Pioneer1

No. You give me too much credit.....lol. I'm very familiar with Nkrumah but not with that particular book. However to me it just seems like common sense to discard the former methods your enemy was using to control you and come up with a new plan. Most Asian countries also adopted or kept similar structures to the ones the Europeans left them but seem to have modified them more to fit their contemporary needs than the African nations did.

Troy Lately I've been exploring alternative search engines and looking for ones with less of a filter and a broader range than Google. Most of them tend to be more filtered and limited than Google itself. I wish I had a "magic" search engine that would simply allow me to dig up all there is on the internet so that I can decide what I want to view instead of having my options limited.

Lol..... Milli Vanilli had some catchy tunes back in the day! I used to walk around singing "Blame it On The Rain" "Blame it on the raaaaiin...yeah...yeaaaaah".....LOL "Girl you know it's true....oooo.....ooo....oooo....I love yooouuuu" Man, come on. I think they gave MV too hard of a time. Just because they caught them lip syncing or something. Most artists do that today. Arsenio Hall used to CLOWN on them all the time, lol.

Actually the Welfare system the way it's designed today not only encourages people to stay in poverty but it encourages people to lie and become criminals. Too many rules are attached to just BASIC forms of welfare like Section 8. They make it so hard for so many people to get in these programs that too often they end up lying on their forms just to get some basic assistance, and THEN they want to prosecute them for it and accuse them of fraud. The more laws you have, the more criminals you make. Many people won't agree with this, but in my opinion they should have kept the PROJECTS. Instead of tearing them down, they should have built more and MAINTAINED them and provided SECURITY in them. So now they call the projects crime infested towers of filth and poverty and tear them down.....so NOW where do the people who were living in them are supposed to go? On the streets and in prisons??? Because that's where many of them when after the projects were torn down. Simply tearing down projects didn't get rid of poverty and it actually helped increase the homeless problem manifold.

I don't know what kind of signal Biden is trying to send, telling these traitorous redneck bastards that they aren't considered a threat. It's actually an unnecessary show of weakness. They DO NOT pose any serious threat to this nation or it's government. Most of them are out of shape and their weapons are stone aged compared with the might of the average major city police department let alone the U.S. military. So when I see them acting weak and timid in the face of these big beer bellied rednecks and let them march around with weapons talking all kinds of cash shit while they sit back and PRETEND to be afraid or them....it further confirms my suspicions that they are in on it too. Like January 6th. Those right-wingers in law enforcement will stand back and LET those rednecks bum rush the place and take over UNTIL some niggas with guns start busting at them and driving the devils back....THEN all of a sudden they'll wake up, step in, and do their jobs to prevent further bloodshed. Back up! Back the fuck up Jethro Bodeen! Your red neck buddies on the force may have let yall asses IN here but I won't let yall out!"

That's alright. We know it takes you a little while to catch on....lol. Anywhoooo........ richardmurray That poem sounds like something you'd find on the inside of a Skin Bleaching Cream box...lol. What's so sad is a lot of our people....especially if they're young...really do think like that and wish they could find a way to turn themselves White.

richardmurray Facts. I've said that what the NIgerian government should do, and infact most African nations should do this is REPLACE most of their current governments which were actually formed and structure by their former and current European colonialists with NEW governments based on a more African and natural system of governing. European governments are based on the European mindset. It works for THEM because it's based on THEIR thinking, how their minds are structured. It doesn't work for our people and leads to a host or problems trying to maintain and live under such a foreign system of rule. 🙄 -What the hell is WRONG with these niggas???? Same with most of the Caribbean nations. They need to replace their current governments with a more natural form instead of those formed by their European colonialists. Some have made the observation that what's worse than living under a White system of government formed and operated by White folks....is living under a White system of government that Black folks took over and are now trying to run! Atleast when the White folks had control of it...because they invented it they know what they're doing. Now that Black folks are running it, many of them HAVE NO CLUE that to do in those seats of power once they occupy them.

Define or describe? Perhaps one will find it a challenge trying to DESCRIBE something they haven't experienced, but the DEFINITIONS we accept come from those who haven't experienced a fraction of what they're defining.

Michel Montvert Van Sertima provided no references to his "facts", his work was not peer reviewed. and so it is categorized as "pop alternative history/anthropology" and based on no evidence. I've read much of Van Sertima's work and he's provided a wealth of evidence to back up his claims. It's just not accepted by many if not most White scientists. Denial of evidence shouldn't be confused with REFUTING evidence. Simply calling it ridiculous or a joke doesn't automatically negate the evidence that's presented or make it false. But I have listened to such as David Imhotep, Runuoko Rashidi, Clyde Winters, etc., and can easily debunk their "everyone was once really black" claims. Well I actually agree with you that everyone WASN'T once Black. However I haven't heard ANY of those scholars say that. Not that they haven't...I just haven't heard them say it. And we can easily find Native people in Veracruz and Tabasco who look exactly like those Olmec stone heads. That's because if they are in Veracruz they likely are NOT 100% Native American but have African ancestry and in many cases are racially African themselves! "Black communities are mostly found in Veracruz — where the Spanish disembarked enslaved people from Africa — and the coast of Oaxaca and Guerrero, where Afro-Indigenous traditions from colonial times endure," Being Black in Mexico: How this country is changing its views (axios.com) It shouldn't be hard to find people who LOOK LIKE Black people when you go to a community OF Black people....lol. Those stone heads are clearly African in phenotype. There is no getting around this. 100% Native Americans of Beringian origin. You may have heard of Luzia and the Lagoa Santa fossils. They also were analyzed and are 100% Native American. I haven't heard of them and can't deny or affirm this one way or another. Among my own Appalachian people there are a lot of stories about the "Indians" in our ancestry. Very often these are tales without any substantiation. My family's DNA was analyzed and was pure European. That doesn't mean there isn't an Indian in the woodpile, necessarily, but it does mean that family histories are often invented. It may not be true and then again it actually may be true but they were simply unable to prove it. Lack of proof doesn't necessarily mean it isn't so. A similar invention is heard often from African-Americans who deny they're part white, and claim to be part Indian, yet DNA analysis shows them to be mixed of African and European usually with no Native component at all. I understand why people would like to deny white ancestry, ok, but facts are facts. You have a point here. I recently found out that one of the ancestors in my family who was rumored to be Native America turned out to actually be Mulatta but had to conceal this fact for some reason. However it should be noted that many if not most AfroAmericans will proudly give you the run down of their White ancestry as quickly as their Indian ancestry. Many AfroAmericans are proud to have White blood in them, or any other non-Black blood in them to be honest. There are many Youtube videos, notably by a guy named de Montellano, which debunk all of this easily. If you look at the Native people of that area, they look just like those stone heads. Keep in mind the features are exaggerated... nobody actually looks like that. You seem to be contradicting yourself insisting that the Natives of that region (who likely have much African ancestry) look JUST like those stone heads...only to turn around and claim "nobody" really looks like that...lol. But for the record, plenty of Africans actually look like that, lol. This is another case of people seeing Native faces and imagining they see someone else. Like Mayans... they are not much mixed really. In the Highlands they look quite like unmixed Natives. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to guess what race someone is if the statue of them has thick lips and a short broad nose. Infact, it would take a heck of an imagination to IMAGINE them being other than Black. Notice that those claiming African Olmecs mix up the dates of the imaginary visitors. They were Egyptians. they were Mande in Medieval times, and so on. None of it matches, even in the work of the same author. Could it be that BOTH time periods were correct? Along with multiple other time periods for Blacks visiting the Americas from Africa that have yet to be discovered (or admitted to) by mainstream history? A handful of Norse settled briefly in Labrador, and left plenty of remains by which they can easily be identified. WHERE is such evidence for Africans here? Did the Norse leave statues of themselves? I don't recall any pre-Columbian statues of White men being found along the coasts in any part of the Americas. Van Sertima never shows us ONE bit of real evidence of any of those things here in America. What do you mean by "real evidence"? Evidence is evidence. Fact that support an assertion. Either it's real or it's not. And if it's not real...it's not evidence. Nor does anyone else. And would not they have returned to Africa? Most claim that they did, that they were trading back and forth. And so I'd have to ask for some evidence of American crops in Africa, as well! Or American Indians. Almost immediately the Spanish were taking Native Americans to Spain. Would not the Africans have done the same? No. Because unlike the Europeans...the Africans didn't go there to exploit or DISPLACE people. However in response to your question how do we know that some Native Americans DIDN'T make a voyage back with them to Africa? What I find problematic about this is that you seem to think that if you can put the adjective "Caucasian" before "scientist" that invalidates the scientist! No, them being Caucasian doesn't necessarily invalidates them or their work. But it DOES put things in their proper perspective when you realize that those scientists belong to a group who have a long and documented history of deception, fabrication, and suppression of truth and history. If the thread of racism runs through any part of this society that White people collectively can be found in...then one would have to be NAIVE to believe that it wouldn't be found in the sciences of medicine, academia, archeology, astronomy, ect...if they too are controlled and influenced by White people. So you are then rejecting the scientific method altogether? No. Facts, evidence, the hypothetical-deductive method... these things are an expression of logic which is independent of the ancestral identity of the scientist doing the work! ....or atleast they SHOULD be. And if you are going to make statements about peoples' ancestries, you have to have evidence. And you have to use the labels correctly. Dravidian speakers. for example, were NOT the first people in India. I don't mind being corrected, however is this FACT or THEORY? Is there a hieroglyph or timeline found on an ancient document or wall declaring that there were people there before the Dravidians??? The are very likely the creators of the Harappan civilization. But the peoples with Y-DNA C, D and H were there before the Dravidians. who are associated with L. It was not only the Indoeuropeans who pushed other people out of the way when they migrated. We can find the same behavior perpetrated by Bantu speakers moving south in Africa, or Chinese speakers spreading out from the river valleys where they originated. Do we find the Bantu slaughtering people, establishing new religions, demonizing the old religions and claiming that the deities of the old religion were actully "demons", and raping the women to establish mixed race people in positions of authority to help them rule -like the Aryans did to the Dravidians? If not, there can be no comparison. And again, not only did the Caucasians do this to the Dravidians of India but they did it to countless other races and ethnic groups in other parts of the globe they traveled to. As for America... all I can say is I want to see EVIDENCE!!! There is ZERO evidence of any Dravidian speakers coming to America before Columbus. If you wish to treat this as a contest, sorry but the Vikings win. They were the first non-Native Americans to come to America that we know of. Well we don't "know" that they did, you merely BELIEVE that they did because you're willing to accept the little evidence you've seen of this. There's probably far more evidence that Black Africans were coming here but that evidence is not accepted by you. As far as the DNA talk, I'll let you have that conversation with others because I don't know enough about it to qualify having a discussion over it. As for the rest... there is a mountain of evidence confirming that humans evolved in Africa. And we evolved from a species who lived 7 million years ago and was also ancestral to chimps and bonobos. DNA confirms this. It really is not possible to argue with DNA. The analysis of it is today quite sophisticated and can clearly be used to trace ancestry. Evolution is a theory and while there may be "evidence" of humans evolving there is certainly not any PROOF and they're probably won't be any. Infact, I'd say there is more evidence that humanity has DEVOLVED from earlier greatness than EVOLVED, lol..but that's another conversation all together. Evolution is a racist theory espoused BY a racist Caucasian named Charles Darwin. His work should be discredited and discarded by anyone serious about seeking the truth.

I'm proud of the NIgerian government for this. It shows me that they have common sense and respect for it's citizens. I also heard they are banning non-Black models from being used in commercials. Another step towards progress. It's about time African nations started actually being proud to be AFRICAN and show love for themselves and their fellow countrymen instead of worshipping Europe, lightening their skin, and straightening their hair trying to be more like their centuries old oppressor.

Troy They already HAVE the cure for cancer. Infact, there are SEVERAL cures for cancer which have been routinely demonstrated for decades. They are just suppressed and kept in certain circles secret from the public in general. One group keeps it a secret so they can make money off of just treating it instead of actually curing it. Another group keeps it a secret to protect it, so that the first group doesn't come and try to dismantle or destroy it or "out law" it once it has been made public. One of the things I've noticed over the years about people in power whether in government or at a job....they love making rules. They tend to love RESTRICTING and BANNING things that they personally don't agree with even if it doesn't disrupt the operation. On jobs, if I find a way to make it easier for me to do a job while maintaining the same quality of it....I often keep that discovery to myself and be sure NOT to tell any supervisors or managers. Many of them have a tendency to automatically want to tell you "NO...you can't do it that way" Even if it's not against the rules. And if you insist on doing it then they'll try to MAKE A RULE saying you can't do it. But if they don't know about it....they can't make it illegal. "Ok...HOW...is this guy getting so many sales?? He's gotta be doing something wrong. I'm gonna find out what it is that's he's doing because I'm sure he's breaking the rules"

Coggins First Trump convinced his followers to support Russia. NOW he's convinced yall to support the Communist regime of North Korea What next? Will they have booths set up at the next CPAC convention to register people to join the Taliban or Al Qaeda???? "Well..... Remember, our Founding Fathers were considered terrorists by the British crown as well, soooo.......!"

Coggins Oooooh..... So BIDEN is a "White man" who speaks with a forked tongue but Trump isn't?????? When Trump was rallying his crowd to beat up Black people and encouraging cops to smash people's heads agaist the squad car, HE wasn't a "bad White man". Even when he called Black nations "shit hole" countries...that was ok. But when Biden says something contradictory then ALL OF A SUDDEN he's a forked tongued no good so-n-so? First you were calling for the abolishment of the FBI.... NOW you're calling the White man fork tongued, like you're Geronimo resurrected....lol. Man....you right-wing "conservative" Negroes are something else...lol

Michel Montvert But... all humans on earth trace back to Africa! I personally don't believe that all people's came out of Africa. Infact, I believe the opposite. I believe all of the populations who are in Africa today the Black as well as the Arab and White MIGRATED there and settled in those lands for diffent reasons at different times. When you read the ancient as well as modern stories coming from Indigenous peoples all over the planet whether they are Native American, Dravidian, Mongolian, and even Aborigine...none of them claim to have come from Africa even if they gave that continent another name and claimed such. The ONLY people who espouse the "Out of Africa" theory are Caucasian archeologists and historians and those people of color trained by them. And me thinks that even most educated Caucasians know better, lol. Native Americans arrived from Beringia. All of them. NO Native DNA has been found which is other than that. Ok, now do THEY say that of themselves.....or is that more THEORY from Caucasian scientists and archeologists? Although people make up stories and generate legends, it would seem to me that the people themselves would know more about their origins and that of their ancestors than Caucasian scientists and archeologists thousands of years AFTER the fact. I was among the Maya and yes they are generally quite dark, but their features are nothing like those of Africans. Right. But I...and I don't speak for others...am not advocating that ALL or MOST or even a LARGE PORTION of Native Americans were originally Black. I believe that ALONG WITH the original Native Americans who generally are of a solid race of medium-light brown skinned people with coarse straight Black hair....you had various other groups who migrated to this Hemisphere for one reason or another at one time to another and settled among them. One such group were Black Africans. Another such group were Black Dravidians. Another such group were Mongoloid Asians. I'd even accept that some Nordic Caucasians sailed over too. The evidence shows clearly that Europeans weren't the first people of the Eastern Hemisphere to "discover" the Western Hemisphere/Americas. I have a Cambodian friend who is also as dark as the Maya, and she isn't African either. Plenty of Eurasians had and have dark skin. They evolved to have a skin color which suited their environment. I don't believe it's a matter of "evolution" so much as a matter of racial mixing that had been occurring for CENTURIES. When you talk about places like Cambodia and Nepal and even Eurasians...they are close to India. The Indian sub-continent was and still is inhabited by Dravidian peoples who are a Black people divided into various ethnic groups and tribes. They are found all over the Indian sub-continent as well as Pakistan, Afghanistan, and all up into Eurasia as they are the original inhabitants of that region before the Aryans and other Caucasian groups invaded and killed them or drove them further South. Many Cambodians, Thai, Nepalese, and other groups are primarily Mongolian mixed in with these original Dravidian peoples. I would suggest that nobody's family history has much to say going back to Columbus' time. Perhaps a griot in West Africa could recite geneology that old. European records might have it for Europeans. But... there is no history which shows Africans in America! Nor Chinese! We need solid evidence. 😏Western scientists have all of the evidence (and I'm sure proof) that they need to determine this fact. They know the truth, they're just covering it up...as usual. Which is why I said they can't be trusted. They have a well documented history of deception and covering up historical and archeological facts. Sometimes they keep it covered, and other times they PRETEND to discover it recently and release it to the public after hiding it all along. Many if not most White scientists have agreed to IGNORE the evidence and regulate it to speculation and pseudo-science, for racist purposes. For the same reason there is no proof and very little evidence that humans evolved from ape-like species....but it's still pushed and promoted as if it were an absolute fact. Why? It serve a racist purpose. I gotta go and pick somebody up from work, lol. To be continued.........

Michel Montvert Sorry, but some of this history sounds like it came from the NOI and it is NOT supported by any evidence. That's because much of it did. Although I'm not religious and don't agree with all of their doctrine, I give credit where credit is due because studying the teachings of the Nation of Islam was instrumental in breaking the hold Christianity had on me from centuries of racist indoctrination. There was no greater "Caucasian" civilization from which all those named sprang. Any connection between the Y-DNA J2 Semitic speakers and the R1a and R1b Indoeuropeans was very ancient. Lol...you just named it. It's called "INDO-EUROPEAN" Literally the Caucasians from which those Caucasians who migrated to both the Indian sub-continent and Europe is that "greater Caucasians" civilization. The Indoeuropeans did not come from the Caucasus, but from the steppes. Take a look at this map of the Steppes of Central Asia and you tell me if the assertion that their home was indeed the Caucasus mountains is far fetched.... Looks to me like the center-point for all of this migration is the CAUCASUS MOUNTAINS! They were in the Caucasus mountains for centuries BEFORE migrating into the steppes of Central Asia. And those who migrated into those steppes were only a PORTION of the greater Caucasian race who migrated in different directions. After "Out of Africa" 60k years ago, Which is a THEORY....but let's move on....... the people of the Mideast were those who evolved there. The people of the Mideast were those who "evolved there"? Hmmm... I want to understand you clearly... Are you saying that for the most part, Middle Easterners are people descended from those who evolved there INSTEAD OF being a mixture of various groups from different parts of the globe who MIGRATED there from different directions??? They were no longer "Africans", but all qualify as "Caucasoid" regardless of their skin color. How so? The Middle East isn't the Caucasus region, so why would simply being there automatically qualify them as "Caucasoid"???? The designation is not about color. "Caucasoid" does NOT equal "white". I don't know what "Caucasoid" means, which is why I don't use the term. I use the term CAUCASIAN. And although it's not about color, it IS a racial term. The Mideasterners with whom migrants from the Caucasus (Semitic speakers) and later from the steppes (Indoeuropean speakers) mixed were already "Caucasoid". Well, again...not sure about the "Caucasoid" part but yes SOME of them were mixed. But most weren't. Of course if you look at southern Arabia (where Africans had migrated) or Lower Egypt (where Eurasians had migrated), you'll see a lot of mixed people, and good luck putting them into a category. Facts. The "Caucasian" people were no more savage than anyone else, on the whole. Being that Caucasians are a RACE instead of an ethnic group we have to compare Caucasians with other RACES. Which other races have a history of living primarily in mountains? Which other races have a history of eating raw or almost raw meat? Which other races have a history of even a portion of their population crawling on all four limbs? You may be able to say this about a few ethnic groups INSIDE of certain races, but not the majority of the race...as was the case for Caucasians while they were in the Central Asia/Caucasus mountain region. Egypt was not the world's first civilization. I agree. Not by a long shot. There were others millennia before, in Africa, in Europe and elsewhere. The world was not civilized by Egypt. I didn't say that it was. But I DID say that Caucasians were for the most part civilized by Egyptians who constantly sent people to them giving them scientific knowledge to raise them from a savage and barbaric state to a more refined and civilized state. Even ancient Greek historians and philosophers like Herodotus and Aristotle admit to this. Many Caucasian cultures like the Greek and Romans say that their "Gods" came from Egypt and Ethiopia. Moses was the lawgiver to the Israelites! According to the Bible...not necessarily according to history. And according to the Greeks, THEY had a law giver and civilizer named Musaeus Infact, when you read about the allegory of the "Muse" being responsible for musicians and poets Inspiration and creativity....it's a throw back to that ORIGINAL law giver and Inspirational Civilizer Mose/Moshe/Musa/Moses. Civilization: by 6000 bce there was civilization in Europe, in the Balkans, along the Danube and its tributaries, and along the Mediterranean. Civilization with many towns, extensive trading networks, and a system of writing older than any other known, upon which Sumerian writing was obviously based, since it uses many of the same symbols. Ofcourse! Civilization existed in Europe for atleast TENS of THOUSANDS of years if not HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of years!! But it just wasn't CAUCASIAN civilization! Black and Brown people had been occupying Europe and establishing civilizations all over that continent (really a sub-continent) for CENTURIES before the first White person was ever in existence on this planet. The original Europeans were indeed Black and Brown. This "Old European" civilization was destroyed by the incoming Yamnaya from the steppes, the Indoeuropean speakers. Absolutely! Just like the Caucasians migrated to the Americas, killed off the original Native Americans and stole their land and resources...they did the same thing to Europe BEFORE THAT after migrating West from the Caucasus mountains. In Africa there was also an extensive society which I know will be before long declared to be "civilization", in the Sahara, growing out of the "African Aquatic". Ok. I can dig that! Egypt was great, to be sure, but it was not the first civilization. Both "black" and "white" people had created civilized societies prior to Egyptian Unification (Narmer). I agree. Infact, most people don't realize that there is a difference between EGYPTIAN civilization and KEMETIC civilization. When you talk about "Egypt" you're talking about a kingdom t heavily influenced if not developed by Caucasians who migrated down into ancient Kemet and helped destroy or dissolve THAT great Empire and turn it into what we call "Egypt". Kemet being a much greater, longer, and Blacker Empire than the Egyptian one that replaced it.

frankster If the only value you see is Entertainment... We can stop right there, because that's not true. I see more value in it than just entertainment. So to you they are Allegories.....Where as I see Value I see both. The further apart the Languages are linguistically the more the difference becomes pronounced...generally True. But these are two different words all together for two different beings. Translation is trying to convey Meaning....Whilst Transliteration is trying to convey Sound.. Well put. No one is Lying and it's not a contradiction. I differ on that. Whoever inserted the word "Lucifer" in there in place of Helel was definitely practicing deception. Yes....That fact also remains that 3 in Cali is equally true and factual with 12 in NY.....Respective to where the participants are - both are True No. California's time is behind New York's. With birthday lets say one is on the opposite side of the globe as to the other.. Ok? Thank you....so even your trusted and reputable sources may have some propaganda...Why would expect the bible to be different? I don't. Do YOU recognize that the Bible contains propaganda??? In terms of the Scriptures we use most or by most people it's more like 100th 300th or 500th hand information......Find the Value its all not just entertainment..... Can't disagree with this. And a very good second hand source is also available but remote for many or most. And what would (or Who would) that be???

ProfD I like the term @Michel Montvert uses...Demosocialist. Well, I'm not crazy about ANY term with the word "demo" in it. The word "demo" is really related to the Greek term for demon. Democracy doesn't mean "rule of the people". It literally means "rule of demons" in Greek. It seems to work in Nordic countries. But, it also ties back to a homogeneous society. True. Capitalism and socialism can peacefully coexist. Absolutely There will always be people who are more industrious and driven than others. They deserve to make as much money as they can generate. That's what I'm talking about and this is why I can't really get with a system that denies a person credit for going that extra mile and working harder or being more clever to secure wealth and resources for themselves. As long as they aren't harming their fellow man in the process. Then, the United States isn't homogenous either. Yes. That's one of the things that makes this nation so great. Our diversity. It makes for a beautiful culture and a lot of beautiful people. Michel Montvert Flemish and Walloons are NOT the same people. Any more than Irish and Scots-Irish in Ulster. Or Serbs and Bosnians. When you say they are different... Are you talking just culture, or do they tend to have different physical features from eachother like skin complexion, eye color, growing hair, ect...??

frankster You have "Adam" which means son of the Earth/ground - red earth And "Dam" which means Blood.....all man is of One blood and its red. The word "Adam" literally means "Of Blood" But like many Hebrew terms it has two meanings in Hebrew: 1. Of Blood and/or 2. Red One (person), because Dam is also used for the color red. Plain and simple. No spin or re-interpretation by Christian theologians to try to give it a newer and more confusing definition. The story of Adam and Eve is an old allegory written to symbolize the making of White people by the Elohim. The word ADHAMAH means soil or dirt, not ADAM. That's what I mean about deception and mis-intepretation on the part of Caucasian scholars who know better but will try to deceive the reader by confusing the definitions. I have seen quite a bit Patriarchal societies in which women sit on the Throne or hold the seat of Power. Ofcourse. Because one woman holding power over the land doesn't necessarily cancel out a society being a Patriarchy. First of all, just because she sits on the throne...doesn't mean she's wielding any power. It could be just ceremonial like the Queen of England allegedly is. Second, even if she did hold SOME of the power...as long as the culture determines that the families are headed by men, most of the institutions are headed by men, and most of the local governments are headed by men....it's still a Patriarchy regardless as to who is on top. A Google search states the following about Patriarchy .......a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. Well, you might find anything on Google...lol. 25 different definitions for a word. Some definitions you never heard of before and others that completely contradict each other. When it comes to discussion, I like to stick with Webster's or Oxford dictionaries. According to Webster, the Definition of patriarchy is: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriarchy So for it to be a Patriarchy the fathers must rule the families, the wives and children must depend on them, and the inheritance and power goes down the male line. That's a broader and more accurate definition.

frankster Then you recognize that they value, as you accept that they are not "just allegories" Seek the value Oh yes, they are valuable just for the entertainment alone...lol. Like a good novel... The fact that they have us conversing with eachother over them proves their value on some level, regardless of whether they are factual or not. Name one such source? Well, I gave you one already. I provided a link to the Hebrew translations and transliterations of the Old Testament. https://biblehub.com/interlinear/ There is what you and your family call you and then there is what other people call you....Robbie Rob Bob and Bobbie. Those are all different versions of the SAME NAME. Helel and Lucifer are TOTALLY DIFFERENT NAMES all together. One isn't a "version" of the other, but they're entirely different. True but only half the story.... What if I am in Cali and you are in NY then the times would be different 12 and 3....but remain true respectively The times would be different IN THOSE DIFFERENT REGIONS...but not in THEIR respective regions. If it's 12 in California, that fact isn't disrupted or even influenced by the time in New York, China, or anywhere else. It remains constant. It doesn't change. As the night progresses the CURRENT time will change, but the fact that it was 12 at THAT TIME didn't and won't change. For example, if a person was born at 6am on April 11th 1966.....THAT DOESN'T CHANGE. It may be 8pm August 31st 2022 right now...but the fact that they were born AT THAT time is a fact that doesn't change at all. True....and your sources ar all 100% true and free of propaganda? I can't say that. It tells me that you are talking about things you know not. If we're discussing history....then aren't we both? It's 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and even 5th hand information we've gotten from other sources. How much do you or I actually "know" for sure about the history we're discussing?

Cynique How do we know Eve(females) didn't come before Adam(males) but with their physical brawn, males imposed their version of who came first between males or females. After all, females are the species who give birth. It's an extremely convoluted issue. Who said one HAD to come before the other? Could it be that The CREATOR Created both males and females at the same exact time? frankster Neither can it be solely referring to the caucasians, as these legends are found among a few other cultures When you take into account what the word "Adam" means, then you realize it refers to Caucasians or that race we commonly call "White" That verse wasn't talking about ALL of humanity, but a specific group of humanity. Patriarchy means from father to son but if there is no son... it can go to a daughter That's Patrilineal. Patriarchal means men rule. You often have MATRILINEAL successorship of power in a PATRIARCHAL society where power is traced through the mother's bloodline rather than the father's. Which makes more sense anyway.

Coggins When it comes to race I refuse to play my white man is better than yours. That’s the biggest problem right now. They are only tools to be used and rivals to conquer. The problem isn't a matter of "my White man" is better than "your White man". The problem is you are following A White man and I'm not following ANY White men because I don't trust them like you. You trust the Republican party and follow Trump. I don't trust ANY of them because both parties have a long and documented history of deception and mistreatment of AfroAmericans. But we are strong enough to meet any challenges. Our people are strong enough, but are we smart enough??? Black folks are WORLD RENOWN for our strength, but when it comes to smarts....lol.....well. Michel Montvert Welfare in the USA is poverty maintenance. It does not provide what a person needs to get a job while also raising a child. PREACH!!!! Just like the Department of "Corrections" rarely corrects inmates and isn't designed to do so, welfare isn't designed to get people out of poverty but keep them in it by giving them barely enough to live and no skills and opportunities to get out of poverty. Franklin Delano Roosevelt actually DID do this back in the 30s and 40s and the government actually did it's job and raised millions out of poverty with programs that gave people good jobs with benefits that they KEPT and retired from.

Michel Montvert They didn't get it. Mexicans are NATIVE, Spanish are WHITE, ok... Mexicans whom gringos think look Spanish often really do not. Well put. I am always bothered by the lack of understanding among the various peoples discussed here. Blacks (USA), Mexicans, Indians from the USA, all 3 groups misunderstand each other. Since I'm fairly familiar with all 3, I find myself always having to "translate" between them... translate cultural facts if not language, per se. And whites... well, same as everyone else, it depends if we're dealing with those who are conscious or those who are not. (My generation said "conscious" instead of "woke", right.) I know you're not lying because I've witnessed the same things over and over again for years, especially with people of color who come from other countries. It's not so much that you're educated, have traveled to other nations, and have experienced other cultures to the point that you're qualified to explain these different cultures...to most of them it's the fact that you're White and they TRUST and RESPECT you more than they do eachother. I've often seen Latinos ignore what a Black manager is telling them until a White supervisor of lesser rank comes along and tells them to do it and they do it. Having traveled a lot myself I've seen over and over how Whites have to play "translator" between other races and even between other groups of Black people because many of them don't want to have anything to do with each other but will gladly cooperate with the Whites. Often times it takes a White person to settle the differences among people of color. I will disagree on the notion of Africans here before Columbus. There is no good evidence for it that any anthropologist recognizes. The word "recognizes" is the key word, because a lot of things exist that people simple don't or won't recognize. We know that most anthropologists are either Caucasian or they are people of color who went to institutions controlled by Caucasians. We also know that many if not most Caucasians tend to be racist and have a long and documented history of lying about history, covering up archeological, religious, and other historical findings and keeping them secret for decades. So for those reasons alone we can't trust what most Western Archeologists present to us about the past. Van Sertima was academically a farce. And this notion contains the idea that Africans were responsible for Native civilizations, which is just more culture-thieving such as whites did rampantly, even claiming that the mounds in Ohio were built by Romans or Greeks or Basques or anyone WHITE they could think of. But, this is a huge topic and so I leave it with that. I'm curious as to exactly what part of Ivan Van Sertima's material has been proven false by "academia"? And the key word will be PROVEN; not simply AGREED upon not to be accepted by a group of Whites. I'm talking actually PROVEN incorrect? NO real anthropologists have seen any legitimate evidence for pre-Columbian contact. What about the huge Olmec Heads found in the southern coast of Mexico? The features are unmistakably African. And they're wearing helmets, obviously not slaves. This may not be absolute PROOF that Africans were here before Columbus but it's certainly strong EVIDENCE that they were.

Cynique I'm curious about what economic "System" exists or should exist wherein a country can "have it both ways", - a utopian paradise where there is prosperity and equality for all, replete with a guarantee that everybody, both the ordinary and the extraordinary, will live the good life. I'm not sure if I even WANT a society like this. First of all, I'm not sure I want everything to be "equal" because: 1. If I work 40 or just 20 hours a week for my money, I don't want someone who doesn't work AT ALL to be given the same payment each week. 2. I feel if someone works hard or comes up with a new invention or plays the lottery or stocks and ends up getting rich...I don't think their wealth should be evenly distributed in the name of "equality". It's my understanding that some Communist teachings advocate such a re-distribution. I think that's extreme. No need to go from one extreme to another. Rather than "equal" I think the word we're looking for is FAIR. I think HEALTH CARE should be fair and everyone who is a citizen or resident should get it. Perhaps that would come close to what people call "equality" but even that wouldn't be equal because some people need more medical assistance than others. ProfD The amount of money the US prints, er, spends on defense and aborted space missions and other irrelevant sh8t could improve life for millions of people. Exactly, which is why they choose NOT to spend it on the people but on toys and gadgets to shoot off into outer space. If the plan is DEPOPULATION then why would they spend money to save the population? Delano I had another idea. People would receive goods based on their spirituality. So if you tried to steal you would lose more than what you stole. Who would judge who had more "spirituality" than the other? And what standard would they use to measure this spirituality with? Some say that just having a SPIRIT makes you a "spiritual person" whether you go through various rituals or not. Further..... If a person tried to steal food and other items necessary for survival because THEY were being denied and deprived because of prejudice and mistreatment....then would punishing them for theft really be justice?

Michel Montvert Since you were old enough to remember.... When King and Kennedy were assassinated, do you remember White people cheering or expressing approval of those actions? A lot of White people I know who were alive at that time said things like "he got what he deserved" and other things expressing joy over their deaths. Michael Moore said that when he was a kid in school, when it was announced that MLK was assassinated...the entire class started clapping and cheering. I've heard many similar stories. ProfD America definitely looks different than it did back in the 1960s. The middle class of America has been expanded and anesthetized with gross consumerism. Yet, racism and socioeconomic problems remain unchanged. Yeah, for one thing...White people have more "allies" today! Back in the 50s and 60s when the nation was primarily Black or White with a few Native Americans...Black people were far more united. The racial lines were clear. On top of that.... Most Latinos and Asians were seeking friendship and socio-political ties with AfroAmericans at that time because they saw us and our power rising. Today, you have a lot of people of different races and colors but many if not most of them who come from other countries and cultures side with White people and seek alliances with them. Who wants to unite with "crack heads" and "gang bangers"?? Since the 80s, AfroAmericans as a community have been tagged with one negative stereotype after another to the point that even fellow Black people from other countries are ready to walk across the street when they see the average nigga bouncing up the block in their direction. Especially if he's Rapping to himself with a crazy look on his face. Cynique America definitely looks different than it did back in the 1960s. The middle class of America has been expanded and anesthetized with gross consumerism. Yet, racism and socioeconomic problems remain unchanged. Did they REALLY believe that? Or were they a bunch of White kids who looked at the riots of the 50s and 60s....thought that White civilization was on it's way to collapse...and decided to get high and live a life of leisure before they died? "Get a job? Fur' what man? The world is ending man. Let's get high and make love while we still can man!"

Troy Social media I’ve always asserted has become a tool in helping us to perpetuate our own oppression. This is true for two reasons: 1. Social media tends to give one a sense of anonymity and make them feel that they can post all types of vile and offensive material they wouldn't ordinarily say in public for fear of the consequences. 2. Social media platforms tend to be echo chambers where people settle into groups that share THEIR values, morals, politics, ect..So any offensive or even erroneous and outlandish beliefs they have about life or other groups of people are NOT likely to be challenged or corrected.