Africans discovered the AMERICA befor...
Jeff

Framingham, MA

#6514 Aug 14, 2012
troll patrol wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you need to reread my paragraph. It clearly states jews and irish were not instantly accepted as white. Nor was the italians.
Total cr ap, Italians and Irish were among some of the first immigrants to be viewed as white as far back as the 1600s in this country. Go read the General Assembly of 1647, although that is actual historical record book so you might not know understand it given you aren't educated in this matters and historical documentes aren't your M.O., dubious on line sites with fallacies are.

"Under the first proclamation the right to take up land, was without restriction as to nationality, but by the one of 1636, it was expressly limited to persons of "British and Irish descent", 1 except that grants could be made, after 1648,
to persons of "French, Dutch, and Italian descent", in the discretion of the Governor 5 — a limitation which was not removed until 1683, when, for the first time, the lands of Maryland were open to all white persons "living in or trading
within the Province", who choose to purchase them. 6"
troll patrol

Blackwood, NJ

#6515 Aug 14, 2012
Barros answer my question honestly. Were the italians accepted as white from the start?
troll patrol

Blackwood, NJ

#6516 Aug 14, 2012
Well barros says the irish were not accepted so you are disagreeing with him now?
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Total cr ap, Italians and Irish were among some of the first immigrants to be viewed as white as far back as the 1600s in this country. Go read the General Assembly of 1647, although that is actual historical record book so you might not know understand it given you aren't educated in this matters and historical documentes aren't your M.O., dubious on line sites with fallacies are.
"Under the first proclamation the right to take up land, was without restriction as to nationality, but by the one of 1636, it was expressly limited to persons of "British and Irish descent", 1 except that grants could be made, after 1648,
to persons of "French, Dutch, and Italian descent", in the discretion of the Governor 5 — a limitation which was not removed until 1683, when, for the first time, the lands of Maryland were open to all white persons "living in or trading
within the Province", who choose to purchase them. 6"
troll patrol

Blackwood, NJ

#6517 Aug 14, 2012
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Total cr ap, Italians and Irish were among some of the first immigrants to be viewed as white
"Your assertion that Jews were instantly accepted as white is rubbish. They were discriminated against right up to the passage of the Civil Rights Bill. Irish, likewise, were NOT instantly accepted as white, far from it."

Well one of you fools is wrong and the other is right. I'm going with barros on this one.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#6518 Aug 14, 2012
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
The same can also be said about Native Americans. What Native Americans have adopted the 'headgear' worn by Olmecs?? If Olmecs are Native Americans, their language & tribal gear would be expressed by some of their descendants today.
No, the same cannot be said about Native Americans. You're not going to convince me that it somehow makes as much sense to say that Africans were Olmecs as it does saying Native Americans were Olmecs. Based on the grounds that NA were in America already, and African's weren't, it makes more sense to say they were NA, however, I personally couldn't give a damn if the Olmecs were NA, Chinese, Indonesian, Somoan, Australian, I don't give a damn, we are talking about Africans right now, and nobody here has shown me any evidence that these people were African. Olmec art looks nothing like any West African art.

You people want to say that these people were Mande. What about Mande art comes within VANISHING DISTANCE of looking like Olmec art?

Mande Art:
http://www.museumofartandorigins.org/Collecti... #!i=1357049972&k=2W4xpvR

Olmec Art:
http://prdamico.jalbum.net/ARTIFACTS-FROM-THE...

Where are the similarities? Where are the influences?

Headgear? Where are the Mande stone heads?

Where are the Mande writing tablets in West Africa that date back to before 1000 BC?

Where is the evidence?
troll patrol

Blackwood, NJ

#6519 Aug 14, 2012
LOL look here the idiots can even get the american history straight. Yet they are here trying to teach olmec history.

We know africans were here before euro trash. They will never accept it like i've been saying.
Jeff

Framingham, MA

#6520 Aug 14, 2012
troll patrol wrote:
<quoted text>
"Your assertion that Jews were instantly accepted as white is rubbish. They were discriminated against right up to the passage of the Civil Rights Bill. Irish, likewise, were NOT instantly accepted as white, far from it."
Well one of you fools is wrong and the other is right. I'm going with barros on this one.
Irish were still viewed as white, dingleberry, if they were not viewed as white they wouldn't have been allowed to own lands as far back as the 1600s. The problem with the Irish was the occupation of Ireland by the British followed by Protestant vs Catholic problems. In other words it wasn't as much racial as it was political and religious. I'd tell you to go learn world history but your beyond help in that respect.
Jeff

Framingham, MA

#6521 Aug 14, 2012
troll patrol wrote:
LOL look here the idiots can even get the american history straight. Yet they are here trying to teach olmec history.
We know africans were here before euro trash. They will never accept it like i've been saying.
There was no Africans here before Columbus era, stupid, and I wouldn't talk about getting history straight, you are the same clown who stupidly claimed my "homeland" was nuked by whites, you historically challenged retard.
troll patrol

Blackwood, NJ

#6522 Aug 14, 2012
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Irish were still viewed as white, dingleberry, if they were not viewed as white they wouldn't have been allowed to own lands as far back as the 1600s. The problem with the Irish was the occupation of Ireland by the British followed by Protestant vs Catholic problems. In other words it wasn't as much racial as it was political and religious. I'd tell you to go learn world history but your beyond help in that respect.
"Irish, likewise, were NOT instantly accepted as white, far from it."

That is from your bf's mouth not mine. So why are you talking to me fool?
troll patrol

Blackwood, NJ

#6523 Aug 14, 2012
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Irish were still viewed as white, dingleberry, if they were not viewed as white they wouldn't have been allowed to own lands as far back as the 1600s. The problem with the Irish was the occupation of Ireland by the British followed by Protestant vs Catholic problems. In other words it wasn't as much racial as it was political and religious. I'd tell you to go learn world history but your beyond help in that respect.
I think the question everyone should be asking themselves is why is this fool so horny to change american history and spread misinformation.

Jeff

Framingham, MA

#6524 Aug 14, 2012
troll patrol wrote:
<quoted text>
"Irish, likewise, were NOT instantly accepted as white, far from it."
That is from your bf's mouth not mine. So why are you talking to me fool?
Cause YOU asked the question. I know exactly what Barros said and I understand why he said it, its YOU with no knowledge of world history who is trying to twist this into something that isn't there, like your idiotic and ridiculous claim of the white man 'Nuking' my 'homeland'. BTW I'm still waiting for your dumbass to tell me when this event took place.
troll patrol

Blackwood, NJ

#6525 Aug 14, 2012
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>you historically challenged retard.
I just proven to the world you are the historically challenged idiot around here.

Is why barros has yet to return. You do not even know american history yet you are here trying to teach olmec history.

I exposed your stupid self as racially bias. Black people you are welcome. All trolls get exposed by me sooner or later.
Jeff

Framingham, MA

#6526 Aug 14, 2012
troll patrol wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the question everyone should be asking themselves is why is this fool so horny to change american history and spread misinformation.
The only one changing history and spreading misinformation is you, uneducated tool. BTW I'm still waiting for your dumbass to tell me when did the white man 'nuke' my 'homeland'.
troll patrol

Blackwood, NJ

#6527 Aug 14, 2012
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no Africans here before Columbus era, stupid, and I wouldn't talk about getting history straight, you are the same clown who stupidly claimed my "homeland" was nuked by whites, you historically challenged retard.
Post a link saying i said china was nuked fool. You have been exposed now you are trying to change the subject.

For the last time i said japan(your asian brothers) were nuked which they were.
Jeff

Framingham, MA

#6528 Aug 14, 2012
troll patrol wrote:
<quoted text>
I just proven to the world you are the historically challenged idiot around here.
Is why barros has yet to return. You do not even know american history yet you are here trying to teach olmec history.
I exposed your stupid self as racially bias. Black people you are welcome. All trolls get exposed by me sooner or later.
You haven't done anything but exposed yourself for the historically challenged retard that you are, and you have YET to tell us WHEN did the white man Nuked China, dumbass. Not only do you not know American history but you don't anything about world history while spreading misinformation , uneducated tool. BTW I'm still waiting for your dumbass to tell me when did the white man 'nuke' my 'homeland', trollingass.
Jeff

Framingham, MA

#6529 Aug 14, 2012
troll patrol wrote:
<quoted text>
Post a link saying i said china was nuked fool. You have been exposed now you are trying to change the subject.
For the last time i said japan(your asian brothers) were nuked which they were.
You said my "homeland", dumbass. Asia is a LARGE CONTINENT, so according to YOUR dumbass all of ASIA is my "homeland". lol! Stop trying to cover up the fact that you goofed up, so typical with you, and now you're trying to cover it up by claiming the Japanese as "my Asian brothers". The fact that you actually are claiming the Japanese as the 'Asian brothers' of the Chinese just proves my point that you are a historically challenged retard because no Chinese would call the Japanese their 'Asian brothers" due to the atrocities that the Japanese cause against the Chinese during WWII, you stupid uneducated dumbass. Now go back to school and learn some history.
Barros Serrano

United States

#6530 Aug 14, 2012
troll patrol wrote:
<quoted text>
Post a link saying i said china was nuked fool. You have been exposed now you are trying to change the subject.
For the last time i said japan(your asian brothers) were nuked which they were.
Lying Afronazi fart. You did not mention Japan by name. You told him that whites had nuked his homeland.

Now go ask some Chinese people if they consider Japan to be their homeland! LOL...

Not that you could find either China OR Japan on a map... Moron.
Barros Serrano

United States

#6531 Aug 14, 2012
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
But the Berber & Guanches language are more similar which would say otherwise. The Guanches are NOT from the mideast from my understanding.
Guanche DNA shows that they came from the Maghreb. They were “Berbers”, essentially. Therefore, their ancestry was originally Mideastern.

There is also Iberian DNA among the Berbers... I'll bet that makes your testicles retract!
Barros Serrano

United States

#6532 Aug 14, 2012
troll patrol wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey barros what about itaiians were they instantly accepted as white?
I don't know about “white”, but they were considered foreign and strange, they talked funny, their food stunk, and so on. It took a while for them to be accepted.

So what is your f'ing point? The USA has not been kind to European immigrant groups, including Jews, and so what the F are you trying to say?

Or do you even know?
Barros Serrano

United States

#6533 Aug 14, 2012
troll patrol wrote:
<quoted text>
"Your assertion that Jews were instantly accepted as white is rubbish. They were discriminated against right up to the passage of the Civil Rights Bill. Irish, likewise, were NOT instantly accepted as white, far from it."
Well one of you fools is wrong and the other is right. I'm going with barros on this one.
No, moron, we are both right. There were Irish completely assimilated into the colonies in the 1600's. At the same time, when the wave of Irish arrived beginning with the potato “famine” genocide, they were NOT well received in the USA. Likewise Jews.

So it's all a matter of where and when. Here we find a Jew doing fine, here's another being discriminated against.

History is not simple, unlike you.

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
IRBW are free from Black Mind Control 2 min Guest 70
Secret Chinese plan to exterminate blacks? (Oct '13) 29 min cliff 71
Food stamp cuts to make Obama king of the world 36 min Its bigger than TV 3
Topix Muslims: How do you feel about brexit? 46 min ohReally 31
The Three Stages of Fear 51 min ohReally 2
Should I go to a different chiropractor? 55 min ohReally 7
Should Blacks be allowed to VOTE !!!! (Aug '10) 1 hr Pilly Little 123 120
News African-Americans should start voting for Repub... 1 hr Chilli J 138
The UK has left the EU 2 hr enoch powell 68
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 3 hr Don Barros Serrano 46,263
Do black men really have larger penises? (Sep '10) 3 hr Stupid Thread 1,298
More from around the web