I need proof that the Ancient Egyptia...
Gmoney

Woodbridge, VA

#21243 May 3, 2014
Insect Trust wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, dropout. When the Eurasians arrived in the Maghreb 30k bp, it was uninhabited. If not, provide evidence proving someone else lived there. You cannot. You lose again, clown.
Cro-Magnon were not black, and they are not irrelevant, since the migrants to the Maghreb were of Cro-Magnon type, and of Mideastern origin. Not Africans. Eurasians.
LOL... your fairy tale is absurd. They went to Italy, then came back, then lived among Natufians... LOL... WHAT???
Those Mideasterners were in the Maghreb before the Natufians even migrated down the Nile, fool.
You're one silly white-assed clown.
And where did you see anything say the Cro magnon lived amongst Nataufians? I said Cro magnon lived amongst similar people that left Africa 30,000 years ago which led to the Natufian type people who migrated into the east as well. I already knew you were dumb and illiterate. I guess your telling yourself that now as well. There is no fairy tale about people leaving Africa, l3 haplogroup humans since you like to use this weak subject as a reference, that later became N in the Middle East to remain dark brown and brown in skin color as well as having the majority traits from which they came. That is no fairy tale. How ever, the fairytale that Africans quickly became white to the point that we should drop out that they were African and call them Eurasian which implies some type of European relativity is indeed a fairytale.
Gmoney

Woodbridge, VA

#21244 May 3, 2014
*see's what and idiot you are

Insect Trust
Level 1

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#21245 May 3, 2014
Gmoney wrote:
<quoted text>
And where did you see anything say the Cro magnon lived amongst Nataufians? I said Cro magnon lived amongst similar people that left Africa 30,000 years ago which led to the Natufian type people who migrated into the east as well. I already knew you were dumb and illiterate. I guess your telling yourself that now as well. There is no fairy tale about people leaving Africa, l3 haplogroup humans since you like to use this weak subject as a reference, that later became N in the Middle East to remain dark brown and brown in skin color as well as having the majority traits from which they came. That is no fairy tale. How ever, the fairytale that Africans quickly became white to the point that we should drop out that they were African and call them Eurasian which implies some type of European relativity is indeed a fairytale.
You're babbling. Those Eurasians had nothing to do with Natufians. The Natufians left Africa much later. They were already evolved into the general Nubian type.

You just admitted that N arose in Eurasia, lol.

At some point peoples separate, split. We DO name them from the point of the splitting. There is nothing peculiar about calling OOA people Eurasians since at the point of OOA they separated from northeast Africans. W-Central Africans and even moreso Khoisan had alread split from northeast Africans, and so the northeast Africans are in fact more closely related to the Eurasians than to the W-Central Africans or Khoisan who'd split earlier.

You really want to get into cladistics, dropout?
Black Power

Oakland, CA

#21246 May 3, 2014
Black Power wrote:
<quoted text>
Halfwitted....LOL This is coming from the guy who said the synagogue of Satan was about Islam. So lets get this right the bible can not be trusted when it comes to the Jews OWN PAST, but it can be trusted when predicting the FUTURE. Because Islam was not created when that verse was written. You show your bias every time you post. So carry on and keep calling people halfwitted, uneducated, and moron, because every time you do it shows your frustration.
This Quote is for you Insect Trust, read the quote above

“I support Cystic Fibrosis.”

Level 4

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#21247 May 3, 2014
Incest Trust wrote:
<quoted text>
, dropout?
Everyone is a dropout when they don't agree with u right incest trust?

If we don't stand up and say whites did everything we are dropouts.

Insect Trust
Level 1

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#21248 May 3, 2014
Black Power wrote:
<quoted text>
This Quote is for you Insect Trust, read the quote above
That was gibberish and you're a dunce.

It's already been established that there were Eurasians in predynastic Lower Egypt, so do you even know what is being discussed now?

Of course you don't, dimwit.

Insect Trust
Level 1

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#21249 May 3, 2014
I see triplets wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone is a dropout when they don't agree with u right incest trust?
If we don't stand up and say whites did everything we are dropouts.
I haven't mentioned “whites” at all, dullard.

Apparently you're obsessed.

Typical unstable racist. A self-hating coward. Your kind is so easy to draw and and expose.

Racist... therefore scum.
Gmoney

Woodbridge, VA

#21250 May 3, 2014
Insect Trust wrote:
<quoted text>
You're babbling. Those Eurasians had nothing to do with Natufians. The Natufians left Africa much later. They were already evolved into the general Nubian type.
You just admitted that N arose in Eurasia, lol.
At some point peoples separate, split. We DO name them from the point of the splitting. There is nothing peculiar about calling OOA people Eurasians since at the point of OOA they separated from northeast Africans. W-Central Africans and even moreso Khoisan had alread split from northeast Africans, and so the northeast Africans are in fact more closely related to the Eurasians than to the W-Central Africans or Khoisan who'd split earlier.
You really want to get into cladistics, dropout?
Your dumb, separation and becoming a completely different people are two different thing you nit wit. The slaves separated from Africa, that doesn't make African Americans something else. They are still black people. African is still in our title as a people you dumb ass idiot. They were not Eurasian. Just because N arose in Eurasia doesn't mean these off springs of L3 African migrants were now almost white with prominent nose and other European features. They were still much like their African ancestors and if you had any type of bring in the hollow head of yours, you would understand that. What are you talking about??? Ooa, Nataufians and any other groups of people who left Africa were already evolved into the African Nubian type. Lol dumb ass. What do you think these early humans weren't black the whole time prior to leaving Africa? You sound stupid as phuck and I am just wondering how do you have the audacity to even have an opinion. The ooa migrants were African. When they reached the Middle East they were African. 5-10,000 years later when N had evolved, the people were still black people. There is nothing in this world that says otherwise besides eurocentrics bias and racist opinions. Africans are Africans fool and they are related to each other. Everyone else descends from their most common ancestor who was African. Stop telling lies. You know no cladistics. All you know is racism. You have no clue of the true classification of people. Just shut up little boy.
Gmoney

Woodbridge, VA

#21251 May 3, 2014
Insect Trust wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't mentioned “whites” at all, dullard.
Apparently you're obsessed.
Typical unstable racist. A self-hating coward. Your kind is so easy to draw and and expose.
Racist... therefore scum.
Your the typical cowardly racist who wants to insert your European scum of a people into every aspect if history. Stop being a culture theif. There were no Eurasian people until Europeans started to migrate south of their land which happened after 10,000 bc. Before that time this was a world by Africa and Asia, Eurasians, indo-Europeans were not involved. Y'all were in caves drawing pictures.
Gmoney

Woodbridge, VA

#21252 May 3, 2014
*in
*ruled by
Black Power

Oakland, CA

#21253 May 3, 2014
Insect Trust wrote:
<quoted text>
That was gibberish and you're a dunce.
It's already been established that there were Eurasians in predynastic Lower Egypt, so do you even know what is being discussed now?
Of course you don't, dimwit.
Can you tell me what the synagogue of Satan is about? Because I say its about white Jews. What is your opinion?
Gmoney

Woodbridge, VA

#21254 May 3, 2014
Insect Trust wrote:
<quoted text>
That was gibberish and you're a dunce.
It's already been established that there were Eurasians in predynastic Lower Egypt, so do you even know what is being discussed now?
Of course you don't, dimwit.
Definitely a lie. It's been established that there were Afroasiatics is pre-dynastic Egypt. You never know what your talking about.
Anonymous

Midlothian, IL

#21255 May 3, 2014
Insect Trust wrote:
<quoted text>
His clownish dropout BS confirms nothing, you fool. That moron knows nothing of this material. He repeats nonsense he reads on afrosupremacist nutjob websites. If you want to remain ignorant, keep reading his posts.
gee whiz, you really get worked up when someone does not agree with you.
Anonymous

Midlothian, IL

#21256 May 3, 2014
Black Power wrote:
<quoted text>
Halfwitted....LOL This is coming from the guy who said the synagogue of Satan was about Islam. So lets get this right the bible can not be trusted when it comes to the Jews OWN PAST, but it can be trusted when predicting the FUTURE. Because Islam was not created when that verse was written. You show your bias every time you post. So carry on and keep calling people halfwitted, uneducated, and moron, because every time you do it shows your frustration.
yes he seems very upset, out of control and just not very confident
Erwin

Birmingham, UK

#21257 May 3, 2014
The question of Ancient Egyptian racial characteristics is difficult, largely because the Ancient Egyptians, as a distinct race, no longer exist. The gene pool of modern Egypt is largely a function of much later invasion and colonisation from the Arabian peninsula.
It is however not unreasonable to hypothesise that, based on facial structure/ skin hue/ geographical location, Ancient Egyptians may well be genetically related to modern-day Eritreans/ others in Eastern Africa. Eritrea (for example) is in Sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, the population of Eritrea would most likely be recognised as "black" by Western nations (rightly or wrongly). If we accept a genetic similarity between modern-day Eritreans (and people from other parts of Eastern Africa) and Ancient Egyptians, Western nations, logically, should apply the same rules and recognise Ancient Egyptians as "black". 
Ancient Egyptians depicted people from the Kingdom of Kush (to the South of Ancient Egypt, in modern Sudan) as darker than them. They portrayed them in this way when they captured them as slaves, and when they were conquered by them in the 8th century BCE. The Kushite rulers of Ancient Egypt, being from modern-day Sudan, would be considered "black" by Western nations.
As a more general observation, I think that the practice of grouping every individual sharing - in some cases tenuous - genetic links under the over-simplified heading of "black" is artificial and unscientific. In other words the term "black" is a societal - not biological - construct, that in a way harkens back to the colonial period. The biological diversity under this heading is simply too significant to ignore. This is most likely a result of the Out of Africa theory of human evolution - i.e homo sapiens first evolved in Eastern Africa and so it stands to reason that the diversity of human life in Africa would be the most developed. 
I believe that people from within Africa should be distinguished from each other by reference to their cultural heritage - for example people are distinguished from one another in Nigeria by being referred to as either Igbo or Hausa etc. In the light of this, classifying ancient Egyptians - or anyone, for that matter - as "black" is not particularly informative. A more useful classification might be a shortened version of "ancient African settlers of the Nile valley, who built one of the world's first great civilisations". Of course, as I said, if the same rules were applied to them as other modern-day groups of people, by Western nations, they would be described as "black".
African AE

Cape Town, South Africa

#21259 May 3, 2014
Erwin wrote:
The question of Ancient Egyptian racial characteristics is difficult, largely because the Ancient Egyptians, as a distinct race, no longer exist. The gene pool of modern Egypt is largely a function of much later invasion and colonisation from the Arabian peninsula.
It is however not unreasonable to hypothesise that, based on facial structure/ skin hue/ geographical location, Ancient Egyptians may well be genetically related to modern-day Eritreans/ others in Eastern Africa. Eritrea (for example) is in Sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, the population of Eritrea would most likely be recognised as "black" by Western nations (rightly or wrongly). If we accept a genetic similarity between modern-day Eritreans (and people from other parts of Eastern Africa) and Ancient Egyptians, Western nations, logically, should apply the same rules and recognise Ancient Egyptians as "black". 
Ancient Egyptians depicted people from the Kingdom of Kush (to the South of Ancient Egypt, in modern Sudan) as darker than them. They portrayed them in this way when they captured them as slaves, and when they were conquered by them in the 8th century BCE. The Kushite rulers of Ancient Egypt, being from modern-day Sudan, would be considered "black" by Western nations.
As a more general observation, I think that the practice of grouping every individual sharing - in some cases tenuous - genetic links under the over-simplified heading of "black" is artificial and unscientific. In other words the term "black" is a societal - not biological - construct, that in a way harkens back to the colonial period. The biological diversity under this heading is simply too significant to ignore. This is most likely a result of the Out of Africa theory of human evolution - i.e homo sapiens first evolved in Eastern Africa and so it stands to reason that the diversity of human life in Africa would be the most developed. 
I believe that people from within Africa should be distinguished from each other by reference to their cultural heritage - for example people are distinguished from one another in Nigeria by being referred to as either Igbo or Hausa etc. In the light of this, classifying ancient Egyptians - or anyone, for that matter - as "black" is not particularly informative. A more useful classification might be a shortened version of "ancient African settlers of the Nile valley, who built one of the world's first great civilisations". Of course, as I said, if the same rules were applied to them as other modern-day groups of people, by Western nations, they would be described as "black".
The original people of Egypt were black but there was a migration of Eurasian Neolithic Farmers about 7000-5000 years ago into Egypt. The interbred with the people making them mixed mutts. Mixed mutts come in all shades of colours! Also ancient Egypt is situated between two white Eurasian neighbours (as painted on their walls), the Middle East and Libya. Its impossible for them to have been a black only society at the time of the pyramids! This man does not look black and built the Sphinx:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankhhaf
African AE

Cape Town, South Africa

#21260 May 3, 2014
Black Power wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you tell me what the synagogue of Satan is about? Because I say its about white Jews. What is your opinion?
Um....synagogue in Greek means church!!!!
READ SLOWLY:
www.rcg.org/questions/p067.a.html
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#21261 May 4, 2014
Erwin wrote:
The question of Ancient Egyptian racial characteristics is difficult, largely because the Ancient Egyptians, as a distinct race, no longer exist. The gene pool of modern Egypt is largely a function of much later invasion and colonisation from the Arabian peninsula.

It is however not unreasonable to hypothesise that, based on facial structure/ skin hue/ geographical location, Ancient Egyptians may well be genetically related to modern-day Eritreans/ others in Eastern Africa. Eritrea (for example) is in Sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, the population of Eritrea would most likely be recognised as "black" by Western nations (rightly or wrongly). 

If we accept a genetic similarity between modern-day Eritreans (and people from other parts of Eastern Africa) and Ancient Egyptians, Western nations, logically, should apply the same rules and recognise Ancient Egyptians as "black". Ancient Egyptians depicted people from the Kingdom of Kush (to the South of Ancient Egypt, in modern Sudan) as darker than them. 

They portrayed them in this way when they captured them as slaves, and when they were conquered by them in the 8th century BCE. The Kushite rulers of Ancient Egypt, being from modern-day Sudan, would be considered "black" by Western nations.

As a more general observation, I think that the practice of grouping every individual sharing - in some cases tenuous - genetic links under the over-simplified heading of "black" is artificial and unscientific. In other words the term "black" is a societal - not biological - construct, that in a way harkens back to the colonial period.

 The biological diversity under this heading is simply too significant to ignore. This is most likely a result of the Out of Africa theory of human evolution - i.e homo sapiens first evolved in Eastern Africa and so it stands to reason that the diversity of human life in Africa would be the most developed. 
I believe that people from within Africa should be distinguished from each other by reference to their cultural heritage - for example people are distinguished from one another in Nigeria by being referred to as either Igbo or Hausa etc. In the light of this, classifying ancient Egyptians - or anyone, for that matter - as "black" is not particularly informative. A more useful classification might be a shortened version of "ancient African settlers of the Nile valley, who built one of the world's first great civilisations". 

Of course, as I said, if the same rules were applied to them as other modern-day groups of people, by Western nations, they would be described as "black".
A few things here 1) you need not use the western "sub" term to describe Africa. There are no "2 Africa's". I speak with Africans all the time and they too are perplexed by the "sub" term. Fact is there are lots of Blacks in northern Africa since the beginning of time.

2) When we speak of ancient Kemet ( the real non-western name, if you will).......we can not look at the PPL. there today. The present-day, white Arab invaders have absolutely nothing to do with Kemet. Dr Muhammed Arabi below explains:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
_____

Insect Trust
Level 1

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#21263 May 4, 2014
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
A few things here 1) you need not use the western "sub" term to describe Africa. There are no "2 Africa's". I speak with Africans all the time and they too are perplexed by the "sub" term. Fact is there are lots of Blacks in northern Africa since the beginning of time.
2) When we speak of ancient Kemet ( the real non-western name, if you will).......we can not look at the PPL. there today. The present-day, white Arab invaders have absolutely nothing to do with Kemet. Dr Muhammed Arabi below explains:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
_____
Again you lie in the face of all evidence.

Already I've proven, using Keita as a source, that predynastic Lower Egypt included Eurasians.

Now, by your FAILURE to post ANY evidence for a non-Eurasian Maghreb for 30k years, you have established that I am right about the Maghreb also, that it has been predominantly Eurasian for 30k years.

Now, if you think blacks have been in the Maghreb “since the beginning of time”(LOL!!!) post evidence for Africans in the Maghreb between 30k and 20k bp.

YOU CANNOT!

You lose, liar.

Insect Trust
Level 1

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#21264 May 4, 2014
Black Power wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you tell me what the synagogue of Satan is about? Because I say its about white Jews. What is your opinion?
I say you best reform your thinking. Nazi antisemites like you are not tolerated.

The Synagogue of Satan is Islam, fool. They are the ones pretending to be Hebrew but aren't. Mohamhead claiming to be in the line of Hebrew prophets, though not a Hebrew! LOL!!! What a crock!

Moslems claiming every Jewish holy site. Moslems claiming that Abraham was a Moslem. Moslems usurping the site of the Jewish Temple to build their idiotic mosque.

Allah = mask of Satan

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) 3 min RoxLo 1,704,482
The best video ever made debunking the black Eg... 3 min THX Restores Faith 5
Lone Black Lady Jogging In Park 6 min Asian Persuasian 52
Majority of Russian ads came AFTER the election... 6 min Joey 17
White people GO AWAY 9 min Kimchi07 236
The Royal Wedding approaches 11 min THX Restores Faith 2
Smartest posters on Topix afam 12 min IT IS I 84
it must really suck being black! 1 hr Paul 52
More from around the web