|
Post by snakepit on Jul 8, 2015 23:19:59 GMT -5
So you reject evidence out of hand simply because you don't like it? genetics is not enough it's a Marxist ploy?that Asia is a larger land mass than Africa and could make a better point of origin for the birth place of man,that could be true but it's not!, that's not where we find early primates and their branches to become human. The multi genesis theory on "races" that's the myth it has nothing to do with liberal progressive or conservative. And how would you know what the OOA's looked like or don't,seemed to me again you are in favor the now debunked multi genesis theory and giving Africa the wrong kind of historical importance so you are saying that Africa as geographical area and a political construct is being given historical importance because???..look man it took decade to unmasked the lie that Eurasia is the birth place of mankind simply because race based loons couldn't accept the fact that Africa could be their original homeland or cradle and they are in anyway related to those who remained on that land mass, remember the pathic attempt of Pelt Down Man. Piltdown gang' painting by John Cooke, 1915, showing a famous gathering of men who studied the Piltdown skull. © Geological Society of LondonlinkSee that's what scientist had to go back and correct, that^^ was the fraud and others that followed in it's wake for 40yrs. 1.)Whether the origins of man is polygenic or monogenic, do you have absolute irrefutable proof separate biologically distinct races do not exist? Allow me to bring you up to speed! Nicholas Wade, and author of the book titled "A troublesome inheritance", has put the old trendy leftist myth, that biologically distinct races do not exist back on the table for discussion. I see you're one of the many who still hold this Medieval understanding about race. My question then being, do you know anything about race, or racial differences at all? I am certain if you did, you would not make so many silly statements. The idea that race is a social construction, and is not biological, rather it is something cultural determined is a breathtaking lie. Anthropology has been overrun with nutjobs and liberals, the same people who say gender is a social construction. "that Asia is a larger land mass than Africa and could make a better point of origin for the birth place of man,that could be true but it's not!, that's not where we find early primates and their branches to become human." Realize the OOA theory has undergone metamorphism in the last one hundred years, and theory itself has only been widely expected within the last few decades. Darwin was the joke of his age! Asia is actually the birth place of mankind, not Africa. Secondly, there is the another alternative theory called the Multiregional Theory, which is basically Polygenism. I repeat there is no proof that micro/macro evolution ever took place! The entire OOA theory is collapsed by the geological fossil record, which does not show transitions or slight modifications in various species ever occurring, and evolutionist continue to present the most childish arguments to suggest otherwise. Early primates? You mean those in complete skeletons which could be interrupted as anything? Richard Leaky(highest paid anthropologist in the world) who was critical of his discovery of the famous Lucy fragments, said that even Lucy was to incomplete to be considered the poster child of OOA theory. Also pay attention please! If the fossil record yields no evidence that humans, or, any other species had ever undergone gradual transition from one kind to another, then what makes you believe in this theory so strongly? Thirdly, you skipped right over the problem of irreducible complexity, the 1 & 2 law of Thermodynamics, and the law of entropy. When you're able to debunk all of that, then I may become a proselyte. What? Oh I see... Because the experts told you so. This is not scholarship, rather you are just blindly following the dogma of science. Again, simply provide evidence that the fossil record supports evolution, and I will believe you. If you can not provide, than you have nothing to substantiate your viewpoint. 2.) In response to your second statement, the OOA theory is merely popular, show me specifically something stating that MLTREG theory is debunked? Africa is given the wrong kind of historical importance because of OOA theory. Mainstream scholarship still denies Africa its actual historical importance, i.e., that historical importance being Khamitic or Hamitic civilizations being of Negroid origin. If Eurasia was the birth place of mankind, would that be a problem for you? Eurasia does not mean white, just like any Eurocentric could argue that OOA theory, and those who migrated out 150,000 ya were not black, merely dark skinned but not Negroid. The Luhya people of east Africa say they came from a land called Misri, that being Egypt, which sits in the north eastern corner of the continent. Meaning their oral traditions say nothing about coming from sub-Saharan Africa(including Ethiopia), which they migrated to later, rather they came from the north suggesting a likely origin in Eurasia. Now before you start calling me suspect, and perhaps think I am trying to claim Negroids as Caucasoids, that is absolutely not what I am doing. I am merely pointing out that OOA theory is as real as the tooth fairy, Easter bunny, and ol'Saint Nick. There is no fossil evidence that supports OOA theory, and incomplete skeletal remains are not sufficient enough proof. TRY HARDER! The amaZulu also say they came from the Nile Valley, both are bantu-speaking groups mind you. That however, doesn't indicate that they ultimately originated from outside of the continent. The Nile Valley was populated by African peoples from the south/south-east when the Sahara dried up, a place north of the Sahara (I can't remember what it's called) was the place that several ethnic groups in Central-Africa (again, bantu-speaking peoples) said they ultimately hailed from, i.e when the Sahara dried up, they migrated east, into Egypt, creating that civilization, and then migrated southwards (not in a single event though) . No ethnic group has oral-history going back to the emergence of Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens.
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Jul 9, 2015 7:12:14 GMT -5
I am at a loss as to where you got the idea that anyone here on this thread made any references to Caucasoid,Mongoloid, and Negroid, for the vast majority of posters here reject the very idea of races, this is old very old news to us here at ESR, I suggest you visit past threads on the issue.
Am gonna have to ask you to back that up with peer reviewed studies and links.
And Egypt lies partly within the tropics, the Luhya may or may not originated in Kmt , but what did the Kimities said about their own origins.
The above was directed at Truthteacher but allow me to chime in, you railed against the concept of discreet "Races" and here you are making references to hybrid human beings and their supposed weaknesses, which is it Hamiticpress are you a believer in race theories or not. And I am not going to ask you to try harder just try??
|
|
ⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ
Craftsperson
Posts: 38
|
Post by ⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ on Jul 9, 2015 17:14:58 GMT -5
I am at a loss as to where you got the idea that anyone here on this thread made any references to Caucasoid,Mongoloid, and Negroid, for the vast majority of posters here reject the very idea of races, this is old very old news to us here at ESR, I suggest you visit past threads on the issue. Am gonna have to ask you to back that up with peer reviewed studies and links. And Egypt lies partly within the tropics, the Luhya may or may not originated in Kmt , but what did the Kimities said about their own origins. The above was directed at Truthteacher but allow me to chime in, you railed against the concept of discreet "Races" and here you are making references to hybrid human beings and their supposed weaknesses, which is it Hamiticpress are you a believer in race theories or not. And I am not going to ask you to try harder just try?? I realize that there is a serious unwillingness to acknowledge distinct biological races exist by social scientist and laymen. However, you did not answer my original question(prove race does not exist?), just present irrefutable proof distinct racial groups and sub-types do not exist. You're rejections of race is merely a result of cognitive dissonance, not scientific facts or reality. That was the whole reason I mentioned Nicholas Wade who has the scientific community in an uproar. Wade has challenged social scientist(anthropologist) to reevaluate their understanding of race. Is race really a product of the cultural/social, or, does race have significant biological value. Genetic studies on mutations and epigenetics everyday is proving populations are more or less distinct than related. For example the old tired argument that Africa is the most genetically diverse continent when looking at local diversity. However, this is in comparison to what? Europe and east Asia?! Why is it that anthropologist never lump Eurasia, the northern Levant, central Asia, and western Asia together with Europe? The Caucasoid race peters out as you get closer to central India, Caucasian types are not merely confined to the continent of Europe, so how could Africa be considered the most diverse genetically, in comparison to Europe, when Europe is home only to specific variants of the Caucasoid type. The same could be said of east Asia, but consider Mongoloid variants also inhabit Alaska, north America, south America, and Oceania. The Mongoloid race actually be comparison to both the Negroid and Caucasoid race is much larger. This proves that Africa could not be the most genetically diverse place on earth. Mongoloid sub-types Now you expect me to believe these two variants of the Mongoloid race derived from Africans that left Africa 150,000 ya? Replacing of the populations of homo Erectus in different parts of the world, and underwent adaptation to acquire phenotypic traits above, even though the geological fossil record does not support OOA theory or Darwinian evolution. 2.) How can you ask me to back up an (out of Asia theory) with a peer reviewed study? The scientific community would not publish/release information contrary to (out of Africa theory), even if it was true! This is exactly what Charles Murray's point was, that everyone is still Ptolemaist while there is a serious need to become Copernicans. Charles Murray also made another exact point, that race being deemed a social construct is part of the aftermath of WWII, and the civil rights era. However, I could post numerous scientific articles which point out racial differences caused by mutations. This implies that races are by and large different and distinct not similar. Do I believe we share a common ancestor, well of course, but this does not mean all races are the same. That being said race is not something that can be done away with arbitrarily because it fixed. 3.) I am not a believer in race theory, race is reality, not theory. Hybrid populations, clines, do exist of course. However I addressing the post how stated that their was nothing wrong with interbreeding, but in reality it's the contrary. There are significant problems with interracial mixing, and hybrids inherit the weakness not the strengths of each parent. Physiologically speaking Caucasian phenotypic and Negroid phenotypic traits serve different purposes. I have a copy of Joseph Denikers book titled "The Races of Mankind", Deniker sets up a diagram looking at the differences of Negroid skin layers and Caucasoid skin layers, e.g., the superficial epidermis,Corium, Malphigi layer, Sebaceous gland size, erector pili muscle, hair follicle, melanin quantities within the skin. These traits all corresponding with environment in which an individual of a particular race lives. There simply has to be a reality to race and racial taxonomy because, the offspring of mix-race parentage displays physical defects, otherwise putting them(Hybrids) at a disadvantage physically in comparison to their purebred racial counterparts. Again, mankind needs remain heterogeneous, in order for diversity to remain. The differing human racial groups/types are merely distinct breeds, same with dogs, anybody who understands breeding knows in order to get the best pedigree of a species, their parents most be as pure as possible. Interbreeding weakens and waters down the qualities and unique characteristics of distinct breeds, this applies to humans, just as much as dogs
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Jul 9, 2015 19:52:57 GMT -5
Hamiticpress. Err not social scientist, biologist and bioanthropologist Wade Nicholas is the one guy that said differently, kinda like the seven scientist who claimed climate change does not exist. preponderance of evidence, I again invite you to visit threads here that dealt with the issue. Comparable to the rest of the globe that's what.And the term Eurasia includes northern Levant,central and western Asia. Why are white people called caucasians.skip the intro if needs be. Most of the features found elsewhere is to be found in Africa and amongst Africans,off-course such features are amenable and can change they are not set in stone, geneticist also back up the OOA origins of modern man. Except this type also exist in Asia. A black asiatic shaking hands with his lite skinned lank haired type with whom he shares closer genetic ties, the Black type also existed in the Americas. Race is arbitrary in some theory you can get as much as a dozen races, in others three, but again geneticist made a lie of all those theories. and as to my unanswered question where did the ancestors of the Kemetians said they came from according to their beliefs care to answer that?? You also referenced Charles Murray the man who beleive in Black genetic intellectual inferiority so I guess one is free to reference to Dr Frances Cress Welsing.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 10, 2015 19:05:57 GMT -5
The fact that all humans can mate with each other is proof that we all come from a common origin. If there were multiple origins this would not be possible. Gorillas can't mate with chimps and chimps can't mate with orangatangs yet they are all primates. Nature never violates its rules, so why would it make an exception for humans. If anyone has watched the series thus far they would see that it's the genetic record not the fossil record that is showing the true age of humanity and the fact that the origin of the species is indeed in Africa. A few years ago there was an anthropologist in China that was trying to argue that the Chinese were a distinct species and that they were unrelated to any other population and certainly not Africa. Well his argument got shot down when it was shown that Chinese did in fact have African markers. Laughable! Simply laughable! Certain species of animals have been able to produce an offspring. However, that offspring usually suffers from defects because of its mixture. This is no less true with racially hybrid human beings, the child always inherits both of the weakness, not the strengths of each race their made up. Sorry to shatter your interracial dreams! Caucasoid's, Mongoloid's, and Negroid's all have phenotypic traits which correspond with environment in which they inhabit. Genetic evidence is proving the exact opposite of you what you said. The distance in human populations is proven in their physical diversity, not necessarily they genetic closeness, and their physical diversity or phenotypic expression is passed on heredity. Simply demonstrate that humans are not categorized/ born into differing breeds(races). This proves that albeit different races by interbreeding can reproduce, those offspring are genetically and physically weaker. Again, simply prove me wrong! Race is continuum, human races are breeds, and they only produce their own breed. There are no populations on the face of the earth that can't reproduce and have descendants. Yes there are species that can't reproduce after one generation, but you will never find such a scenario in any human group. Neither is there any proof that mixing between populations causes any kind of inferiority. If such evidence does exist and it's in that Bell curve video then direct me to the exact time stamp, I don't have time to watch the whole thing. Considering that a significant percentage of Latin America and the Caribbean is admixed and the fact that they are some of the most robust people on the planet, I'd beg to differ. If that were the case Brazil would be full of cripples. If this is a cripple then we should all aspire to walk on crutches!
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Jul 10, 2015 22:42:51 GMT -5
Anansi, you might be wasting your time kicking knowledge to this hamiticpress dude. He's suspect. He criticizes the OOA origin of humans with polemics and nothing scientific. But on top of that his avatar is that uncle tom character from the movie Django, lol. I knew he was up to something from the moment I saw that avatar. You peeped that too hugh? Just don't get some people. Yup, and he's now changed the avatar after I've called him out on it. What a lame troll.
|
|
|
Post by snakepit on Jul 11, 2015 0:16:39 GMT -5
Hamiticpress, there's no such thing as different human races. Africans came first, they've been here longer than any other "race" COMBINED. Period. Other races are just subsets, or subspecies if you will, of African people.
|
|
|
Post by snakepit on Jul 11, 2015 0:23:58 GMT -5
Laughable! Simply laughable! Certain species of animals have been able to produce an offspring. However, that offspring usually suffers from defects because of its mixture. This is no less true with racially hybrid human beings, the child always inherits both of the weakness, not the strengths of each race their made up. Sorry to shatter your interracial dreams! Caucasoid's, Mongoloid's, and Negroid's all have phenotypic traits which correspond with environment in which they inhabit. Genetic evidence is proving the exact opposite of you what you said. The distance in human populations is proven in their physical diversity, not necessarily they genetic closeness, and their physical diversity or phenotypic expression is passed on heredity. Simply demonstrate that humans are not categorized/ born into differing breeds(races). This proves that albeit different races by interbreeding can reproduce, those offspring are genetically and physically weaker. Again, simply prove me wrong! Race is continuum, human races are breeds, and they only produce their own breed. There are no populations on the face of the earth that can't reproduce and have descendants. Yes there are species that can't reproduce after one generation, but you will never find such a scenario in any human group. Neither is there any proof that mixing between populations causes any kind of inferiority. If such evidence does exist and it's in that Bell curve video then direct me to the exact time stamp, I don't have time to watch the whole thing. Considering that a significant percentage of Latin America and the Caribbean is admixed and the fact that they are some of the most robust people on the planet, I'd beg to differ. If that were the case Brazil would be full of cripples. If this is a cripple then we should all aspire to walk on crutches! From a genetic standpoint, then Africans are obviously the most robust of us all, seeing that the we're the most diverse people on the planet. You'll never see a guy such as the one you posted win the 100m dash or 10k long distance run. Or win a long jump / high jump competition. So one could say that from an African standpoint, any mixing with peoples who are not African is a step down or backwards. A replacement can never surpass the original!
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 12, 2015 12:45:39 GMT -5
There are no populations on the face of the earth that can't reproduce and have descendants. Yes there are species that can't reproduce after one generation, but you will never find such a scenario in any human group. Neither is there any proof that mixing between populations causes any kind of inferiority. If such evidence does exist and it's in that Bell curve video then direct me to the exact time stamp, I don't have time to watch the whole thing. Considering that a significant percentage of Latin America and the Caribbean is admixed and the fact that they are some of the most robust people on the planet, I'd beg to differ. If that were the case Brazil would be full of cripples. If this is a cripple then we should all aspire to walk on crutches! From a genetic standpoint, then Africans are obviously the most robust of us all, seeing that the we're the most diverse people on the planet. You'll never see a guy such as the one you posted win the 100m dash or 10k long distance run. Or win a long jump / high jump competition. So one could say that from an African standpoint, any mixing with peoples who are not African is a step down or backwards. A replacement can never surpass the original! Or you could say that it's a step up. Depends on your perspective. Taking into consideration though that Africans are not a monolith, but are incredibly diverse, I don't think one can make such blanket statements. I don't think we're going to see any Batwa winning the 100m dash any time soon for instance. A muscular Wolof may win the 100m dash, but they wouldn't take first place in a marathon. A Kenyan or Ethiopian may look like a grasshopper, but they can go the distance. An Andean person or a Nepalese or Tibetan can endure great exertion at high altitudes with very low oxygen contents, but the strongest West African would pass out. I think we really need to move beyond these concepts of racial superiority. For the most part, these are social constructs that were designed to protect the egos of people looking to justify their narrow minded greed and insecurity. I see no reason why we need to take up that mantle. I celebrate life on this planet. In fact, it is the very heart of the African spiritual philosophy that I strive to live by. All life is sacred and interconnected. One is neither superior or inferior to the other. We are all necessary. Just look at nature. No two plants are just the same, no two trees are just the same. Whatever force created this existence, it revels in diversity and everything it created has it's own purpose. Therefore, if that force designed us in such a way so that we can reproduce, there must be a reason. When a reproduction happens that is not beneficial, nature puts a mechanism in place to prevent it from going further. We already mentioned the example of cross species reproductions which cannot continue pass the first generation. We do not see such a pattern in humans. We can combine and recombine in a multiplicity of ways and so it must be part of our survival mechanism. Going back to the topic of the program this thread is discussing, it was shown that it was because of the mixing of humans with close relatives that we were able to inherit biological agents that increased our immunity to certain diseases ensuring our survival in environments outside of Africa. Therefore, nature is the truth and all the other stuff is emotional propaganda created by certain people to protect or validate their egos.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 12, 2015 13:06:47 GMT -5
Of all the orishas, Oshun was the youngest. One day, the orishas all gathered around and were debating which of them was the most important. No one took Oshun seriously and they laughed at her. Feeling unappreciated, she left the Earth and retired to the moon. Pretty soon, there was no rain fall. The rivers and lakes began to dry up and with it all the plants and animals began to die. All the orisha were alarmed at the crisis and not being able to solve the problem, they went to the palace of Olodumare to seek council. When they stood before his throne, they pleaded their case with him. He looked at all of them and asked, "where is Oshun"? Perplexed, they replied, "who cares, she's not important"! Olodumare replied, "Oh, but you do not understand. Without Oshun there can be no life on Earth". Only when they humbled themselves and asked her forgiveness did she return and with her return, the life giving waters which allowed life to flourish once more.
The concept of racialism is not a part of our ancestral world view in which all life and all people are considered sacred and necessary, for we are all the children and creations of Olodumare and we all have a role to play. If you follow this tradition of If a, or any like it, then you now the reverence of your ancestors is central. As a follower of an African spiritual system, I must honor all of my ancestors, not just the ones I like. Therefore, I must honor not only my African eggs, but my European eggs as well. Regardless of whatever shortcomings they may have had in life, in the continuation of life, which lies on the other side of what we perceive as death, they recognize the error of their ways and as atonement and the process of their evolution, they walk by our side helping to lift us up in this life just as we will one day lift up those who come after us when we stand on the other side. Being an African is not just about what you look like, but about the way you look at the world and the road you walk. For this reason, I cannot pick up any philosophy that was alien to my African ancestors and make it my own. Superiority was a mistake created by my European ancestors to justify their short sighted perspective. One which they came to regret as they knelt at the feet of the creator. I honor my African ancestors by following their example and I lift up my European ancestors by working to not perpetuate the errors they made in their life experiences in that respect. And that my friends is what living an Afrocentric life is to me.
|
|
ⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ
Craftsperson
Posts: 38
|
Post by ⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ on Jul 16, 2015 1:31:14 GMT -5
From a genetic standpoint, then Africans are obviously the most robust of us all, seeing that the we're the most diverse people on the planet. You'll never see a guy such as the one you posted win the 100m dash or 10k long distance run. Or win a long jump / high jump competition. So one could say that from an African standpoint, any mixing with peoples who are not African is a step down or backwards. A replacement can never surpass the original! Or you could say that it's a step up. Depends on your perspective. Taking into consideration though that Africans are not a monolith, but are incredibly diverse, I don't think one can make such blanket statements. I don't think we're going to see any Batwa winning the 100m dash any time soon for instance. A muscular Wolof may win the 100m dash, but they wouldn't take first place in a marathon. A Kenyan or Ethiopian may look like a grasshopper, but they can go the distance. An Andean person or a Nepalese or Tibetan can endure great exertion at high altitudes with very low oxygen contents, but the strongest West African would pass out. I think we really need to move beyond these concepts of racial superiority. For the most part, these are social constructs that were designed to protect the egos of people looking to justify their narrow minded greed and insecurity. I see no reason why we need to take up that mantle. I celebrate life on this planet. In fact, it is the very heart of the African spiritual philosophy that I strive to live by. All life is sacred and interconnected. One is neither superior or inferior to the other. We are all necessary. Just look at nature. No two plants are just the same, no two trees are just the same. Whatever force created this existence, it revels in diversity and everything it created has it's own purpose. Therefore, if that force designed us in such a way so that we can reproduce, there must be a reason. When a reproduction happens that is not beneficial, nature puts a mechanism in place to prevent it from going further. We already mentioned the example of cross species reproductions which cannot continue pass the first generation. We do not see such a pattern in humans. We can combine and recombine in a multiplicity of ways and so it must be part of our survival mechanism. Going back to the topic of the program this thread is discussing, it was shown that it was because of the mixing of humans with close relatives that we were able to inherit biological agents that increased our immunity to certain diseases ensuring our survival in environments outside of Africa. Therefore, nature is the truth and all the other stuff is emotional propaganda created by certain people to protect or validate their egos. Are you quite sure about that? This is exactly why I prefer having these conversations in a public setting. The problem with forums like this is that they provide to much security and comfort, giving pseudo-intellectuals the freedom to spew utter nonsense because ultimately, they know they will suffer no consequences! Do you realize you just contradicted yourself within the same paragraph? Excellent job referring to God being the author of diversity by the way, then assuming he(God) would want those differences blurred together by miscegenation! Just admit you have no appreciation for anything God has created because you secretly wish to destroy it, working that which is unseemly, practicing abominations! I never stated one race was either superior or inferior to another, what I stated was that miscegenation produces offspring who do have observable defects in physiology which are important biological factors, and a particular races relationship with their geographical environment. All you people are doing is spewing propaganda you got from a white mans text book! Heck If it were not for those peer reviewed studies whites typed up for you, I wonder what exactly you have to go off of right now?? Typical Negroes believing whatever whites say, just because a white person wrote it! Pathetic! Give Negroes a piece of white poop, and you'd swear they thought it was gold! If race was a social construction, which it is not, then why even spend your time arguing that Egypt was a African civilization? You might as well say Egypt was a cosmopolitan civilization and stop trying to over emphasis the fact that blacks had anything and everything to with Egypt(After all, what is black but a social construction, and who qualifies as black?)! Again, according to you so called scholars, race dose not exist, so how could you prove the Egyptians were black one way or the other? Please answer this very basic question! If race does not exist, then why do black lives matter? All lives matter, if their is no such thing as race? Why do blacks get special educational opportunities if race does not exist? Why is slavery still a hot button issue if race does not exist? In reality those were just people enslaved by other people not black or white, just people! Everything you typed above is nothing but liberal nonsense, which is the result of something called cognitive dissonance! Yep... Just lie to yourself pretending that there is no such thing as racial differences, make the words race and population interchangeable with one another, so we do not have to acknowledge that race does actually exist and matter! Bring up South Americans who themselves are a product of miscegenation, and comment on their robustness because, that is science! Truthspeaker? Really? More like "compulsive liar"! More like someone who can not handle dealing with an inconvenient truth! Show me one example that Darwinian evolution occurred even though the fossil recorded disproves it! Show me one example that proves black people were the first people, which all peoples originate from! Show me one example where this and this, produce this, but actual produce this? This & This Produce this??!!!!!! But in reality produce this?!(Hybrid) Do you see the fallacy in what you are arguing? Race is a reality kid! Two blacks only produce a black offspring! Two whites only produce a white offspring! Otherwise show me an example that is not rooted in pseudo-scientific wishful thinking, where people of one particular race produce an offspring that is completely racially different from them? Show me an example of a bi-racial couple producing a child that is only one of two races he would be mixed between? Since you clearly have trouble understanding racial differences! I will help you! Now are you going to argue me that the above are exactly alike? That they are both equal in terms of racial character, strength, and weakness?! Africa is made of diverse tropical environments and climates, which demand certain superficial traits that give one race an advantage over another. Now tell me truthteacher, if the black hair of purebred blacks acts as a heat shield protecting the scalp from the sun, and bi-racial offspring get a mix textured hair type, which often comes out more stringy and loose rather than tight and coarse, who is at a disadvantage here in Africa, the bi-racial girl or the purebred African girl? Whose hair type is the right texture for all the heat she will be exposed to in the African continent? This is a simple yes or no question, do not dodge it by giving long winded speeches that have nothing to do with what I am asking you. What purpose does a broader nasal aperture serve verse a thinner nasal aperture, something that is usually racially specified? Do not going arguing Ethiopians either because the vast majority of, e.g., Oromo, Afar, Gallas, Danakali have indices that range anywhere from Mesorrhine to Playtrrhine in most cases. What you're trying to argue to is simply ludicrous! Not a shred of scientific evidence backs you, whether it be physical anthro/bioanthropology, and Darwinian evolution I dismissed in one single post! You can not prove it because the evidence is not there! All you have is pipe dreams and a cult like fixation on evolution, I might as well be arguing with scientologist your rebuts are so wack! This is the desperation of not only evolutionist and their sheepish followers, but the desperation of new world Negroes trying to have some sort of relevance in history. If you believe this is your ancestor... Then fine, but real Hamitic peoples will have no part in this foolish belief, I am going to make absolutely sure of that. Sounds like everyone in this forum needs to be dragged off to the reeducation camps immediately!
|
|
ⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ
Craftsperson
Posts: 38
|
Post by ⲟⲩⲱⲛϣ on Jul 16, 2015 1:35:53 GMT -5
Hamiticpress. Err not social scientist, biologist and bioanthropologist Wade Nicholas is the one guy that said differently, kinda like the seven scientist who claimed climate change does not exist. preponderance of evidence, I again invite you to visit threads here that dealt with the issue. Comparable to the rest of the globe that's what.And the term Eurasia includes northern Levant,central and western Asia. Why are white people called caucasians.skip the intro if needs be. Most of the features found elsewhere is to be found in Africa and amongst Africans,off-course such features are amenable and can change they are not set in stone, geneticist also back up the OOA origins of modern man. Except this type also exist in Asia. A black asiatic shaking hands with his lite skinned lank haired type with whom he shares closer genetic ties, the Black type also existed in the Americas. Race is arbitrary in some theory you can get as much as a dozen races, in others three, but again geneticist made a lie of all those theories. and as to my unanswered question where did the ancestors of the Kemetians said they came from according to their beliefs care to answer that?? You also referenced Charles Murray the man who beleive in Black genetic intellectual inferiority so I guess one is free to reference to Dr Frances Cress Welsing. Kemetians are Hamites? There origin is from their progenitor Ham and his black wife. Where else do you think they would have come from?
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 16, 2015 11:26:25 GMT -5
Or you could say that it's a step up. Depends on your perspective. Taking into consideration though that Africans are not a monolith, but are incredibly diverse, I don't think one can make such blanket statements. I don't think we're going to see any Batwa winning the 100m dash any time soon for instance. A muscular Wolof may win the 100m dash, but they wouldn't take first place in a marathon. A Kenyan or Ethiopian may look like a grasshopper, but they can go the distance. An Andean person or a Nepalese or Tibetan can endure great exertion at high altitudes with very low oxygen contents, but the strongest West African would pass out. I think we really need to move beyond these concepts of racial superiority. For the most part, these are social constructs that were designed to protect the egos of people looking to justify their narrow minded greed and insecurity. I see no reason why we need to take up that mantle. I celebrate life on this planet. In fact, it is the very heart of the African spiritual philosophy that I strive to live by. All life is sacred and interconnected. One is neither superior or inferior to the other. We are all necessary. Just look at nature. No two plants are just the same, no two trees are just the same. Whatever force created this existence, it revels in diversity and everything it created has it's own purpose. Therefore, if that force designed us in such a way so that we can reproduce, there must be a reason. When a reproduction happens that is not beneficial, nature puts a mechanism in place to prevent it from going further. We already mentioned the example of cross species reproductions which cannot continue pass the first generation. We do not see such a pattern in humans. We can combine and recombine in a multiplicity of ways and so it must be part of our survival mechanism. Going back to the topic of the program this thread is discussing, it was shown that it was because of the mixing of humans with close relatives that we were able to inherit biological agents that increased our immunity to certain diseases ensuring our survival in environments outside of Africa. Therefore, nature is the truth and all the other stuff is emotional propaganda created by certain people to protect or validate their egos. Are you quite sure about that? This is exactly why I prefer having these conversations in a public setting. The problem with forums like this is that they provide to much security and comfort, giving pseudo-intellectuals the freedom to spew utter nonsense because ultimately, they know they will suffer no consequences! Do you realize you just contradicted yourself within the same paragraph? Excellent job referring to God being the author of diversity by the way, then assuming he(God) would want those differences blurred together by miscegenation! Just admit you have no appreciation for anything God has created because you secretly wish to destroy it, working that which is unseemly, practicing abominations! No I didn't. If the ability to mix were not part of the creators intent, or nature, or whatever you want to call it, it would not exist. The fact that it does exist proves that it's there for a reason. So if the design is flawed, don't blame me, you need to take your objections to the architect and that ain't me.I never stated one race was either superior or inferior to another, what I stated was that miscegenation produces offspring who do have observable defects in physiology which are important biological factors, and a particular races relationship with their geographical environment. And yet we live in a world where the norm is that we are no longer limited to the constrictions of geography. If miscegenation is a crime, then so too must be travel. Tropical Africans should remain confined to the tropics, Europeans to their latitudes etc, etc. That simply isn't the case. The differences we observe are due to adaptations to environment, but we are traveling at such an accelerated rate now. Miscegenation may be a way that nature creates a life form that can survive in multiple environments successfully instead of being restricted. It all depends on how you look at it. The difference between you and I is you feel threatened by it and I don't. Whether you like it or not, this sort of thing has been happening for a very, very, very long time. It's nothing new or recent. In fact, going back to the program, the conclusion reached is that Neanderthals didn't go extinct, they were absorbed by modern humans. Once again, if it wasn't part of the creators plan, why would he create the mechanisms to allow it to happen?All you people are doing is spewing propaganda you got from a white mans text book! Heck If it were not for those peer reviewed studies whites typed up for you, I wonder what exactly you have to go off of right now?? Typical Negroes believing whatever whites say, just because a white person wrote it! Pathetic! Give Negroes a piece of white poop, and you'd swear they thought it was gold! And what exactly is a negro but an idea created and conceived by the so called white man that you rail against. Your very self perception is his creation. How pathetic is that that you lack a reflection of your very self independent of the mirror he created for you, then fight to the death to defend it?If race was a social construction, which it is not, then why even spend your time arguing that Egypt was a African civilization? You might as well say Egypt was a cosmopolitan civilization and stop trying to over emphasis the fact that blacks had anything and everything to with Egypt(After all, what is black but a social construction, and who qualifies as black?)! First of all, know who you are talking to and what they are about. You're new here and you don't know me or what I think in this respect. Others who have been here a while do. I do not claim that Egyptians were black. In fact, I never use the term black to describe anyone, not even myself, let alone any African population. I say that the civilization was created by native Africans, however, there is no one skin tone or set of features that represents all Africans. While a great percentage of them were and still are to this day, dark skinned, (chocolate colored), there were and are many who were not as can be proven by looking at the skin of the Badarian mummies like ginger. They have pale skin. Does this mean they were all pale? No, just some. Why? Because Egypt lies both within and without of the tropical zone. It is tropical and sub tropical. Therefore, those who remained in the tropics had tropically adapted sin tones. Those who were in the sub tropical zone had paler skins, just like the San who live in the sub tropical zone often have light brown or yellowish skin. They are all Africans. Further more, the same process that made the Sahara green allowing tropical Africans to migrate into the region from the south also made it possible for non Africans to migrate back into the Delta region and over the course of it's 3,000 yr history that is exactly what happened. Therefore, when taken as a whole, from the very beginning, Egypt was a region that was diverse. There was no skin tone or facial feature that represented the entire population and the absorption of non Africans added to that diversity. That's just a fact. Ignoring it is when you run into all kind of stupidity like mummification bleaching or darkening skin and straightening hair. The base population was a native African one that was diverse in skin tone, facial structure, and hair type from day one and the waves of migration over it's history added to it. Again, according to you so called scholars, race dose not exist, so how could you prove the Egyptians were black one way or the other? Please answer this very basic question! If race does not exist, then why do black lives matter? All lives matter, if their is no such thing as race? Why do blacks get special educational opportunities if race does not exist? Why is slavery still a hot button issue if race does not exist? In reality those were just people enslaved by other people not black or white, just people! It matters because it's the people who are of African descent who are on the bottom of the social structure. Not because they are biologically predisposed to be there, but because the society constructed a system that was depended on a servile class and we have not worked our way beyond it yet. Therefore, it is those individuals who are of obvious African ancestry who are discriminated against the most and seen as a threat resulting in the loss of life, exclusion from participation in the benefits of society etc. Therefore, in an attempt to rectify the disadvantages melted out to that population, programs and institutions have been created to allow those who are eligible to have access. No one is giving black people who can't read collage scholarships or jobs. But they are trying to rectify the almost automatic rejection of such people based on their ancestral background and appearance alone. We haven't grown beyond the perception that one group of people are a threat to the social order and one is to be given a status of privilege. If it were up to me, I'd eliminate any program based on "race based" initiatives and institute a policy of human rights across the board in which every citizen is entitled to a living wage, adequate education from elementary to university, adequate hosing and access to medical care and equality in the justice system. When all is said and done, the problem is one of class and racism is just one of many tools that was created by the ruling elite to maintain a class system that was created in Europe against the masses of Europeans. If you want to understand racism, you have to examine the history of the European class system because everything that was done to and said about "blacks" was first done to and said about the lower classes in Europe. Before the English ever dreamt about doing the job on Africans, they were doing it to the Irish and that's why to this day Northern Ireland is still a mess.Everything you typed above is nothing but liberal nonsense, which is the result of something called cognitive dissonance! Yep... Just lie to yourself pretending that there is no such thing as racial differences, make the words race and population interchangeable with one another, so we do not have to acknowledge that race does actually exist and matter! Bring up South Americans who themselves are a product of miscegenation, and comment on their robustness because, that is science! Sounds like somebody's feelings are hurt. Awww! You know you could just sign up for a gym membership if you feel yourself lacking.... Just saying...Truthspeaker? Really? More like "compulsive liar"! More like someone who can not handle dealing with an inconvenient truth! Oh yeah daddy, is this the part where you spank me with a rolled up news paper and call me a bad doggie?Show me one example that Darwinian evolution occurred even though the fossil recorded disproves it! Didn't you watch the program? This has already been done time and again. Just because you aren't aware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. By the way, you do know that soft tissue evidence like skin color, eye color and hair type doesn't fossilize don't you? Just thought I'd.... oh whatever....Show me one example that proves black people were the first people, which all peoples originate from! You don't read much do you? The science is already there that humanity originated in tropical Africa. Therefore, the first people who migrated out of tropical Africa had to have been, stick with me now, ya ready? Phew, breath in, breath out, breath in breath out.... tropically adapted, RUUUUUUUUNNNNN!Show me one example where this and this, produce this, but actual produce this? This And can you absolutely prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this man doesn't have any European ancestors in his linage? & This Produce this??!!!!!! Can you prove that any of these individuals do not have any darker skinned individuals in their linage? No, you are making an assumption. Superficial features are inherited. The more individuals with pale skin and red hair, the more likely you will produce an offspring with those features.But in reality produce this?!(Hybrid) Well first of all, I doubt very strongly this is their kid. Secondly, did you study dominant and recessive genes in school? Every hybrid doesn't look the same. A child may look like either one parent or the other or somewhere in-between. It's not a given that a mixed child will have any one look. Have you taken a good look at Lenny Kravits or Tyson Beckford?Do you see the fallacy in what you are arguing? Race is a reality kid! Two blacks only produce a black offspring! Two whites only produce a white offspring! Otherwise show me an example that is not rooted in pseudo-scientific wishful thinking, where people of one particular race produce an offspring that is completely racially different from them? Show me an example of a bi-racial couple producing a child that is only one of two races he would be mixed between? Since you clearly have trouble understanding racial differences! I will help you! And can you tell me for certain that the dark skinned girl with the cute afro puffs is not a hybrid? My nephew is darker than her, his hair is kinkier than hers and guess what? His great grand mother is half German ,(She use to make a wicked arroz con pollo), sooo.... .Now are you going to argue me that the above are exactly alike? That they are both equal in terms of racial character, strength, and weakness?! My brother is very dark skinned with curly hair and I'm 5 shades lighter with kinky hair. Are we different races? My father has whit skin and blue eyes, his brother has dark brown skin and brown eyes.... are they different races? Africa is made of diverse tropical environments and climates, which demand certain superficial traits that give one race an advantage over another. I'm shocked! I had no idea!Now tell me truthteacher, if the black hair of purebred blacks acts as a heat shield protecting the scalp from the sun, and bi-racial offspring get a mix textured hair type, which often comes out more stringy and loose rather than tight and coarse, who is at a disadvantage here in Africa, the bi-racial girl or the purebred African girl? Well first of all, you're making the assumption that all bi racial children have loose textured hair. A lot of mixed kids like myself have that nappy stuff.... Just... thought you should know...Whose hair type is the right texture for all the heat she will be exposed to in the African continent? This is a simple yes or no question, do not dodge it by giving long winded speeches that have nothing to do with what I am asking you. You know what I find fascinating? The way you ignore things right in plain view. Your avatar is an Aboriginal from Australia. Look at his hair. Ever been to India, southern India? What do these two places have in common? "I don't know TT, what do they have in common"? I'm glad you asked. These are both regions that are hotter than Satan's nut sack. What type of hair do they have to deal with all that heat? Well... The aboriginals living in the desert of the outback have hair that looks just like those biracial kids or even straighter for one thing and Tamils in India have pin straight hair and both these people been living in all that heat a long, long, long time....
You also contradict yourself because you just pointed out, (which was a shock to me, honest to Betsy, be till my heart, it was), that Africa is made up of diverse climates. Therefore, you do know that significant percentages of Africa lies in non tropical zones. Further more, you do know that we've made technological breakthroughs in the last several hundred thousand years and have invented these things called, what is it now? Hats, yes, that's it, hats. When the sun is eating down on your head you can put on a hat. I've even seen Africans wearing them. They also use turbans... Furthermore, we're not living back in the stone age any more. We have planes, trains and automobiles and can travel all over the world and even in the stone age, we had feet, and those damn things can take you anywhere if you're willing to invest the time it takes. So I would say, if you're ass is being fried in tropical Africa, buy a ticket and move to sub tropical Africa. Further more, if they choose to stay in tropical Africa, the likely hood is that they will reproduce with the rest of the population who do have features adapted to the environment. Therefore, after 2 or three generations, the traces of European ancestry will not be visible and they'll look like every body else, at least on the surface. Just like the descendants of tropical Africans who mated with Europeans in recent history now look totally European, sooooo..... It's only when you get large waves of migrations, or artificial laws preventing marriages between peoples of varying traits that you find pockets of "mixed looking people". Therefore, unless you are now living in tropical Africa, I'd suggest that you A: move back, or B: mix it up so that after a few generations your descendants can blend in and be correct. Where do you live by the way if you don't mind me asking?What purpose does a broader nasal aperture serve verse a thinner nasal aperture, something that is usually racially specified? Do not going arguing Ethiopians either because the vast majority of, e.g., Oromo, Afar, Gallas, Danakali have indices that range anywhere from Mesorrhine to Playtrrhine in most cases. And once again, the variability of Africans even in the tropics. You don't need to go to East Africa to find narrow noses, You could stay in Congo, or Ivory coast and find plenty of individuals with narrow noses. Once again, the assumption that all Africans have specific features and the assumption that all Europeans have narrow noses. Ever seen a picture of Babe Ruth? There are plenty Europeans with noses that look like 2 door garages so.....What you're trying to argue to is simply ludicrous! Not a shred of scientific evidence backs you, whether it be physical anthro/bioanthropology, and Darwinian evolution I dismissed in one single post! You can not prove it because the evidence is not there! All you have is pipe dreams and a cult like fixation on evolution, I might as well be arguing with scientologist your rebuts are so wack! This is the desperation of not only evolutionist and their sheepish followers, but the desperation of new world Negroes trying to have some sort of relevance in history. First of all, who told you I was a negro, how do we define this concept any way and I just shot holes in every one of your presumptions, presumptions based not in scientific facts, but eyeball science, cherry picking and personal bias and insecurity. You argue for scientific proofs while presenting none of your own. Fascinating.If you believe this is your ancestor... Well.... Some of them might have looked like that. Not all of them though..... And so what if they did. Doesn't really matter one way or another. What matters is that I'm here, now and what I do with this life and what I do with this life has absolutely nothing to do with what I look like, what my ancestors looked likeThen fine, but real Hamitic peoples will have no part in this foolish belief, I am going to make absolutely sure of that. And what prey tell is a Hamite other than an outdated theory created by colonialist Europeans to validate their theories of the superiority of the "white race".Sounds like everyone in this forum needs to be dragged off to the reeducation camps immediately! Sound's to me like you'd be better off using that ticket for yourself. Well, it's been fun. See ya round some time.
|
|
|
Post by snakepit on Jul 16, 2015 22:29:25 GMT -5
From a genetic standpoint, then Africans are obviously the most robust of us all, seeing that the we're the most diverse people on the planet. You'll never see a guy such as the one you posted win the 100m dash or 10k long distance run. Or win a long jump / high jump competition. So one could say that from an African standpoint, any mixing with peoples who are not African is a step down or backwards. A replacement can never surpass the original! Or you could say that it's a step up. Depends on your perspective. Taking into consideration though that Africans are not a monolith, but are incredibly diverse, I don't think one can make such blanket statements. I don't think we're going to see any Batwa winning the 100m dash any time soon for instance. A muscular Wolof may win the 100m dash, but they wouldn't take first place in a marathon. A Kenyan or Ethiopian may look like a grasshopper, but they can go the distance. An Andean person or a Nepalese or Tibetan can endure great exertion at high altitudes with very low oxygen contents, but the strongest West African would pass out. I think we really need to move beyond these concepts of racial superiority. For the most part, these are social constructs that were designed to protect the egos of people looking to justify their narrow minded greed and insecurity. I see no reason why we need to take up that mantle. I celebrate life on this planet. In fact, it is the very heart of the African spiritual philosophy that I strive to live by. All life is sacred and interconnected. One is neither superior or inferior to the other. We are all necessary. Just look at nature. No two plants are just the same, no two trees are just the same. Whatever force created this existence, it revels in diversity and everything it created has it's own purpose. Therefore, if that force designed us in such a way so that we can reproduce, there must be a reason. When a reproduction happens that is not beneficial, nature puts a mechanism in place to prevent it from going further. We already mentioned the example of cross species reproductions which cannot continue pass the first generation. We do not see such a pattern in humans. We can combine and recombine in a multiplicity of ways and so it must be part of our survival mechanism. Going back to the topic of the program this thread is discussing, it was shown that it was because of the mixing of humans with close relatives that we were able to inherit biological agents that increased our immunity to certain diseases ensuring our survival in environments outside of Africa. Therefore, nature is the truth and all the other stuff is emotional propaganda created by certain people to protect or validate their egos. No, a step DOWN. I'm an African, hence my perspective is African. Other peoples perspective do not matter. I'm not a "we're all one" kumbaya bla-bla-bla "negro". A Kenyan/Ethiopian can do the same things, and they are more rugged too. All other ethnicities are subsets/subspecies of African people. Period. That person in your picture is a hybrid, an amerindian+european & possibly some African. In other words, a completely artificial construct, just like the "coloreds" in Southern Africa etc. I don't have time to "celebrate life", especially when African people are DYING left & right all over the world. I only care about the well being of African people, ONLY. This kumbaya bullshit thinking has got to go. That's the reason why we're in this predicament in the first place, we expected that everybody else had the same outlook on life as us. We were wrong & childishly naïve.
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Jul 17, 2015 2:23:49 GMT -5
Hamiticpress said You had originally made a statement that Now since you have failed to answer twice i'll give you the answer Ta netjer Land of the Gods and ancestors, roughly Ethiopia/Somalia/ Kenya / Uganda and the Great Lakes areas, but more specifically Punt. where are these lands?? in what is known as Sub Saharan Africa!!!.It is from this area that the Superlanguage family called Afrasian sprang along with the genetic evidence to back that up came from, that the Luyha claimed they came from the north have nothing to do with the origins of the Kemitians themselves matter of fact Obama's Kenyan relatives and ancestors are the originators of M35 or E1b1 it's siblings and daddy came from the same region. Note the same locale as genetic origins, and Kemetic claims of origins. While lite skin is pretty old, white skin is very recent go here an excellent breakdown by Xyyman linkor here one of the original article. linkThe Grimaldi find as displayed in the Musée d'Anthropologie in MonacoYou asked for complete remains of Africans in Eurasia well here we go, and even further back The First EuropeanAlso go here Unveiling Man's Origins (Routledge Revivals): link
One more thing science is not Black or white it just is, so enough with the white ppls science crap as if Black folks are not involve in the sciences.
|
|