yes especially if she described her self as such as matter o fact she has the same shade o black as yours truly.   All of the above is to be found in India and the Island south of India. Marco PoloIn 1288 and again in 1293 the Venetian traveler Marco Polo visited the Pandyan kingdom and left a vivid description of the land and its people. Polo exclaimed that: "The darkest man is here the most highly esteemed and considered better than the others who are not so dark. Let me add that in very truth these people portray and depict their gods and their idols black and their devils white as snow. For they say that God and all the saints are black and the devils are all white. That is why they portray them as I have described. www.msresa.com/history.htmNow tell me where do you want to draw the line And you keep going on about Afro-centrist... Afrocentrism by definition care about Africa and it's influence but you are too lazy to look past your own selective definitions and note the various opinions and out look within the so-called Afrocentric community Now tell me where do youwant to draw the line ThailandThailand has an extremely ancient but little known Black population. They are the forest dwelling people called Sekai, sometimes identified by the controversial term– "Negritos". These Black folks live in southern Thailand in the region straddling the border with northern Malaysia. |
|
|
|
Post by truth on Apr 4, 2010 23:42:52 GMT -5
^I have said enough. You can continue to live in that fantasy world in which all dark peoples share the Negro heritage. But I can guarantee you this, these people do not share your sentiment and will be frank about it if asked. Try it out, go ask an indian if they're Black and watch your reality get shattered (I doubt you are ready for that).
|
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 5, 2010 3:38:39 GMT -5
^I have said enough. You can continue to live in that fantasy world in which all dark peoples share the Negro heritage. But I can guarantee you this, these people do not share your sentiment and will be frank about it if asked. Try it out, go ask an indian if they're Black and watch your reality get shattered (I doubt you are ready for that). Again what... "NEGRO"..I said Black...Negro is your strawman not mine. Some Indians and other dark-Asians self-describes as blacks others do not..it is a social term for some,others is just a description of skin color. But it is the cultural and technological aspect that is the most surprising to me..for one I had always assumed that we were more technologically advanced than the Neanderthals that video series turned all that on it's head..It was our communication that was the determining fact in our edging out the Neanderthals not our weapons and most definitely not our physique. It also confirmed that white skinned began to develop 25kyrs ago..so no big surprise there and finally hunters gathers sometimes build huge temples..without being farmers. |
|
|
|
Post by truth on Apr 5, 2010 11:25:13 GMT -5
" Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro," or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian." Retrieved from: quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68178.htmYou just keep kiddin yourself  ^I have said enough. You can continue to live in that fantasy world in which all dark peoples share the Negro heritage. But I can guarantee you this, these people do not share your sentiment and will be frank about it if asked. Try it out, go ask an indian if they're Black and watch your reality get shattered (I doubt you are ready for that). Again what... "NEGRO"..I said Black...Negro is your strawman not mine. Some Indians and other dark-Asians self-describes as blacks others do not..it is a social term for some,others is just a description of skin color. But it is the cultural and technological aspect that is the most surprising to me..for one I had always assumed that we were more technologically advanced than the Neanderthals that video series turned all that on it's head..It was our communication that was the determining fact in our edging out the Neanderthals not our weapons and most definitely not our physique. It also confirmed that white skinned began to develop 25kyrs ago..so no big surprise there and finally hunters gathers sometimes build huge temples..without being farmers. |
|
|
|
Post by sttigray on Apr 10, 2010 22:57:26 GMT -5
@ truth
I would find it less than pathetic to find myself devoting considerable amounts of my time denigrating a race of people. I have no idea what would convince me to stoop to such levels, Truth while I agree with 10% of your premise, have you ever stopped to ask yourself, "what is it that is causes me to devote so much time in my attempt to make a people feel less than they are" The most ironic thing about your position is that men like you set even the most apathetic of us in motion, it is men like you that motivate us to greater perseverance. If you look into your own history you will find when Western Europeans were in much the same boat that Africans find themselves in today. What you will find, in spirit among your own people at that time is us staring back at you. Hint.....Rome(that is but one example of your people being in the shoes that we are in today)
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 14, 2010 7:26:53 GMT -5
Finally got the time to watch all six parts. . . plus.
Seems like these Europeans producers don't kid themselves. They seem less racial compared to National geographic. I can't see NG producing a piece like this.
Really informative for those seeking knowledge.
I like how she touched on Neanderthals and how some speculate that they are part European ancestry then in the next sentence dismissed it by saying the genetic data doesn't support that premise.
Also she sort of dismissed Jablonski's premise about agriculture and the impact on the skin turning white.
She did conceded that need for de-pigmenting at such latitudes and also spent some time on cave dwelling of Europeans during the ice age.
Note she also pointed out humans could of survisvd during the ice age in many parts of Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on May 7, 2010 21:50:30 GMT -5
This video is about the original Europeans
|
|
|
|
Post by scv on Sept 1, 2010 8:52:53 GMT -5
The first Europeans were descendants of Bushmen related people who migrated out of Africa thousands of years ago, descendants of the Eurasian Adam(M168), who was related to Bushmen.  |
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Nov 7, 2010 19:42:19 GMT -5
No one denies this. I think the problem is when Afrocentrists attempt to use their trojan horse to anchor their [pseudo] claim on to the history of the various continents where civilizations arose. The dark phoenotype is without doubt and without disputation, the aboriginal phoenotype of humanity. However, it is not the indigenous phoenotype of the various great ancient civilizations. This is where Afrocentrists drop the ball (by design? you bet ya!). They indirectly suggest that the Negro is the originator of civilization of those same continents. By the time civilization came on the scene, there was no Negro precense in those areas. Natural selection took care of that. Pray tell who are these "Afrocentrists" that claim "the Negro" to be originator of civilization on all continents? Diop? Asante? Van Sertima? Who? Can you define "the NEgro"? Your dictionary definition given was of African Amerians. How come you have not yet defined "the negro"? Please define the term and reference the works of these reputed "Afrocentrists" that specifically support your claim re "the negro". In addition, you claim that the "dark phoenotype is without doubt and
without disputation, the aboriginal phoenotype of humanity. However, it is
not the indigenous phoenotype of the various great ancient civilizations."Oh really? How then do you explain the genesis of Egyptian civilization by the tropically adapted peoples from the Sahara and south of it, who settled the Nile Valley, and the ushering in of the dynastic era by peoples from the tropical zone, the south of Egypt? Under your claim, this should be "impossible." How do you explain the mainstream scholars that clearly show this as noted below: "There is now a sufficient body of
evidence from modern studies of skeletal
remains to indicate that the ancient
Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians,
exhibited physical characteristics that are
within the range of variation for ancient
and modern indigenous peoples of the
Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general,
the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and
Nubia had the greatest biological affinity
to people of the Sahara and more
southerly areas."(Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332) Please elucidate.. ....   www.zhs41.net/historyafrican/quotes.htm |
|
