Why do Afrocentrists obsess over Egyp...

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#7160 May 6, 2013
Again people in the Maghreb 30k years ago looked no different than Africans during that time. And haplopgroup A(Y-DNA) arose first in the Maghreb...

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#7161 May 6, 2013
Sinajuavi wrote:
<quoted text>
More stupidity. What about the word “Eurasian” can't you idiots grasp? It includes all the OOA people. It does not denote only “Europeans”.
The people who settled the Maghreb 30,000 years ago were not European. They came from the Mideast. The Mideast is not in Europe, you idiot.
Africa was not all black 30,000 years ago, obviously, since the Maghreb was populated by Eurasians, and there were also Eurasians in Lower Egypt.
The Maghreb was uninhabited 30k bp when those Eurasians arrived, and so they are the indigenous people, just as the Cro-Magnon were the indigenous Europeans.
About 30,000 years ago your ancestors were schtupping Homo heidelbergensis, whereas the people of the Maghreb are mixed with neandertalensis.
Just how did people look like 30k years ago?-__-

I don't need to go into expand more into this since we have covered this a million times. And as for Neanderthal admixture in North Africans...That has been debunked.

ABSTRACT

Ancient population structure shaping contemporary genetic variation has been recently appreciated and has important implications regarding our understanding of the structure of modern human genomes. We identified a ~36-kb DNA segment in the human genome that displays an ancient substructure. The variation at this locus exists primarily as two highly divergent haplogroups. One of these haplogroups (the NE1 haplogroup) aligns with the Neandertal haplotype and contains a 4.6-kb deletion polymorphism in perfect linkage disequilibrium with 12 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) across diverse populations. The other haplogroup, which does not contain the 4.6-kb deletion, aligns with the chimpanzee haplotype and is likely ancestral. Africans have higher overall pairwise differences with the Neandertal haplotype than Eurasians do for this NE1 locus (p<10&#8722;15). Moreover, the nucleotide diversity at this locus is higher in Eurasians than in Africans. These results mimic signatures of recent Neandertal admixture contributing to this locus. However, an in-depth assessment of the variation in this region across multiple populations reveals that African NE1 haplotypes, albeit rare, harbor more sequence variation than NE1 haplotypes found in Europeans, indicating an ancient African origin of this haplogroup and refuting recent Neandertal admixture. Population genetic analyses of the SNPs within each of these haplogroups, along with genome-wide comparisons revealed significant FST (p = 0.00003) and positive Tajima's D (p = 0.00285) statistics, pointing to non-neutral evolution of this locus. The NE1 locus harbors no protein-coding genes, but contains transcribed sequences as well as sequences with putative regulatory function based on bioinformatic predictions and in vitro experiments. We postulate that the variation observed at this locus predates Human–Neandertal divergence and is evolving under balancing selection, especially among European populations.
Source:
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Ado...

So much for Eurasian admixture among these Africans.

As for heidelbergensis...You couldn't even prove that West Africans mated with them, but only 'speculated' that they did.

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#7162 May 6, 2013
Oh and on the Almoravids...I don't have a link for a source, but...

"The _29 (A-G) mutation is believed to be of Sub-Saharan African origin and is specially frequent in Black Americans (Gonzalez-Redondo et al., 1991). Its presence in Morocco could be explained by migration during the Almoravid
dynasty (1055–1130 AD) or through the caravan routes."

GENETIC TESTING
Volume 12, Number 4, 2008
Molecular Basis of b-Thalassemia in Morocco:
Possible Origins of the Molecular Heterogeneity

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#7163 May 6, 2013
I'm going to expand more on the Almoravids...

Euronuts always love to claim that the North African(I'm excluding Northeast Africa) was always 'superior'...When in fact it was the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.

Also this idea plays into the myth that the North Africa was connected to Eurasia or Arabia etc, was superior and the South was docile and primitive and eventually was invaded and subjugated by the North.

BUT AGAIN...This is false and the Almoravid invasion of Ghana is false and mythical...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3171941...

We do however know that the Almoravids originated around Senegal, and they incorporated Sudanis into their Armies. They also conquered Al-Andalucia as well as parts of the Mahgreb..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/suttonlink/almor...

So one can easily see the Almoravid conquest as a Sudani/Saharah/Berber unification and Invasion of Andalucia not western Sudan.

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#7164 May 6, 2013
Expanding more...

The Zenaga or Sanhaja roots of the Moors lay in the SOUTH. So Moorish expansion was the opposite of the Euronut tradition-- it was SOUTH to NORTH. Again the South was MORE ADVANCED. Just look at past empires such as the Ghana, Mali, Songhai,etc...What does that tell you?

Have any of you guys read the book Sahara: A Natural History by Marq de Villiers and Sheila Hirtle? It has some really good info on the historical relationship between Mahgreb and western Sudan. Here is what it says about the early history of the Maghreb vs. the western Sudan:

"Farther to the west, there were no indigenous organized states or political confederations in the northern Sahara until the Arabs arrived in the seventh century A.D. The indigenous people were the Berbers, who lived in and on the fringes of the northwestern Sahara...

On the southern fringes of the desert were the greatest empires of Old Africa, whose stories are only now beginning to emerge in their fullness. The settled cultures along the southern rim date back as far as Egypt, and owe their flowering, at least in part, to the same grim fact of climate change: Adversity bred ingenuity, ingenuity bred technology and thus an increasing population, population bred organized politics, and the Sahara, in the progression, bred empire..."

Again this begs the question, how at least in the western part of Africa can the north be 'superior' if the south was politically organized first???

Again what does that tell you???

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#7165 May 6, 2013
Oh and before I go and feed my son.

The Silent ones(slaves) were not Africans but Slavs, Germanic's and Englishmen...
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/1121/screens...

-The Great Upheaval: America and the Birth of the Modern World, 1788-1800

By Jay Winik

Majority of the slaves in Andalus were white.

Also...

Everyone in the armies of Andalus were not slaves. In fact most were not. That is a bit of an over statement. And of those often referred to as slaves, many were mercenaries. Most of the armies in Andalus were either made up by troops of the various Berber groups, various Syrian or Arab groups or local native levies called up from the Muslim populations of various towns. And among all of these troops you had various ethnic groups. There were white Europeans who became Islamic rules, as in some of the Visigothic kings who invited in the Muslims. There were Africans from across North and West Africa. There were Arabians and Syrians along with Egyptians and other groups. The Islamic population was mixed. And texts from early on in the Islamic occupation distinguish between them very clearly:

For example the Mozaribic Chronicle of 754:
"Despite the expressions of horror at the invasion, what is perhaps surprising is that the chronicler’s attitude to the Moors is generally even handed. Musa and one or two others are heavily criticised, but others are praised for bringing peace to the land. Perhaps this is because the chronicler does not evaluate the leaders in religious terms, but according to their contribution to political life. Nor does he question their legitimacy as governors. The chronicler also refrains from talking about the invaders’ religion, and does not call them Muslims, or infidels or pagans; rather he refers to them in ethnic terms: Arabs (Arabes), Moors (Mauri), Saracens (Saraceni)."
Source:
http://www.spainthenandnow.com/spanish-histor...
Nagas74

United States

#7166 May 6, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a pansy who who does nothing but obsess over me like a femb8tch.
Do you deny this, Bettybwoy?
<quoted text>
No, I'm just making note of your undeniable phag boy obsession with me that's been going strong now for seven whole months. I find you illiterate pansies quite sickening actually.
<quoted text>
No you stupid illiterate, can't read worth sh9t b8tch, I specifically asked you bettybwoy a## to tell me if Black Africans who AGREE with this thread, have given respect to me, and OPENLY criticized afrocentric delusion are sell outs and race traitors, as well.
Now shut the f9ck up, and answer the question. Don't run like a b8tch like you do every other time.
YES any African or other type of black person who shares your views is indeed a race traitor and a Coon. No exceptions. Either you are on the side of Africans or you are a sell-out,slave minded,UncleTom. African or not. If they share your housekneegrow mentality then they are against their own people.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#7167 May 6, 2013
Nagas74 wrote:
<quoted text>
YES any African or other type of black person who shares your views is indeed a race traitor and a Coon.
Now explain how they are race traitors and c99ns for sharing my views pertaining to the embracing of Interior African history and achievement.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#7168 May 6, 2013
big mike M wrote:
Expanding more...
The Zenaga or Sanhaja roots of the Moors lay in the SOUTH. So Moorish expansion was the opposite of the Euronut tradition-- it was SOUTH to NORTH. Again the South was MORE ADVANCED. Just look at past empires such as the Ghana, Mali, Songhai,etc...What does that tell you?
Have any of you guys read the book Sahara: A Natural History by Marq de Villiers and Sheila Hirtle? It has some really good info on the historical relationship between Mahgreb and western Sudan. Here is what it says about the early history of the Maghreb vs. the western Sudan:
"Farther to the west, there were no indigenous organized states or political confederations in the northern Sahara until the Arabs arrived in the seventh century A.D. The indigenous people were the Berbers, who lived in and on the fringes of the northwestern Sahara...
On the southern fringes of the desert were the greatest empires of Old Africa, whose stories are only now beginning to emerge in their fullness. The settled cultures along the southern rim date back as far as Egypt, and owe their flowering, at least in part, to the same grim fact of climate change: Adversity bred ingenuity, ingenuity bred technology and thus an increasing population, population bred organized politics, and the Sahara, in the progression, bred empire..."
Again this begs the question, how at least in the western part of Africa can the north be 'superior' if the south was politically organized first???
Again what does that tell you???
It was also due to the fact that they, West Africans, were agriculturalists, while the northerners were nomadic pastoralists mostly.

The West Africans being agriculturalists meant they had settlements; settlements that, because of the wealth they produced, such as food stuffs, textiles, etc., might have attracted other, lessor developed groups, who might have attempted attacks on the settled population.

This would have also served as a means of adversity by which probably stimulated more advanced means of defense from the settled populations.

Also, given that they were agriculturalists, their population would have probably been able to grow more exponentially that the nomads. This increase in population would have led to more advanced means of organization, which would have led to city-states, full states, kingdoms, etc.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#7169 May 6, 2013
Mike wrote:
"Why do Afrocentrists obsess over Egypt and NON-African Civilizations?" I suspect because its years of African culture being ridiculed in Tarzan movies and cartoons and because too many Blacks don't value anything that Whites don't value (part of this is understandable since this is the culture they grew up in)... and Afrocentrists are the WORST offenders. You want to stop an Afrocentrists from obsess over ancient Egypt? Tell them White people don't care about ancient Egypt. I don't care what White people think or ancient Eqypt
Nagas74 wrote:
<quoted text>
New Uncle Tom or new white racist?
What a stupid b8tch you are, Bettybwoy.

He just said he doesn't care what white people think OR about Ancient Egypt, and that somehow makes him either a white racist or a Tom.

Logic is your kryptonite, Bettybwoy. Stupidity is your Diety.

What a pansy.

“Look upon reality!”

Level 2

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#7170 May 6, 2013
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok I admit it! I'm full of shit but it's just because I want my history to be that of a bad ass mofo. You know like a Moor or a Viking. A Shogun or a Ninja or an Egyptian Pharaoh or European Knight.. I mean for god sake! I don't want my history to be of a BLACK AFRICAN TRIBAL PERSON DANCING AROUND A FIRE WHILST COOKING EUROPEAN EXPLORERS IN A HUGE STONE POT SMH
I see Big "Mime" M has returned for another round of abuse smh

Big Mike the Mime, here is the proof you seem to not grasp nor accept..It seems you like to post hypothesis and not factual evidence. Hypothesis is the basis of Afrocentric lunacy.

Now lets start with North Africa shall we?

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Ado...

Proposed migrations between North Africa and neighboring regions have included Paleolithic gene flow from the Near East, an Arabic migration across the whole of North Africa 1,400 years ago (ya), and trans-Saharan transport of slaves from sub-Saharan Africa. Historical records, archaeology, and mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA have been marshaled in support of one theory or another, but there is little consensus regarding the overall genetic background of North African populations or their origin and expansion. We characterize the patterns of genetic variation in North Africa using ~730,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms from across the genome for seven populations. We observe two distinct, opposite gradients of ancestry: an east-to-west increase in likely autochthonous North African ancestry and an east-to-west decrease in likely Near Eastern Arabic ancestry. The indigenous North African ancestry may have been more common in Berber populations and appears most closely related to populations outside of Africa, but divergence between Maghrebi peoples and Near Eastern/Europeans likely precedes the Holocene (>12,000 ya). We also find significant signatures of sub-Saharan African ancestry that vary substantially among populations. These sub-Saharan ancestries appear to be a recent introduction into North African populations, dating to about 1,200 years ago in southern Morocco and about 750 years ago into Egypt, possibly reflecting the patterns of the trans-Saharan slave trade that occurred during this period.

Now here is the proof you seek concerning sub-Saharan Africans mating with non-Modern human populations. It is not known, as of now, whether is was Erectus or another hominid.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F1...

I will deal with your Moorish lies later.

Big Mike "MIME" M, you will fail in your attempt to paint North Africa black and the Moors Negroes...PERIOD.

Next!

“Look upon reality!”

Level 2

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#7171 May 6, 2013
big mike M wrote:
Oh and before I go and feed my son.
The Silent ones(slaves) were not Africans but Slavs, Germanic's and Englishmen...
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/1121/screens...
-The Great Upheaval: America and the Birth of the Modern World, 1788-1800
By Jay Winik
Majority of the slaves in Andalus were white.
Also...
Everyone in the armies of Andalus were not slaves. In fact most were not. That is a bit of an over statement. And of those often referred to as slaves, many were mercenaries. Most of the armies in Andalus were either made up by troops of the various Berber groups, various Syrian or Arab groups or local native levies called up from the Muslim populations of various towns. And among all of these troops you had various ethnic groups. There were white Europeans who became Islamic rules, as in some of the Visigothic kings who invited in the Muslims. There were Africans from across North and West Africa. There were Arabians and Syrians along with Egyptians and other groups. The Islamic population was mixed. And texts from early on in the Islamic occupation distinguish between them very clearly:
For example the Mozaribic Chronicle of 754:
"Despite the expressions of horror at the invasion, what is perhaps surprising is that the chronicler’s attitude to the Moors is generally even handed. Musa and one or two others are heavily criticised, but others are praised for bringing peace to the land. Perhaps this is because the chronicler does not evaluate the leaders in religious terms, but according to their contribution to political life. Nor does he question their legitimacy as governors. The chronicler also refrains from talking about the invaders’ religion, and does not call them Muslims, or infidels or pagans; rather he refers to them in ethnic terms: Arabs (Arabes), Moors (Mauri), Saracens (Saraceni)."
Source:
http://www.spainthenandnow.com/spanish-histor...
Yes, there were many white slave soldiers. Ibn Khaldun explains that here is his writings.

The only people who accept slavery are the Negroes, owing to their low degree of humanity and proximity to the animal stage. Other persons who accept the status of slave do so as a means of attaining high rank, or power, or wealth, as is the case with the Mameluke Turks in the East and with those Franks and Galicians who enter the service of the state [in Spain]

Ibn Khaldun, 14th Century Moorish Scholar

"Therefore, the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because [Negroes] have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated."

Ibn Khaldun, 14th Century Moorish Scholar


"beyond [known peoples of Mauritania] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and of unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings."

Ibn Khaldun, 14th Century Moorish Scholar

Next!
Peshewar

Jacksonville, FL

#7172 May 6, 2013
Afrocentric Myth Exposer wrote:
<quoted text>
I see Big "Mime" M has returned for another round of abuse smh
Big Mike the Mime, here is the proof you seem to not grasp nor accept..It seems you like to post hypothesis and not factual evidence. Hypothesis is the basis of Afrocentric lunacy.
Now lets start with North Africa shall we?
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Ado...
Proposed migrations between North Africa and neighboring regions have included Paleolithic gene flow from the Near East, an Arabic migration across the whole of North Africa 1,400 years ago (ya), and trans-Saharan transport of slaves from sub-Saharan Africa. Historical records, archaeology, and mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA have been marshaled in support of one theory or another, but there is little consensus regarding the overall genetic background of North African populations or their origin and expansion. We characterize the patterns of genetic variation in North Africa using ~730,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms from across the genome for seven populations. We observe two distinct, opposite gradients of ancestry: an east-to-west increase in likely autochthonous North African ancestry and an east-to-west decrease in likely Near Eastern Arabic ancestry. The indigenous North African ancestry may have been more common in Berber populations and appears most closely related to populations outside of Africa, but divergence between Maghrebi peoples and Near Eastern/Europeans likely precedes the Holocene (>12,000 ya). We also find significant signatures of sub-Saharan African ancestry that vary substantially among populations. These sub-Saharan ancestries appear to be a recent introduction into North African populations, dating to about 1,200 years ago in southern Morocco and about 750 years ago into Egypt, possibly reflecting the patterns of the trans-Saharan slave trade that occurred during this period.
Now here is the proof you seek concerning sub-Saharan Africans mating with non-Modern human populations. It is not known, as of now, whether is was Erectus or another hominid.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F1...
I will deal with your Moorish lies later.
Big Mike "MIME" M, you will fail in your attempt to paint North Africa black and the Moors Negroes...PERIOD.
Next!
And any black man or woman that believes anything about our history coming out of the mouths of cavefolk are complete and utter fools..get out of here with that bs..keep your filthy paws off of our history and go back up there in your squalid caves and study your own origins ya history colonizing bastards.
XAncient EgyptianX

Corpus Christi, TX

#7173 May 6, 2013
Peshewar wrote:
<quoted text>
And any black man or woman that believes anything about our history coming out of the mouths of cavefolk are complete and utter fools..get out of here with that bs..keep your filthy paws off of our history and go back up there in your squalid caves and study your own origins ya history colonizing bastards.
You cannot handle the truth, boy. And who is living caves again?

"beyond [known peoples of Mauritania] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and of unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings."

Ibn Khaldun, 14th Century Moorish Scholar

It's you boy who needs to keep your filthy "prothoracic legs" off the histories of Egyptians, Moors, Olmecs, Vikings, Romans, Greeks, Sumerians, Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, Jews, Hebrews, Celts, Europeans, Native Americans..I could go on and on with Afrocentric idiotic claims of peoples histories..smh

Now back to your dung hut wit cha!

“Look upon reality!”

Level 2

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#7174 May 6, 2013
Peshewar wrote:
<quoted text>
And any black man or woman that believes anything about our history coming out of the mouths of cavefolk are complete and utter fools..get out of here with that bs..keep your filthy paws off of our history and go back up there in your squalid caves and study your own origins ya history colonizing bastards.
You cannot handle the truth, boy. And who is living caves again?

"beyond [known peoples of Mauritania] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and of unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings."

Ibn Khaldun, 14th Century Moorish Scholar

It's you boy who needs to keep your filthy "prothoracic legs" off the histories of Egyptians, Moors, Olmecs, Vikings, Romans, Greeks, Sumerians, Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, Jews, Hebrews, Celts, Europeans, Native Americans..I could go on and on with Afrocentric idiotic claims of peoples histories..smh

Now back to your dung hut wit cha!
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#7175 May 6, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
Egypt is considered northeast Africa or North Africa, not east Africa, and Egyptians themselves have chosen to identify with the Middle East, so it's not a mere "Euro" thing. Culturally, they have been Middle Eastern for thousands of years. So it isn't about others 'taking' Egypt out of Africa, that's where they seem to want to be, or at least, they like being associated with the Middle East whether they are also associated with Africa or not.
My whole argument is that prehistoric North African populations would have looked mostly just like they look today, and that article that you linked to supports this notion, as well as the articles I posted.
The people are the ones who consider themselves Middle Eastern, if not geographically, then culturally and politically.
One of the reasons I don't concern myself with North Africa is because these people aren't Black, don't usually consider themselves Black, don't identify with interior Africa, and don't consider their history as a part of Black history.
Berbers, whether presently or historically, as a rule, don't consider themselves Black or part of "Black Africa", even if their skin is dark.
Almoravids and Almohads were noted sometimes for having dark skin, but they are almost never referred to as Ne gro, by either themselves or others at any point in time in history. In fact, these people, Berbers, in many cases, seem to have had, and still have, a superiority complex over Black Africans.
This is why I don't particularly care for or about Berber history, including the so called Moors, or at least not in claiming them to be Black, because these people did not consider themselves Black or Sudanese, and still wouldn't in this modern day. It's afrocentrists who seek to affix these terms onto these people even when they themselves would have rejected them in a modern day context.
Sudanese and West Africans still consider themselves to be Black, and so are they by everyone else, which is why I am more interested in them. They are what I consider to be "unmistakably Black".
Scientifically though, also, North African Berbers are definitely distinct from Interior Africans biologically.
No the majority in Egypt are not black now. My argument is when these PRESENT-day Arabs or western whites want to claim responsibility for Kemet's golden age (e.g. a Zahi Hawass). My argument is with those who want to claim ancient Egypt as white or non-black. When the truth is the culture of ancient Kemet flowed from the south to the north without non-black intervention. Yes...I am aware of the Arab presence now. I almost wish they would go back to calling it the United Arab Republic.
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#7176 May 6, 2013
The guy who wrote this... is not supporting a "euroasian" ancient presence in the Mahgreb.......he's mocking it.
http://exploring-africa.blogspot.com/2010/05/...

http://exploring-africa.blogspot.com/2010/05/...
__________

At the end of the day, I support and welcome information about ancient African's contributions to world. Africa's influence & civilization did not STOP in Africa. Africa was once and will be again a world player. If ya' can't bring us existing or new info. on Africa's world influence, who cares.

No I do not subscribe to b.s. euro "multi-regionalist" theories. In my opinion those "theories" are just another way to downplay Africa's role in ancient world history.
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#7177 May 6, 2013
Afrocentric Myth Exposer.......there's only one troll who says "next"....I see you only have 14 posts. I can see you and others like you.

http://www.tekgnostics.com/images/sphynxeye.j...

“DANGER!!”

Level 8

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#7178 May 6, 2013
trollstupid wrote:
<quoted text>
No the majority in Egypt are not black now. My argument is when these PRESENT-day Arabs or western whites want to claim responsibility for Kemet's golden age (e.g. a Zahi Hawass). My argument is with those who want to claim ancient Egypt as white or non-black. When the truth is the culture of ancient Kemet flowed from the south to the north without non-black intervention. Yes...I am aware of the Arab presence now. I almost wish they would go back to calling it the United Arab Republic.
Geee,ÁSS HÓLE, take a hint, why don'tcha.

Just when, exactly did this 'golden age of Kemet' take place?

It's already been scientifically proven as of the absolute latest anthropological analysis, that North Africa, including Egypt, was overwhelmingly Caucasian since even further back than before 12,000yrs ago.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Ado...

...that kinda does the 'DRIZZLY SQUATS' all over your fantasy parade.

“DANGER!!”

Level 8

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#7179 May 6, 2013
trollstupid wrote:
Afrocentric Myth Exposer.......there's only one troll who says "next"....I see you only have 14 posts. I can see you and others like you.
http://www.tekgnostics.com/images/sphynxeye.j...
Push off, CONG-BONGO, you've got squat.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Ado...

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
Somali Men Are Butt Ugly & The Women Aren't too... (Apr '09) 1 min Just saying 715
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Incognito4Ever 1,405,273
Poll Will Donald Trump be the next President of the ... (Aug '15) 4 min NotSoDivineMsM 1,568
.....................WHY I'm WITH HER! 6 min No Limit Honky 7
Dallas Shooter wrote "RB" in blood 7 min bluestreak returns 329
is dr dre wife white or biracial? (Dec '12) 9 min Artist_504 77
From a female's perspective, are BM a good catch? 11 min T-BOS 19
I am Calling all the US whites European Americans 1 hr Concentrated Juice 78
What race are Somalis? (Aug '07) 2 hr Dark Truth 14,530
More from around the web