Ancient Black Britons

[anansi]

So why are you seeing this, well because it's rather interesting,even though it hardly relates to Africa and is irrelevant to African history but relevant to black history,but interesting nonetheless in how one views, ancestry , history and "Race" The presenter is Robin Walker a Black British researcher in African and global Black history, watch enjoy give your opinion.

[Shadow]

Nice! I’m definitely going to watch this. Just seeing the name gives me goosebumps! Good find, Anansi. 👍🏿

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

Hope nobody minds some old Mac Ritchie





Modern British unlike some ancient Britons




Huxley's Latin snippets



2 Pre-Roman Briton races

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

How the Irish became white. XD




Gorm eh? What did Robert E Howard know? Read The Valley of the Worm and see!

[kemetic]

Apr 17, 2020 20:50:21 GMT -5 anansi said:

So why are you seeing this, well because it's rather interesting,even though it hardly relates to Africa and is irrelevant to African history but relevant to black history,but interesting nonetheless in how one views, ancestry , history and "Race" The presenter is Robin Walker a Black British researcher in African and global Black history, watch enjoy give your opinion.

I like Robin Walker. I have some of his books. He part of the problem I wrote about in another thread. What exactly does he mean by “black”. Why even use black? The descriptions of these early populations are vague, too vague to conclude that they would have resembled modern black people. His first source compares the dark skin population with Iberians. What does he do? Say that we should not assume that the dark skin people in Iberia at that time looked like the dark skin Iberian people of today. Okay, so what did they look like? Walker is going by simple description to assume that these individuals would have look like us. Just because they were describe as dark skin with curly hair doesn’t mean they resembled sub-saharan Africans. Dark skin and curly hair is not limited to african blacks. What is and isn’t dark skin differs between population to population. An arab is darker in comparation to Northern Europeans. Sir Lankans are darker than East Asians. Why can’t dark skin in this context mean Sir Lankan dark or Bedouin dark? Are all dark skin populations world wide under the “black” label so that we can also claim their civilizations?



He talks about how the people who first immigrated to the Americas were dark skin, than says they weren’t like East Asians. Why even compare them to East Asians? Why not compare them to the modern day native population who are dark skin or the dark skin south asian populations? He trying to implant into impressionable black minds this idea that there were sub-saharan african-looking people who settled these places first which means we have some stake in the early history of these places. News flash… we don’t. Let this black ancient Britain/early native american/first chinese crap go. It just make us look bad by us needing to go thousands of years in past to try to make connections with these people.

[anansi]

kemetic said [He trying to implant into impressionable black minds this idea that there were sub-saharan african-looking people who settled these places first which means we have some stake in the early history of these places.]

Well he wasn't wrong,some of those folks did look like some contemporary Africans,like some Pacific and Asian types, like Papuans ,Andaman islanders and Solomon Islanders,that said they weren't Africans but Black Asians,he did not called them Africans which is good.

I remembered some yrs ago a Chinese exhibition of different African peoples included Papuans and even earlier based off casual eyeballing, Guinea an African place name was transposed to Papuans as New Guinea.

The hair type found in early Americas among some of the population was new to me, for a long time I guessed that it could be there, but not really sure, now if some of the broad featured folks carried the same hair type were darker skinned than some of the others around them, it changes how we imagined the early Americas looked like and even why, some believed Africans settled there, whether they did so or not.

Like you I choose Culture including language and geography over phenotype,
while phenotype is an incredibly powerful pull for others.

[kemetic]

Apr 19, 2020 15:50:24 GMT -5 anansi said:

kemetic said [He trying to implant into impressionable black minds this idea that there were sub-saharan african-looking people who settled these places first which means we have some stake in the early history of these places.]

Well he wasn't wrong,some of those folks did look like some contemporary Africans,like some Pacific and Asian types, like Papuans ,Andaman islanders and Solomon Islanders,that said they weren't Africans but Black Asians,he did not called them Africans which is good.

I remembered some yrs ago a Chinese exhibition of different African peoples included Papuans and even earlier based off casual eyeballing, Guinea an African place name was transposed to Papuans as New Guinea.

The hair type found in early Americas among some of the population was new to me, for a long time I guessed that it could be there, but not really sure, now if some of the broad featured folks carried the same hair type were darker skinned than some of the others around them, it changes how we imagined the early Americas looked like and even why, some believed Africans settled there, whether they did so or not.

Like you I choose Culture including language and geography over phenotype,
while phenotype is an incredibly powerful pull for others.

The use of the word "black" is the problem. It too subjective. This is how we got so many ADOS screaming about being the real native americans and pointing out the broad nose Olmec statues as evidence that we were here already. It so easy for the impressionable young black learners to take this video as evidence that we of recent black african descent were part of the peopleling or early civilizations in those areas. The way he worded this whole video heavily implied this. It another one of the many wishful thinking content that afrocentrics love to spew( that we were the makers of nearly every early civilization before the pale-skin people took over). This video simply goes along with this flawed and insecure thought process. Majority of the people a good 8000 years ago would have been varying shades of dark skin, why we of recent African descent should take that as a plus for us as a people makes no sense at all. It not a plus, it just is what it is. We as black people need to stop trying to make it a plus. Robin Walker should have left "black" out of it and simply highlighted that these early people were of varied shades of dark skin. 

Too many black people are lost trying to find ourselves in these early civilizations all over the word and they hate to look at actual black Africa. The West, Central, Southern, and Eastern part of Africa.

[anansi]

Apr 19, 2020 1:29:28 GMT -5 Tukuler al~Takruri said:

How the Irish became white. XD




Gorm eh? What did Robert E Howard know? Read The Valley of the Worm and see!

Wow thanx for the link with the old timey comic strip.yeah what did Robert know, right?? And it seemed given recent findings those antiquarians were right on target, Cheddar Man and all.

[anansi]

Kemetic said:[ The use of the word "black" is the problem. It too subjective. This is how we got so many ADOS screaming about being the real native americans and pointing out the broad nose Olmec statues as evidence that we were here already. It so easy for the impressionable young black learners to take this video as evidence that we of recent black african descent were part of the peopleling or early civilizations in those areas. ]

Well here is the thing tho, while I/we cannot speak for all ancient non African dark skinned type about whether they considered themselves Black or not, a number of such Ppl today do identify as such, for one thing Africans have no monopoly on the term "BLACK " , both ancient and modern, and in ancient times this is exactly what some non Africans did , even drawing conclusion that there must be some form of family relationship, from old testament begets,Greco Romans to early Arabs.

The only ancient darkskinned non African ppl ,I know who sorta weakly make that jump of having some connection with Africans due to dark skin would be the Sumerians.

And ADOS is a political movement with faction within factions I wouldn't include them in all this, by self definition they are American Descendants Of Slaves
Primary goal is to be compensated for centuries of lost income through slavery and Jim crow laws.

[anansi]

A bit more explaining about the Sumer African connection.

According Kramer
[After fashioning the Black-headed people the God...Enki? went to Meluhha and profusely blessed it ]

Magan and Meluhha being Kemet and Kush respectively.

After An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursaja had fashioned the black-headed people, they also made animals multiply everywhere, and made herds of four-legged animals exist on the plains, as is befitting. Then he proceeded to the land of Meluha. Enki, lord of the Abzu, decreed its fate: Black land, may your trees be great trees, ]

Now it was uncertain where Magan and Meluha was originally located, but by neo Babylonian times both nations were definitely identified with Egypt and Kush.

[kemetic]

Apr 20, 2020 0:55:54 GMT -5 anansi said:

Kemetic said:[ The use of the word "black" is the problem. It too subjective. This is how we got so many ADOS screaming about being the real native americans and pointing out the broad nose Olmec statues as evidence that we were here already. It so easy for the impressionable young black learners to take this video as evidence that we of recent black african descent were part of the peopleling or early civilizations in those areas. ]

Well here is the thing tho, while I/we cannot speak for all ancient non African dark skinned type about whether they considered themselves Black or not, a number of such Ppl today do identify as such, for one thing Africans have no monopoly on the term "BLACK " , both ancient and modern, and in ancient times this is exactly what some non Africans did , even drawing conclusion that there must be some form of family relationship, from old testament begets,Greco Romans to early Arabs.

The only ancient darkskinned non African ppl ,I know who sorta weakly make that jump of having some connection with Africans due to dark skin would be the Sumerians.

And ADOS is a political movement with faction within factions I wouldn't include them in all this, by self definition they are American Descendants Of Slaves
Primary goal is to be compensated for centuries of lost income through slavery and Jim crow laws.

Im using ADOS as another way of saying black american. From what I’ve seen, it black americans who are jumping on the “we were always here” train, not Haitians, Jamaicans, etc. I’m not using it to refer to the political group.



Your still missing the point. It doesn’t matter which group uses black or not. What matters is that too many afrocentrics have allowed their pseudo scientific views to shape the minds of many black learners, so much so that we have black people jumping into the “we are the true natives” bandwagon without needed any concrete evidence what so ever. Afrocentric research has been pigeonhold into lunacy because we have people who think vague descriptions such as “broad nose and curly hair” automatically means black or mixed with black, any terms of dark skin automatically referring to people of African ancestry, or god forbid there is art featuring people with broad features because hey, African people are the only people in the world with those features. We have set the bar so low for black scholars that any run away origin story can be embraced with a reckless abandonment. We have black people all over the internet attacking native american, italians, north africans( I use to believe that white skin in North Africa was recent and argue that, now im smacking myself in the head for that) talking about how we have more of a claim to their history than they do! There are no standards here. We need to put standards back into black history.



This video is more of the same with the typical insane afrocentric viewpoint of implying people of recent African descent had a hand in early civilizations all over the world. Since we as afrocentric people have damaged black credibility so bad, we have to be more mindful on how we word things because "blacks being in Britain before whites" can be taken incredibly bad by our people in this day and age. We need to get away from that and start putting respect back into the
african continent and talking about our true history.


Sumarians called themselves black-headed people. Black-headed can mean so many things it not even funny. It could be a simple reference to their hair color or it could be something purely symbolic whose meaning is now lost. You can't assume they were black skinned based on that. If you look at Sumerian artwork, these people sported long beards and some even had blues eyes, similar to how the current light skin population in the middle east do. If they were darker, I can easily imagine them looking similar to Northern Indians.

[anansi]

Kemetic said:

.What matters is that too many afrocentrics have allowed their pseudo scientific views to shape the minds of many black learners, so much so that we have black people jumping into the “we are the true natives” bandwagon without needed any concrete evidence what so ever. Afrocentric research has been pigeonhold into lunacy because we have people who think vague descriptions such as “broad nose and curly hair” automatically means black or mixed with black, any terms of dark skin automatically referring to people of African ancestry, or god forbid there is art featuring people with broad features because hey, African people are the only people in the world with those features. We have set the bar so low for black scholars that any run away origin story can be embraced with a reckless abandonment. We have black people all over the internet attacking native american, italians, north africans( I use to believe that white skin in North Africa was recent and argue that, now im smacking myself in the head for that) talking about how we have more of a claim to their history than they do! There are no standards here. We need to put standards back into black history.

And this is where the battle need to be fought,not necessarily trying to change basic nomenclature,because others will make bad use of it, but to challenge the basic lie or misinformation e.g. Are Papuans Black??..answer..yes! are they Africans...no!..Why aren't they Africans?? Because they are Australasians native to the area upwards of 60kyrs and most distant from Africans in  genetic terms.

This video is more of the same with the typical insane afrocentric viewpoint of implying people of recent African descent had a hand in early civilizations all over the world. Since we as afrocentric people have damaged black credibility so bad, we have to be more mindful on how we word things because "blacks being in Britain before whites" can be taken incredibly bad by our people in this day and age. We need to get away from that and start putting respect back into the
african continent and talking about our true history.

Again folks may indeed walk away thinking he's talking about Africans, fact is, he never said anything about them being Africans and in the context he's using Black , it's about talking a piss out of white supremacist.

Sumerians called themselves black-headed people. Black-headed can mean so many things it not even funny. It could be a simple reference to their hair color or it could be something purely symbolic whose meaning is now lost. You can't assume they were black skinned based on that. If you look at Sumerian artwork, these people sported long beards and some even had blues eyes, similar to how the current light skin population in the middle east do. If they were darker, I can easily imagine them looking similar to Northern Indians.

I've been through a lot of text and one major work, that of S.N Kramer and I'm pretty sure they weren't talking about beards , headwear etc but Black heads,plus some genetic studies a yr or so back,  about extremely dark skinned folks in the area around the Zargos mts early farmers...Africans no! Australasian looking folks similar to native Australasians yes.

Those alabaster or ivory inlaid blue eyed figures are not Sumerian but of the state of Mari in Syria.But they did interact with Sumer

So the question asked ,Sumerian Black yes!..Africans no!

However were there Africans who migrated in to the area post OOA time, How so?? we have linguistic , genetic and material evidence for that..but but that means the Sumer..$@#! [b,] No![/b] they were not Africans different people context matters, it meant a group of East Africans migrated to the area.

And finally let's not ignore those biblical begats man, those were not created by so -called Afrocentrics.

[anansi]

Zagros Mountains Can Re-Write History
www.messagetoeagle.com/ancient-human-remains-zagros-mountains-can-re-write-history/
Might wanna peep this^^

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

Just to set the record str8 for anti FBA racists.


Joel Augustus Rogers was Jamaican.

Ivan Van Sertima was Guyanese.

Cheikh Anta Diop was Senegalese.

Yosef ben Jochannan was Puerto Rican.

G Kofi Osei was Ghanaian.

Alexander von Wuthenau was a white German European.


Stop the hate a/t divide and conquer methodology against FBAs, its fruitless.


The avg BLACK person whether of ultimate African, Asian, or Oceanian descent has no interest in history anthropology genomics etc.

The avg Foundational Black American knows nothing about any claims to be indigenous to North America.

A simple street survey or even a survey of enrolled students proves the above.


But never you mind any of that. It's souch fun Tilting Windmills. SMH


BTW your very own people, white Europeans, invented the nappy hair & broad nose definition of blk ppls.

Try ranting and railing at the source.

[kemetic]

Apr 20, 2020 23:10:39 GMT -5 anansi said: