Hebrew Israelite

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#24158 May 11, 2012
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Central Asians were not "black", No Truth dumbass Man, people have been living in Central since at least 70,000 years ago, moron, that is LONG before your stupid religious belief that humans only arose in the last 10,000 years even though you stupidly try to use scientific evidence that you don't understand that clearly state othewise. Turkish people have absolutely nothing to do with your moronic lies, Turic people were a historical Mongolian nomads made up of various tribes who came to exist LONG after the prehistoric periods in question, as swipe. The alleles for light skin already existed in people by then, stupid. Those Eurasians who migrated into Europe and Asia were already light skin for thousands of years before their migrations, you scientifically challenged fool. Now go learn about human evolution that you obviously know nothing about, jackass.
How can you call someone a fool when you dont know what it means?

Fool means you dont know God. Biblically challenged fool.

BTW evolution is bs.
Jeff

Framingham, MA

#24159 May 11, 2012
ThatKidDizz wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you call someone a fool when you dont know what it means?
Fool means you dont know God. Biblically challenged fool.
BTW evolution is bs.
BS are your claims, fool.

Level 5

Since: Feb 11

Honiton, UK

#24160 May 11, 2012
ThatKidDizz wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you call someone a fool when you dont know what it means?
Fool means you dont know God. Biblically challenged fool.
BTW evolution is bs.
Evolution is a fact. You either understand it or you don't.

Level 8

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#24161 May 11, 2012
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Most haplogroups found in Europe migrated from West Asia with some, like E-V257, from North Africa, migrations into and out have been going on throughout prehistoric and historic times, just as everywhere else in the world. Trying to place modern racial and modern ethnic lineages in prehistoric haplogroups is ridiculous beyond belief, especially given how much migrations and how much hoochie coochien was going on with our ancestors through out time. Natufians didn't make it into Europe, they were one of many groups that lived in the Levant during the Mesolithic period. Their morphological affinities suggest some Sub-Saharan traits alongside with some Eurasian ones. Also the Natufians show few morphological ties with the later Neolithic West Asian groups that actually introduced the "Neolithic package" to Europe. They therefore are not the source Mesolithic population from which European Neolithic farmers descended from.
this is your area, but it was my understanding that natufians migrated into europe. but you know these things change all the time pending on new info.
but to your other point. if you can't be sure what racial type migrated into europe, why so sure it wasn't similar to black african?
http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/w...

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#24162 May 11, 2012
I just came across some information...

Black people arent Hebrews
Jeff

Framingham, MA

#24163 May 11, 2012
DISASTER LOOMS wrote:
<quoted text>
this is your area, but it was my understanding that natufians migrated into europe. but you know these things change all the time pending on new info.
but to your other point. if you can't be sure what racial type migrated into europe, why so sure it wasn't similar to black african?
http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/w...
Your 'source' for your argument that Europeans were originally black is comical to say the least since it comes from such clownish sites like Afrocentric " raceandhistory.com ". That site is ridiculous beyond comprehension, full of lies and fallacies, it has as about much truth to it as little green men living on the moon. The original Celts were not black, neither were the Vikings, Silures were not black and neither were the British "black" nor were the Scots "black Africans". These civilizations and people were historical and we have evidence of what they looked since they arose during historical times and during periods when light skin was already nearly FIXED in Europeans, so their racial make up and their ancestors is not question, and they most certainly were not black nor Africans.

Neither the archeological nor scientific evidence support such idiotic claims. The migrants who originally colonized the UK were not black Africans and evidence shows them to cluster closer to Eurasian types then to sub Saharan Africans. I was going to say what other nonsense are those fools at " raceandhistory.com " will make next, claim the Vikings were black? but your clownish "source" already made THAT idiotic claim too, proven my point that they are laughable to say the least.

Those early migrants into Europe were not similar to black Africans because black Africans evolved into their modern phenotypes just as all other people did, that is why. Science has shown early homosapiens wouldn't have had the phenotypes modern people of today do, they were archaic types so our modern racial identities wouldn't even apply to them, our physical characteristic evolved through the ages based upon selection, our environments, diets, new mutations and alleles that arose this is why we have all these different phenotypes we do today. Early migrants into Europe were archaic Eurasian types who's remains cluster them closer to Europeans then Sub Saharan Africans.

Natufians never migrated into Europe, they lived in the Levant during the Mesolithic period. Their morphological affinities suggest they have been intermixing it up with native West Asian types since they show some Sub-Saharan traits alongside with some Eurasian ones.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#24164 May 11, 2012
The term Hebrew is a double translation.

The Israelites wrote their name in their language with the letters &#1497;&#1512;&#14 89;&#1506;. The letters IVRI represent &#1497;&#1512;&#14 89;&#1506; in English.

IVRI(pronounced as erverh)was translated to Latin as Hebraicus.

Hebraicus is translated in English as Hebrew.

We are not Hebrews, our ancestors did not refer to themselves as Hebrews, they were called Erverh.

Research Erverh if you want more information...

Level 8

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#24165 May 11, 2012
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Your 'source' for your argument that Europeans were originally black is comical to say the least since it comes from such clownish sites like Afrocentric " raceandhistory.com ". That site is ridiculous beyond comprehension, full of lies and fallacies, it has as about much truth to it as little green men living on the moon. The original Celts were not black, neither were the Vikings, Silures were not black and neither were the British "black" nor were the Scots "black Africans". These civilizations and people were historical and we have evidence of what they looked since they arose during historical times and during periods when light skin was already nearly FIXED in Europeans, so their racial make up and their ancestors is not question, and they most certainly were not black nor Africans.
Neither the archeological nor scientific evidence support such idiotic claims. The migrants who originally colonized the UK were not black Africans and evidence shows them to cluster closer to Eurasian types then to sub Saharan Africans. I was going to say what other nonsense are those fools at " raceandhistory.com " will make next, claim the Vikings were black? but your clownish "source" already made THAT idiotic claim too, proven my point that they are laughable to say the least.
Those early migrants into Europe were not similar to black Africans because black Africans evolved into their modern phenotypes just as all other people did, that is why. Science has shown early homosapiens wouldn't have had the phenotypes modern people of today do, they were archaic types so our modern racial identities wouldn't even apply to them, our physical characteristic evolved through the ages based upon selection, our environments, diets, new mutations and alleles that arose this is why we have all these different phenotypes we do today. Early migrants into Europe were archaic Eurasian types who's remains cluster them closer to Europeans then Sub Saharan Africans.
Natufians never migrated into Europe, they lived in the Levant during the Mesolithic period. Their morphological affinities suggest they have been intermixing it up with native West Asian types since they show some Sub-Saharan traits alongside with some Eurasian ones.
well i have no way of verifying this one way or the other. when i looked into the natufians the sources stated that they introduced agriculture to europe. but i know these thing change all the time. i also thought hap L1b was in europe, too. anyway, no biggie.
phaed

Haslet, TX

#24166 May 11, 2012
TRUTH HITMAN IS BACK wrote:
<quoted text>Now I have scholars to dis prove your dumb azz theories
This will dis prove your eurasian B.S Eurasian Turks were not in egypt during the time of Christ it was th eRomans whits who ruled then they wer the only whits in egypt here is the proof:

Anthropologist, Count Constatin de Volney (1727-1820),spoke about the race of the Egyptians that produced the Pharaohs. He later paid tribute to Herodotus' discovery when he said:

The ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same type as all native born Africans. That being so, we can see how their blood mixed for several centuries with that of the Romans and Greeks, must have lost the intensity of it's original color, while retaining none the less the imprint of it's original mold. We can even state as a general principle that the face (referring to The Sphinx) is a kind of monument able, in many cases, to attest to or shed light on historical evidence on the origins of the people."
The fact that the ancient Egyptians were black-skin prompted Volney to make the following statement:
"What a subject for meditation, just think that the race of black men today our slaves and the object of our scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, science and even the use of our speech."

BOOOM! thats a BOOM SON I got more:

Gerald Massey, English writer and author of the book, Egypt the Light of the World, wrote, "The dignity is so ancient that the insignia of the Pharaoh evidently belonged to the time when Egyptians wore nothing but the girdle of the Negro." (p 251)
Handle up man!! Kp Barros in check..
Jeff

Framingham, MA

#24167 May 11, 2012
DISASTER LOOMS wrote:
<quoted text>
well i have no way of verifying this one way or the other. when i looked into the natufians the sources stated that they introduced agriculture to europe. but i know these thing change all the time. i also thought hap L1b was in europe, too. anyway, no biggie.
No the Natufians were not the ones who introduced agriculture to europe, its was later Neolithic West Asian groups that actually introduced the "Neolithic package" to Europe and they show few morphological ties with Natufians. They therefore are not the Mesolithic source population from which European Neolithic farmers descended from. L1b is nearly none existing in Europe, L lineages are relatively infrequent (3% or less) throughout Europe, but you are right its no biggie. ;)
Black Deal

Dallas, TX

#24168 May 11, 2012
ThatKidDizz wrote:
The term Hebrew is a double translation.
The Israelites wrote their name in their language with the letters &#1497;&#1512;&#14 89;&#1506;. The letters IVRI represent &#1497;&#1512;&#14 89;&#1506; in English.
IVRI(pronounced as erverh)was translated to Latin as Hebraicus.
Hebraicus is translated in English as Hebrew.
We are not Hebrews, our ancestors did not refer to themselves as Hebrews, they were called Erverh.
Research Erverh if you want more information...
Everybody up in here saying translated stuff

Aint nobody speaking hebrew neither

So folks say Jesus and hebrew because we dont speak hebrew
Barros Serrano

Silver City, NM

#24169 May 11, 2012
TRUTH HITMAN IS BACK wrote:
<quoted text>Hey this statement is not historicaly CORRECT "Lower Egypt, the part adjacent to Israel, the place to where a Hebrew would have gone, was full of Eurasian types since predynastic times." Wrong there were NO TURKISH people in existence at that time. The only white people in egypt migrated there when ROME and GREECE conqured that land period in 333 B.C thats when your race took over egypt. The only eurasians that migrated into Afrcia were Black people who migrated (from central asia) they migrated into Europe Africa India and eastern asia No white were on the planet at that time
SHALAM!
Wrong again, boy. Lower Egypt had Eurasian types in it by 30,000 years ago, as did the Maghreb. Turks have nothing to do with it. Look at the BERBERS, and the Guanches! LOL... not black.
In fact any Hebrew could go into Lower Egypt and fit right in.
Hebrews were not black.
"Whites" have been around for tens of millenia, you idiot. Too bad that negatively impacts your already flagging self-esteem. White Europeans had civilization before Egypt, you numbnuts. Learn some history before you attempt to step to me, boy!
Barros Serrano

Silver City, NM

#24170 May 11, 2012
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
No the Natufians were not the ones who introduced agriculture to europe, its was later Neolithic West Asian groups that actually introduced the "Neolithic package" to Europe and they show few morphological ties with Natufians. They therefore are not the Mesolithic source population from which European Neolithic farmers descended from. L1b is nearly none existing in Europe, L lineages are relatively infrequent (3% or less) throughout Europe, but you are right its no biggie. ;)
The Natufians had been absorbed by the Mideasterners before they developed the full-blown Neolithic. Already the Natufians were thoroughly mixed with Mideasterners, and are likely the contributors of E1b1b to the Mideast and thence to Europe, but even they by the time they were absorbed they were predominantly Mideastern.

Without a doubt, the Neolithic in that region has to be credited to the J-type Mideasterners.
Barros Serrano

Silver City, NM

#24171 May 11, 2012
Ben YISRAEL wrote:
<quoted text>your on point! Jews aint lost nothing
Ain't lost nothing??? They lost their country for almost 2000 years. They had all their possessions taken from them repeatedly. They had 1/3 of their number slaughtered by the Nazis. But they've lost nothing? They're arguably the most abused people in history.

The insidious nature of your statement reveals why your cult must not be left to do as it wishes... and in fact, must be destroyed. You are severe racists. Whatever religion you're hiding it behind, your motivation is primarily racist.

You are not Hebrews. You are Afro-whitey Yanks. Nothing more. Since you have so little culture left, you try to grab someone else's, and in the process deny THEIR right to it!!! LOL!!!

Funny, but vile, extremely evil.

I guarantee you that any chance I get I will act against the Black Hebrews and do what I can to destroy you. We are at war, and you will lose, you Afro-whitey Yank non-Hebrew deluded racist sociopaths!
Barros Serrano

Silver City, NM

#24172 May 11, 2012
TRUTH HITMAN IS BACK wrote:
<quoted text>Now I have scholars to dis prove your dumb azz theories
This will dis prove your eurasian B.S Eurasian Turks were not in egypt during the time of Christ it was th eRomans whits who ruled then they wer the only whits in egypt here is the proof:
Anthropologist, Count Constatin de Volney (1727-1820),spoke about the race of the Egyptians that produced the Pharaohs. He later paid tribute to Herodotus' discovery when he said:
The ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same type as all native born Africans. That being so, we can see how their blood mixed for several centuries with that of the Romans and Greeks, must have lost the intensity of it's original color, while retaining none the less the imprint of it's original mold. We can even state as a general principle that the face (referring to The Sphinx) is a kind of monument able, in many cases, to attest to or shed light on historical evidence on the origins of the people."
The fact that the ancient Egyptians were black-skin prompted Volney to make the following statement:
"What a subject for meditation, just think that the race of black men today our slaves and the object of our scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, science and even the use of our speech."
BOOOM! thats a BOOM SON I got more:
Gerald Massey, English writer and author of the book, Egypt the Light of the World, wrote, "The dignity is so ancient that the insignia of the Pharaoh evidently belonged to the time when Egyptians wore nothing but the girdle of the Negro." (p 251)
You go babbling on about Egypt. Well, Upper Egypt was black, but Lower Egypt was largely not, even in predynastic times.

You Afronazis on every thread end up talking about Egypt, and why? Because at least there you CAN find some actual black people!!! As opposed to among the Olmecs, Choctaw, Phoenicians, Etruscans, Vikings, Celts, and all the other non-black peoples you claim.
Barros Serrano

Silver City, NM

#24173 May 11, 2012
DISASTER LOOMS wrote:
<quoted text>
this is your area, but it was my understanding that natufians migrated into europe. but you know these things change all the time pending on new info.
but to your other point. if you can't be sure what racial type migrated into europe, why so sure it wasn't similar to black african?
http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/w...
Because the evidence shows continuity between the first H. sapiens in Europe and modern Europeans, not with Africans.

You desperately WANT blacks to have been there first, but, once again, Afronazi fantasies based on low self-esteem and racist self-hatred don't provide real answers. For that we need real scientific evidence.

You Afronazis need therapy for the white-racist-inculcated self-hatred from which you suffer and which motivates most of your rap.

Level 8

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#24174 May 11, 2012
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the evidence shows continuity between the first H. sapiens in Europe and modern Europeans, not with Africans.
You desperately WANT blacks to have been there first, but, once again, Afronazi fantasies based on low self-esteem and racist self-hatred don't provide real answers. For that we need real scientific evidence.
You Afronazis need therapy for the white-racist-inculcated self-hatred from which you suffer and which motivates most of your rap.
i never said 'blacks' were their first. neanderthals and then cro magnon. but it was my understanding that africans did move up in other waves. the idea that no black african types never migrated to europe during ancient times seems pretty unlikely to me. considering they had migrated all the way to the pacific islands.

Level 5

Since: Feb 11

Honiton, UK

#24175 May 11, 2012
The first Sapien Humans into Europe were dark, darker than modern day Europeans and most Middle Easterners. What they would of been called racially in western society I do not know.

As for Y Chromosome DNA some E1b1b subclades came into Europe directly from Africa, these include:
E1b1b1a1 (M78)
E1b1b1a1c (V22)
E1b1b1b1 (M81)
E1b1b1b1b (M183)
E1b1b1a1d (V65)

I do not know the frequencies of the above haplorgoups in any population just yet.

Autosomal DNA
Italian = 5% African
Portugese = 8% African
Spanish = 4% African
Barros Serrano

Silver City, NM

#24176 May 11, 2012
DISASTER LOOMS wrote:
<quoted text>
i never said 'blacks' were their first. neanderthals and then cro magnon. but it was my understanding that africans did move up in other waves. the idea that no black african types never migrated to europe during ancient times seems pretty unlikely to me. considering they had migrated all the way to the pacific islands.
It is “your understanding”? How about reading about the real evidence (as I've done) rather than depending on some vague Afronazi racist “understanding”?

Cro-Magnon were the first homo sapiens in Europe. They were closely related to mideasterners, and were not black.

Also, Africans did not migrate to the Pacific Islands. Those were Eurasians. They did not have African mtDNA, but Eurasian markers, mostly M. Their Y-DNA also is entirely Eurasian.

Stop trying to claim everyone on earth was black just because you hate your own pathetic Afro-whitey Yank ass.
Jeff

Framingham, MA

#24177 May 11, 2012
DISASTER LOOMS wrote:
<quoted text>
i never said 'blacks' were their first. neanderthals and then cro magnon. but it was my understanding that africans did move up in other waves. the idea that no black african types never migrated to europe during ancient times seems pretty unlikely to me. considering they had migrated all the way to the pacific islands.
No one is saying no black African types didn't migrated into Europe but the ones in question here were not black Africans. It is a fact that back and forth migrations of archaic Eurasians, Africans, Asians, etc as well as historical European, Africans, Asians, Middle Eastern, etc, in Europe, Africa the Middle East, Asia etc have been taking part since our common ancestors came to exist, and these archaic homosapiens also existed in all these geographical regions for many centuries along side many other archaic Homogenus groups.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min No Surprize 1,507,970
Why do white boys get mad 7 min Kato 25
On the net forever !! 9 min Oogula boogula 9
Trump associates may have coordinated with Russ... 25 min NotSoDivineMsM 24
I'm a married white women having sex with Black... (Jun '10) 29 min misfit 0676 203
Fake News 35 min MeSo 2
Black men are the most sell out race of men. As... (May '12) 40 min A Perm For BM 607
White men are the solution for the single black... 2 hr IT IS I 101
Are you tired of Blacks? 4 hr Charlie 68
More from around the web