@jdesigns21 #whendiditurnblack #vote #kamalaharris2024 ♬ original sound - Jenn

 

 

 

Interesting video........

I'm glad you posted it because it highlights many of the arguments I have AGAINST accepting mixed race people as "Black".


First of all, she looks good to be in her mid 50s.

Second of all, notice she said her father was "Black" but her mother was "Italian".
She...like most people...mix up race with ethnicity; but I think she did this on purpose to conflate the two.
She could have said Black father and White mother, but she instead focused on her mother's ethnicity to somehow perhaps subconsciously disguise the White side and focus on the Black side.

Keep in mind also that many AfroAmericans who are called "Black" are mixed up themselves so there's no telling "how Black" her father was.


Third, notice how she refers to her adoptive mother as a "beautiful" Swedish/German woman.
Tells me that she sees those people as the standard of beauty.
Also how she refers to the little girl she had a fight with as a blonde girl with ribbons in her hair, also holding her up as a high standard that she probably felt she didn't measure up to.


Fourth, she points out the fact that she looked like another "Black" woman who was Jane Kennedy.
But Jane Kennedy is ALSO MIXED RACE.
So you have mixed people calling themselves "Black" and trying to represent the Black community but really identifying with eachother.
This is part of the problem which leads to further division and confusion INSIDE the community.

What I REALLY heard from her was....like most mixed race people in the U.S...she WASN'T ACCEPTED by the White community she was raised in and had no choice but to either be isolated or identify with the Black community because she KNEW that mixed people are often readily accepted in our community.

However I DO NOT consider her Black.
Just because White folks don't accept her as White....doesn't mean I have to accept her as Black.
She's mixed.
She should be proud of that fact and identify as such.

@Pioneer1 

ah ok, I posted it in this section of the forum cause I didn't feel this reflected anything I wanted on my status line at this time nor did it have a literary angle I was interested in going to, but with current events it is warranted to post so I did. 

 

For me, the USA's past starting as english colonies created an environment of dysfunction around most topics to the people in it. that modernity can not or will not be able to fix absent more dysfunction.

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Interesting video........

Yes..

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I'm glad you posted it because it highlights many of the arguments I have AGAINST accepting mixed race people as "Black".

sure it does

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

First of all, she looks good to be in her mid 50s.

Second of all, notice she said her father was "Black" but her mother was "Italian".

it is true statement.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

She...like most people...mix up race with ethnicity;

Yes that is true

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

but I think she did this on purpose to conflate the two.

I don't

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

She could have said Black father and White mother, but she instead focused on her mother's ethnicity to somehow perhaps subconsciously disguise the White side and focus on the Black side.

Not necessarily...She grew up in a white environment where  her mother is not just seen as white....but more seen as Italian - in that same white family her father is seen as American as in Black American.

 

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Keep in mind also that many AfroAmericans who are called "Black" are mixed up themselves so there's no telling "how Black" her father was.

How Black????....as in degrees of blackness 

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Third, notice how she refers to her adoptive mother as a "beautiful" Swedish/German woman.
Tells me that she sees those people as the standard of beauty.
Also how she refers to the little girl she had a fight with as a blonde girl with ribbons in her hair, also holding her up as a high standard that she probably felt she didn't measure up to.

She grew up in a racist society....and those are the standards of beauty...

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Fourth, she points out the fact that she looked like another "Black" woman who was Jane Kennedy.
But Jane Kennedy is ALSO MIXED RACE.

Well she does look like Jayne Kennedy..

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

So you have mixed people calling themselves "Black" and trying to represent the Black community but really identifying with eachother.
This is part of the problem which leads to further division and confusion INSIDE the community.

Yes they are black if society says they are. 

This idea that you are now espousing will only serve to exasperate the situation to the benefit of those oppressing blacks.

This idea is not new...it was introduced to the west  in the 1500 to oppress non white people called the Casta System - Mulatto creole octoroon quadroon etc 

 

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

What I REALLY heard from her was....like most mixed race people in the U.S...she WASN'T ACCEPTED by the White community she was raised in and had no choice but to either be isolated or identify with the Black community because she KNEW that mixed people are often readily accepted in our community.

Yes because she was seen as not white ....black

Well some say they do not feel accepted by the black community....as they are seen as not black enough.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

However I DO NOT consider her Black.
Just because White folks don't accept her as White....doesn't mean I have to accept her as Black.
She's mixed.
She should be proud of that fact and identify as such.

You are entitled to your opinions....no matter how misguided I think they are.

@Pioneer1 + @frankster

Outside the Book passing, by nella larsen, what book do you think deals with internal phenotypical heritage in the black populace in the usa , robustly?

The Human Stain....the movie

frankster

 

 

it is true statement

 

It's a true statement IF:

 

1. Her father was predominately of the Black race or atleast presented as such.
As opposed to looking like Prince or one of the DeBarges...lol.

 

2. Her mother was BORN IN ITALY.
Italians are born in Italy.
If she was born in the U.S., may as well call her an American White woman and get it over with.

 

 

How Black????....as in degrees of blackness

 

Yes, there are....just like there are degrees of "whiteness".

Swedes are consider "more White" than Greeks or Italians.

 

 

 

She grew up in a racist society....and those are the standards of beauty...

 

Standards she probably adopted herself, and may even pass along to HER children.
Which will surely give them low self esteem if they are her complexion or darker.

 

 

 

Yes they are black if society says they are. 

 

So since "society" at one time said AfroAmericans were only 3/5 of a human being, then that means they were indeed?

 

 

 

 

This idea is not new...it was introduced to the west  in the 1500 to oppress non white people called the Casta System - Mulatto creole octoroon quadroon etc 

 

That aspect of it...I have no problem with.
I think maybe we should categorize AfroAmericans similary, but WE control the categories as opposed to the oppressor.

 

 

 

Well some say they do not feel accepted by the black community....as they are seen as not black enough.

 

Perhaps they aren't accepted by the Black community because they aren't Black AT ALL.

Half = HALF

Simple mathematics.

The confusion comes in when you try to call someone who CLEARLY isn't Black and doesn't look like most Black folks...."black" anyway.

 

You are entitled to your opinions....no matter how misguided I think they are.

By what standard do you call my opinions "misguided"?
Should the correct "opinion" be to accept EVERYBODY with one drop of Black blood in them as Black?


 

richadmurray
 

Outside the Book passing, by nella larsen, what book do you think deals with internal phenotypical heritage in the black populace in the usa , robustly?
 

Although it's fictional, the book "Imitation of Life" comes to mind.

However, depending on what you mean by "internal phenotypical"....it could actually be an OXYMORON.
Physically speaking, if it's phenotypical...it is usually expressed externally.
 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

 

it is true statement

 

It's a true statement IF:

 

1. Her father was predominately of the Black race or atleast presented as such.
As opposed to looking like Prince or one of the DeBarges...lol.

 

2. Her mother was BORN IN ITALY.
Italians are born in Italy.
If she was born in the U.S., may as well call her an American White woman and get it over with.

Regardless she is being informed by societies mores

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

How Black????....as in degrees of blackness

 

Yes, there are....just like there are degrees of "whiteness".

Swedes are consider "more White" than Greeks or Italians.

True and sometimes they were considered as non whites.

 

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

She grew up in a racist society....and those are the standards of beauty...

 

Standards she probably adopted herself, and may even pass along to HER children.
Which will surely give them low self esteem if they are her complexion or darker.

Racist idea are ingrained in all people born and grown in USA....as a default - One most work to dislodge racist ideas.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Yes they are black if society says they are. 

 

So since "society" at one time said AfroAmericans were only 3/5 of a human being, then that means they were indeed?

Human Beings are biological creatures.... all are homo sapiens sapiens

AfroAmericans are political and social creatures.....The idea of 3/5 humans was a political idea and race is a social idea

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

This idea is not new...it was introduced to the west  in the 1500 to oppress non white people called the Casta System - Mulatto creole octoroon quadroon etc 

 

That aspect of it...I have no problem with.
I think maybe we should categorize AfroAmericans similary, but WE control the categories as opposed to the oppressor.

The moment you begin to divide people....you become an oppressor of those who are divide out they become the "Other"

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Well some say they do not feel accepted by the black community....as they are seen as not black enough.

 

Perhaps they aren't accepted by the Black community because they aren't Black AT ALL.

Half = HALF

Simple mathematics.

The confusion comes in when you try to call someone who CLEARLY isn't Black and doesn't look like most Black folks...."black" anyway.

What if they experience prejudicial and discriminatory oppression because society deems them to be black?

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

You are entitled to your opinions....no matter how misguided I think they are.

By what standard do you call my opinions "misguided"?
Should the correct "opinion" be to accept EVERYBODY with one drop of Black blood in them as Black?

By the fact that races do not exist as a biological truth...if you accept that social construct as genetically true the you have accept a Racist Ideology

All humans  are  Africans and all Africans are human beings.....Regardless of Phenotype

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

 

@frankster I know the human stain, rarely mentioned film or book it is derived loosely from  hmmm well done, the authors agenda is to strong in the book but the film, cuts to the key issue. 

 

@Pioneer1 that is why i said "internal phenotypical heritage in the black populace in the usa"  Verbosity is useful at times to be clear. Geography/specific phenotypical populace in said geography/specific heritage in said populace . 

Imitation of life is a telling choice. It is the most well known or commercial literature based on the topic.

 

On 8/4/2024 at 5:44 PM, richardmurray said:

What does a Black Candidate for an elected position in the USA need to do to earn black votes in the polls absent their phenotypical identity?

Historically....Black candidates and non-Black too haven't  had to do anything in order to earn Black votes. 

 

The majority of Black folks have voted along the same party line for several decades and counting.

 

That voting trend will continue as long as Black folks are satisfied with the status quo...nothing in return for their vote.

 

The tide will only change when Black folks understand politics is transactional.  Voters should get something in return. 

 

Rest assured that AIPAC exists for a very real reason.  They're putting money up to secure their interests too.😎

@ProfD well, in your opinion , do most black people in the usa vote ? 

I argue most black people don't vote in the usa, the last time most blacks voted was circa 1865 at the end of the war between the states and from then to now it is a negative slope. 

Now if you answer to my opening question yes, most black people in the usa vote , I have nothing to say.

BUt, if you answer to my opening question no, most black people in the usa don't vote, then I repeat the question 

What does a Black Candidate for an elected position in the USA need to do to earn black votes in the polls absent their phenotypical identity?

3 hours ago, richardmurray said:

@ProfD well, in your opinion , do most black people in the usa vote ? 

I believe most Black people who are eligible and registered to vote exercise it.

3 hours ago, richardmurray said:

....the last time most blacks voted was circa 1865 at the end of the war between the states...

That's interesting because men of all races couldn't vote until 1870. 

 

3 hours ago, richardmurray said:

What does a Black Candidate for an elected position in the USA need to do to earn black votes in the polls absent their phenotypical identity?

To answer your question anyway, Black candidates need to offer Black voters tangible benefits.

 

More importantly, Black folks need to form our own political party.😎

@ProfD 

So do you think most black people in the usa who are eligible to vote are registered to vote? 

If yes then ok, but if not then your answer to the question is the key, and that is my point. Government isn't hard. No system of government is truly bad, including monarchy. If you do for the masses, no matter the system , you will get the support from the masses. A german once said on pbs as a kid he was in the german rubble and the nazi's came and ended the ruble and made life grand. He enjoyed the pre war nazi years. He didn't defend the nazis harming others but was honest. He was helped. 

The negative slope in black people voting or being registered from circa 1870 to today isn't an accident, it is well arned by elected officials actions in the usa,  the black people who vote in the usa  are a minority in the black populace ... based on recent statistics in NYC, from the non blacks, most people in all groups, including white or asian in nyc don't vote in majority ... So most communities are simply not being helped and thus don't vote. An elected official wants your vote in any government , do for you , it is very simple.

and thank you for correcting the time on the 15th amendment 

11 hours ago, richardmurray said:

So do you think most black people in the usa who are eligible to vote are registered to vote? 

I don't know.

11 hours ago, richardmurray said:

The negative slope in black people voting or being registered from circa 1870 to today isn't an accident, it is well arned by elected officials actions in the usa,  the black people who vote in the usa  are a minority in the black populace ... 

Black folks in the USA have consistently voted Democratic since 1933.  Not sure that it matters much considering what we have gotten from that party over almost 100 years.😎

I can't confirm any statistics but I am sure most black people in nyc who are eligible to vote don't. If I extend my thinking to the non black , i am certain most communities in nyc's eligible voters don't vote. And the reason being what most new yorkers , any racial category say , over and over and over and that includes whites and asians, the elected officials don't do anything so.... 

Quote

Black folks in the USA have consistently voted Democratic since 1933.  Not sure that it matters much considering what we have gotten from that party over almost 100 years.

I concur  , with fewer and fewer black people who are eligible to vote,voting since circa 1865 neither party has seemed interested in doing anything to earn the votes of those not voting which is the majority in the black populace

On 8/4/2024 at 6:27 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Fourth, she points out the fact that she looked like another "Black" woman who was Jane Kennedy.
But Jane Kennedy is ALSO MIXED RACE.
So you have mixed people calling themselves "Black" and trying to represent the Black community but really identifying with eachother.
This is part of the problem which leads to further division and confusion INSIDE the community.

 

 

I did not know that Jayne Kennedy was mixed race!

At any rate, I think that you are very perceptive! 

I don't agree though, that just because Harris referred to her adoptive mother as beautiful translates to her being a beauty standard. 

I know though, that we African Americans do have that problem in our background. 

 

 

 

On 8/4/2024 at 5:44 PM, richardmurray said:

 

 

 

I am not sure how to answer that question.

 

 

@Chevdove I don't see my question, can you post it regularly?

frankster

 

Human Beings are biological creatures.... all are homo sapiens sapiens

AfroAmericans are political and social creatures.....The idea of 3/5 humans was a political idea and race is a social idea

 

That being said.....
The fact remains that "society" believed it and supported it.
Just like "society" sees this woman is Black.

If you agree that this woman is Black because "society" says it, then it would follow that you'd agree with "society" on other matters also such as the 3/5 idea.

  

 

 

The moment you begin to divide people....you become an oppressor of those who are divide out they become the "Other"

 

Well.....
Would you rather be the oppressOR or the oppressEE (is that a word???) oppressED?

Take your pick.
Because in this world, either YOU have power and are ruling over somebody or you DON'T have power and somebody is ruling over YOU.

 

Me personally, I'd rather be a RULER than RULED over.

 

 

 

 

What if they experience prejudicial and discriminatory oppression because society deems them to be black?

 

It's a testimony to how blind and ignorant your beloved "society" that you put so much trust in, really is.

 

The goal should be to stamp out anti-Black racism.
Calling "everybody" Black doesn't accomplish this goal one bit any more than purposely getting arrested and going to jail solves the problem of police brutality.

 

 

 

By the fact that races do not exist as a biological truth..

 

...which is not a fact.
So we can forget the rest of the assertion.😉

 

 

 

 

 

Chevdove

 

 

I don't agree though, that just because Harris referred to her adoptive mother as beautiful translates to her being a beauty standard. 

 

It wasn't Harris who referred to her mother as beautiful but the mixed raced woman in the video originally posted, who did.
 

Nothing wrong with a person calling their mother beautiful.
I would refer to my own Mother as beautiful.
However what was telling was HOW she referred to her being beautiful.

She didn't just say her beautiful mother but referred to her being Swedish/German before calling her beautiful.
Suggesting that her beauty was tied to those ethnic roots.

 

 

I know though, that we African Americans do have that problem in our background.

Ofcourse.
And we need to reeducate ourselves as stamp it out....like we did in the 60s and 70s.

Our community used to be VERY color-struck before the 60s, but then along came the Black Pride and Black Love movements and dark skinned became beautiful to use again.  
Along with Jet Beauty and Essence, we fell inlove with our Blackness.
Most other cultures around the world haven't had that yet, so many of them still worship white skin as the ideal standard.


 

 

I am not sure how to answer that question.
 

Don't feel too bad, there doesn't seem to be a question there to answer....lol.
 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Our community used to be VERY color-struck before the 60s, but then along came the Black Pride and Black Love movements....

Most other cultures around the world haven't had that yet, so many of them still worship white skin as the ideal standard.

Facts. Some African women are ridiculous with the pancake makeup:

 

 

They become a couple shades shy of a full blown geisha girl:

 

Clearly, those women who pancake or bleach their faces didn't get the memo that Black has been beautiful since the 1060s.😁😎

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

Human Beings are biological creatures.... all are homo sapiens sapiens

AfroAmericans are political and social creatures.....The idea of 3/5 humans was a political idea and race is a social idea

 

That being said.....
The fact remains that "society" believed it and supported it.
Just like "society" sees this woman is Black.

If you agree that this woman is Black because "society" says it, then it would follow that you'd agree with "society" on other matters also such as the 3/5 idea.

I do not believe in Races so why would I accept the idea of any human being being 3/5....

 

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

  The moment you begin to divide people....you become an oppressor of those who are divide out they become the "Other"

 

Well.....
Would you rather be the oppressOR or the oppressEE (is that a word???) oppressED?

The choice have been made....I am one of the Oppressed

Nature/God has made me as I am.....I accept what and who I am with no regrets

If given the choice....I will stick with Natures selection.

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Take your pick.
Because in this world, either YOU have power and are ruling over somebody or you DON'T have power and somebody is ruling over YOU.

 

Me personally, I'd rather be a RULER than RULED over.

Not all Rulers are Oppressive....heavy is the head that wears the crown

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

What if they experience prejudicial and discriminatory oppression because society deems them to be black?

 

It's a testimony to how blind and ignorant your beloved "society" that you put so much trust in, really is.

Society has its flaws.....but all in all it is more good and beneficial that bad.

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The goal should be to stamp out anti-Black racism.
Calling "everybody" Black doesn't accomplish this goal one bit any more than purposely getting arrested and going to jail solves the problem of police brutality.

I agree....

Calling and recognizing that everybody is human is a start.

Getting arrested and going to jail is a protest.

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

By the fact that races do not exist as a biological truth..

 

...which is not a fact.
So we can forget the rest of the assertion.😉

Well Racist are still trying to find a scientific rational  or biological basis for race....so far they have not found anything that stands up to scientific inquiry and rigors of proving.

As of today Race remain a scientific and biological fiction.

ProfD


Man, your first two pictures remind me of an exchange that took place between a woman at work from Tanzania who showed me a picture of her when she was going back home to see her husband.

I guess she was trying to impress me or something as we were talking about make-up and looks and what women do.

She is actually darker than the woman on the left, pretty smooth skinned sista with her hair braided and wrapped up for work.

She showed me a video and it looked so much different, she was as light as Jasmine Guy with her lower hair straight and with blonde highlights!
Braided at the top towards the roots but straight as Chinese at the bottom with blonde highlights and she's flinging it all over the place as she's riding with somebody on her way to see her husband.

 

Face yellow.
Even her neck and hands were yellow down to her chest.
The only thing that reminded me of her were her facial features.

 

I said, "What the fuck is this?????"

 

She looked up at me smiling...eyes all juicy...saying she was on her way to see her husband.

She initially assumed I was surprised in a "good" way at how she essentially changed races.

She found out 5 minutes later....lol.

 

She couldn't believe that as a man I actually found her 10 times more attractive/prettier as the dark skinned sista that she was in that video.

 

 

 

frankster

 

I do not believe in Races so why would I accept the idea of any human being being 3/5....

 

Because you earlier said  this woman was Black because "society" said she was.

If society...by your standard...sets the definitions for people's identity and you agree with it (apparently), then it follows that you would also agree with society (at that time atleast) declaring that Black Americans are only 3/5 human.



 

The choice have been made....I am one of the Oppressed
 

Oppressor and Oppressed are relative terms depending on the environment and situation.
 

In the contemporary system of the United States, Caucasians are the oppressors and AfroAmericans are the Opressed.

In one of my neighbor's houses down the street, HE is the oppressor and the mice in his house that he is trying to trap and kill  are the oppressed.

At the temp service down the street, the temp workers are oppressed and most of the supervisors they work under are the oppressors.
 

It all depends on who's in charge and in a rulership position and who is submitting to them.

Not all Rulers are Oppressive....heavy is the head that wears the crown
 

True.
However nobody who is being oppressed is a ruler.
And that's a RULE, lol.

I'd rather be in a RULERSHIP position myself, rather than roll the dice on whether or not I get an oppressive or non-oppressive ruler.



Calling and recognizing that everybody is human is a start.
 

How is questioning someone's race...questioning their humanity?  (Unless..like you...they support the 3/5th decision, lol.)
 

Presenting mixed people are just as human as Black or White people.
They just aren't Black.

Just like I'm just as human as a woman, doesn't give me the right to identify as one.

Getting arrested and going to jail is a protest.
 

Actually...getting arrested and going to jail is simply GETTING ARRESTED and GOING TO JAIL.
You don't necessarily protest a damn thing.

Well Racist are still trying to find a scientific rational  or biological basis for race....so far they have not found anything that stands up to scientific inquiry and rigors of proving.
 

Racists don't need to.
They believe in the existence of race and weaponize it regardless of the biology or science of it.

You can quote science or deny it all you want, a White racist will STILL see you as different from them based on how you look whatever you want to call it.  



 

As of today Race remain a scientific and biological fiction.
 

If it's fiction, why do doctors and scientists recognize it and formulate medicines and write articles with race as a factor?

They obviously not only recognize it but also understand it....even if YOU refuse to, lol.

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

I do not believe in Races so why would I accept the idea of any human being being 3/5....

 

Because you earlier said  this woman was Black because "society" said she was.

If society...by your standard...sets the definitions for people's identity and you agree with it (apparently), then it follows that you would also agree with society (at that time atleast) declaring that Black Americans are only 3/5 human.

 Black connotes a racial categorization....I see racial categorization as a social convention - if you live in a racist society then the society treats you according to how it categorizes you. 

The US as a racist society states that if you have one drop of black blood then you are black...if you belong to the US society then that convention holds and is binding.

Outside of that society different rules applies....in some parts world that same person maybe seen as white.

3/5 was a political compromise.

Just as how I do not accept the idea of races as biological  so too i do not accept the 3/5 concept as biological.

 

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The choice have been made....I am one of the Oppressed
 

Oppressor and Oppressed are relative terms depending on the environment and situation.

True

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

In the contemporary system of the United States, Caucasians are the oppressors and AfroAmericans are the Opressed.

In one of my neighbor's houses down the street, HE is the oppressor and the mice in his house that he is trying to trap and kill  are the oppressed.

At the temp service down the street, the temp workers are oppressed and most of the supervisors they work under are the oppressors.
 

It all depends on who's in charge and in a rulership position and who is submitting to them.

That too can be the case...

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Not all Rulers are Oppressive....heavy is the head that wears the crown
 

True.
However nobody who is being oppressed is a ruler.
And that's a RULE, lol.

I'd rather be in a RULERSHIP position myself, rather than roll the dice on whether or not I get an oppressive or non-oppressive ruler.

Some Rulers are oppressed by their higher ups and some feel oppressed(live in fear of) by their subjects

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

Calling and recognizing that everybody is human is a start.
 

How is questioning someone's race...questioning their humanity? (Unless..like you...they support the 3/5th decision, lol.)

The idea of races is based on hierarchy.....the more white the more human the less white the less human and more animal.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Presenting mixed people are just as human as Black or White people.

Yes they are regardless of race or color just human....so says biology

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

They just aren't Black.

neither are they white.....just humans various shades or hues of brown

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Just like I'm just as human as a woman, doesn't give me the right to identify as one.

True....but a woman has every right to identify as a human

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Getting arrested and going to jail is a protest.
 

Actually...getting arrested and going to jail is simply GETTING ARRESTED and GOING TO JAIL.
You don't necessarily protest a damn thing.

Not if it is happens as part of a concerted effort in Protest against a known injustice...then it becomes much more

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Well Racist are still trying to find a scientific rational  or biological basis for race....so far they have not found anything that stands up to scientific inquiry and rigors of proving.
 

Racists don't need to.

In the recent past they did not need to.....but things have change a little since the arrested and jailing MLK jr

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

They believe in the existence of race and weaponize it regardless of the biology or science of it.

True

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

You can quote science or deny it all you want, a White racist will STILL see you as different from them based on how you look whatever you want to call it.  

Now the idea of race as biology has weaken....and so has racism with it.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

As of today Race remain a scientific and biological fiction.
 

If it's fiction, why do doctors and scientists recognize it and formulate medicines and write articles with race as a factor?

They obviously not only recognize it but also understand it....even if YOU refuse to, lol.

Sociological it is real in racist societies....because they enforces its biases with violence and discriminatory treatment laws practice and mores

On 8/11/2024 at 1:25 AM, richardmurray said:

I don't see my question, can you post it regularly?

 

Oops! 🤣

 

"After or Post Kamala Harris will a Black Candidate be able to use their Black identity , real or advertised, like Obama or Kamala?"

 

I did not respond to the poll because I don't know how to answer? 

I remember when Obama was campaigning and, it was such a confusion for me. In one sense, he was portrayed as 'a Black man' by Black people and probably many others as well. But then on the other hand, it seemed as though Obama himself did not want to be regarded as such. He seemed to want to be regarded as a leader that represented all Americans. 

 

So, did he portray himself in words as being a Black man? I am not sure. 

Many Black people voted for him for that reason, because he was Black. They voted for him because he was Black, from their viewpoint and Obama knew that. He knew that he was being viewed by the world as being the first 'black' president of the USA, however, he wanted to represent everyone. 

 

But I remember when Trayvon Martin was murdered, Obama associated himself with this young man. He mentioned how when he was young how people would lock their cars when they saw him walking, I think, he said that. So, Obama had to 'play both sides of the coin' so-to-speak, whether he wanted to or not. So the question for me is, did Obama want to use his Black identity before and/or after he became president? 

 

I don't know.

 

I wonder if he went along with the 'black identity' propaganda while he campaigned and then afterwards, change his persona, and spoke against any connotations of him being Black. 

 

Likewise, does VP Harris speak at all about being Black now?

Did she ever identify in her conversations as being Black or ethnic to gain the support of Black people?

 

I do remember how it was broadcasted that she was Jamaican and that her smoking 'pot' was due to her Jamaican culture!

But her father did not like that!  

 

But now, should she become president of USA, will she identify herself in conversation as being Black?

Or will it be more highlighted that she is the first female president or both?

 

I am more leaning towards her probably not identifying as being black, but that will not stop Black women from seeing her in that manner. I thinks she will represent a symbol for all women and so, White women and Asian women, etc. will view her as non-black, while Black women will view her as being Black. It is set up for her to play both sides [i.e. all-sides] of the coins, so-to-speak. I think it's like 'an intersectionality' and so, many Black Americans maybe misled to believe that things will change for the better. 

 

But just like what happened with Trayvon Martin being sacrificed during Obama's presidency and countless others, her becoming president may insight more problems for Black people. It may be like 'taking one step forward but two steps backwards'. 

 

 

*************************** 

So I guess the answer may revolve around how that 'Black candidate' is perceived 'racially'. If the candidate is light skinned or bi-racial, then, they will be viewed like Obama and VP Harris, but if the candidate is culturally a Black American DOS then, I guess they will still be viewed as 'Black'. So, if let's say, someone like Jesse Jackson were to become president, then although he is light skinned, people will still view him as Black. And he too, will probably still profess to be a Black man, imo, but yet a president for all. 

 

@Chevdove hahaha

 

ok now to read your reply:) 

 

Thank you. 

You seemed to say that Obama or Kamala considered themselves Statian/American first and Black or Female or Male second, and use their multiracial identity to gain media assignment or association when fruitful AND black elected officials will do that going forward. 

 

I concur , I argue that Frederick Douglass and the Black elected officials of South Carolina post war between the states, set this black elected official style, that has persisted for near two hundred years in the usa. 1865 to 1965 to 2065. but I will say this, NYC is showing all racial groups in the usa are tired of voting for elected officials who don't earn the votes with favorable legsilations, all groups. 

On 8/11/2024 at 2:56 PM, Pioneer1 said:

She didn't just say her beautiful mother but referred to her being Swedish/German before calling her beautiful.
Suggesting that her beauty was tied to those ethnic roots.

 

 

yes, I understand. I still think that she would say it even if her mother was 'Black'. But again, I do understand that we, as Black people, have had a serious problem with that kind of identity connection of connecting 'our skin color' and ethnicity to being beautiful--- or not.

 

 

On 8/11/2024 at 2:56 PM, Pioneer1 said:

 

 

I am not sure how to answer that question.
 

Don't feel too bad, there doesn't seem to be a question there to answer....lol.
 

 

🤣

 

 

 

 

 

frankster

 

 

 

Black connotes a racial categorization....I see racial categorization as a social convention

 

It is.

 

 - if you live in a racist society then the society treats you according to how it categorizes you. 

 

True

 

 

The US as a racist society states that if you have one drop of black blood then you are black

 

True

 

 

...if you belong to the US society then that convention holds and is binding.

 

Not necessarily.
Just because society believe it, doesn't mean it's true.
It could be that society was miseducated and ignorant.

 

 

The idea of races is based on hierarchy.

 

Currently, yes...but not necessarily.

Race can be compared to flavors of ice cream.
Obviously there are different flavors; that FACT can't be denied.

Now if a person or people want to SELECT one flavor and claim it's better or tastes better than the other flavors...that doesn't eliminate the fact that there ARE distinct and different flavors of ice cream; it simply means that they are trying to enforce THEIR opinions about a particular flavor on others.

 

neither are they white.....just humans various shades or hues of brown
 

Ok, so do you agree with me that these mixed presenting people are NOT Black?


 

Now the idea of race as biology has weaken....and so has racism with it.
 

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Biology is science, which means it's true.
If something is true....then it's just as true NOW as it was in the PAST.

 

37 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

 

 

Black connotes a racial categorization....I see racial categorization as a social convention

 

It is.

 

 - if you live in a racist society then the society treats you according to how it categorizes you. 

 

True

 

 

The US as a racist society states that if you have one drop of black blood then you are black

 

True

cool

 

37 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

..if you belong to the US society then that convention holds and is binding.

 

Not necessarily.
Just because society believe it, doesn't mean it's true.
It could be that society was miseducated and ignorant.

Never said it was true..

 

37 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

The idea of races is based on hierarchy.

 

Currently, yes...but not necessarily.

Race can be compared to flavors of ice cream.
Obviously there are different flavors; that FACT can't be denied.

Now if a person or people want to SELECT one flavor and claim it's better or tastes better than the other flavors...that doesn't eliminate the fact that there ARE distinct and different flavors of ice cream; it simply means that they are trying to enforce THEIR opinions about a particular flavor on others.

The very word race itself denotes a competition or contest...

The people who conceptualize the idea of Race saw the White(europeans) Race as on top or first or best....and Black(African) as worst bottom or last

Most competitive event is measured from a top down perspective ....winners to loser - thats  Hierarchical.

 

37 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

neither are they white.....just humans various shades or hues of brown
 

Ok, so do you agree with me that these mixed presenting people are NOT Black?

I agree that all humans are various shades of brown....and very few if any human being is black or white.

 

37 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Now the idea of race as biology has weaken....and so has racism with it.
 

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

The Pseudo Science of Races which was invented in the West for the purpose of oppressing some people....was accept from the 1600 to the mid 1900 as Scientific fact.

With the defeat of Nazism it has been discredited as unscientific and socio-politically motivated.

 

37 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Biology is science, which means it's true.

It is not based on or in biology....

 

37 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

If something is true....then it's just as true NOW as it was in the PAST.

No...

Science continually repeats tests and proves its theories with new methods tools and hypothesis

If new evidence/facts is found that brings into question formally accepted theories thought to be scientific fact....

Those theories in question...if they do not stand up to new and modern scrutiny will be reject as false and unscientific or fitted in to the new paradigm. 

From a biological perspective, all human beings are the same.

 

IOW, a fertile man and woman regardless of race from separate continents or anywhere else on the planet can get busy and reproduce offspring.

 

OTOH, a crocodile and alligator both reptiles in the order Crocodylia, could tango all day long and produce nothing. Same goes for whales and sharks. 

 

Nonetheless, despite our similarities as a species, our differences from a tribal perspective are very real.

 

The reason white folks fear China is because they haven't colonized them. Chinese people are on code.

 

Otherwise, white folks have codified racial classification and used every trick of divide and conquer and kill in order to maintain the system of racism white supremacy.😎

frankster

 

Never said it was true..

 

You said they were Black because SOCIETY SAID they were Black.

 

 

 

 

The very word race itself denotes a competition or contest...

 

Yes, and WE should be competing with and trying to "out do" in this race, instead of trying to "get along" with our open enemy.

They've shown time and time again that there is NO "getting along" with them.

 

 

 

 

The people who conceptualize the idea of Race saw the White(europeans) Race as on top or first or best....and Black(African) as worst bottom or last

 

The Egyptians were among the first to conceptualize the idea of race.
They call their region KMT (Black land)...as opposed to the Red Land that the Caucasians were dwelling in.

 

 

 

Most competitive event is measured from a top down perspective ....winners to loser - thats  Hierarchical.

 

For those who have sense enough to realize this.

So far, the Caucasians HAVE had enough sense to realize that they are competing with others....when will we?

 

 

 

The Pseudo Science of Races which was invented in the West for the purpose of oppressing some people....was accept from the 1600 to the mid 1900 as Scientific fact.

 

Perhaps you're right that the "pseudo science" for races was invented by the West, but as I've said before...the ancient Egyptians as well as those in India knew about race and the differences in the races for THOUSANDS of years before today.

 

 

It is not based on or in biology....

 

Deny all you want.
You simply don't want to accept it....that's all.
I can't make you.

 

 

 

 

No...

Science continually repeats tests and proves its theories with new methods tools and hypothesis

 

It tests THEORIES....not established facts.
Nobody is out there "testing" to see if water is still made up of 2 atoms of Hydrogen and 1 atom of Oxygen

This is already been established as FACT.
 

If it's a FACT then it needs no more testing because it has been proven to be true.

 

 

 

 

If new evidence/facts is found that brings into question formally accepted theories thought to be scientific fact....

 

Again, when you're dealing with theories.......not facts.



 

Those theories in question...if they do not stand up to new and modern scrutiny will be reject as false and unscientific or fitted in to the new paradigm. 

 

Correct.
Again, we're dealing with THEORIES.

But what has been established as FACT/TRUTH remains the same.

If it was true in 1600....then it's still true today.

 

Even if the situation changed, it's still true that it was "true" at that time.

 

In other words, if this land was occupied by Native Americans 1000 years ago....that's STILL TRUE.

It's not true that they still occupy it, but the fact that it WAS occupied by them 1000 years ago was true THEN, true NOW, and will be true IN THE FUTURE.

No "new knowledge" will come out to disprove this.

If information comes out that tries to....it will be lies.

Much of the "new knowledge" that you see a lot of people coming out with over the internet isn't new information or knowledge at all but LIES that they pulled out of their ass to make their point or bolster their propaganda.
 

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

Never said it was true..

 

You said they were Black because SOCIETY SAID they were Black.

Society says they are black within that society they are so....it is a social construct

It is not a biologically true..

 

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The very word race itself denotes a competition or contest...

 

Yes, and WE should be competing with and trying to "out do" in this race, instead of trying to "get along" with our open enemy.

They've shown time and time again that there is NO "getting along" with them.

I do not behave by the standard created by oppressor....Nor do I subscribe to ideas and conceptualizations of oppressors - when i have the option not to..

If One should behave by their standards and accept their ideas then you have become an agent of oppression by furthering their goals and aims....or worst to become an oppressor yourself

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The people who conceptualize the idea of Race saw the White(europeans) Race as on top or first or best....and Black(African) as worst bottom or last

 

The Egyptians were among the first to conceptualize the idea of race.
They call their region KMT (Black land)...as opposed to the Red Land that the Caucasians were dwelling in.

The Egyptians were describing Ethnicities....not Races

 

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Most competitive event is measured from a top down perspective ....winners to loser - thats  Hierarchical.

 

For those who have sense enough to realize this.

So far, the Caucasians HAVE had enough sense to realize that they are competing with others....when will we?

Africans invented Civilizations to uplift humanity by increasing comforts health and sharing abundance

Europeans invented Barbarization to oppress humanity to compete for scarce and dwindling resources thereby increasing suffering and disease.

You must choose the system you would rather promulgate or which is best for humanity.

 

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The Pseudo Science of Races which was invented in the West for the purpose of oppressing some people....was accept from the 1600 to the mid 1900 as Scientific fact.

 

Perhaps you're right that the "pseudo science" for races was invented by the West, but as I've said before...the ancient Egyptians as well as those in India knew about race and the differences in the races for THOUSANDS of years before today.

Not Race .....ethnicities

 

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

It is not based on or in biology....

 

Deny all you want.
You simply don't want to accept it....that's all.
I can't make you.

Nor can I make  you recognize the error of your thinking.....but it is fun trying 

 

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

No...

Science continually repeats tests and proves its theories with new methods tools and hypothesis

 

It tests THEORIES....not established facts.
Nobody is out there "testing" to see if water is still made up of 2 atoms of Hydrogen and 1 atom of Oxygen

This is already been established as FACT.
 

If it's a FACT then it needs no more testing because it has been proven to be true.

We still do test/prove the H2O theory but ......mostly in a classroom setting.

 

 

How can we use experiments to prove the formula for water?

 

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

If new evidence/facts is found that brings into question formally accepted theories thought to be scientific fact....

 

Again, when you're dealing with theories.......not facts.

We had this discussion already......Below is simple definition

Facts are observable

Theories are explanations

 

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Those theories in question...if they do not stand up to new and modern scrutiny will be reject as false and unscientific or fitted in to the new paradigm. 

 

Correct.
Again, we're dealing with THEORIES.

But what has been established as FACT/TRUTH remains the same.

If it was true in 1600....then it's still true today.

Not necessarily....for thousands of years people observe the sun rising setting and revolving around the earth - they also observe that earth is flat

The facts above are no longer considered true

 

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Even if the situation changed, it's still true that it was "true" at that time.

 

In other words, if this land was occupied by Native Americans 1000 years ago....that's STILL TRUE.

It's not true that they still occupy it, but the fact that it WAS occupied by them 1000 years ago was true THEN, true NOW, and will be true IN THE FUTURE.

No "new knowledge" will come out to disprove this.

If information comes out that tries to....it will be lies.

Well we had this discussion already..... i tried using Schrodinger's cat last time

Here is my new take....this is too much fun -thank you @Pioneer1

Your above state  has been accepted as a true fact for years....... it is now coming out That Most Native people found in the Americas were black Africans

 

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Much of the "new knowledge" that you see a lot of people coming out with over the internet isn't new information or knowledge at all but LIES that they pulled out of their ass to make their point or bolster their propaganda.

When you have the receipts....thats evidence.

frankster

 

 

Society says they are black within that society they are so....it is a social construct
It is not a biologically true..

 

So here again, you are saying they ARE SO simply because society says it.
Regardless of the explanation, you are affirming it as "fact".

 

 

 

 

I do not behave by the standard created by oppressor....Nor do I subscribe to ideas and conceptualizations of oppressors 

 

If you didn't...you'd be locked up, lol.
They set the rules and make the laws.

 

 

If One should behave by their standards and accept their ideas then you have become an agent of oppression by furthering their goals and aims....or worst to become an oppressor yourself

 

Many of our people ARE and have become agents of the oppressor.

Infact, some would argue speaking the language of the oppressor and paying taxes alone makes you an agent and collaborator of the oppressor.

 

 

The Egyptians were describing Ethnicities....not Races

 

You're using semantics now.
Egyptians indeed recognized different RACES (physical differences) between human beings and groups them as such.

 

 

The Ancient Egyptians even had different names for the different races.

They believed in different races bro.

There is no way around it.

 

 

 

 

Not Race .....ethnicities

 

Both

Race is based on physical appearance
Ethnicity is based on culture.

The ancient Dravidians recognized that the White Aryans were of a totally different race than them with a different culture too.

 

 

 

 

 

Nor can I make  you recognize the error of your thinking.....but it is fun trying 

 

Lol....
I bet YOU trying to get ME to recognize the "error" of my thinking is about is fun as trying to get a kitty cat to recognize itself as actually being a tree, huh??

 

 

 

 

We still do test/prove the H2O theory but ......mostly in a classroom setting.

 

Testing and proving are two different things.
Once proof have been provided...there is no further need for testing.

At this point it just becomes an EXERCISE (of confirmation).
 

 

 

 

We had this discussion already......Below is simple definition

Facts are observable
 

Lol...Much like racial differences are observable, huh?

 

 

 

Theories are explanations

 

Like claiming everyone comes from Africa but it can't be observed so it's just a guess, right?

 

 

 

 

Not necessarily....for thousands of years people observe the sun rising setting and revolving around the earth - they also observe that earth is flat

The facts above are no longer considered true

 

That's because they weren't "facts" in the first place. 🤣
If they were facts, they'd STILL be true.

 

 

 

 

Your above state  has been accepted as a true fact for years....... it is now coming out That Most Native people found in the Americas were black Africans

 

They can "come out" with whatever they want...doesn't make it true.

I can get down on the floor and write an entire encyclopedia in crayons and "come out" with it next week.
If you're silly enough to believe what I wrote in it, then the blame isn't on ME...it's on YOU.

Just because the early European explorers found pockets of Black Africans who traveled across to the Americas and settled here AMONG the Native Americans, doesn't mean WE were the original Native Americans.
.....as some self-hating anti-African negro youtube sensationalists would have us believe.

 

 

When you have the receipts....thats evidence.

 

If they were scribbled down in crayon....I wouldn't dare call them "receipts".

I don't follow kitchen-table scholars whose idea of "research" are the cherry-picking the results they get from Google and Bing searches....lol.

On 8/18/2024 at 8:58 PM, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

 

Society says they are black within that society they are so....it is a social construct
It is not a biologically true..

 

So here again, you are saying they ARE SO simply because society says it.
Regardless of the explanation, you are affirming it as "fact".

Yes society says they are....so within that society they are...Society is created by Man and enforced.

in Dominican society Zoe Zaldana maybe considered white....in American society she is Black.... in South Africa she is Colored.

Biologically she is human

 

On 8/18/2024 at 8:58 PM, Pioneer1 said:

I do not behave by the standard created by oppressor....Nor do I subscribe to ideas and conceptualizations of oppressors 

 

If you didn't...you'd be locked up, lol.
They set the rules and make the laws.

Exactly

 

On 8/18/2024 at 8:58 PM, Pioneer1 said:

If One should behave by their standards and accept their ideas then you have become an agent of oppression by furthering their goals and aims....or worst to become an oppressor yourself

 

Many of our people ARE and have become agents of the oppressor.

True

 

On 8/18/2024 at 8:58 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Infact, some would argue speaking the language of the oppressor and paying taxes alone makes you an agent and collaborator of the oppressor.

Under threat of duress...it would be stupid not to

 

On 8/18/2024 at 8:58 PM, Pioneer1 said:

The Egyptians were describing Ethnicities....not Races

 

You're using semantics now.
Egyptians indeed recognized different RACES (physical differences) between human beings and groups them as such.

 

 

The Ancient Egyptians even had different names for the different races.

They believed in different races bro.

There is no way around it.

So the Nubians and the Egyptians are different races?

What about the Berber and the Asians in the picture above they are different race?

 

 

On 8/18/2024 at 8:58 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Not Race .....ethnicities

 

Both

Race is based on physical appearance
Ethnicity is based on culture.

Ethnicity is based on Geography, culture heritage language and diet all of ...which influences appearance

 

On 8/18/2024 at 8:58 PM, Pioneer1 said:

The ancient Dravidians recognized that the White Aryans were of a totally different race than them with a different culture too.

Totally different ethnicity.

Aryans were not what we considers white

 

On 8/18/2024 at 8:58 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Nor can I make  you recognize the error of your thinking.....but it is fun trying 

 

Lol....
I bet YOU trying to get ME to recognize the "error" of my thinking is about is fun as trying to get a kitty cat to recognize itself as actually being a tree, huh??

True....but i do lokk forward to your responses

 

On 8/18/2024 at 8:58 PM, Pioneer1 said:

We still do test/prove the H2O theory but ......mostly in a classroom setting.

 

Testing and proving are two different things.
Once proof have been provided...there is no further need for testing.

At this point it just becomes an EXERCISE (of confirmation).

Same thing

For years we were taught that there is only three states of matter and water till a Russian discovered a fourth.

 

On 8/18/2024 at 8:58 PM, Pioneer1 said:

We had this discussion already......Below is simple definition

Facts are observable
 

Lol...Much like racial differences are observable, huh?

We know how unreliable eyewitness observation is all by itself.

 

On 8/18/2024 at 8:58 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Theories are explanations

 

Like claiming everyone comes from Africa but it can't be observed so it's just a guess, right?

Genetics testing has confirmed it....so far.

 

On 8/18/2024 at 8:58 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Not necessarily....for thousands of years people observe the sun rising setting and revolving around the earth - they also observe that earth is flat

The facts above are no longer considered true

 

That's because they weren't "facts" in the first place. 🤣
If they were facts, they'd STILL be true.

You just said they were the facts?

 

On 8/18/2024 at 8:58 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Your above state  has been accepted as a true fact for years....... it is now coming out That Most Native people found in the Americas were black Africans

 

They can "come out" with whatever they want...doesn't make it true.

I can get down on the floor and write an entire encyclopedia in crayons and "come out" with it next week.
If you're silly enough to believe what I wrote in it, then the blame isn't on ME...it's on YOU.

Just because the early European explorers found pockets of Black Africans who traveled across to the Americas and settled here AMONG the Native Americans, doesn't mean WE were the original Native Americans.
.....as some self-hating anti-African negro youtube sensationalists would have us believe.

The Olmecs 

 

On 8/18/2024 at 8:58 PM, Pioneer1 said:

When you have the receipts....thats evidence.

 

If they were scribbled down in crayon....I wouldn't dare call them "receipts".

I don't follow kitchen-table scholars whose idea of "research" are the cherry-picking the results they get from Google and Bing searches....lol.

Ancient paintings sculptures and books hidden in private libraries are the reciepts.

frankster

 

 

Yes society says they are....so within that society they are...Society is created by Man and enforced.

in Dominican society Zoe Zaldana maybe considered white....in American society she is Black.... in South Africa she is Colored.

Biologically she is human

While this is true, her RACE didn't actually change in these different countries; only her racial CLASSIFICATION.

 

In other words...
Her skin tone, hair texture, and featured didn't change.
Only how those in power chose to classify them, did.

 

 

 

 

So the Nubians and the Egyptians are different races?

 

In some cases, yes.
Nubian is an ethnic group.
Egyptian is a nationality....composed of different races and ethnicities.

 

 

 

What about the Berber and the Asians in the picture above they are different race?

 

Most Berbers were Caucasian...at that time.
Today, most are mixed and even Black.

 

Most Asians....as depicted in Egypt....were a slightly mixed but still Caucasian people.

 

 

 

 

Ethnicity is based on Geography, culture heritage language and diet all of ...which influences appearance

 

To a certain extent, but not as much as biology itself

A woman can lose fat and gain more muscle through diet and exercise but no amount of changing her diet or exercise will turn her into a MAN....that's genetic/biological.

 

 

 

Totally different ethnicity.

Aryans were not what we considers white

 

But they were Caucasian, originally.
And later on many of them became mixed up to where the term became fluid.

But originally....it referred to the Caucasian tribes who invaded the Indus Valley region.

 

 

 

The Olmecs 

 

Yes....what about them?

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

 

Yes society says they are....so within that society they are...Society is created by Man and enforced.

in Dominican society Zoe Zaldana maybe considered white....in American society she is Black.... in South Africa she is Colored.

Biologically she is human

While this is true, her RACE didn't actually change in these different countries; only her racial CLASSIFICATION.

 

In other words...
Her skin tone, hair texture, and featured didn't change.
Only how those in power chose to classify them, did.

Exactly.....and so will her treatment or privileges be accorded to her  depending on the society's classification of her.

Her Biology and Anatomy remain the same in all these societies.

 

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

So the Nubians and the Egyptians are different races?

 

In some cases, yes.
Nubian is an ethnic group.
Egyptian is a nationality....composed of different races and ethnicities.

With regard to the picture  you presented...they appeared to the modern eye of the same race - True or False

If you say True....then this is not a racial classification  picture or drawing- If you answer saying false...then it is a nationalistic/ethnic classification

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

What about the Berber and the Asians in the picture above they are different race?

 

Most Berbers were Caucasian...at that time.
Today, most are mixed and even Black.

 

Most Asians....as depicted in Egypt....were a slightly mixed but still Caucasian people.

I would not call them Caucasians.....but lighter skinned than their fellow Africans

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

Ethnicity is based on Geography, culture heritage language and diet all of ...which influences appearance

 

To a certain extent, but not as much as biology itself

A woman can lose fat and gain more muscle through diet and exercise but no amount of changing her diet or exercise will turn her into a MAN....that's genetic/biological.

True...... but that same woman can move from Africa and come to North America and get a lighter skin tone in a matter of a few years.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Totally different ethnicity.

Aryans were not what we considers white

 

But they were Caucasian, originally.
And later on many of them became mixed up to where the term became fluid.

But originally....it referred to the Caucasian tribes who invaded the Indus Valley region.

No....They were never originally Caucasians.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

The Olmecs 

 

Yes....what about them

These were One set of Africans inhabiting N and S America

frankster

 

 

Exactly.....and so will her treatment or privileges be accorded to her  depending on the society's classification of her.

Her Biology and Anatomy remain the same in all these societies.

 

My point is, racial classification is a social construct but the actual RACE itself isn't.
It doesn't change.

 

 

 

With regard to the picture  you presented...they appeared to the modern eye of the same race - True or False

 

No.
There are two different races in the picture.
4 different ethnic groups...two different races.

 

 

 

 

I would not call them Caucasians.....but lighter skinned than their fellow Africans

 

Doesn't matter what YOU would call them....lol
....sheeeyid.....
YOU wanna run around here calling EVERYBODY "Africans".....lol.

They ARE what they ARE regardless of what somebody wants to "call" them.

They aren't Caucasian simply because of their lighter skin ALONE.
They are Caucasians because of their ancestral origins.
The White Berbers (Amazigh people) descend from Greek colonizers who settled on the shores of North Africa centuries earlier.

 

 

 

True...... but that same woman can move from Africa and come to North America and get a lighter skin tone in a matter of a few years.

 

A few shades lighter isn't the same as going from this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

to this:

 

 

 

 

The differences between these two women go much farther than just culture/ethnicity or a mere sun tan....lol.






 

No....They were never originally Caucasians.

 

Apparently, you don't know the history of the Indus Valley region very well.

Either that and/or the meaning of the term "Caucasian".

 

 

 

 

These were One set of Africans inhabiting N and S America

 

Correct.
And your point is?

 

There were many sets of Africans residing in the Americas AMONG the various tribes of brown skinned Native Americans.

 

33 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

Exactly.....and so will her treatment or privileges be accorded to her  depending on the society's classification of her.

Her Biology and Anatomy remain the same in all these societies.

 

My point is, racial classification is a social construct but the actual RACE itself isn't.
It doesn't change.

Race is 100% social....Ethnicity on the other hand is based on Heredity Culture Geography etc..

 

33 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

With regard to the picture  you presented...they appeared to the modern eye of the same race - True or False

 

No.
There are two different races in the picture.
4 different ethnic groups...two different races.

One race....

 

33 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

I would not call them Caucasians.....but lighter skinned than their fellow Africans

 

Doesn't matter what YOU would call them....lol
....sheeeyid.....
YOU wanna run around here calling EVERYBODY "Africans".....lol.

They ARE what they ARE regardless of what somebody wants to "call" them.

They aren't Caucasian simply because of their lighter skin ALONE.
They are Caucasians because of their ancestral origins.
The White Berbers (Amazigh people) descend from Greek colonizers who settled on the shores of North Africa centuries earlier.

So if they mixed with Greek colonizer....At what point they no longer African?

 

33 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

True...... but that same woman can move from Africa and come to North America and get a lighter skin tone in a matter of a few years.

 

A few shades lighter isn't the same as going from this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

to this:

 

 

 

 

The differences between these two women go much farther than just culture/ethnicity or a mere sun tan....lol.

Given more years like over 100 thousand who knows maybe that kind of change would occur.

 

33 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

No....They were never originally Caucasians.

 

Apparently, you don't know the history of the Indus Valley region very well.

Either that and/or the meaning of the term "Caucasian".

Teach me about these White caucasian Aryans of the Indus Valley.

 

33 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

These were One set of Africans inhabiting N and S America

 

Correct.
And your point is?

 

There were many sets of Africans residing in the Americas AMONG the various tribes of brown skinned Native Americans.

That Africans were here in the Americas from time immemorial.....Thats my point.

frankster

 

 

Race is 100% social....Ethnicity on the other hand is based on Heredity Culture Geography etc..

 

How is race "100% social" when it's based on PHENOTYPICAL features, which are biological?

 

 

 

One race....

 

I wouldn't expect any other answer from you since you consider "everybody" African.

 

 

 

So if they mixed with Greek colonizer....At what point they no longer African?

 

They weren't African to begin with.

 

 

 

Given more years like over 100 thousand who knows maybe that kind of change would occur.

 

Not sure who would know, but I'm sure neither you nor I would since we haven't lived that long to observe it.
So why conjecture?

Let us talk about what we KNOW for sure.

Those two women look totally different because of BIOLOGY...not geographical location.

 

 

 

 

 

 Teach me about these White caucasian Aryans of the Indus Valley.

 

Ok.
Aryans in the Indus Valley 101...lol

The Aryans were a tribe of Caucasians (one of many) who came from the Caucasus mountains (thus their racial classification/name), traveled to the Indus Valley region where they found the Black Dravidians (who were racially different from them) and conquered and oppressed them and drove many of them further south and east.

 

 

 

That Africans were here in the Americas from time immemorial.....Thats my point.

Oh?
I thought your point was the statement you made a few posts ago that:

"it is now coming out That Most Native people found in the Americas were black Africans"

 

That was your statement.

I'm still waiting for you (and Dane Calloway...lol) to prove THAT statement.
 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

 

Race is 100% social....Ethnicity on the other hand is based on Heredity Culture Geography etc..

 

How is race "100% social" when it's based on PHENOTYPICAL features, which are biological?

Simply A teacher name Jame Elliot created a theory of Race based on eye color....and taught it to her students.

There is no phenotype that is specific to anyone race and excusive from all other races....99.9 percent more alike than different.

A set of traits make a phenotype....

No Race Specific Gene or Gene that determines Race  has been found...

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

One race....

 

I wouldn't expect any other answer from you since you consider "everybody" African.

cool

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

So if they mixed with Greek colonizer....At what point they no longer African?

 

They weren't African to begin with.

So what were they before the Greeks colonize them?

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Given more years like over 100 thousand who knows maybe that kind of change would occur.

 

Not sure who would know, but I'm sure neither you nor I would since we haven't lived that long to observe it.
So why conjecture?

Let us talk about what we KNOW for sure.

Those two women look totally different because of BIOLOGY...not geographical location.

I know that a few of hours in the sun can change your complexion a couple a shades darker and the vice versa is true...Geography

Way too many Carrots or consuming foods with too many carotene can result in skin tone change....dietary

 

Skin color is the primary biological factor that racism is based on.....simply exposure to sun or dietary change  can affect that.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Teach me about these White caucasian Aryans of the Indus Valley.

 

Ok.
Aryans in the Indus Valley 101...lol

The Aryans were a tribe of Caucasians (one of many) who came from the Caucasus mountains (thus their racial classification/name), traveled to the Indus Valley region where they found the Black Dravidians (who were racially different from them) and conquered and oppressed them and drove many of them further south and east.

Do you have a painting sculpture or picture of theses Ayrans?

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

That Africans were here in the Americas from time immemorial.....Thats my point.

Oh?
I thought your point was the statement you made a few posts ago that:

"it is now coming out That Most Native people found in the Americas were black Africans"

 

That was your statement.

I'm still waiting for you (and Dane Calloway...lol) to prove THAT statement.

The Olmecs were Native..Now Ivan Van Sertima is the Historian who led me to this conclusion but you might prefer a hear a white man....

Dane Calloway appears to be an agent of disinformation.

If In a rush go to the second youtube Time stamp 5:45 - 7:00 and hear how Columbus describe these people whom he called Indians....

 

They Came Before Columbus: The African Presence in Ancient America

 

Africans Visited the Americas Long Before Columbus | African History

 

 

 

frankster

 

 

There is no phenotype that is specific to anyone race and excusive from all other races....99.9 percent more alike than different.

 

Nappy hair (not curly or kinky but NAPPY) is exclusive to the African race, as Chevdove and Cynique pointed out already.

 

As far as I know GREEN (not blue or grey) eyes are exclusive to Caucasians.

 

 

So what were they before the Greeks colonize them?

 

The Greeks didn't colonize them, they WERE the Greeks and descended from the Greeks.

Later on, those Greeks mixed in with the local African populations to make the Berbers that you have today.

 

 

 

 

Do you have a painting sculpture or picture of theses Ayrans?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Olmecs were Native..Now Ivan Van Sertima is the Historian who led me to this conclusion but you might prefer a hear a white man..

Did Ivan himself say that they were NATIVE to the land?



Africans Visited the Americas Long Before Columbus

🤔 If Africans were NATIVE to the land...how could they VISIT it? 

You don't VISIT a country that you are naturally from. 🤨

 

Come on man.

 

On 8/25/2024 at 3:18 PM, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

 

There is no phenotype that is specific to anyone race and excusive from all other races....99.9 percent more alike than different.

 

Nappy hair (not curly or kinky but NAPPY) is exclusive to the African race, as Chevdove and Cynique pointed out already.

 

As far as I know GREEN (not blue or grey) eyes are exclusive to Caucasians.

Nappy hair and green eyes are traits not phenotypes.

 

On 8/25/2024 at 3:18 PM, Pioneer1 said:

So what were they before the Greeks colonize them?

 

The Greeks didn't colonize them, they WERE the Greeks and descended from the Greeks.

Later on, those Greeks mixed in with the local African populations to make the Berbers that you have today.

No....my Research says they are indigenous to the area...

They are not from Greece 

 

On 8/25/2024 at 3:18 PM, Pioneer1 said:

 

Do you have a painting sculpture or picture of theses Ayrans?

 

 

 

 

None of these people look White or even European.....

Yes their skin is paler than the average Indian or African.....

 

 

On 8/25/2024 at 3:18 PM, Pioneer1 said:

 

The Olmecs were Native..Now Ivan Van Sertima is the Historian who led me to this conclusion but you might prefer a hear a white man..

Did Ivan himself say that they were NATIVE to the land?

Columbus himself and many early Spanish Conquistadores did .......and in other lectures Ivan quoted Columbus....

 

On 8/25/2024 at 3:18 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Africans Visited the Americas Long Before Columbus

🤔 If Africans were NATIVE to the land...how could they VISIT it? 

You don't VISIT a country that you are naturally from. 🤨

 

Come on man.

All Africans are not of the same Nation.....And people do visit their homeland

 

On 8/25/2024 at 3:18 PM, Pioneer1 said:

 

 

4 hours ago, frankster said:

Nappy hair and green eyes are traits not phenotypes.

 

Actually, these traits likes skin color, height and hair color are Phenotypes.

 

I tried to warn you, once you start debating the concept of race with Pioneer you'll be bogged down in opinion, anecdotes, and pseudo-science. 

 

On 8/25/2024 at 3:18 PM, Pioneer1 said:

As far as I know GREEN (not blue or grey) eyes are exclusive to Caucasians.

 

You really went out on a limb with that statement. 

 

 

 

When I read @Pioneer1's post that green eyes were exclusive to Caucasians, I could not help but to wonder what he found so attractive about that particular limb.🤣😎

I think I turned Green in 6th grade but I didn't figure out that I wasn't Black until I was in my 40s. 🤦

frankster

 

Nappy hair and green eyes are traits not phenotypes.

Traits are details or characteristics of phenotypes.

 

 

 

 

No....my Research says they are indigenous to the area...

 

If your research are telling you that the ancestors of people who look like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....are "indigenous" to Africa, then you need to do MORE research...lol.

 

 

 

None of these people look White or even European.....
Yes their skin is paler than the average Indian or African....

 

There are MILLIONS of Europeans in Eastern Europe who look just like those pictured above.

Do more research.

 

 

 

All Africans are not of the same Nation.....And people do visit their homeland

 

Come on man, now you're playing word games.

You know people don't VISIT their HOMES...lol.

 

If America was the home of these Africans....why do so many of us still refer to them as "Africans"?
And where did the brown skinned people with straight hair that were here by the millions...where did THEY come from?

 

 

 

 

 

Troy

 

You really went out on a limb with that statement. 

 

Of all the pictures you showed, only 2 people stood out with OBVIOUSLY GREEN eyes.
The others pictures were harder to make out.

 

And of those two, neither look natural.
Especially the brother with the dreads.

How do we know those are their natural green eyes and that they aren't using contact lenses?


BTW....
What kind of un-informed people are going around the internet making statements like:  "I"m not mixed...I'm African American" 
🤔
 

Most Africans ARE mixed.

Half of the people in those pictures look mixed....lol.

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

Nappy hair and green eyes are traits not phenotypes.

Traits are details or characteristics of phenotypes.

No problem....traits are a subset of phenotype.

Even within families individuals having differing traits

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

No....my Research says they are indigenous to the area...

 

If your research are telling you that the ancestors of people who look like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....are "indigenous" to Africa, then you need to do MORE research...lol.

No...

My research is telling me that all peoples all over the world looked like Africans and originated in Africa.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

None of these people look White or even European.....
Yes their skin is paler than the average Indian or African....

 

There are MILLIONS of Europeans in Eastern Europe who look just like those pictured above.

Do more research.

When you can show me where anatomically modern human beings originated anywhere else but Africa?...then i will do more research.

All my research points to Africa as the birth place of man...so all of mankind's home is Africa.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

All Africans are not of the same Nation.....And people do visit their homeland

 

Come on man, now you're playing word games.

You know people don't VISIT their HOMES...lol.

Maybe not their homes....but their homeland

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

If America was the home of these Africans....why do so many of us still refer to them as "Africans"?

History as well as Religion are often used to further political goals

At present their is an attempt by certain sectors of the American society is in the process of rewriting history.

Columbus in his diary describe the locals  he met in such a manner that to our knowledge could only be  an African....And he was not the only one to describe them as such.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

And where did the brown skinned people with straight hair that were here by the millions...where did THEY come from?

Originally Africa....by way of Asia and Europe.

 

 

frankster

 

No problem....traits are a subset of phenotype.

Even within families individuals having differing traits

 

Lol...
Instead of just saying "OK" and moving on, why do you feel the need to add a bunch of unsolicited information into the mix?

Chasing down bad information with good information doesn't correct the problem unless you first admit it was bad in the first place.

 

First you said that nappy hair and green eyes are traits, NOT phenotypes.
After being corrected....instead of admitting your mistake....you start babbling and uttering a bunch of useless information that barely pertains to the subject.

 

Come on bro...lol...you're better than that.

 

 

 

 

 

No...

My research is telling me that all peoples all over the world looked like Africans and originated in Africa.

 

Ok

 

 

 

 

I said,
"There are MILLIONS of Europeans in Eastern Europe who look just like those pictured above."

 

Your response was:

When you can show me where anatomically modern human beings originated anywhere else but Africa?...then i will do more research.

All my research points to Africa as the birth place of man...so all of mankind's home is Africa.

 

🤔

What has ANY of this got to do with my statement that you can find MILLIONS of Europeans who look those pictured above?

I'm not sure about the "back to Africa" points you're trying to make but my question are....
Can you prove my statement wrong?
Do you have proof or strong evidence to the contrary?

 

 

 

 

Maybe not their homes....but their homeland

You said people originated from Africa.

So it's NOT their homeland....Africa is.

 

 

 

 

Columbus in his diary describe the locals  he met in such a manner that to our knowledge could only be  an African....And he was not the only one to describe them as such.

 

Huh????

Columbus met people of different colors and other phenotypes when it arrived in the Americas.

Some we tan with straight shiny black hair.
Some were dark brown with kinky hair.

That's different than suggesting that the people he saw when he first arrived here were Africans.

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

No problem....traits are a subset of phenotype.

Even within families individuals having differing traits

 

Lol...
Instead of just saying "OK" and moving on, why do you feel the need to add a bunch of unsolicited information into the mix?

Chasing down bad information with good information doesn't correct the problem unless you first admit it was bad in the first place.

 

First you said that nappy hair and green eyes are traits, NOT phenotypes.
After being corrected....instead of admitting your mistake....you start babbling and uttering a bunch of useless information that barely pertains to the subject.

 

Come on bro...lol...you're better than that.

Show where I said blue eyes and nappy hair was a phenotype?

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

No...

My research is telling me that all peoples all over the world looked like Africans and originated in Africa.

 

Ok

cool

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

 

I said,
"There are MILLIONS of Europeans in Eastern Europe who look just like those pictured above."

 

Your response was:

When you can show me where anatomically modern human beings originated anywhere else but Africa?...then i will do more research.

All my research points to Africa as the birth place of man...so all of mankind's home is Africa.

 

🤔

What has ANY of this got to do with my statement that you can find MILLIONS of Europeans who look those pictured above?

I'm not sure about the "back to Africa" points you're trying to make but my question are....
Can you prove my statement wrong?
Do you have proof or strong evidence to the contrary?

If Africa is the birthplace of humanity....then my point has been proven - All original peoples were black as in African...Runoko Rashidi

 

Humans are Indigenous only to Africa....they migrated from Africa to all over the globe

You are saying the Aryans came from the Caucasus mountains....I am saying they were indigenous to Iran

Why did i say they were indigenous to Iran....because that is where the word/term Aryan Originated - it simply means noble civilize and city dweller.

The people from the Caucasus were not city dwellers but nomadic tribes men or herds men/horsemen ....nor were they considered civilize or noble.

In other words Aryan represented the Aristocracy of Iran....it was not a race tribe or ethnicity - they were sedentary agriculturalist

A German racist name Max Muller wanted to find a way to prove his racist ideology  created the Aryan race/invasion as opposed to the Semitic race and Hamitic race as been the progenitors of European civilization where in some of his followers or those who inspired him even said all the great achievement of humanity was done by people of Aryan blood peoples.

 

Africans travel from Africa to the Caucasus mountains....

So even those people of the Caucasus mountains came from somewhere and that was Africa.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Maybe not their homes....but their homeland

You said people originated from Africa.

So it's NOT their homeland....Africa is.

Africa is the Homeland of All modern humans...

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Columbus in his diary describe the locals  he met in such a manner that to our knowledge could only be  an African....And he was not the only one to describe them as such.

 

Huh????

Columbus met people of different colors and other phenotypes when it arrived in the Americas.

Some we tan with straight shiny black hair.
Some were dark brown with kinky hair.
That's different than suggesting that the people he saw when he first arrived here were Africans.

Enough said...those are ones I am referring to.

they were Africans based on words and metal assays etc

 

frankster

 

 

Show where I said blue eyes and nappy hair was a phenotype?

 

Quote

Nappy hair and green eyes are traits not phenotypes.

 

Quote

 

No problem....traits are a subset of phenotype.

 

Lol, have you forgotten your own statements so soon?

If Africa is the birthplace of humanity....then my point has been proven - All original peoples were black as in African...Runoko Rashidi

 

Humans are Indigenous only to Africa....they migrated from Africa to all over the globe

You are saying the Aryans came from the Caucasus mountains....I am saying they were indigenous to Iran

Why did i say they were indigenous to Iran....because that is where the word/term Aryan Originated - it simply means noble civilize and city dweller.

The people from the Caucasus were not city dwellers but nomadic tribes men or herds men/horsemen ....nor were they considered civilize or noble.

In other words Aryan represented the Aristocracy of Iran....it was not a race tribe or ethnicity - they were sedentary agriculturalist

A German racist name Max Muller wanted to find a way to prove his racist ideology  created the Aryan race/invasion as opposed to the Semitic race and Hamitic race as been the progenitors of European civilization where in some of his followers or those who inspired him even said all the great achievement of humanity was done by people of Aryan blood peoples.

 

 

I said that there are MILLIONS of people in Eastern Europe who look like those Aryans pictured above.
I said if you disagree..then PROVE me wrong.
So far you haven't, nor have you even attempted to.

All of that other babble you typed up there is irrelevant to that point; however I do want to address something....

 

You said Aryans were named after the land they came from which was Iran.

I thought it was the opposite....

I thought that Iran was named after THEM.

 

Now back to me waiting on your providing proof or evidence to the contrary of my statement OR admitting you have none.

 

 

So even those people of the Caucasus mountains came from somewhere and that was Africa.

 

I agree...partially.

 

Ofcourse those people of the Caucasus mountains had to come from somewhere.  They didn't originate from there.  They were DRIVEN up into the Caucasus mountains.

....but I'm not sure they came from Africa.

 

 

 

 

Enough said...those are ones I am referring to.

they were Africans based on words and metal assays etc

 

Are you saying that the tan/brown people with straight black hair were Africans too?

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

  Quote

Nappy hair and green eyes are traits not phenotypes.

 

  Quote

 

No problem....traits are a subset of phenotype.

 

Lol, have you forgotten your own statements so soon?

Maybe you should read that again.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

If Africa is the birthplace of humanity....then my point has been proven - All original peoples were black as in African...Runoko Rashidi

 

Humans are Indigenous only to Africa....they migrated from Africa to all over the globe

You are saying the Aryans came from the Caucasus mountains....I am saying they were indigenous to Iran

Why did i say they were indigenous to Iran....because that is where the word/term Aryan Originated - it simply means noble civilize and city dweller.

The people from the Caucasus were not city dwellers but nomadic tribes men or herds men/horsemen ....nor were they considered civilize or noble.

In other words Aryan represented the Aristocracy of Iran....it was not a race tribe or ethnicity - they were sedentary agriculturalist

A German racist name Max Muller wanted to find a way to prove his racist ideology  created the Aryan race/invasion as opposed to the Semitic race and Hamitic race as been the progenitors of European civilization where in some of his followers or those who inspired him even said all the great achievement of humanity was done by people of Aryan blood peoples.

 

 

I said that there are MILLIONS of people in Eastern Europe who look like those Aryans pictured above.
I said if you disagree..then PROVE me wrong.
So far you haven't, nor have you even attempted to.

All of that other babble you typed up there is irrelevant to that point; however I do want to address something....

No....They look primarily South Asian as in Indian and Middle Eastern as in Arabic than European to me

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

You said Aryans were named after the land they came from which was Iran.

I thought it was the opposite....

I thought that Iran was named after THEM.

 

Now back to me waiting on your providing proof or evidence to the contrary of my statement OR admitting you have none.

The People were called Arya and Aryas....the land was called Iran....

Iran is a derivative or mispronunciation of Aryan

 

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

So even those people of the Caucasus mountains came from somewhere and that was Africa.

 

I agree...partially.

 

Ofcourse those people of the Caucasus mountains had to come from somewhere.  They didn't originate from there.  They were DRIVEN up into the Caucasus mountains.

....but I'm not sure they came from Africa.

I accept the idea that they came from Africa as fact

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Enough said...those are ones I am referring to.

they were Africans based on words and metal assays etc

 

Are you saying that the tan/brown people with straight black hair were Africans too?

I am saying many Africans were there when Columbus arrived...... Maybe even more than so called Native American

No I am not saying they are Africans...at they time of Columbus they were very mixed with African...