Jeff

Natick, MA

#15696 Feb 1, 2013
Gmoney wrote:
<quoted text>
And that's the same reason why Africans are black dumb ass. Because of their environment. So if they can be called black so could any other dark skinned person. Like I said earlier a migration map on the Internet or in a library will tell you that those people migrated long ago out of Africa. They kept the melanin in there skin but lost other features because of the differences in the environment they migrated to. You don't have to admit it but all races are related to Africans and indigenous Australians and native people of far eastern Asian lands such as India and the Middle East are closely related to them.
Ehm, no they are NOT closely related to them. What part did you fail to understand that dark skinned Asians do not culster genetically close to Africans, "dumbass"? A dark skinned Asian is closer related to a light skinned Asian then he or she is even remotely related to any Africans. I suggest you take a class in human evolution because it is very obvious you don't know much about the subject matter.

“Maat's my principle”

Level 9

Since: Jan 12

bamako,mali

#15697 Feb 1, 2013
Barros Serrano-Bey wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not a Hebrew. Ancient Hebrew mythology, no matter how you misconstrue it, won't make you one.
Cease the culture-vulture crimes and get a DNA test.
A Dna test have been conducted on most oif the Canaanites Kings and they're all Black !!!! Why do you think of it Byotch ???
Gmoney

Woodbridge, VA

#15698 Feb 1, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Ehm, no they are NOT closely related to them. What part did you fail to understand that dark skinned Asians do not culster genetically close to Africans, "dumbass"? A dark skinned Asian is closer related to a light skinned Asian then he or she is even remotely related to any Africans. I suggest you take a class in human evolution because it is very obvious you don't know much about the subject matter.
Being tanned and being black is two different things. Some of the people native to the land are more than tanned. Maybe you need the class on human evolution so you can realize that black African genes have been spread across the globe fool.
Barros Serrano

Reserve, NM

#15699 Feb 1, 2013
Gmoney wrote:
<quoted text>
This is theory. Not facts. And even the haplogroup map shows that the migration path was from Africa to the ancient lands of Canaan, then those people went and dispersed further east or north. Middle easterns did not come from Europeans, Europeans came from middle easterns. It is prevalent to see many haplogroup h and m migrate from Asia into Europe. Everyone's starting place was Africa. When they migrated back to Africa it's not like they bombarded the Africans and most likely it wasn't a violent return. There was intergration. A new type of black Africans were being made. Nevertheless they were still black.
You don't know what you're talking about.

When Eurasians migrated into the Maghreb, there were no black people there. And later some mixed in, but the Berbers did not become a "new kind of black people"... they remained in appearance Mediterranean.

Lose the Afronazism and get an education.
Jeff

Natick, MA

#15700 Feb 1, 2013
Gmoney wrote:
<quoted text>
Being tanned and being black is two different things. Some of the people native to the land are more than tanned. Maybe you need the class on human evolution so you can realize that black African genes have been spread across the globe fool.
You are the one who seriously needs more then one less in human evolution since you continue to fail to understand that skin pigmentation is due to environmental evolution, and no 'black African genes' have not been spread across the globe, you fool. A dark skinned Asian has dark skin because of the climate and environmental regions he/she live, NOT because of any suppose 'African' genes. Dark skinned Asians don't even cluster close to Africans, dingleberry. A dark skinned Asian is closer related to a light skinned Asian then he or she is even remotely related to any Africans. I suggest you take a class in human evolution because it is very obvious you don't know much about the subject matter.
Barros Serrano

Reserve, NM

#15701 Feb 1, 2013
Gmoney wrote:
Oh and I'm so sick of this guy coming on here acting like civilization was influenced through other previous civilized groups that migrated from one part of the globe to another. The Vincas moving to Mesopotamia and then moving into Egypt. That's bull crap. They were independent civilizations. They became civilized as other civilizations did on their own. They keep trying to link these people to that people when all we are really trying to say is Egypt was black African. Who cares about all this other non sense you speak of. It's just speculation at its best. For all we know you white folks, Caucasians, could be aliens. You seem to be the only race of people that have ancient ancestors that came from out of thin air and started a civilization.
You are truly an imbecile. Nobody came out of nowhere. We know what were the origins of the Vincans. And they did not go to Mesopotamia! Their writing system did... and influenced that of Egypt.

You know not of what you speak.
Barros Serrano

Reserve, NM

#15702 Feb 1, 2013
Gmoney wrote:
It just so happens that this dark brown skin originated in one place and one place only. Africa and if you have this distinctive trait with in you then you can bet your bottom dollar that you have African in you.
Wrong again, fool. Eurasians of any color have an equal LACK of African ancestry! The Eurasians with black ancestry are not very dark! They are Mideastern and European mostly.

Skin color changes quickly, adapts to environment. It is not an indication of ancestry.

Get an education and stop annoying us with your rampant bullshit.
Barros Serrano

Reserve, NM

#15703 Feb 1, 2013
Gmoney wrote:
<quoted text>
Your talking about modern Egypt fool we are talking about ancient Egypt. Ancient Egypt and modern Egypt did not have the same people. Those people of Ancient Egypt were not Arabic. Learn how to use more than just your eyes you simpleton.
Wrong yet again, racist simpleton. The Egyptian population today descends mostly from ancient Egyptians. They were MIXED you idiot!

Now some of those MIXED Egyptians you can call black, as by USA racist Jim-Crow one-drop standards (which you worship) they would be called black today.
Barros Serrano

Reserve, NM

#15704 Feb 1, 2013
Gmoney wrote:
<quoted text>
And that's the same reason why Africans are black dumb ass. Because of their environment. So if they can be called black so could any other dark skinned person. Like I said earlier a migration map on the Internet or in a library will tell you that those people migrated long ago out of Africa. They kept the melanin in there skin but lost other features because of the differences in the environment they migrated to. You don't have to admit it but all races are related to Africans and indigenous Australians and native people of far eastern Asian lands such as India and the Middle East are closely related to them.
Yet again, you are wrong. No, Australians nor any other Eurasians are "closely related" to Africans. Eurasians are all equally distant from Africans, regardless of color.

Australians are most closely related to SE Asians. Likewise Melanesians.

Get an education and stop babbling nonsense.
Barros Serrano

Reserve, NM

#15705 Feb 1, 2013
dcool wrote:
<quoted text>
A Dna test have been conducted on most oif the Canaanites Kings and they're all Black !!!! Why do you think of it Byotch ???
Bullshit. What Canaanite kings?

The Canaanites were Mideasterners, related to Hebrews and Phoenicians. Not black.

You're an Islamoaddled fool, boy!
Barros Serrano

Reserve, NM

#15706 Feb 1, 2013
Gmoney wrote:
<quoted text>
Being tanned and being black is two different things. Some of the people native to the land are more than tanned. Maybe you need the class on human evolution so you can realize that black African genes have been spread across the globe fool.
Wrong, deluded Afronazi misfit.

The OOA migrants changed, evolved, into Eurasians. It is Eurasians who spread across the globe.

You know NOTHING about physical anthropology, obviously.

Level 2

Since: May 11

United States

#15707 Feb 1, 2013
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong yet again, racist simpleton. The Egyptian population today descends mostly from ancient Egyptians. They were MIXED you idiot!
Now some of those MIXED Egyptians you can call black, as by USA racist Jim-Crow one-drop standards (which you worship) they would be called black today.
Dude you didnt read the Dna chart. King tut had .13 Eurasian Dna. AAs have more european dna then that.
Anonymous

Ashburn, VA

#15708 Feb 1, 2013
Sumer is Iraq
Anonymous

Ashburn, VA

#15709 Feb 1, 2013
The Iraq that whites molested and raped under the pretense of possession of WMDs and terrorism.
Anonymous

Ashburn, VA

#15710 Feb 1, 2013
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit. What Canaanite kings?
The Canaanites were Mideasterners, related to Hebrews and Phoenicians. Not black.
You're an Islamoaddled fool, boy!
The only contact and relation the canaanites had to hebrews was the theft of canaan (Israel) and rape of canaanite women by hebrews who have nothing to do with ashkeNAZI khazar false jews.
Barros Serrano

Reserve, NM

#15711 Feb 1, 2013
Punchojr wrote:
<quoted text>Dude you didnt read the Dna chart. King tut had .13 Eurasian Dna. AAs have more european dna then that.
You seem to be simple-minded. Tut's DNA means what? Like I said, Egypt was mixed. And so was he. So where is the confusion in your mind?

It is well proven that there were Eurasian types in Lower Egypt in predynastic times.

Egypt was not 100% pure black! That is what you're pretending.

Upper Egypt was mostly black when the civilization began. And y'all are so convinced everyone there today looks like an Arab, but that is not true. There are still plenty of “black” people in Egypt. Go check out Aswan.
Barros Serrano

Reserve, NM

#15712 Feb 1, 2013
Anonymous wrote:
<quoted text> The only contact and relation the canaanites had to hebrews was the theft of canaan (Israel) and rape of canaanite women by hebrews who have nothing to do with ashkeNAZI khazar false jews.
Ashkenazim are Hebrews/Jews. You will be severely injured if I hear you stating that Naziesque racism in my presence, boy.

The Canaanites were closely related to the Hebrews. Hebrew, Canaanite and Phoenician languages all evolved from proto-Canaanite.

Come call Jews Nazis in my presence, boy, and I'll hang you up with hooks in your eyesockets for the vultures to eat.
james

Midland, TX

#15713 Feb 1, 2013
I say melting pot it was a big trade center for middle east, europe,and africa

Level 2

Since: May 11

United States

#15714 Feb 1, 2013
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be simple-minded. Tut's DNA means what? Like I said, Egypt was mixed. And so was he. So where is the confusion in your mind?
It is well proven that there were Eurasian types in Lower Egypt in predynastic times.
Egypt was not 100% pure black! That is what you're pretending.
Upper Egypt was mostly black when the civilization began. And y'all are so convinced everyone there today looks like an Arab, but that is not true. There are still plenty of “black” people in Egypt. Go check out Aswan.
You are talking to a different person. I knew of Eurasian being in Africa some early migration from Iberia as well as through Palestine hell the Canary Island right off Africa. They where there and there was some white and semite dynasties but we where trying to figure out the racial background of the founders. They where black and you admit that but saying they had mixture in them says what like you said. When was the mixture was it generation before Tut or was it his Grandparent or mother. Did the mixture come from marriage peace treatie between Kingdoms. The Eurasian Margin so small 1 could say the mixture was long ago before Tut came in more then enough time to blend back in as black. Thats why Isaid they where black because AAs have more recent and more European percentage then that and still look black. All im saying. Im not here to gloat Barros you dont need your guard up for me.
Barros Serrano

Reserve, NM

#15715 Feb 1, 2013
Punchojr wrote:
<quoted text> You are talking to a different person. I knew of Eurasian being in Africa some early migration from Iberia as well as through Palestine hell the Canary Island right off Africa. They where there and there was some white and semite dynasties but we where trying to figure out the racial background of the founders. They where black and you admit that but saying they had mixture in them says what like you said. When was the mixture was it generation before Tut or was it his Grandparent or mother. Did the mixture come from marriage peace treatie between Kingdoms. The Eurasian Margin so small 1 could say the mixture was long ago before Tut came in more then enough time to blend back in as black. Thats why Isaid they where black because AAs have more recent and more European percentage then that and still look black. All im saying. Im not here to gloat Barros you dont need your guard up for me.
Blend back in?

I don't think they were necessarily all blended.

Eurasians had been in lower Egypt for a long time. Upper Egypt was mostly black. When the kingdoms were unified, then Egypt was mixed.

Many in here are assuming that whatever Tut's DNA was, it represents all Egyptians, as if they were all identical, and uniformly mixed. They were not.

Oh you'll get into trouble with these Afronazis in here talking about Eurasian guanches!

“Look black”---this is using USA standards, where any visible African ancestry makes you black.

One study quoted in here by an Afronazi stated that Lower Egypt was 40% Eurasian.

But... when and where in Lower Egypt?

Egyptian art indicates diverse people.

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
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 1 min African AE 33,103
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min red and right 1,224,029
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 6 min Are You High Again 118,335
Black African's Moors Ruled Europe 700 Years (Aug '12) 7 min Don Barros Serrano 2,581
mayweather, baltimore and the LAC.... a good we... 11 min TheOriginalDoby 6
NYPD Officer in induced coma after being shot 13 min TheOriginalDoby 18
The new Royal Baby to be named "Shaniqua Elizab... 23 min Prince Rufus 9
Why do white men like to watch white women have... (Jan '14) 1 hr Bobby T Canada 122
Why do I hate white people so much? 2 hr lomaxx 141
Major Protesting in Baltimore Right Now 3 hr Don 528
More from around the web