Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
|
Africas Role in World History
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 456 |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Rakasnumberone 
Shogun 
Suspended Joined: 14-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 211 |
 Topic: Africas Role in World HistoryPosted: 12-Feb-2008 at 18:55 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
The movie is reflective of a social reality that existed at the time and still does, therefore, within the context used it's valid, go see the movies. As to my co9mment, Hey I just tell it like it is. Has it verred of, yes it has and the reason it has is that I see its time to call a spade a spade and address the underlying problems that keep surfacing whenever issues regarding African, or people of African descent, their place in history and society. How can we speak about it when people continue to hold fast to irronious notions from by gone eras, which continue to cloud our perceptions of those people. Your statemernts show that your basic perspective of these peoples and who they are is limited, therefore, without the sarcasm, I urge you to explore, not only the variaty of cultures on this continent, but also the the histories and cultures of their descendants outside of it as well. Have a good day. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
drgonzaga
Colonel 
banned Joined: 15-May-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 612 |
Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 22:49 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Just what do you mean by "people of African descent"? From the perspective of paleoanthropology once can maintain that everyone on the face of the planet is of African descent! So spare me both the nebulosity and the histrionics. From my end I know what Professor Mori stated back in 1958 and the ramifications of climatological change on human migrations. As seen from this end there is a bit too much huffing-and-puffing over fantastic claims and very little grasp of actual cultures within the parameters of written history.
Perhaps a little reminder is in order:
8) Who's winning the race?
Keep in mind that racial pride is a personal thing. Even when you want to shout how great your people are it get's kind of noisy in here. Then we can't hear what you are saying. You wouldn't want that. With respect to the discussion here and the paleolithic petroglyphs dating from the late Pleistocene to the early and middle Holocene perhaps a reading of the original research is in order as to the state and direction of interpretation. Certainly through ILL you can obtain the journal Sahara and pay close attention to the contents of volume 14 (July 2003). In addition, the warning over terminology raised by Elena Garcea and Savino di Lernia back in 2005 should be kept in mind:
The importance of finding a solution to this matter has been already felt and discussed (Safa Conference 1992). Also the recent 10th Pan-African Congress for Prehistory and Related Studies, as well as the 13th International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, revealed the urgency to come to an agreement among different scholars. Such a terminological confusion probably not only hides different ethical standpoints (i.e. African terms versus European terms), but also a theoretical reluctance to identify cultural phenomena and to define anthropological complexities.
Further, and critical to any analytical summation with regard to cultural continuity and the early inhabitants of the region, perhaps a reading of the series on the Archaeology of the Lybian Sahara is in order:
Savino di Lernia and Giorgio Manzi, eds., Sand, Stones, and Bones: The Archaeology of Death in the Wadi Tanezzuft Valley (5000-2000 BP). Rome: Arid Zone Archaeology Monographs, No. 3, 2002.
Whatever you might have gleaned from a TV documentary (done in the grand manner of a "naked" archaeologists)--including all the racial and racist claptrap--the prespective that apparently enthralls you is totally absent. In fact, in chapter 11 of the above cited text (written by Giorgio Manzi et al) a detailed morphometric analysis is compiled that establishes the relationship between this population and evidence drawn from the Canary Islands, Somalia, Ethiopea and the Eastern Lybian Oases.
Enjoy your reading.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rakasnumberone
Shogun
Suspended Joined: 14-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 211 |
Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 23:31 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone
. ***No, not me, but ever historian and text book maker on the planet. Don't forget, I use to be a high school history teacher. Every textbook starts the history of European civilization with Crete, Greece and Rome. But don't take my word for it, get a textbook. I'm just telling you what the White man learned me. They all seem to think Greece and Rome are European civilizations. So I guess since they aren't European civilizations, but...they were the civilizations that influenced much of Europe.....Western Europe....doen't have a history.....I mean...how could it be Western European history if...Sooo then, It's Turkish history! Yes. That's it. Because Greece isn't located on the Peloponisian penninsula, it's actually in...ANATOLIA, yeah that's it. My map's broken. I need a new one.*** . Well, in Latin America we talk about Western Civilization and not European Civilization, because both arent the same. The West is rooted in the Fertile Crescent. Even more, we consider Islam to be a parallel civilization to the West, rather than an exotic culture. ***Do you realize how much you're contradicting yourself? Western civilization, European Civilization, it's the same thing Penguin and everyone knows it. You say you can only speak of peoples and not continental civilizations. Which people are the West people? West of What Penguin? Islamic civilization is paralell? Are you kidding me? Islamic culture sprang up in the area people now call the "MIDDLE EAST" which includes the Fertile Crescent. You're talking all over yourself and going in semantic circles. 
So how can the Fertile Crescent be Western Civilization on second and a Middle EAST civilization the next? You are not making sense.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone . ***See my pervious comments regarding the Middle East and Fertile Crescent. The White man declared that all dark skinned people were black. . If for white man you mean gringo, well, you may be aware Latinos dont follow theirs model of the world at all. Even more, it is traditional in the countries with roots in Souther Europe to consider blond Nordic as the new commers to the Western Civilization. Remember many of them were "savages" (non-Christians) up to the Middle Ages ***OH BULL FECES! Western Nordics were NOT SAVAGES. They had their own civilizations and cultures. A simpler technology prior to contact with the Mediterranian influences, but they were not running around eating each other any more than Sub-Saharan Africans were. Savage is a very ethnocentric term. I don't accept it for my people and I don't accept it for Europeans either, who ironically, are also my ancestors. Now, why I consider your initial statement BULL. The very notion of racial classification was initiated by the Spanish who were the first to colonize the Americas. They are the ones who came up with terms like NEGRO, MULLATO, SAMBO, PARDO, MESTIZO, etc, etc. In other words They came up with hundreds of categories to describe people based on the amount and combination of African blood in an individual. They know a person of African descent when they see one, how come they can't see it when they're looking at North and East Africa? It's just as stupid and just as divicive and was created for the exact same purpose, to determine who had access to the resources of the society and who didin't. It's just as wrong and stupid as what the Americans did. The only this Latin American Whites are not guilty of is the terrorism that was inflicted upon Afro Americans. Gringo? Please give me a damn brake! They al recognize each other as WHITE PEOPLE, different cultures, different language, BUT SAME COLOR and that is what they base position in society on, skin color. Everyone knows this, so give this a rest and stop trying to pretend that Latin Americans are not just as guilty as Anglo Americans when it comes to racism. They started it in the first place. Who initiated the African slave trade, SPAIN, who was the first to initiate codes composed of laws restricting the rights of black people and people of African descent SPAIN, who was the last European power to abolish slavery SPAIN! For crying out loud already!*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone . They call the East Indians Black. Go rent the movies Ghandi and watch as the South African conductor tells him to get his BLACK ass back to 3rd class even though he had a 1st class ticket. Its the scene right before they kicked his BLACK ASS off train. They declared that the Maori people of New Zeland are BLACK. Go rent the movie Whale Rider. . They are not example of very educated people, after all. I won't say a Southern racist in the U.S. is an example of the intelligence and culture of the West, either. ***So I guess the GErmans are also just as stupid and uneducated? I suppose we have to say the same of the British and the Dutch, who were both in South Africa and upheld laws of Apartied. I guess we have to say the same of the French, since they too discriminated against all people of non European origin. They're give those CAUCASIAN Moroccans and Algerians a fit in France. They are so oppressed in that society they set fire to PAris, not once but twice within the past few years. So I guess England, France, the NEtherlands, Spain, Germany, ITALY, are all bastions of stupidity and a lack of education. So I suppose that leaves us back in MEsopotamia again. Get real Penguin, you're not making any sense and it's glaringly apparent to all.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone . It's been the White Eropean all along classifying people. Calling this on yellow, that one red, that one Brown. This one a Negro, that one a mulatto, the other one a mongoloid. I asked several times, WHO MAKES THE RULES? You never answered me. No one did, so I'm telling you. WHITE, COLONIAL EUROPEANS, from Chritopher Columbus. . You can read in the writings of Columbus that he didnt find Indians to be different from people he knew in the old world. He compares Indians with Canarians. ***Once again you just missed the point completely. This naming business started with Columbus, regardless of what he thought they looked like, to the ruling elite of the United States. It's the mentality I'm talking about. Once agin the point just flys right over your head.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone . They've gone all over the world with a pencile disregarding the identities of people and their cultures and putting them in the neat little boxes that fit their agendas. That's why we call people in America Indians, when in fact they have nothing to do with INDIA. They were Taino, CAribe, Aztec, Chippawa, Mohawk, but along comes the white man and now they all become INDIANS. . European ignorance. What you would expect from low payed sailors. ***They were not low paid sailors. Low paid sailors were not the one creating the laws, teaching their theories in the universities of Europe and the United States. It was the Ruling, cultural, economic and educational elite of Europe, that's who, and they did it because they had AN AGENDA! And this is why I am opposed to using the vocabulary they created. It is flawed, arbitray, biased and totally illogical. And what burns my ass is that its cloaked in veneer of academia and scholarly research. THE EMPEROR HAS NO FRIGGING CLOTHES! NEGRIOD: MEans nothing, it's an arbitrary term as I've pointed out, CAUCASIAN: Equally arbitryary. You do know what arbitryary means don't you? It means they make it up as they feel like it. Change it to mean what they feel like making it mean. One day they say its green, the next day they say it's blue. It's not based on fact, but circumstance. Thta's why it's BULL!*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone . Okay, what can I do about it? Nothing really, I have to accept it. Even though my father's skin is white as snow and his eyes are as blue as saphires, he's black, a negro, because the White man and his governmemt says so. And because my father is Black and a negro, I too am a negro. Even though I look nothing like a Sub-Saharan African. But hey, those are the rules. . Why to accept the rules of the gringo? It's not just "THE GRINGO", it's the mentality shared by all those who believe that the color of their skins are indicative of their superior intelligence and the defacto lack of intelligence of people who are darker in color, or not of pure White European Christian origin. And for the recored, I DON'T ACCEPT IT. I recognize that that is the way that I and people like me are perceived, except when they think I'm an Egyptian, which they often do because of the way I look and my profession. These same numb nuts when they know I'm Jamaican cliam I'm black, when they think I'm Egyptian, or Moroccan, or Saidi or Yemeni, think I'm "WHITISH", CAUCASIAN, NOT BLACK. I know what I am. I'm not black, I'm not white, I am by ethnicity a first generation American of Jamaican origin. RAcially, I'm multi-racial of African, European, East Indian and a slight, very slight touch of Taino. I'm Multi-Racial, or a Multi-racial person of African descent and that and a metro card gets me on the subway: BIG FRIGGIN DEAL! It's not my race or naltionality that makes me anything but the hard work of my own two hands and my own mind. So when I point otu the fact that Egypt is African, and the people were and are Multi-racial Africans, I don't do so to glean greatness from them, or to prove that I am part of a MASTER RACE. That's bullshit. I do so to just tell the truth and be able to look at the issue objectively. It is what it is, It is where it is, the people are who they are. I do it to show the hypocracy of these notions of race and history, which people fall down and eat up without question as if it were gospel truth because it flatters their sense of self and their world view. A world view which implicitly puts them and their culture on top of the heap and all others below it. There is no white supremacy, there is not Black supremacy. History is the story of ALL MANKIND, what we are capable of at our greatest and lowest. The Greatest sicientis in the world are a reflection of what I am capable of if I work to my fullest potential, the most savage criminal is a reflection of what I am capable of if I focus my energy on the lowest, nothing more nothing less.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone . And since its was White Europeans who declared that dark skinned people were black, (or any descended from such a person), and that mysterious continent is called Africa, then dark skinned people in Africa must be Black Africans. Therefore Egypt is a civilization on the African continent and since I see dark skinned people running all over Egypt they must be black, 'acuse the same white man tells me that people in his countries who look like tehm are black, hey, I look just like them and he tells me I'm black, even though my skin is really beige. Therefore Egypt is a jewel of Black History....it's just not the only one. Black history is filled with many jewels not only in Africa, but where ever her people have migrated, whether voulentarily or by force. . Yes, anything could be. I also could claim ancestry to Gengis Khan. ***And how the hell do you know you are not? You very well could be and so could I and as I said before, it's don't meand a God damn thing! Mother may have, and father may have but god bless the little bastard that's got his goddamn own! In other words, it the work of your own habds that determins your greatness. The only reason Blacks or any other opperssed people should use history as a tool to build selfesteem is to show #1, the concept that they have thus far been lead to believe throught explicit and implicit conditioning by the ruling elite is false. Black skin is not a sign that they are incapable of intelligence. That is why Egypt and all the other African civilizations are inprtant in this context. The brain washing has to be undone. Therefore, you have to confront the paradigm and deconstruct it. In other words, "you've been told all your life that skin color is a sign of a person's capacity for intelligence and achievement, and therefore by extension, that because you are either dark yourself, or descended from such people, you are also intellectually limited. You have been told that the darkskinned people of the continent your people originated on, had made no meaningfull contributions to civilization, Well, let's see if that is in fact true". This is why one then shows all the civilizations, to deconstruct the myth. Then once you have demopnstrated that it's hollow, you build within them the possibility that they can, if they do the work and set their intention, do what they want. The only problem here is when it comes to African civilizations, we have to fight to achnowledge the obvious. If we mention the West African Empire, some numb nuts comes along and says, oh those kingdomes were established by, CAUCASIANS called Berebers. The implicit implication: NEGROS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF ANY ACHIEVEMENT WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF SOME WHITE RACE. Then we look at these "berebers" and see their skins are just as black as a Hershey bar. Well, all your life you've been told that dark skinned people in Africa are BLACK. But now Mr. University professor shows you the thin nose of the skull Oh no, they are White, they are just sun tanned. They are dark skinned white people. Now your mind is spinning because you're skin is as white as butter, yet they tell you you are black, yet tese Africans are black but they tell you they are white. ITS A MIND GAME! You find the remains of sophisticated stone structures in South Africa, which is being ruled by a White European government that denies you access to the very land and resources of your country. Why? because you are infereior, they teach it to you in school, you get the subtle message from the lack of representation of your people in the media etc. Yet when you show evidence that your acestros created something of note, it is deliberately surpressed. It's claimed that they were created, not by your ancestors who have lived in the area for thousands of years, but by Phoenicians, a CUACASIAN people from the FERTILE CRESCENT. It will take years of fighting before you are able to get the ruling elite to admit taht this is in fact a deliberately fabricated lie. And then there's Egypt. A bunch of dark skinned nappy headed people running around in Africa. They even have their big old nappy headed wigs on disply in their meuseum in Cairo. You walk along the streets and you are confronted with dusky people, the same color as you are, more then half of them, just as nappy headed as you are, they have the same features that you and your family members do. An astonishingly high percentage of them are varying shades of the same choloclate brown you've grown up seeing all your life. You look at their ancient paintings and staues and see faces that you have seen in your community of "black people" all your life and then someone tries to tell you OH NO, THEY WERE WHITE CAUCAISANS ONLY DARK WHITE SKINNED CAUCASIANS. It's because of the sun, they're sun tanned. You've had enough. It's obvious to you this is bullshit! Why? Because you have grown up in a tropical country all your life. Your skin, despite being tanned from the sun, is still much lighter than Nicky next door. Although Dominic, has been running around in the same damn hot sun as you have 24hrs a day and 7 days a week, his skin compared to your's is still creamy WHITE. As if this were not enough, there's some little bird on the bottom side of the world trying to convince you as hard as he can that Egypt is not in Africa, and that this thing called Africa doesn't exist. So if I am rude and sarcastic at times, please forgive me.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone . So yes, I see how rediculous this all is. And I understand your anger. I'm angry too because this is all male bovine feces. So get angry Penguin, but outraged, be offended, but know where to direct your outrage. Not at us, we so called black people, because we aren't the ones making the rules. . Once again, Latinos dont follow gringo rules. ***Like hell they don't! Tell that to all those Cubans in Miami talking my ears off about how they can't wait for Castro to die so they can go kick the niggers out of their homes. Puleeze. Don't try to hand me a bag of shit and tell me its sugar. RAcisism is the ugly legacy of conquest of the Americas, whether it was by the Spanish, French, English, Americans, Portuguese. You don't heal a festering wound by wrapping it up in plastic. You have to expose it to ari and sunshine and root the infection out with strong medicen. Now hold your nose, and swallow. It tastes disgusting but its good for you, and i have a very sweet juicy mango here for you the second you do.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone . You have to take on the univerities, government agencies, schools, churches, hearts and minds of the White Ruling elite class of Latin America, the United States and Canada, Eastern, Western and Southern Europe, as well as thir representative in the former colonies of Southern Africa and the Pacific regions. . In Latin America we have the myth of the Cosmic Race, that tell us we are a new single people product of the fusion of several races and proud of all of them. That myth work for us. ***In theory, but not in practice. So what makes your racial pride myth any more valid than the Afro-centric myth? In practice does this hold up? Proud? When was the last time a Latin American country sent a black woman to represent their country in a Miss World contest? The first time it happened it made big news. When was the last time you saw an Africa or Indio face hosting the news in Any Latin American country? I get telemundo here in New York, I see all those Mexican novelas. Only time I see someone that looks like the Mexicans that live arouind me is when she's playing the maid. Wake up papi and smell the Bustelo!*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone . When they decide to redraw the map, reclassify things to your likeing and standards, then I will follow...Or amybe I won't. Maybe I'll still be the rotten little brat screaming the Emperor's got no clothes. Well, I will start first to redraw the map of the Americas, and convince people we are not Latinos but Americans. After all America is the name of South America. ****I gatta go take a dump. Speak to you later**** |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tyranos
Shogun
Joined: 01-Oct-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 246 |
Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 23:33 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Actually the Pyramid of Hellenikon, Greece is older than the Egyptian ones:
 "It must be noted that, according to these results, the Hellenikon pyramid predates, by at least 100 years, the oldest Egyptian pyramid (Djoser - 2620 B.C.) and by 170 years the Great Pyramid of Cheops" (Khufu - 2550 B.C.) ______________________  The Fertile Crescent: the Middle East where the civilizations of the Middle East and the Mediterranean basin began. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9034123/Fertile-Crescent The Egyptians, like the Libyans, are a Berber people are mainly descended from the Capsian people whom migrated to North Africa, or originated there. Its these people which brought in technology and language during the Mesolithic period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsian_culture So if using the Libyans and Garamantians for proof's of "Saharan" civilization, there are certain things which should be noted: "Wherever or however they live, the Berbers refuse to mate with Negroid lower classes, but human nature being what it is, there evidently has been a certain amount of mixture. In Morocco, the most Caucasoid tribes are those of the Rif and Middle Atlas, in Algeria they are the Kabyles and the Shwia; and in Libya, the sedentary tribesmen of Jebel Nefusa. In certain regions the trickle of mixture with Africans has been balanced by the absorption of Arabs, not so much tribe by tribe but through the establishment of saintly families derived from the earlier of two main Arab invasions." Prof. Coon, THE LIVING RACES OF MAN. " In the Fezzan in southern Libya live a people--so-called Duwwud or Dawwada(worm-folk)--speak Arabic, hunt jerboas, raise a few dates, and above all harvest the salt lakes, where they live, for Artemesia, a brine shrimp that multiplies into cakes, which the Duwwud trade to Arab caravans. The Duwwud also look like Hottentots. Other partly Bushmen and partly Negro people are also to be found in the Sahara."Prof. Coon, THE LIVING RACES OF MAN The Garamantian themselves were Libyans(Berbers) and possible some minor Saharan negroid absorption. Much of their religion and culture was however based on Egyptian models. They used the Libyan-Berber script for writing as well. "Descended from Berbers and Saharan pastoralists, the Garamantes were likely present as a tribal people in the Fezzan by at least 1000 B.C. They first appeared in the historical record in the fifth century B.C., when Herodotus noted the Garamantes were an exceedingly numerous people who herded cattle (that grazed backward!) and who hunted "troglodyte Ethiopians" from four-horse chariots." "The combination of their slave-acquisition activities and their mastery of foggara irrigation technology enabled the Garamantes to enjoy a standard of living far superior to that of any other ancient Saharan society," says archaeologist Andrew Wilson of the University of Oxford, who has been surveying the foggara system. Without slaves, they would not have had a kingdom, let alone even a whiff of the good life. They would have survived--just--in conditions of relative poverty, as most desert dwellers have done before and since". |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rakasnumberone
Shogun
Suspended Joined: 14-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 211 |
Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 23:49 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
You're not making any sense. Exactly what do you think I'm trying to say? I didn't see anything in that article that contradicted anything that I have said. They are discussing one of the regional prehistoric civilizations found on the African continent. I don't see anything indicating they contest this fact, so what are you trying to say exactly? State an opinion and then use passages in the text to support it. On the other hand, I did see information in the conclusion that supported a claim I made earlier: "Finally, the later phase of Early Khartoum is not attested in the Central Sahara, where animal domestication occurs much earlier than in the Nile Valley." Like I said, animal domestication occured in the Central Saharah before it did in the Nile Valley, they support my staement. As for the documentary, you didn't see it did you? No matter. Like I said, I don't know what your position is. My position is that the Central Saharan civilization predated Egypt and is an African civilization, or should I say, an example of one of Africa's regional prehistoric civilizations. What do you object to in this staement and how is it supported by the very long text you gave me to read? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest 
|
Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 00:37 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
It is not the way history is teach in my country, at least. Just realize it is very dumb to call European a civilization like Hellenistic Greece that was spread in Asia, or to consider Pythagoras an "European" when his father was Phoenician. What more "Western" than Christianity but the Bible was writen by Jews in the Middle East and translated in Alexandria! And what about the Roman Empire, when the most important part of it was for long time in Turkey.
If you think that Europe=Western Civilization, I am afraid to inform you, you are wrong.
Well, I understand you may be blind by the way Anglosaxon schollars see the world. But just realize I come from a country that is linked to Spain, and Spain was a multicultural society of Christians, Jews and Muslims. Perhaps the fault is us, because we don't see Arabs or Persian that much different to ourselves at all.
If I am not wrong, I said that the West has its roots in the Fertile Crescent. I didn't say that the Fertile Crescent was part of the West. It is not the same.
Some where. Never hear the saying "God, save us from the fury of the Vikings". "Never knew about the Norse torture called the 'angel'". Well, they may have not been "savages" but they were Barbarians, according to the definition of the Greeks.
Cultures? Yes. Not civilizations. The term civilization is applyied only to large urban societies, not to tribal agricultural societies like the ones of the ancient Gauls and Celts.
I am afraid you have an idealized ideas of people. Let me tell you one thing, not only some groups of the Americans and some Polynesians practised cannibalism. The Norse of northern Europe have very bloody human sacrifices practises. Ask some informmed archaeologist and you'll be surprised. And, don't tell me canibbalism was unknown in Subsaharan Africa because it was.
Wake up. Humans all over the world were quite brute in ancient times. Don't idealize them, please.
Well, what if I apply the term to the Nazis of WW II? Or to the Mongols that devasted the Middle East and Europe?
"Savage" is not ethnocentric, is just a synonim of brutality. Brutality existed all over the world in the past. Right besides some very peaceful tribes you found some very hateful people. If you want to know about it, just ask me the most gruesome details of the history about my ancestors in Spain and the Americas and I'll be glad to wake you up.
Wrong. Spaniards were not dumb focus in the African blood. They defined there were three races in the Americas, and not just two like in the U.S. So, those terms just describe the possible combinations among those.
Spaniard know coastal North Africans are the Moors.
It is quite easy for an Spanish to see if some Moor have Black blood. It is also quite easy for an Spaniard to see when a Black has White Blood.
And what about it? North Africans aren't the same people South of the Sahara. Even more, the Moors of North Africans were the ones that started slave trade. For the Spaniards, at least, they are two different people.
Did you know that Spain bough theirs slaves to Britain and Portugal?
In any case. If you intention is for Latin Americans to hate Spain, I bet you will always fail. Because we are also partially Spaniards.
Gringo mentality, once again.
If you ask my humble oppinion, you are just another human of this wonderful hemisphere called The Americas. Like 99% of us, and in one way or the other, you are a multi-racial individual. And like most of us, sometimes you wonder about your identity. I read in your writings the same feelings most people in here have: the desire that people forget races and embrace universality. That will come.
. If you ask me, the Jewel of Africa are the mysteries of Subsaharan Africa. Personally, I found the civilization of the mummies pretty boring and even scary. However, I would like to know more about the Bantu expansion and its people.
If that is what worries you, that has been proved lots of times. So there is not need to adjust history to prove that.
Egyptian civilization is the heritage of the people of Egypt. Not of Black of the Western Hemisphere. Sooner or later you will hear Egyptian voices.
Well, it is an historical fact that the Moors invaded Black Africa. Tombuktu books were writen in Arab, for instance.
You can't distort history to fit needs. Why don't you focus in all the kindoms and achievements done BEFORE the Muslim invasions all over Subsaharan Africa? There are many interesting discoveries in that area. Unfortunatelly, sometimes I think only Europeans know about it. No kidding.
Not really. In Spain, for instance, people know Moors weren't Black people. How? Our literature and even in the language the definition stand. Most coastal Berbers look like Zidane or Omar Kaddafi. The only "Black" Berbers are the Tuareg and groups that established South of the Sahara.
Zimbabwe! That's deserves more study. The Phoenician theory is nuts. By the way, have you heared about Eredo?
I don't get angry for historical discussion. Just think about me one second, as descendent of two people that killed each other in the more brutish way imaginable. Or just think that in my own life I have to escape from my own country (during the Pinochet dictatorship) in order to progress.
I just can't hate.
Those are Americans, not Latinos anymore.
In practise as well. Why is more valid? Because is inclusive rather than exclusive.
With respect to the Africans respresenting Miss World, ask countries where Africans are majorities and represent theirs countries. Dominican Republic, for instance. In many other countries Africans are minoritary or just simply don't exist.
With respect to Amerindians hosting the News, just watch CNN in Spanish. Most of them have Amerindian ancestry; they are Mexicans.
With respect to Whites in TV novelas, they are as representative of Latin American population as the Whites shown on US TV. Even more, Mexico is not even representative of Latin America.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rakasnumberone
Shogun
Suspended Joined: 14-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 211 |
Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 00:56 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Actually the Pyramid of Hellenikon, Greece is older than the Egyptian ones:
***So what? Good for them.*** "It must be noted that, according to these results, the Hellenikon pyramid predates, by at least 100 years, the oldest Egyptian pyramid (Djoser - 2620 B.C.) and by 170 years the Great Pyramid of Cheops" (Khufu - 2550 B.C.) ***Different cultures, different processes of creating pyramids. Un like you, I've been to Egypt and had the hitory of the developement of pyramyd technology explain and demonstrated to me by an EGYPTOLOGIST. an EGYPTIAN EGYPTOLOGIST. It is a process that is clearly visable. It was a native process and not a Greek introduction. Whatever was there in Greece, is the product of their own local culture.*** ______________________ The Fertile Crescent: the Middle East where the civilizations of the Middle East and the Mediterranean basin began. ***I've already given an extencive quote showing that the term is a new one and its boarders are not universally agreed on. Some people include Egypt in it and some do not.*** http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9034123/Fertile-Crescent The Egyptians, like the Libyans, are a Berber people are mainly descended from the Capsian people whom migrated to North Africa, or originated there. Its these people which brought in technology and language during the Mesolithic period. ***And where did this quote come from? There is no evidence that I have read on Pre-historic Egypt to support it. I'ver already stated clearly that Egypt was a multi racial society. There were migrations into it from the East as well as from the South and the central Sahara*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsian_culture So if using the Libyans and Garamantians for proof's of "Saharan" civilization, there are certain things which should be noted: ***The Central SAharan civilization featured in this work pREDATE the GAramantian culture, which was only one of many later cultures found in the Sahara after the period of desertification and so what?*** "Wherever or however they live, the Berbers refuse to mate with Negroid lower classes, but human nature being what it is, there evidently has been a certain amount of mixture. ***And what is your source for this material? Not that I think yopu're making it up, just want to know who wrote it. "A certain amount of mixture". We both know full well what that means don't we? *** In Morocco, the most Caucasoid tribes are those of the Rif and Middle Atlas, in Algeria they are the Kabyles and the Shwia; and in Libya, the sedentary tribesmen of Jebel Nefusa. ***I know, been thee seen them, hang out with them on the weekends and work with them and so what?** In certain regions the trickle of mixture with Africans has been balanced by the absorption of Arabs, not so much tribe by tribe but through the establishment of saintly families derived from the earlier of two main Arab invasions." Prof. Coon, THE LIVING RACES OF MAN. ***"BALANCED TRICKLE". And we both know that where we live a person with a trickle of "negriod blood', balanced by any type of "CAUCASIAN BLOOD", is called a nigger behind their backs, had to sit in the back of the bus in times pass, is still considered a NEGRO today, so what does this mean? It only supports what I've said previously. It's nonsense.*** " In the Fezzan in southern Libya live a people--so-called Duwwud or Dawwada(worm-folk)--speak Arabic, hunt jerboas, raise a few dates, and above all harvest the salt lakes, where they live, for Artemesia, a brine shrimp that multiplies into cakes, which the Duwwud trade to Arab caravans. The Duwwud also look like Hottentots. Other partly Bushmen and partly Negro people are also to be found in the Sahara."Prof. Coon, THE LIVING RACES OF MAN ***HOTTENTOTS, BUSHMEN. Who uses such language anymore to describe the San people. Another perfect examplke of what I stated earlier to Penguin. After all these years they don't know that Hottento is a pejorative for the San People? Who by the way are also considered black by the same racist white mentality that calls them BUSHMEN and HOTTENTOT. You still can't tell me what the hell a NEGRO is. All this is telling me is what I already know and have said. The native peoples of Africa come in a variety of skin colors, facial features and body types. Instead of using outdated racist language like Negro, since you obviously don't know what the hell that is anyway, call them, as Penguin suggests, by their cultural names.*** The Garamantian themselves were Libyans(Berbers) and possible some minor Saharan negroid absorption. Much of their religion and culture was however based on Egyptian models. They used the Libyan-Berber script for writing as well. ***These were a people existin at a period much later than that of the Central Saharan civilization of the wet phase. By this time Dynastic Egypt had been established and as stated here, (which anyone whose read even in half assed fashion a book on Egyptian history), knows, was influenced by them. The Nile Delta was an areas that saw increasing numbers of migration from Lybian tribes, which is probably why they considered them a political and cultural threat.*** "Descended from Berbers and Saharan pastoralists, the Garamantes were likely present as a tribal people in the Fezzan by at least 1000 B.C. ***1000B.C and I was speaking of a civilization that was widespread and existed at least 10,000 B.C. *** "They first appeared in the historical record in the fifth century B.C., when Herodotus noted the Garamantes were an exceedingly numerous people who herded cattle (that grazed backward!) and who hunted "troglodyte Ethiopians" from four-horse chariots." ***Caucasians killing CAucasians. STOP THE MADNESS, STOP THE MADNESS!  See folks, this is how bullshit works. When they want to prove superiority, the Ethiopians are CAUCASIANS, when they want to prove superity of a "white" people, the implicit message is that the Ethiopians become NEGROS. Once again, it's the implicit message of superior White vresus inferior servile black I spoke of before. No let me explain why this doesn't phase me in the least.
My paternal line is traced back to the Bateke people of north east Congo. The Bateki created a kingdom which came to power as the kingdom of Congo began to decline. These people were and still are traders. Their wealth was based primarily on this economic activity, which by the way also relied heavily of the capture and sale of rival peoples as slaves. The reason I'm speking to you now is because one of the rival peoples got tired of the bullshit, snuck into our village kidnapped my ancestor and sold his ass to the Europeans out of revenge. No amount of wealth was enough to ransom him back. It was revenge. So, in my personal history, I've been both the slave trader and the slave and so what? This article talks about berebers not intermarrying as if that means something. It doesn't! This is a very common attitude amongs many African peopoles. It has nothing to do with concepts of race or color but culture. Go to Nigeria today and you will find peoples who would rather die before they marry the people in the next village who are the exact same color as they are. Its because of ideas of family lines and kinship. We see this is other cultures as well. For intance among the Druz of Lebanon intermarriage is strictly forbidden. A Druz may only marry another Druz. They will NEVER, marry another Lebanese who is not. So there is nothing remarkable or unique about Berbers desire to keep to themselves. You accuse me of race politics then turn right around and post this nonsense to support you racial political world view. Ever been to Siwa? I have. The Siwis are Egyptian Berbers. Their Oasis was a major stop on those slave caravans. you know what? They mixed the shit out of hell with the Siwis. The Siwis didn't mind intermarrying with them because there was a need. Siwis today still maintain their Berber identity, separate from that of Egypt and are very distrustfull of outsiders and do not inter marry with tose outside of their Oasis. The reason is the feared loos of their culture and way of life. It has nothing to do with Colonial notions of race and color.*** "The combination of their slave-acquisition activities and their mastery of foggara irrigation technology enabled the Garamantes to enjoy a standard of living far superior to that of any other ancient Saharan society," says archaeologist Andrew Wilson of the University of Oxford, who has been surveying the foggara system. Without slaves, they would not have had a kingdom, let alone even a whiff of the good life. They would have survived--just--in conditions of relative poverty, as most desert dwellers have done before and since". http://www.archaeology.org/0403/abstracts/sands.html ***Like I said, nothing remarkable about this. My own people did the exact same thing to their shame. Your knowledge of African people's their cultures, world views and ways of life are still woefully lacking. Not that I'm trying to paint myself on expert on anything. But you see my friend, I know my knowledge is paultry and i consider myself a life long learner. Never the less, with the poverty of knowledge that I posses I can see that you are poorer still, therefore, abandon you prejudices, stop trying to veil them in pseudo academic rhetoric and lean something. Ask questions, find as many sources and points opf view. It's black history month after all.*** |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rakasnumberone
Shogun
Suspended Joined: 14-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 211 |
Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 02:07 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone
... Do you realize how much you're contradicting yourself? Western civilization, European Civilization, it's the same thing Penguin and everyone knows it. It is not the way history is teach in my country, at least. Just realize it is very dumb to call European a civilization like Hellenistic Greece that was spread in Asia, or to consider Pythagoras an "European" when his father was Phoenician. What more "Western" than Christianity but the Bible was writen by Jews in the Middle East and translated in Alexandria! And what about the Roman Empire, when the most important part of it was for long time in Turkey. If you think that Europe=Western Civilization, I am afraid to inform you, you are wrong. ***Wow, you don't read do you? It's not me. That is the way THE WORLD SEES IT PENGUIN. The White world of White textbook maker and Ivy league professors*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... You say you can only speak of peoples and not continental civilizations. Which people are the West people? West of What Penguin? Islamic civilization is paralell? Are you kidding me? Islamic culture sprang up in the area people now call the "MIDDLE EAST" which includes the Fertile Crescent. You're talking all over yourself and going in semantic circles. Well, I understand you may be blind by the way Anglosaxon schollars see the world. But just realize I come from a country that is linked to Spain, and Spain was a multicultural society of Christians, Jews and Muslims. Perhaps the fault is us, because we don't see Arabs or Persian that much different to ourselves at all. ***ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Are we talking about the same Spain ruled by La Loca Isabela? The Same Spain that inagurated the panish Inquisition? The Same Spain that kicked the Muslims out of Spain and told the Jews CONVERT OR DIES? The Same Spain that persecutes the Gitanos? ARE YOU SERIOUS? You're not serious! *** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... So how can the Fertile Crescent be Western Civilization on second and a Middle EAST civilization the next? You are not making sense.*** If I am not wrong, I said that the West has its roots in the Fertile Crescent. I didn't say that the Fertile Crescent was part of the West. It is not the same. ***HELLOOOO, THAT"S WHAT I SAID TOO. That's the point I was making. Greece is located in Europe, therefore a European civilization no matter what the influences. IT DOES NOT MATTER!*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... ***OH BULL FECES! Western Nordics were NOT SAVAGES. Some where. Never hear the saying "God, save us from the fury of the Vikings". "Never knew about the Norse torture called the 'angel'". Well, they may have not been "savages" but they were Barbarians, according to the definition of the Greeks. ***More bullshit. Who was more Barbaric than the Romans whouse to watch people kill each other by the thousands for entertainment, or the Greeks that would expose their hnady capped young to the elements. So the Vikings killed people. LORD HAVE MERCY, THAT HAD NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. Ever read the Bilble? Read Leviticus. All peoples everywhere have been guilty of both savegery and sainthood. Singeling out the Vikings is the hight of stupidity and hipocracy.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... They had their own civilizations and cultures. Cultures? Yes. Not civilizations. The term civilization is applyied only to large urban societies, not to tribal agricultural societies like the ones of the ancient Gauls and Celts. ***WHATEVER**** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... A simpler technology prior to contact with the Mediterranian influences, but they were not running around eating each other any more than Sub-Saharan Africans were. I am afraid you have an idealized ideas of people. Let me tell you one thing, not only some groups of the Americans and some Polynesians practised cannibalism. The Norse of northern Europe have very bloody human sacrifices practises. Ask some informmed archaeologist and you'll be surprised. And, don't tell me canibbalism was unknown in Subsaharan Africa because it was. ***The Romans also practiced human sacrifice, so did the Phoenicians. What was more bloody than the coloseum. What was more bloody than the lynchings of Afro Americans in the South, What was more bloody and crule than the Witch burnings of Europe, or the Spanish inquisition? I'm not looking at the world or Africa with rose colored glasses. It wasn't some damnd dysneyland. Not even Egypt with all its pyramids was a place I would ever have wanted to live. Same goes for Greece Rome and all the rest. Ancient Egyptian history has examples of canibalism too. All societies do, but it is the exception rather than the rule. Even if it was common practice among one specific group, it was not a common aspect of any culture in Africa. Suggesting otherwise is just pure rediculous. Maybe your ancestors were swinging from Andean vines, blowing darts and eating each other, but the Bateki, weren't nor were the Yorubas, or the Coramantes, or the Twi, or the Manding, or the Akan who are my ancestors. This statement is just rediculous Wake up. Humans all over the world were quite brute in ancient times. Don't idealize them, please. ***No shit really?*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... Savage is a very ethnocentric term. I don't accept it for my people and I don't accept it for Europeans either, who ironically, are also my ancestors. Well, what if I apply the term to the Nazis of WW II? Or to the Mongols that devasted the Middle East and Europe? ***When used in the way that you used it, yes it is. As I said history is full of examples yesterday and today that show our capacity for brutality***. "Savage" is not ethnocentric, is just a synonim of brutality. Brutality existed all over the world in the past. Right besides some very peaceful tribes you found some very hateful people. If you want to know about it, just ask me the most gruesome details of the history about my ancestors in Spain and the Americas and I'll be glad to wake you up. ***when used out of context to define an entire people it is. The Nazis were guilty of barbaric acts, but that is not to say that I can go to a German and call them Barbarians. Such terms must be used within context. The Nazis commited barbaric acts, the German people as a whole are not barbarians.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... Now, why I consider your initial statement BULL. The very notion of racial classification was initiated by the Spanish who were the first to colonize the Americas. They are the ones who came up with terms like NEGRO, MULLATO, SAMBO, PARDO, MESTIZO, etc, etc. In other words They came up with hundreds of categories to describe people based on the amount and combination of African blood in an individual. Wrong. Spaniards were not dumb focus in the African blood. They defined there were three races in the Americas, and not just two like in the U.S. So, those terms just describe the possible combinations among those. ****Penguin go read a book for god's sake or stop opening your eyes in salt water. In Coloumbia alone there were over 100 different castas based on a person's racial composition. The inmortant question which you just don't get is WHY WAS IT NECCESSARY TO CLASSIFY PEOPLE IN THE FIRST PLACE? You know, when I go to Egypt I( see a country full of people of all races and mixtures of races, they all consider themselves EGYPTIAN, PERIOD. CATEGORIZATIONS ARE BULLSHIT, THERE IS AN AGENDA BEHIND THEM WAKE UP!*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... They know a person of African descent when they see one, how come they can't see it when they're looking at North and East Africa? Spaniard know coastal North Africans are the Moors. It is quite easy for an Spanish to see if some Moor have Black blood. It is also quite easy for an Spaniard to see when a Black has White Blood. And what about it? North Africans aren't the same people South of the Sahara. Even more, the Moors of North Africans were the ones that started slave trade. For the Spaniards, at least, they are two different people. ***OF COURSE IT IS BECAUSE THEY WERE THE ONES WHO STARTED THAT WHO CLASSIFICATION OF CASTAS TO BEGIN WITH SO OF COURSE THEY KNOW WHEN THE SEE ALL THOSE NAPPY HEADED EGYPTAINS AND NORTH AFRICANS, THEY KNOW DAMN WELL WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT, THAT'S MY POINT! So talikng about them and calling the Caucasians, when they don't have a problem seeing the Africa in a person in Cuba, Puerto Rico or the Domincan Republic no matter how white the skin straight the hair or bule the eyes. Its then rediculous to look at an Egyptian, Moroccan, Algerian, Lybian and call a dark skinned nappy headed man a CAUCASIAN. Oh God save me!*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... The only this Latin American Whites are not guilty of is the terrorism that was inflicted upon Afro Americans. Gringo? Please give me a damn brake! They al recognize each other as WHITE PEOPLE, different cultures, different language, BUT SAME COLOR and that is what they base position in society on, skin color. Everyone knows this, so give this a rest and stop trying to pretend that Latin Americans are not just as guilty as Anglo Americans when it comes to racism. They started it in the first place. Who initiated the African slave trade, SPAIN, who was the first to initiate codes composed of laws restricting the rights of black people and people of African descent SPAIN, who was the last European power to abolish slavery SPAIN! For crying out loud already!*** Did you know that Spain bough theirs slaves to Britain and Portugal? ***WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE THEY WERE STILL ENSLAVED!*** In any case. If you intention is for Latin Americans to hate Spain, I bet you will always fail. Because we are also partially Spaniards. ***NO SHIT! SO AM I, AND ENGLISH, AND FRENCH AND SO WHAT!*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... It's not just "THE GRINGO", it's the mentality shared by all those who believe that the color of their skins are indicative of their superior intelligence and the defacto lack of intelligence of people who are darker in color, or not of pure White European Christian origin. And for the recored, I DON'T ACCEPT IT. I recognize that that is the way that I and people like me are perceived, except when they think I'm an Egyptian, which they often do because of the way I look and my profession. These same numb nuts when they know I'm Jamaican cliam I'm black, when they think I'm Egyptian, or Moroccan, or Saidi or Yemeni, think I'm "WHITISH", CAUCASIAN, NOT BLACK. Gringo mentality, once again. ***I GET THE SAME THING FROM BOTH SPANIARDS AND LATIN AMERICAS AS WELL SO WHAT?**** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... I know what I am. I'm not black, I'm not white, I am by ethnicity a first generation American of Jamaican origin. RAcially, I'm multi-racial of African, European, East Indian and a slight, very slight touch of Taino. I'm Multi-Racial, or a Multi-racial person of African descent and that and a metro card gets me on the subway: BIG FRIGGIN DEAL! It's not my race or naltionality that makes me anything but the hard work of my own two hands and my own mind. So when I point otu the fact that Egypt is African, and the people were and are Multi-racial Africans, I don't do so to glean greatness from them, or to prove that I am part of a MASTER RACE. That's bullshit. I do so to just tell the truth and be able to look at the issue objectively. It is what it is, It is where it is, the people are who they are. I do it to show the hypocracy of these notions of race and history, which people fall down and eat up without question as if it were gospel truth because it flatters their sense of self and their world view. A world view which implicitly puts them and their culture on top of the heap and all others below it. There is no white supremacy, there is not Black supremacy. History is the story of ALL MANKIND, what we are capable of at our greatest and lowest. The Greatest sicientis in the world are a reflection of what I am capable of if I work to my fullest potential, the most savage criminal is a reflection of what I am capable of if I focus my energy on the lowest, nothing more nothing less.*** If you ask my humble oppinion, you are just another human of this wonderful hemisphere called The Americas. Like 99% of us, and in one way or the other, you are a multi-racial individual. And like most of us, sometimes you wonder about your identity. I read in your writings the same feelings most people in here have: the desire that people forget races and embrace universality. That will come. ***Not as long as people continue to uphold rediculous notions of race and color and continue useing the vocabulary that supports and perpetuates those notions. I don't wonder about my identity, I know exactly who I am. I simply refuse to play this bullshit game that society insists I do. They can call me whatever they want consider me what they want, I will not support or perpetuate it.**** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... . And since its was White Europeans who declared that dark skinned people were black, (or any descended from such a person), and that mysterious continent is called Africa, then dark skinned people in Africa must be Black Africans. Therefore Egypt is a civilization on the African continent and since I see dark skinned people running all over Egypt they must be black, 'acuse the same white man tells me that people in his countries who look like tehm are black, hey, I look just like them and he tells me I'm black, even though my skin is really beige. Therefore Egypt is a jewel of Black History....it's just not the only one. Black history is filled with many jewels not only in Africa, but where ever her people have migrated, whether voulentarily or by force. . If you ask me, the Jewel of Africa are the mysteries of Subsaharan Africa. Personally, I found the civilization of the mummies pretty boring and even scary. However, I would like to know more about the Bantu expansion and its people. ***All the peoples of Africa are AFRICANS. WHITE BERBERS ARE AFRICANS, BLACK ZULUS ARE AFRICANS, MIXED BLOODED EGYPTIANS ARE AFRICANS AFRICA IS A VAST CONTINENT WITH A VARAIETY OF PEOPLES AND CULTURES AND THAT IS WHAT MAKES IT RICH.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... Black skin is not a sign that they are incapable of intelligence. If that is what worries you, that has been proved lots of times. So there is not need to adjust history to prove that. ***Its not a historical adjustment to state obvious facts. If I said that Africans originated Meso American History, that is not only an adjustment but a LIE*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... That is why Egypt and all the other African civilizations are inprtant in this context. The brain washing has to be undone. Egyptian civilization is the heritage of the people of Egypt. Not of Black of the Western Hemisphere. Sooner or later you will hear Egyptian voices. ****YOU STILL DON'T GET IT**** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... The only problem here is when it comes to African civilizations, we have to fight to achnowledge the obvious. If we mention the West African Empire, some numb nuts comes along and says, oh those kingdomes were established by, CAUCASIANS called Berebers. Well, it is an historical fact that the Moors invaded Black Africa. Tombuktu books were writen in Arab, for instance. Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... The implicit implication: NEGROS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF ANY ACHIEVEMENT WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF SOME WHITE RACE. You can't distort history to fit needs. Why don't you focus in all the kindoms and achievements done BEFORE the Muslim invasions all over Subsaharan Africa? There are many interesting discoveries in that area. Unfortunatelly, sometimes I think only Europeans know about it. No kidding. ***YOU STILL DON'T GET IT, IT DOESN'T MAtter. NO ONE IS TRYING TO SAY EGYPTIANS ARE WEST AFRICANS. THE LIE IS THAT DARK SKIN IS A SIGN OF LOW INTELLIGENCE. THEREFORE, If i see ANY dark skinned people in Africa who contradict that statement, it show that it is a lie. If I'm an American woman and I'm prevented from running in a marathon becausue I'm a woman and am told that women are too weak to run a marathon, I am being brain washed and lied too. If I see a woman in China, not only running a marathon, but completeing it in record time, then I'm going to shout from the roof tops that what they told me is a lie and hold up a picture of that Chinese woman every chance I get. NOW DO YOU GET IT OR DID THE SALT WATER CLOG YOU EARS TOO? Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... Then we look at these "berebers" and see their skins are just as black as a Hershey bar. Well, all your life you've been told that dark skinned people in Africa are BLACK. But now Mr. University professor shows you the thin nose of the skull Oh no, they are White, they are just sun tanned. They are dark skinned white people. Now your mind is spinning because you're skin is as white as butter, yet they tell you you are black, yet tese Africans are black but they tell you they are white. ITS A MIND GAME! Not really. In Spain, for instance, people know Moors weren't Black people. How? Our literature and even in the language the definition stand. Most coastal Berbers look like Zidane or Omar Kaddafi. The only "Black" Berbers are the Tuareg and groups that established South of the Sahara. ****Senoior, the Berber's they are talking about calling them CAucasians ARE THE FREAKING TUAREGS!*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... You find the remains of sophisticated stone structures in South Africa, which is being ruled by a White European government that denies you access to the very land and resources of your country. Why? because you are infereior, they teach it to you in school, you get the subtle message from the lack of representation of your people in the media etc. Yet when you show evidence that your acestros created something of note, it is deliberately surpressed. It's claimed that they were created, not by your ancestors who have lived in the area for thousands of years, but by Phoenicians, a CUACASIAN people from the FERTILE CRESCENT. It will take years of fighting before you are able to get the ruling elite to admit taht this is in fact a deliberately fabricated lie. Zimbabwe! That's deserves more study. The Phoenician theory is nuts. By the way, have you heared about Eredo? ***YOU might consider actually telling me what you want to instaed of asking me a question that goes nowhere.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone .... So yes, I see how rediculous this all is. And I understand your anger. I'm angry too because this is all male bovine feces. So get angry Penguin, but outraged, be offended, but know where to direct your outrage. Not at us, we so called black people, because we aren't the ones making the rules. I don't get angry for historical discussion. Just think about me one second, as descendent of two people that killed each other in the more brutish way imaginable. Or just think that in my own life I have to escape from my own country (during the Pinochet dictatorship) in order to progress. I just can't hate. Originally posted by Rakasnumberone .... ***Like hell they don't! Tell that to all those Cubans in Miami talking my ears off about how they can't wait for Castro to die so they can go kick the niggers out of their homes. Those are Americans, not Latinos anymore. ****YOU are Something else. I tell you what, YOU be the one to go to Miami and tell those Cubanos they ain't LAtinos. They were a bunch of segragationist white supremacists before they left Cuba, just like their counterparts in the United Staes Argentina and Mexico and many of them still are today, not all of them, but a great deal of them and there is not a Cubano who doesn't know it. Everybody who comes in contact with that community knows it and so do you.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone .... ***In theory, but not in practice. So what makes your racial pride myth any more valid than the Afro-centric myth? In practice does this hold up? Proud? When was the last time a Latin American country sent a black woman to represent their country in a Miss World contest? The first time it happened it made big news. When was the last time you saw an Africa or Indio face hosting the news in Any Latin American country? I get telemundo here in New York, I see all those Mexican novelas. Only time I see someone that looks like the Mexicans that live arouind me is when she's playing the maid. Wake up papi and smell the Bustelo!*** In practise as well. Why is more valid? Because is inclusive rather than exclusive. With respect to the Africans respresenting Miss World, ask countries where Africans are majorities and represent theirs countries. Dominican Republic, for instance. In many other countries Africans are minoritary or just simply don't exist. ***BULLSHIT! When was the last time MEXICO was Represented by an INDIA from Puebla? Get real.**** With respect to Amerindians hosting the News, just watch CNN in Spanish. Most of them have Amerindian ancestry; they are Mexicans. ***AN AMERICAN NEWS COMPANY WHERE BECAUSE OF THE WORK OF AFRO AMERICANS THEY ARE NOW REQUIRED TO REPRESENT A DIVERSE POULATION INSTEAD OF DELIBERATELY EXCLUDING PEOPLE NOT OF THE WHITES PHENOL TYPE. WHEN I SEE IT ON TELEMUNDO THEN I'LL BELIEVE IT AND SAY IT'S ABOUT GOD DAMN TIME*** With respect to Whites in TV novelas, they are as representative of Latin American population as the Whites shown on US TV. Even more, Mexico is not even representative of Latin America. ***You know what Penguin, I'm leaving this discussion and this forum for a long time, you know why, because you are a moron and trying to speak logically to you is a waste of precious time. I just had to get all of that off my chest and now that I have, I'm done with it. You are a moron and regardless of what anyone may want to say about me subsequenlty, I think I more than adequately showed what you are about. You need not respond to me because I'm just going to delete the notices in my inbox and stop wasting my time*** |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Maharbbal
Sultan 
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 08-Mar-2006 Location: Paris Online Status: Offline Posts: 2120 |
Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 02:27 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
lol never saw a post so difficult to read in all my time on the forum One thing is for sure, Americans are funny.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rakasnumberone
Shogun
Suspended Joined: 14-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 211 |
Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 02:49 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
There's a lot of interpersonal history behind that rant. It's nothing you need to worry about. It was personal, very personal and that is why I'm walking away. I have yet to master the art of being diplomatic in the prescence of bold faced bullshit. Good day. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 03:55 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
We are talking about history. Not about supersticions or about prejudices. Or the oppinion of racist groups.
There are not "White" textbooks.
What the heck is a "White" anyways. If make you feel better, I don't consider myself one.
The "Loca Isabella"?
My godness! She is like a mother to me. I bet you are confussing her with "Juana La Loca".Yes, I am talking about THAT Spain. Most of my ancestors came from there, Lady, so I won't accept insults against my "Motherland".
Ole!
It matters. If you knew Ancient Greeks you would know they didn't consider themselves part of Europe. Considering Greeks Europeans happens after Europe started to exist as a new entity. In the Middle Ages.
Yes. Romans were brutal in an industrial scale. Perhaps one of the most criminal and sadistic people ever.
However, technically they were "civilized" and they weren't "Barbarians" either.
Just semantics
What more bloody than the Hollocaust, the extermination of the Native Americans and the Natives of Tastamania, and many other crimes on the shoulders of the West.
Agreed
Human sacrifices were common in the Andes region. That's something I know, and I am not shameful. After all that was a practise of the Ancient peoples of this land, partly my ancestors, and not me.
Barbarian was the common name for "tribal peoples or outsiders that didn't speak the language" for Greeks. Something like "illegal immigrant" for Americans.
Nahh! You don't understand my culture. Those casta stuff are from the time of Adam and Eve. The reality is that in Latin American anyone marries anyone else and people usually don't live separated by races in the same city. There are differences in races between regions, and also certain racial "slope" between social classes, but it is anywhere near what you see in the United States.
Agreed. I remember that tenis player Byron Black played for Zimbabwe in Davis Cup long time ago. He was white, and he was African.
That's false. There are many historical example of dark skin people that made great things. And not only in the U.S. or Africa, but also in India or Mesoamerica.
Nope!
They weren't! Jesus! Don't you think I don't know who were my ancestors? As an Hispanic descendent I know the Maghreb influence in Spain and the Maghreb populations, and also the people of Spain. And I tell you, the Tuaregs only were present in Spain during the 12th century and in a short period. The real Moors that matter to Spain were coastal Berebers like Kabyles, Arabs, Syrians and Native Spaniards!
Are you crazy? Those fellows are more dangerous than the Italian maffia.
I don't like much Cubans in the exile to be sincere, no matter theirs color of skin.
I bet I have seen more Mexican TV that you do. For me, all Mexicans on Mexico's TV are Indians. At least they are more Indians than Chileans
Well, I got a better impression on you that you had on me. Anyways.
[/QUOTE] Edited by pinguin - 13-Feb-2008 at 03:57 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tyranos
Shogun
Joined: 01-Oct-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 246 |
Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 04:38 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Europe was coined by the Greeks, so yes they considered themselves part've Europe, but always Greeks first.
Egypt they considered Asian.  |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
red clay
Administrator 
Tomato Master Emeritus Joined: 14-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 10226 |
Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 05:03 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
I haven't seen so much organic fertilizer thrown around since forever. Closed until we can sort this out,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 456 |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.137 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.137 seconds.
