“There is no such thing as a race.” —Dr. John Henrik Clarke

[Troy]

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Passing isn't an official government designation, it's a "social construct" for real.

Unlike traditional racial categories, it's not even recognized by social scientists.

 

Many of your conclusions are based upon falsehoods.

 

Social Scientists understand that racial categories, like passing are purely arbitrary.  The United States said the Homer Plessey as a Black man could be legally restricted from sitting with white.  But you say Homer was white. Does this point out how silly and racist the notion of race is?  

 

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

In ancient India, race was strictly divided BY color...literally.
The Caste system is called the "Varna" or "color" system.

 

This is wrong too.  To someone who is fixed on race they bring race into everything the caste system had nothing to do with one skin color at least not until european racists got involved.

 

On 6/7/2025 at 8:01 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Do you need a "genetic test" to decided the different flavors of ice cream or colors of crayons?

 

It is like pulling teeth getting an answer out of you man. Your analogy does not answer my question.

 

The reason there is no genetic test for race is because it is impossible to create one.  Do you understand why this is true? @Pioneer1

 

 

 

[Pioneer1]

frankster

 

Race as a soial construct is not based in biology but politics and social behavior
 

If it's based on PHSYICAL FEATURES then it IS based on biology.



 

Troy

 

Many of your conclusions are based upon falsehoods.
 

So PROVE one to be false then.
And I don't mean giving your OPINION, but actual DATA that proves my conclusions wrong.


 

But you say Homer was white. Does this point out how silly and racist the notion of race is?
 

No, it just exposes how people see and categorize race differently.



 

This is wrong too.  To someone who is fixed on race they bring race into everything the caste system had nothing to do with one skin color at least not until european racists got involved.
 

See, now you're just being combative...lol.

What I said was absolutely true and all you have to do is RESEARCH it.
Varna in ancient Sanskrit means "color" and again, the ancient system was based on SKIN COLOR.



 

The reason there is no genetic test for race is because it is impossible to create one.  Do you understand why this is true?
 

Why do you need a "genetic test" if you're categorizing people based on APPEARANCE?

This is phenotypical....not necessarily genetic.

[frankster]

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

Race as a soial construct is not based in biology but politics and social behavior
 

If it's based on PHSYICAL FEATURES then it IS based on biology.

No it is not....

Humans of all ethnic groups have individuals with varying features and skin tones

Irish Poles Jews and some Italians were not considered White...and were treated as non whites.

Yet some Africans  were considered whites/caucasiods......known as Hamites /Hamitic 

[Pioneer1]

frankster

 

No it is not....

Humans of all ethnic groups have individuals with varying features and skin tones

 

So???
Men vary in penis sizes....but they're still men.
In the vast majority of cases their penis is bigger than a clitoris.

Women vary in breast sizes...but they're still women
In the vast majority of cases their breasts are bigger than a man's.

Irish Poles Jews and some Italians were not considered White...and were treated as non whites.

"Were not" is the key term, because they are now.

It wasn't so much that they were treated as "non white" as they were treated as non Anglo-Saxons.

At any rate.....
Many Jews and Italians AREN'T White.
Many of them are mixed and could truly be called Mulattos.
FIXED Mulattos.
And in many cases actually Black.

Yet some Africans  were considered whites/caucasiods......known as Hamites /Hamitic 
 

Yes, many Eritreans and Ethiopians are fit this bill.

But again, race doesn't HAVE to be classified based on skin color.
It could be ANY physical feature that a particular society chooses to base it on.

Nose shape.
Eye shape.
Skin color.
Skin color AND nose shape.
Penis size.
Almost any thing.

[Troy]

On 6/30/2025 at 7:55 PM, Pioneer1 said:

No, it just exposes how people see and categorize race differently.

 

This alone should tell you had race is completely arbitrary rendering it meaningless -- as it tells you NOTHING about the individual.

 

Twisting the caste system to fit your narrative:

varna, any of the four traditional social classes of India. The literal meaning of the word varna in Sanskrit (“color”) once invited speculation that class distinctions were originally based on differences in the degree of skin pigmentation between an alleged group of lighter-skinned migrants from Central Asia called “Aryans” and the darker-skinned indigenous people of ancient India. However, this theory of the origin of varna has been discredited since the mid-20th century. The term may mean “color” in one sense, but it can also mean “characteristic” or “attribute,” and colors have often been used in Indian traditions in a symbolic classification structures.

 

14 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

But again, race doesn't HAVE to be classified based on skin color.
It could be ANY physical feature that a particular society chooses to base it on.

Nose shape.
Eye shape.
Skin color.
Skin color AND nose shape.
Penis size.
Almost any thing.

 

Yes, "almost anything," which is the problem  Race and all the flawed reasoning that flows from it needs to be dumped in the trash.

[Pioneer1]

Troy

This alone should tell you had race is completely arbitrary rendering it meaningless --
 

It's not arbitrary or meaningless.
As you and frankster love to point out, it's a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT so it depends on how each society wants to CONSTRUCT it.

Societies vary from country to country and in many cases from generation to generation so what may be considered a racial classification TODAY may not be 2 centuries from now.


 

as it tells you NOTHING about the individual.
 

It doesn't have to say TOO much.
As long as they fit the description of what/who they're classified as.
 

Declaring a person a "woman" doesn't tell you TOO much about a person, but it helps when deciding which bathroom to direct them to...lol.

. However, this theory of the origin of varna has been discredited since the mid-20th century. The term may mean “color” in one sense, but it can also mean “characteristic” or “attribute,” and colors have often been used in Indian traditions in a symbolic classification structures.
 

Lol @  "discredited in the 20th century".

Discredited by WHO????

Funny how for thousands of years most people agreed upon that particular history but now all of a sudden over 3,000 years AFTER the fact...all kinds of "discrediting" information seemed to pop up out of nowhere to claim that what they've been believing in was made up and false.
 

Man, seriously????
 

I'm not saying Hinduism and what the Indians accepted as their history was absolutely true.
However I'm saying I can't trust whoever decided to try and "erase" the racist history of India's Aryan domination foundation.




 Race and all the flawed reasoning that flows from it needs to be dumped in the trash.

Your very website...infact the very FORUM we're discussing in....is termed RACE, Culture, and Economy...by YOU, lol.
This statement opposes your very own line of thinking.
 

[Troy]

@Pioneer1 What does the shape of one's nose, or the texture of their hair you about a person?  Please don't answer with a question of create a strawman just tell me what you learn about the individual.

 

13 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Declaring a person a "woman" doesn't tell you TOO much about a person, but it helps when deciding which bathroom to direct them to...lol.

 

 

Gender tells you a whole lot about that person.  While the color of shape of their lips do not. 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Your very website...infact the very FORUM we're discussing in....is termed RACE, Culture, and Economy...by YOU, lol.
This statement opposes your very own line of thinking.

 

Well, I created this forum more than 25 years ago.  Do you think the same way today, as you did 25 years ago?

 

When I was much younger, I shared many of the same thoughts about race that you espouse now, so I get where you are coming from.  What confounds me is when you are presented with information that contradicts what you believe, it does not change your thinking at all. 

 

Just today when I presented information from the encyclopedia refuting a statement you made about the caste system you flat out rejected it, rather than trying to understand and learn from it. This is disappointing to me.

 

 

 

 

[Pioneer1]

Troy

 

 

What does the shape of one's nose, or the texture of their hair you about a person? 

 

Their lineage.


 

Just today when I presented information from the encyclopedia refuting a statement you made about the caste system you flat out rejected it
 

The FIRST part of the article you presented actually CONFIRMED something I told you that you initially disagreed with me over.

I said the Caste system is called "Varna" in ancient Indian which literally means COLOR.
 

I TOLD YOU THAT before you even did the research on it.

I KNOW ABOUT IT ALREADY....lol.

I know far more about the Dravidian and ancient Indus Valley Civilization and Caste system than that article can tell you...lol.

 

 

This is disappointing to me.

I'm disappointed to find out that you didn't joint a college fraternity.
If you had, you would know, understand, and agree with much of what I'm telling you because they would have REVEALED some of it to you later on.

 

[Troy]

9 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

I know far more about the Dravidian and ancient Indus Valley Civilization and Caste system than that article can tell you...lol.

 

That statement has Dunning-Kruger Effect written all over it.

 

10 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Their lineage.

 

Do you mean as in an inherited trait.  Okay what does THAT tell you?

 

11 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

The FIRST part of the article you presented actually CONFIRMED something I told you that you initially disagreed with me over.

I said the Caste system is called "Varna" in ancient Indian which literally means COLOR.

 

Here you go again.  You have cherry pick something that supports your argument while summarily rejecting the rest of the article which conflicts with your statement. Are you unable to grasp what was written or are you deliberately ignoring what was written? 

 

You tell me to research something. I pull something from the encyclopedia, and you tell me that you are still right and that you know more than what is in the encyclopedia.  You double down by claiming access to knowledge that I as non-frat do not have access to -- you are too much man LOL!

[frankster]

16 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

No it is not....

Humans of all ethnic groups have individuals with varying features and skin tones

 

So???
Men vary in penis sizes....but they're still men.
In the vast majority of cases their penis is bigger than a clitoris.

Women vary in breast sizes...but they're still women
In the vast majority of cases their breasts are bigger than a man's.

True....

Hence you cannot use penis size to decide whether or not a man(male) is a man...nor can you use breast size to decide whether a woman(female) is a woman

So human beings come in various texture color sizes and body proportions....they still all just humans

 

16 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Irish Poles Jews and some Italians were not considered White...and were treated as non whites.

"Were not" is the key term, because they are now.

It wasn't so much that they were treated as "non white" as they were treated as non Anglo-Saxons.

Thanks.....That is Communialism - having to do with ethnicity

 

16 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

At any rate.....
Many Jews and Italians AREN'T White.
Many of them are mixed and could truly be called Mulattos.
FIXED Mulattos.
And in many cases actually Black.

True

 

16 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Yet some Africans  were considered whites/caucasiods......known as Hamites /Hamitic 
 

Yes, many Eritreans and Ethiopians are fit this bill.

But again, race doesn't HAVE to be classified based on skin color.
It could be ANY physical feature that a particular society chooses to base it on.

Nose shape.
Eye shape.
Skin color.
Skin color AND nose shape.
Penis size.
Almost any thing.

True....socially constructed.

We are saying that these social constructs based on these apparent differences are false wrong and in error.

[Chevdove]

On 6/15/2025 at 8:11 AM, Pioneer1 said:

Well "race" is merely an English word for an ancient concept.

Like the word "leg" or "oven" or "eye" or "tree"

They had words for these concepts in ancient times but called them by a different name simply because the language was different.

 

Exactly.

On 6/27/2025 at 6:53 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Passing wouldn't be a thing if all you had to do is look at someone to determine their race.

 

Depending on how race in a society is defined, how they look may be all that QUALIFIES them to be a member of a particular race.

In ancient India, race was strictly divided BY color...literally.
The Caste system is called the "Varna" or "color" system.

 

Colorism and White Supremacy is the issue and has caused so much oppression in this world. 

 

[Pioneer1]

Troy

That statement has Dunning-Kruger Effect written all over it.
 

Believe what you will.
Where did you get that article from?
I don't see a link attached to it.


 

Do you mean as in an inherited trait.  Okay what does THAT tell you?
 

It tells me what I've been telling YOU for weeks....
That "race" can also be genetic based, depending on how a society defines it.



 

Here you go again.  You have cherry pick something that supports your argument while summarily rejecting the rest of the article which conflicts with your statement.
 

Exactly.
Just like when I present articles to YOU proving my point...you'll click on the link and scan the article to find something that SEEMINGLY disagrees with the excerpt I presented.
 

You claim science doesn't recognize race.
I present an excerpt to an article along with a link proving that science DOES...then you'll click on that link and find the word "ethnic group" in it and focus on THAT as some sort of "proof" to void out the point I made about race.


 

Are you unable to grasp what was written or are you deliberately ignoring what was written? 
 

I'm not ignoring it.
It's simply ONE EXERPT of many that agree or disagree with it.

 

 

You tell me to research something. I pull something from the encyclopedia, and you tell me that you are still right and that you know more than what is in the encyclopedia.

 

I know more than what is in THAT EXERPT you just posted.

 

 

 

  You double down by claiming access to knowledge that I as non-frat do not have access to -- you are too much man LOL!

 

Apparently I'm not ENOUGH....lol....to convince you.

 

 

 

 

 

frankster

 

 

True....

Hence you cannot use penis size to decide whether or not a man(male) is a man...nor can you use breast size to decide whether a woman(female) is a woman

 

But the fact that they HAVE penis and testicles places them squarely in the "male" category.
The fact that a person HAS brown skin and kinky hair places them squarely in the Black/African racial category in this society.

 

 

So human beings come in various texture color sizes and body proportions....they still all just humans

 

Nobody has denied that.
But humans are often placed in different categories.

 

 

 

 

We are saying that these social constructs based on these apparent differences are false wrong and in error.

 

But who are YOU or what position that YOU HOLD to declare it "wrong" or "false"?

 

That's like you claiming that fact that we have prisons or police officers is "wrong".
You may not like it, but who are YOU to sit up and declare it "wrong"????

 

Just say you DISAGREE with it...don't say it's "wrong".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chev

 

Colorism and White Supremacy is the issue and has caused so much oppression in this world. 
 

And continues to do so in it's various forms.

Even if White people were to completely disappear from this planet, the legacy that they have left will live on for centuries to one degree or another.

[frankster]

53 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

 

True....

Hence you cannot use penis size to decide whether or not a man(male) is a man...nor can you use breast size to decide whether a woman(female) is a woman

 

But the fact that they HAVE penis and testicles places them squarely in the "male" category.

Yes....The color of the penis or testicles does not matter - white or black they still male

 

53 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

The fact that a person HAS brown skin and kinky hair places them squarely in the Black/African racial category in this society.

Not always....

In a racist society today and the very recent past....most likely 

 

53 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

So human beings come in various texture color sizes and body proportions....they still all just humans

 

Nobody has denied that.
But humans are often placed in different categories.

Yes humans are often categorize to suit or fit various contemporaneous political agenda.

 

53 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

We are saying that these social constructs based on these apparent differences are false wrong and in error.

 

But who are YOU or what position that YOU HOLD to declare it "wrong" or "false"?

I am not the one making these claim....Science is

Because those who created the social construct believed and claimed that their racial classification was based in genetics...

They saw variations in form color phenotypes and though these differences must be based on/in genetics...they were wrong

Genes are physical and no such connection has been found or proven....if anything the opposite is true.

We all originate from African genetics....All humans are descendants of African Ethnic Groups

 

53 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

That's like you claiming that fact that we have prisons or police officers is "wrong".

If they are not achieving the intended results or fulfilling the purpose beneficial to society.....then yes they are wrong.

 

53 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

You may not like it, but who are YOU to sit up and declare it "wrong"????

I do not like it and I say it is wrong

 

53 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

Just say you DISAGREE with it...don't say it's "wrong".

I disagree and say and think it is wrong

[Pioneer1]

frankster

Not always....
In a racist society today and the very recent past....most likely 

 

Probably.
Again, since it's a "social construct"...it depends on how society CONSTRUCTS it.

 

I am not the one making these claim....Science is
 

Science ACKNOWLEDGES different races.
You don't.

We all originate from African genetics....All humans are descendants of African Ethnic Groups
 

I'm curious....
Why do you say "African genetics"...as opposed to simply "genetics"???
 

[frankster]

21 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

Not always....
In a racist society today and the very recent past....most likely 

 

Probably.
Again, since it's a "social construct"...it depends on how society CONSTRUCTS it.

Every social construct suits the demands of the social and political power dynamics of its society

 

21 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I am not the one making these claim....Science is
 

Science ACKNOWLEDGES different races.
You don't.

As and within a social construct.....Yes

As a genetic reality.....no

 

21 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

We all originate from African genetics....All humans are descendants of African Ethnic Groups
 

I'm curious....
Why do you say "African genetics"...as opposed to simply "genetics"???

To show unity of origin or source....All homo sapiens sapiens are African no matter how different they appear

[Pioneer1]

25 minutes ago, frankster said:

Every social construct suits the demands of the social and political power dynamics of its society

 

As and within a social construct.....Yes

As a genetic reality.....no

 

To show unity of origin or source....All homo sapiens sapiens are African no matter how different they appear

 

 

 

 

 

frankster
 

Every social construct suits the demands of the social and political power dynamics of its society.
 

As they should.

In response to my saying:

Science ACKNOWLEDGES different races.
You don't.

You said:

Quote

 

As and within a social construct.....Yes

As a genetic reality.....no

 

So I have you QUOTED and ON RECORD as finally acknowledging that science acknowledges different races.

Well it's about time.


 

To show unity of origin or source....All homo sapiens sapiens are African no matter how different they appear
 

You use the term "homo sapiens sapiens".
Would I be correct to say that you believe "all humans are African"???

 

[frankster]

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster
 

Every social construct suits the demands of the social and political power dynamics of its society.
 

As they should.

Yes

 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

In response to my saying:

Science ACKNOWLEDGES different races.
You don't.

You said:

"As and within a social construct.....Yes

As a genetic reality.....no"

So I have you QUOTED and ON RECORD as finally acknowledging that science acknowledges different races.

Well it's about time.

Quote me correctly and completely......"As and within a social construct.....Yes -  As a genetic reality.....no"

 

 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

To show unity of origin or source....All homo sapiens sapiens are African no matter how different they appear
 

You use the term "homo sapiens sapiens".
Would I be correct to say that you believe "all humans are African"???

All modern humans are African by descent....to be human is to be African

[Pioneer1]

frankster

Quote me correctly and completely......"As and within a social construct.....Yes -  As a genetic reality.....no"
 

A round-a-bout way of finally admitting that science ACKNOWLEDGES races.

All modern humans are African by descent....to be human is to be African
 

I just wanted to confirm that you held this assertion.
 

[Chevdove]

On 7/5/2025 at 11:05 AM, frankster said:

Yes....The color of the penis or testicles does not matter - white or black they still male

 

 

Oh no. There is more to this. 

 

[frankster]

On 7/6/2025 at 9:37 PM, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

Quote me correctly and completely......"As and within a social construct.....Yes -  As a genetic reality.....no"
 

A round-a-bout way of finally admitting that science ACKNOWLEDGES races.

Race as and is and always has been a social concept.....there is no physical basis for race.

Science does not recognize or acknowledges race beyond it being a social political concept...

 

 

On 7/6/2025 at 9:37 PM, Pioneer1 said:

All modern humans are African by descent....to be human is to be African
 

I just wanted to confirm that you held this assertion.
 

Yes....

[Pioneer1]

Chev

 

Oh no. There is more to this. 

 

Oh???
Well DO tell....lol

 

 

 

 

 

frankster

 

Race as and is and always has been a social concept.....there is no physical basis for race.

 

But science STILL acknowledges it.
Something you originally claimed that it DIDN'T.
 

[frankster]

14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

Race as and is and always has been a social concept.....there is no physical basis for race.

 

But science STILL acknowledges it.
Something you originally claimed that it DIDN'T.

I have always maintain originally that race is a social construct....

Science does not accept race as being genetic...

 

bring it?

[Troy]

23 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

But science STILL acknowledges it.

 

(1) This statement is true. In fields like sociology race is recognized as a social construct and determines in some cultures how people relate to each other.

 

9 hours ago, frankster said:

Science does not accept race as being genetic...

 

(2) This statement is true. There is no "race" gene. There can easily be more genetic variation within a so-called race that there is between two different ones.

 

The problem for some is that they view the world in Black or white (literally).  They take the social construct and believe that it must be founded in our genes. They can't hold statements (1) and (2) being true at the same time.  This is unfortunate as it stunts their ability to understand the world and the people in it. 

[Pioneer1]

frankster

 

I have always maintain originally that race is a social construct....

Science does not accept race as being genetic...
 

But science DOES recognize race and racial differences.
You would agree to that, wouldn't you?

 

 

 

 

Troy

 

The problem for some is that they view the world in Black or white (literally).  They take the social construct and believe that it must be founded in our genes. They can't hold statements (1) and (2) being true at the same time.  This is unfortunate as it stunts their ability to understand the world and the people in it. 
 

Lol...why did you capitalize "Black" but not "white"????

 

[frankster]

13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

I have always maintain originally that race is a social construct....

Science does not accept race as being genetic...
 

But science DOES recognize race and racial differences.
You would agree to that, wouldn't you?

As a social construct and within a social construct.

 

 

[Chevdove]

On 7/8/2025 at 7:13 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Oh no. There is more to this. 

 

Oh???
Well DO tell....lol

 

 

It's a lot of information about the origins of 'race' in connection to 'gender'!!!

I will try to explain some aspects of it.

 

On 7/9/2025 at 10:10 AM, frankster said:

I have always maintain originally that race is a social construct....

Science does not accept race as being genetic...

 

 

That is so false. 

The term 'race' stems from the basis of 'genetics' before it could ever become defined as a social construct. 

Race is based on genetics. The genetics of White America and Black America is gene based, and this modern government has exploited certain genetics to 

their benefit and out of this certain social constructs have occurred. 

 

 

On 7/9/2025 at 11:17 AM, Troy said:

(1) This statement is true. In fields like sociology race is recognized as a social construct and determines in some cultures how people relate to each other.

 

 

On 7/9/2025 at 11:17 AM, Troy said:

(2) This statement is true. There is no "race" gene. There can easily be more genetic variation within a so-called race that there is between two different ones.

 

 

On 7/9/2025 at 11:17 AM, Troy said:

The problem for some is that they view the world in Black or white (literally).  They take the social construct and believe that it must be founded in our genes. They can't hold statements (1) and (2) being true at the same time.  This is unfortunate as it stunts their ability to understand the world and the people in it. 

 

Oh WOW. Thank you. 

 

 

[Chevdove]

 

 

It's a lot of information about the origins of 'race' in connection to 'gender'!!!

I will try to explain some aspects of it.

 

 

To say that 'Race' is a social construct does not address the issue in that, it is based on 'skin color' and then not to realize that it means too, that 'SKIN COLOR' is indeed based on 'genetics' sounds like confusion. 

 

Skin Color is definitely genetic based!!!

Skin color stems directly from GENES!!! 

 

Therefore 'race' defined as a social construct is definitely genetic-based, however, skin color would be only one genetic factor out of many other genes in how humans exist and this is the problem. The modern governments were somehow able to use skin color to organize social groups and then define them as being superior or inferior based on this one genetic aspect that all humans possess. 

 

But just as @Pioneer1 said in an earlier post, the term 'race' is used today, but in ancient times there were other terms used to define humans for similar topics. 

 

So it is wrong for governments to use one genetic aspect of humans to organize social groups and maybe that is the confusion. 

Even though 'color' is a definite aspect of how humans are defined, however, it would only be ONE genetic aspect and without other genetic characteristics, it cannot be a primary determinant. The physical world has the same determinants in how rocks are defined too. In order to determine a unique rock, there are a specific

number of characteristics that must be considered and COLOR is one vital aspect. So then, the hardness of a rock, if it streaks, has luster, the color, etc. reveals what kind of rock it is. So there are many different kinds of rocks and all rocks have ONE basic definition that makes them be 'rocks', however, there are different rocks. Rocks can be made up of different minerals. So, color is a vital aspect of how a particular rock is classified, but without the other characteristics, color means nothing. 

 

And there here is another issue; If a powerful government or society deliberately oppressed people for a long period of time who expressed a certain skin color or some other trait by not allowing them to become educated and depriving them of basic human needs, then won't that cause behavioral problems that could be mis-construed as them being 'born' more inferior to lighter skinned humans? That kind of conditioning to also be defined as 'truth' whether or not, people are born that way or not. 

 

So, if for thousands of years, Black African people are born into a world where they are already thought of as being inferior and then denied basic human rights, then they could be defined as being two-thirds human. You can hate the 'racial' category or not, but if that is true, then how can we ignore it and have a better existence?

 

If your own nurturer believes that too, and treats her own offspring as being ugly compared to her lighter skinned children, then should this be ignored? 

 

My husband would always come home and tell me how the Black women, both young and old, on his job(s) would talk about their kids based on Colorism and it would get on his nerves. He said, an old Black woman told the manager in light conversation, [paraphrasing] 'She had three brothers and she told her Momma, you can keep that one with the bad hair. I don't want that one. I'll babysit the light skinned one though, with the good hair.' LOL. This woman was not all that light skinned herself but she would say things like that all of the time within ear shot of other Black workers too. And most of the workers were AFrican American males. LOL. Get this; what kind of hair do you think she had!? LOL.

 

I hear this all of the time, but it does not bother me. It's so common. However, it always upset my husband. His own mother said stuff like that too. etc. 

At any rate, I believe that if we don't get at the origin of how this issue with 'race' and 'skin color' being used to form social constructs came about and exploited, then humanity will never have peace. So that is why I believe it is important to know about the link between 'skin color' and 'gender'. I hope to try and explain the scientific and genetics aspect of this soon. 

 

[Chevdove]

 

 

 

It's a lot of information about the origins of 'race' in connection to 'gender'!!!

I will try to explain some aspects of it.

 

2 hours ago, Chevdove said:

Skin Color is definitely genetic based!!!

Skin color stems directly from GENES!!! 

 

So, this topic is huge! So I need some time to explain what I researched.

Perhaps, I will share in other threads too that must be considered as well.

Even though the Bible provides the truth, however, because most people reject the Bible, and because science also confirms this, I will try and provide a scientific explanation. 

 

But for now, I will start and hopefully offer more proof in what I am saying. For now, I will start with the term 'Race' but this would not be the accurate and scientific term for us modern humans today. 

 

Again, the term 'Race' would be inaccurate but since today, this is the term used; loosely the belief that there was once, a White Race and a Black Race, has an origin.

But in essence, it would never be 'a White Race' or 'a Black Race' for a major reason; all of the Human Modern Races have one single origin and from one Human individual; 

a Malefactor. This malefactor is the beginning of all Y-DNA Haplogroups and he was a Black skinned African male, the Bible names Adam. 

 

So technically, there is a Black Race, but but today not humans stem from that human race!!! Why because there were other humans on this earth long before this 

BLACK RACE and the proof is in GENETICS. 

 

Humans today reveal in our genes that we have intermixed with primitive humans that were on this earth long before the Black 'race' of humans. 

And there are other ways that scientist have proven this. 

Genetics prove that these primitive humans DID NOT express ANY BLACK GENES!!!

 

So one could say, that they were the WHITE RACE but that would be completely false. However, due to the genetic proof that modern humans intermixed with these primitive humans, it has become a confusion. Nevertheless, the predominant presence of lighter skinned humans directly stems from these primitive humans. 

 

But a better term for 'the White Race' could be 'the Pale Race'!!! But again, this too would not be scientifically accurate because the term pale refers to more than one aspect of both dark skinned and light skinned humans today. 

 

Although the Bible breaks the genetics of skin color down in so many ways, one major way revolves around the prophecies about 

 

THE BAY & GRISLED HORSE.

 

The genetics of other living things on this earth, not only the horse, but so many others, reveals the scientific truth about human skin color too But the scripture about the Bay and Grisled horse is detailed. In these scriptures, it becomes revealed that there is one single origin of all modern humans today and that would be 

a Black Gene origin that was only in the very first individual, the anatomically straight male, an African malefactor. And all modern males today stem from him, no matter if they are European, Hispanic, or African, etc. Prior to him, there were no males with that kind of genetics. However, there were males on this earth though, but they were existing in a mutated from.

 

The primitive males could absolutely NOT produce any anatomically straight Y-DNA haplogroup. This too, is linked to the complete ABSENCE of the BLACK GENE that produces black skin. I've written about this so many times. The scientific term for the black gene is called EUMELANIN.

This is the very NEW Creation of God that only begins with the presence of the anatomically straight Y-DNA haplogroups. 

 

But to say that the primitive males, were the White Race, would be completely false. You will not find the eumelanin gene in any primitive hominid however, prior to the Neanderthals, there were many dark skinned hominids. Although they have have looked very dark, they were not all black. 

Black begins with the haplogroups and also, genetically, the original males express the afro. That black gene is linked to african hair-type.

 

So then, if you look at humans today and they do not express african hair, it is due to MUTATION.

Because of intermixing with the primitive humans, and if the practice of sex selection occurs, within a few generations, this genetic trait will undergo a mutation and therefore, they would not be defined as 'an African human'. These kind of mutations that completely erases the reproduction of black skin and afro hair is due to the origin of

 

THE PRIMITIVE MALE!!!  

 

The genetics of the primitive male is the other origin of why there is a confusion about the human race. So no, the term 'race' is not scientifically accurate, rather the term should be 'SPECIES'. 

 

The Neanderthalensis species were a primitive species and the eumelanin gene was completely absent in their genetics.

Their genetics expressed 'pale genes' which was also a mutation. 

However, the Bible reveals that there is such an expression of 'white genes' but due to the mutated pale gene that humans express, this is a rare expression. 

And, also, the white gene stems from 'the black gene'!!! The genetics of the white gene is fascinating in how it can manifest. To understand this too, though, the Bible reveals it in the scriptures about the Bay and Grisled horses. 

 

In conclusion, for now, the genetics of skin color is manifested in humanity because reproduction produces 'a blending' of gene in pigments and so, that is why the term 

'race' is so ridiculous. A 'bay' color horse genetically can appear as a black horse, gray horse, white horse, red horse, etc. However, a bay horse is actually 'a Black horse' but has other gene pigments. They are identified in phenotype because they have 'black tips'. A true black horse is rare and for this reason, they cost a fortune. Some of them may appear lighter than black but, genetic test prove they have pure eumelanin. 

 

A bay horse that is very dark and can look black is actually 'a red horse'. A white or gray horse is actually a bay horse. If they are white, they mostly have that 'pale gene' and are extremely cancer prone. So then, the Biblical break down on 'the Pale horse' is referencing the primitive being that was mutated ... that is why some prophets wrote about the bay horse and then another wrote that it was a pale horse. All horses are a product of the one 'black horse'!!! -- even the white horse... 

So therefore, even today, there is not 'one human race' as this term is not scientifically accurate. And there is no 'one human species' either. 

When two different species can reproduce, something will go wrong!!!

 

The definition of 'species' is scientific and one aspect may revolve around the type or even specific number of chromosomes that species have unique to them. 

These species may be similar 'family' and genus but, due to chromosomes, they are different species. 

So then, if a lion reproduces with a tiger, they can have offspring but there will be a significant problem. However, that is NOT the point for this explanation that needs to be exposed. What needs to be exposed here is that, for example, for a liger or a tigon to be born, and then reproduce again and again for generations, therefore, both the original lion and the original tiger must still be present and reproducing to a significant percentage. 

 

In other words, for a tigon, then a titigon and so forth to continue to be born and express, tiger genetics, after a while, that kind of birth will become extinct, UNLESS that is, another male tiger ever so often is reproducing with that kind of offspring. This is where the topic of 'recessive traits' needs to be further explained. So therefore, for modern day scholars to say that humans today express that 'pale gene', a recessive trait,  but on the other hand the human that is the source of that very 'pale gene' is extinct would be a complete lie. Nevertheless, the other 'linked traits' to the origin of the carrier of that gene would also be transferred and this genetic patter can also be seen. Ultimately too, the origin of these kinds of reproductions BEGIN with the MALE being, whether, the lion, the tiger, ... or the human! So if an animal expresses the dominant presence of lion, even if they are intermixed with two species, the male determines the SPECIES of the animal. So if a male lion mates with a female tiger, that offspring, the liger would be a lion species. But there is so much more about this transfer of genes within two different species... It is the absence or presence of the MALE SEX ORGANS or lack thereof that determines if the offspring would be either a lion or tiger but here is where the shock comes in... this too determines whether the offspring will be either a male or female too. The presence or absence of male reproductive organs reveals the presence of a modern human or a primitive human and this is connected to the genetics of how a particular species genes are transferred through reproduction. So what becomes evident then is that GENDER is linked to SPECIES -- or it could be loosely understood that 'RACE origins can be in connection to GENDER'. So, in terms of the origin of the first anatomical male and the modern humans today, the term can be a confusion but with a better understanding of human origins, it would not be a huge a deterrent. If sex selection is deliberately practiced, then over a few generations, recessive traits would be expressed and so, due to mutation, that kind of human would not be 'an African' at all!!! No matter what, that kind of human would not be able to reproduce another gender nor the afro hair type at all. period. 

 

Now, I can say this another way, but for now, think about what I have just written and see if you understand what I have just said! One of many references I will provide, of course would be 'the International Genome Project' headed up by Stanford University.

 

 

 

[Troy]

On 7/10/2025 at 5:05 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Lol...why did you capitalize "Black" but not "white"????

 

I'll let you speculate as to why I do this, as you can probably figure it out.  It is like asking why I build a site dedicated to books about Black people.

 

23 hours ago, Chevdove said:

Black skinned African male, the Bible names Adam. 

 

AKA Y Chromosomal Adam. There is indeed one man from whom all of humanity is descended, and yes, he is from Africa. Calling them "Black" is as problematic as it is today.

 

23 hours ago, Chevdove said:

Humans today reveal in our genes that we have intermixed with primitive humans that were on this earth long before the Black 'race' of humans. 

 

You mean like the Neanderthals?  They too are descendant from Africa -- all humans are descendant from Africa.

 

I'll wait to read what you cite from Stanford in your research before commenting on the rest.

 

 

 

 

 

[frankster]

On 7/11/2025 at 12:48 PM, Chevdove said:

That is so false. 

The term 'race' stems from the basis of 'genetics' before it could ever become defined as a social construct. 

Race is based on genetics. The genetics of White America and Black America is gene based, and this modern government has exploited certain genetics to 

their benefit and out of this certain social constructs have occurred. 

OK....You say

"race stems from genetics before it became a social construct"

Do you have a scientiic study of race that states or backs up your claim?

If so please present relevant quote and link

 

On 7/11/2025 at 2:12 PM, Chevdove said:

 

 

It's a lot of information about the origins of 'race' in connection to 'gender'!!!

I will try to explain some aspects of it.

 

 

To say that 'Race' is a social construct does not address the issue in that, it is based on 'skin color' and then not to realize that it means too, that 'SKIN COLOR' is indeed based on 'genetics' sounds like confusion. 

Skin color is based on Gene expression and as such it is genetic

Race is socio-political consensus of contemporaneous expediency....limited to times and place.

Racism uses skin color to effect oppression and exploitation....in order to exploit Africans the oppressor look for the most obvious differences and used it as a character defining trait

 

On 7/11/2025 at 2:12 PM, Chevdove said:

 

Skin Color is definitely genetic based!!!

Skin color stems directly from GENES!!! 

Yes

 

On 7/11/2025 at 2:12 PM, Chevdove said:

Therefore 'race' defined as a social construct is definitely genetic-based,

No....

Irish Poles Jews and Italians were not always considered members of the White race...yet their skin was white

Whilst people from Iran Lebanon and Egypt or MENA Descent were consider members of the White race....yet the vast majority of whose skin is brown.

 

On 7/11/2025 at 2:12 PM, Chevdove said:

however, skin color would be only one genetic factor out of many other genes in how humans exist and this is the problem. The modern governments were somehow able to use skin color to organize social groups and then define them as being superior or inferior based on this one genetic aspect that all humans possess. 

Race is then not based on skin color but associated with skin color

 

On 7/11/2025 at 2:12 PM, Chevdove said:

 

But just as @Pioneer1 said in an earlier post, the term 'race' is used today, but in ancient times there were other terms used to define humans for similar topics. 

Yes...Xenophobia bigotry and prejudice(communitarianism)

but do they have the same meaning and usage as race/racism does today?

 

 

On 7/11/2025 at 2:12 PM, Chevdove said:

 

So it is wrong for governments to use one genetic aspect of humans to organize social groups and maybe that is the confusion. 

Yes

 

On 7/11/2025 at 2:12 PM, Chevdove said:

Even though 'color' is a definite aspect of how humans are defined, however, it would only be ONE genetic aspect and without other genetic characteristics, it cannot be a primary determinant. The physical world has the same determinants in how rocks are defined too. In order to determine a unique rock, there are a specific

number of characteristics that must be considered and COLOR is one vital aspect. So then, the hardness of a rock, if it streaks, has luster, the color, etc. reveals what kind of rock it is. So there are many different kinds of rocks and all rocks have ONE basic definition that makes them be 'rocks', however, there are different rocks. Rocks can be made up of different minerals. So, color is a vital aspect of how a particular rock is classified, but without the other characteristics, color means nothing. 

 Yes....

To help with clarity give an example of the rocks in question....thier differentiation and variation

 

 

On 7/11/2025 at 2:12 PM, Chevdove said:

 

And there here is another issue; If a powerful government or society deliberately oppressed people for a long period of time who expressed a certain skin color or some other trait by not allowing them to become educated and depriving them of basic human needs, then won't that cause behavioral problems that could be mis-construed as them being 'born' more inferior to lighter skinned humans? That kind of conditioning to also be defined as 'truth' whether or not, people are born that way or not. 

Yes

 

On 7/11/2025 at 2:12 PM, Chevdove said:

 

So, if for thousands of years, Black African people are born into a world where they are already thought of as being inferior and then denied basic human rights, then they could be defined as being two-thirds human. You can hate the 'racial' category or not, but if that is true, then how can we ignore it and have a better existence?

I am not ignoring it and many who say race is not genetic is not ignoring racism

 

On 7/11/2025 at 2:12 PM, Chevdove said:

If your own nurturer believes that too, and treats her own offspring as being ugly compared to her lighter skinned children, then should this be ignored? 

Of course not

 

On 7/11/2025 at 2:12 PM, Chevdove said:

 

My husband would always come home and tell me how the Black women, both young and old, on his job(s) would talk about their kids based on Colorism and it would get on his nerves. He said, an old Black woman told the manager in light conversation, [paraphrasing] 'She had three brothers and she told her Momma, you can keep that one with the bad hair. I don't want that one. I'll babysit the light skinned one though, with the good hair.' LOL. This woman was not all that light skinned herself but she would say things like that all of the time within ear shot of other Black workers too. And most of the workers were AFrican American males. LOL. Get this; what kind of hair do you think she had!? LOL.

Yes....this is common - it is something she has been taught.

To hate herself and all who look like what is popularly consider subsaharan African - self hate

 

On 7/11/2025 at 2:12 PM, Chevdove said:

 

I hear this all of the time, but it does not bother me. It's so common. However, it always upset my husband. His own mother said stuff like that too. etc. 

At any rate, I believe that if we don't get at the origin of how this issue with 'race' and 'skin color' being used to form social constructs came about and exploited, then humanity will never have peace. So that is why I believe it is important to know about the link between 'skin color' and 'gender'. I hope to try and explain the scientific and genetics aspect of this soon. 

ok

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

 

 

 

It's a lot of information about the origins of 'race' in connection to 'gender'!!!

I will try to explain some aspects of it.

 

 

So, this topic is huge! So I need some time to explain what I researched.

Perhaps, I will share in other threads too that must be considered as well.

Even though the Bible provides the truth, however, because most people reject the Bible, and because science also confirms this, I will try and provide a scientific explanation. 

cool

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

But for now, I will start and hopefully offer more proof in what I am saying. For now, I will start with the term 'Race' but this would not be the accurate and scientific term for us modern humans today. 

 

Again, the term 'Race' would be inaccurate but since today, this is the term used; loosely the belief that there was once, a White Race and a Black Race, has an origin.

But in essence, it would never be 'a White Race' or 'a Black Race' for a major reason; all of the Human Modern Races have one single origin and from one Human individual; 

a Malefactor. This malefactor is the beginning of all Y-DNA Haplogroups and he was a Black skinned African male, the Bible names Adam. 

According to you - All modern human have one ancestor who was black skinned - Adam

Adam could also stand for red/reddish

Explain Malefactor?

 

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

So technically, there is a Black Race, but but today not humans stem from that human race!!! Why because there were other humans on this earth long before this 

BLACK RACE and the proof is in GENETICS. 

According to you - No human stem from that black race

These humans who were here long before this so called black race do they have a name?

and for the sake of clarity what is the names of the two differing black races?

or if it is only one black race is it the before or after Adam?

I can see already I am going to need some good ganja for this.....shyte about to get real

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

Humans today reveal in our genes that we have intermixed with primitive humans that were on this earth long before the Black 'race' of humans. 

And there are other ways that scientist have proven this. 

Genetics prove that these primitive humans DID NOT express ANY BLACK GENES!!!

Ok please provide a quote and link to back up or prove this argument.

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

 

So one could say, that they were the WHITE RACE but that would be completely false. However, due to the genetic proof that modern humans intermixed with these primitive humans, it has become a confusion. Nevertheless, the predominant presence of lighter skinned humans directly stems from these primitive humans. 

Who or what was this false white race called?....For purposes of clarity

Trying to keep my ducks in a row so to speak

So white skin came from these primitive humans?

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

But a better term for 'the White Race' could be 'the Pale Race'!!! But again, this too would not be scientifically accurate because the term pale refers to more than one aspect of both dark skinned and light skinned humans today. 

Do they have a name?

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

 

Although the Bible breaks the genetics of skin color down in so many ways, one major way revolves around the prophecies about 

 

THE BAY & GRISLED HORSE. The genetics of other living things on this earth, not only the horse, but so many others, reveals the scientific truth about human skin color too But the scripture about the Bay and Grisled horse is detailed. 

I cannot see how that is relevant....but i am sure you will tell me.

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

In these scriptures, it becomes revealed that there is one single origin of all modern humans today and that would be 

a Black Gene origin that was only in the very first individual, the anatomically straight male, an African malefactor. And all modern males today stem from him, no matter if they are European, Hispanic, or African, etc. Prior to him, there were no males with that kind of genetics. However, there were males on this earth though, but they were existing in a mutated from.

What do you mean by anatomically straight male?

So Modern females do not stem from him?

Do these mutated males have a name?....again this  in an effort to keep the storyline clear

I am guessing that this unmutated male was Adam?.....would it then be ok or correct to call this line of humans -  Adamites? how ever if they have a accurate scientific name please share.

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

The primitive males could absolutely NOT produce any anatomically straight Y-DNA haplogroup. This too, is linked to the complete ABSENCE of the BLACK GENE that produces black skin. I've written about this so many times. The scientific term for the black gene is called EUMELANIN.

This is the very NEW Creation of God that only begins with the presence of the anatomically straight Y-DNA haplogroups. 

I need names for thes primitive humans or primitive males so as to follow your line of reasoning?

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

 

But to say that the primitive males, were the White Race, would be completely false. You will not find the eumelanin gene in any primitive hominid however, prior to the Neanderthals, there were many dark skinned hominids. Although they have have looked very dark, they were not all black. 

Black begins with the haplogroups and also, genetically, the original males express the afro. That black gene is linked to african hair-type.

I need Kush...this i some deep twisted shyte.

So they were dark skinned hominids that look very dark but they were not black....?

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

So then, if you look at humans today and they do not express african hair, it is due to MUTATION.

Because of intermixing with the primitive humans, and if the practice of sex selection occurs, within a few generations, this genetic trait will undergo a mutation and therefore, they would not be defined as 'an African human'. These kind of mutations that completely erases the reproduction of black skin and afro hair is due to the origin of

 

THE PRIMITIVE MALE!!!  

So is it true then that all humans today....that do not have African type hair and or black skin is a mutation from the Primitive Male due to intermixing?

 

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

The genetics of the primitive male is the other origin of why there is a confusion about the human race. So no, the term 'race' is not scientifically accurate, rather the term should be 'SPECIES'. 

Specie and Race is not the same...

Are you then saying that the Adam and the primitive male are two different specie?

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

The Neanderthalensis species were a primitive species and the eumelanin gene was completely absent in their genetics.

Their genetics expressed 'pale genes' which was also a mutation. 

However, the Bible reveals that there is such an expression of 'white genes' but due to the mutated pale gene that humans express, this is a rare expression. 

And, also, the white gene stems from 'the black gene'!!! The genetics of the white gene is fascinating in how it can manifest. To understand this too, though, the Bible reveals it in the scriptures about the Bay and Grisled horses. 

Ok now we cooking with gas.....

Am I correct in saying that the name of the Primitive Male were the Neaderthals

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

In conclusion, for now, the genetics of skin color is manifested in humanity because reproduction produces 'a blending' of gene in pigments and so, that is why the term 

'race' is so ridiculous. A 'bay' color horse genetically can appear as a black horse, gray horse, white horse, red horse, etc. However, a bay horse is actually 'a Black horse' but has other gene pigments. They are identified in phenotype because they have 'black tips'. A true black horse is rare and for this reason, they cost a fortune. Some of them may appear lighter than black but, genetic test prove they have pure eumelanin. 

Then we agree....nothing else needs be said.

I can lay this bong down.

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

A bay horse that is very dark and can look black is actually 'a red horse'. A white or gray horse is actually a bay horse. If they are white, they mostly have that 'pale gene' and are extremely cancer prone. So then, the Biblical break down on 'the Pale horse' is referencing the primitive being that was mutated ... that is why some prophets wrote about the bay horse and then another wrote that it was a pale horse. All horses are a product of the one 'black horse'!!! -- even the white horse... 

Cool 

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

So therefore, even today, there is not 'one human race' as this term is not scientifically accurate. And there is no 'one human species' either. 

When two different species can reproduce, something will go wrong!!!

hold up....pass the cutchie - more fire please

You saying that there is today more than one human specie.....even after all the years of intermixing we still two or more distinct species?

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

The definition of 'species' is scientific and one aspect may revolve around the type or even specific number of chromosomes that species have unique to them. 

These species may be similar 'family' and genus but, due to chromosomes, they are different species. 

So then, if a lion reproduces with a tiger, they can have offspring but there will be a significant problem. However, that is NOT the point for this explanation that needs to be exposed. What needs to be exposed here is that, for example, for a liger or a tigon to be born, and then reproduce again and again for generations, therefore, both the original lion and the original tiger must still be present and reproducing to a significant percentage. 

Aaahright aaight

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

In other words, for a tigon, then a titigon and so forth to continue to be born and express, tiger genetics, after a while, that kind of birth will become extinct, UNLESS that is, another male tiger ever so often is reproducing with that kind of offspring. This is where the topic of 'recessive traits' needs to be further explained. So therefore, for modern day scholars to say that humans today express that 'pale gene', a recessive trait,  but on the other hand the human that is the source of that very 'pale gene' is extinct would be a complete lie.

So are you then saying that Neanderthals must then still be around?

Are you then insinuating that white people are Neanderthals? or are some form of modern type neaderthal?

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

Nevertheless, the other 'linked traits' to the origin of the carrier of that gene would also be transferred and this genetic patter can also be seen. Ultimately too, the origin of these kinds of reproductions BEGIN with the MALE being, whether, the lion, the tiger, ... or the human! So if an animal expresses the dominant presence of lion, even if they are intermixed with two species, the male determines the SPECIES of the animal. So if a male lion mates with a female tiger, that offspring, the liger would be a lion species.

Miscegenation by another name.....

One drop of black blood whether male or female....makes you black

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

But there is so much more about this transfer of genes within two different species... It is the absence or presence of the MALE SEX ORGANS or lack thereof that determines if the offspring would be either a lion or tiger but here is where the shock comes in... this too determines whether the offspring will be either a male or female too. The presence or absence of male reproductive organs reveals the presence of a modern human or a primitive human and this is connected to the genetics of how a particular species genes are transferred through reproduction.

Primitive humans did not have male reproductive organs?

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

So what becomes evident then is that GENDER is linked to SPECIES -- or it could be loosely understood that 'RACE origins can be in connection to GENDER'. So, in terms of the origin of the first anatomical male and the modern humans today, the term can be a confusion but with a better understanding of human origins, it would not be a huge a deterrent. If sex selection is deliberately practiced, then over a few generations, recessive traits would be expressed and so, due to mutation, that kind of human would not be 'an African' at all!!! No matter what, that kind of human would not be able to reproduce another gender nor the afro hair type at all. period. 

Yep try explaining it another way....this not computing.

 

According to you and correct me if and where  I am wrong...

A male lion reproducing with a female tiger will have a liger

if this liger offspring is male then it is of the lion specie?

if the liger offspring is  female then it is of....the tiger specie?

For this bloodline to continue....from time to time a lion must input new genetic material or the line will go....Sterile/infertile

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

Now, I can say this another way, but for now, think about what I have just written and see if you understand what I have just said! One of many references I will provide, of course would be 'the International Genome Project' headed up by Stanford University.

Please do say it another way..

and please do provide water evidence you can to back up your claim

I will admit to seeing some parallels in my own belief system....which are all not scientifically based.

I also did see some apparent contradictions...which warrant further exposition.

great read all in all looking forward to your response...

[frankster]

 

  On 7/5/2025 at 11:05 AM, frankster said:

Yes....The color of the penis or testicles does not matter - white or black they still male

 

 

 

 

On 7/8/2025 at 6:12 AM, Chevdove said:

Oh no. There is more to this. 

 

How does the color of  penis or testicles help in distingushing one sex as to whether or not one is male or female?

[Chevdove]

On 7/12/2025 at 4:10 PM, Troy said:

 

 

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

Humans today reveal in our genes that we have intermixed with primitive humans that were on this earth long before the Black 'race' of humans. 

 

You mean like the Neanderthals?  They too are descendant from Africa -- all humans are descendant from Africa.

 

I'll wait to read what you cite from Stanford in your research before commenting on the rest.

 

 

 

No. Neanderthals were not descended from Africa. This landmass, meaning earth, was one mass prior to modern humans and Neanderthals were not descended from 'Africa'. Scientist say they were descended from dark skinned hominids, they call Denisovans. 

 

Okay; So you want me to cite my reference source; the Genome Project. I will look at that info and get back. 

But again, no.  Primitive humans are not the same as Modern humans at all. 

Primitive humans are NOT defined by male haplogroups. 

 

 

[Chevdove]

On 7/12/2025 at 11:19 PM, frankster said:

Race is then not based on skin color but associated with skin color

 

WOW! I will respond to some now, but will take some time to respond to all of your comments. 

But when I saw this comment, I want to respond to this one first;

The term RACE, whether or not it is associated with skin color or based on skin color is NOT an argument to even address because, this issue is determined by this government and the western world and the leaders have used 'RACE' to determine human social groups. They did this! So therefore, they used 'SKIN COLOR' which is 

a GENETIC FACTOR to organize humans into a social construct. This government used a GENETIC FACTOR, which is SKIN COLOR to define humans 

and categorized us into racial categories. So therefore, Race is based on this genetic factor, and this government decided to use this genetic factor to define humans in this way. 

 

On 7/12/2025 at 11:51 PM, frankster said:

How does the color of  penis or testicles help in distingushing one sex as to whether or not one is male or female?

 

Again, this is a huge topic! But in short, as I tried to write some aspects of my research on it a little, this is due to the NEW CREATION of the color BLACK in the first modern human. He is the first and single origin of this 'gene expression'. I meant to come back and CORRECT my statement about it being 'a gene'. The gene is one aspect, and there is a specific gene that produces the pigment EUMELANIN, which is the BLACK PIGMENT.

Furthermore, this eumelanin is firmly linked to 'african hair type'. And since genes tend to travel in pairs, this is the key to your question!

 

And so, this one African male individual is the origin of it and all modern humans stem from him and have this kind of genetics. 

But this gene is completely absent in the primitive humans. 

Therefore the primitive male genetics determines their 'kind' because in reproduction, the absence of this eumelanin will simply NOT be present! 

So, primitive human genes that produce skin color, in reproduction, will show how a female or male from this kind of reproduction is either male or female from that specific origin. And furthermore, females don't have male organs and this too is key.

 

[Chevdove]

On 7/12/2025 at 11:19 PM, frankster said:

According to you - All modern human have one ancestor who was black skinned - Adam

Adam could also stand for red/reddish

Explain Malefactor?

 

 

I agree about the color 'red' but I have researched this  and know that this term has been debauched and mistranslated with regards to the complete meaning of Adam, the man created by God. This too is a huge topic. And I actually touched upon it when I spoke about the Biblical scriptures about Bay and Grisled horse. I hope to share much more about this topic. But for now, I will briefly say something about this planet earth and how the Bible says the Adam was created from the dust of the earth. When the astronauts bent down as picked up the ground on the moon, they were amazed and said, that it was black. This planet is black. Kemet.

There are minerals in this earth such as iron that causes some parts of the earth to have different color, but this planet is black.

Adam was black and he had red blood running through his veins. But again, there is a lot to this subject of why the name 'Adam' would also be connected to the color red as you have said. 

All humans have this red blood running through our veins, but this planet is black. 

 

You know, I am going to STOP using that term 'Malefactor'! I looked up the definition and WOW. I had no idea!

I guess it's true that all mankind are born in sin, but my usage of the term 'malefactor' was not to reference that! 

Maybe I should say 'male individual' or something. I won't be using that word in context anymore for what I have been writing about with regards to the origins of mankind. 

 

 

On 7/12/2025 at 11:19 PM, frankster said:

According to you - No human stem from that black race

These humans who were here long before this so called black race do they have a name?

and for the sake of clarity what is the names of the two differing black races?

or if it is only one black race is it the before or after Adam?

I can see already I am going to need some good ganja for this.....shyte about to get real

 

Scientist use many different terms when they speak about primitive humans. For example, 'Denisovan', I think they said, they use that term because they found bones in a cave in Siberia of primitive beings and because there was a hermit in that cave with that name or something, that is the term they used to mark that cave.

Then the term 'Neanderthal' was used due to an area where they found certain bones, or something. So there are many names used to define primitive hominids in the scientific world. But the Bible uses different terms. 

 

The Bible uses terms like 'angel' and then of course 'Satan' and more. 

I never said that there were two different black races. 

Adam is the first that has the gene that produces the Black pigment in humans. Prior to Adam, many animals have this black pigment. But he is the very first human to have it.

Okay, so you are 'about to get real'!? I could expect that you and other men will get a little upset with me because I don't think that men can take it so well, at first, when a female enters into this kind of topic! LOL. But I hope that you are going to be okay.  

 

 

[Chevdove]

 

On 7/12/2025 at 11:19 PM, frankster said:

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

Humans today reveal in our genes that we have intermixed with primitive humans that were on this earth long before the Black 'race' of humans. 

And there are other ways that scientist have proven this. 

Genetics prove that these primitive humans DID NOT express ANY BLACK GENES!!!

Ok please provide a quote and link to back up or prove this argument.

 

 

 Okay. I will look at the International Genome Project again, and provide some references. But I will also add another reference and will re-look that up too:

 

The National Smithsonian Museum; Human Origins!

 

There, in that science museum, if you visit, you can see for yourself the many dark skinned primitive humans!

Even though some of them look very dark skinned, almost black, however, they are not black at all. 

 

On 7/12/2025 at 11:19 PM, frankster said:

Who or what was this false white race called?....For purposes of clarity

Trying to keep my ducks in a row so to speak

So white skin came from these primitive humans?

 

There is no such presence of a false white 'race' of humans. 

I have no idea about the presence of primitive humans being 'white'.

Primitive humans like the Neanderthals were light skinned and express 'the pale gene' meaning, albinism. 

But according to the Bible there are 'white' beings and completely pure and without blemish. 

The Biblical scriptures explain that 'pure white' skin comes from a black origin though. 

I meant to edit and clarify what I wrote about the 'bay and grisled horse'. The grisled horse is also a bay horse and there is a lot more scriptures about that too. 

 

Furthermore, this kind of genetics of 'a pure white gene' gene expression is present in the modern human race too, however, due to interbreeding with impure primitive humans, this genetic expression of pure white skin and also that kind of gene, is rare. This type of genetics is also said to be found in colored humans too; it's a kind of gene transfer. Like I said, it is a huge topic. It is part of human reproduction though, but all humans today express some type of gene mutation due to our ancestors. 

 

On 7/12/2025 at 11:19 PM, frankster said:

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

But a better term for 'the White Race' could be 'the Pale Race'!!! But again, this too would not be scientifically accurate because the term pale refers to more than one aspect of both dark skinned and light skinned humans today. 

Do they have a name?

 

There is no such presence of 'a white race'; It's about White Supremacy. 

There is no such presence of 'a Pale Race'; It's about White Supremacy and Color Supremacy; Colorism.

All modern humans today, whether we are light skinned or dark skinned, Nigerian, or British, we are a manifestation of 

interbreeding. 

 

The Biblical scripture about the 'Pale Horse' is referring to 'the Bay Horse' a black horse with mutation.

The Pale horse or grisled horse is the embodiment of White Supremacy.

The Pale Horse represents 'albinism'. 

There is no such existence of an albino 'race' of people; people with albinism are either of African descent or European descent, or Asian, etc. 

I know that I have some of those genes in me and I am African American. Anyone can have that recessive trait. 

 

On 7/12/2025 at 11:19 PM, frankster said:

On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

Although the Bible breaks the genetics of skin color down in so many ways, one major way revolves around the prophecies about 

 

THE BAY & GRISLED HORSE. The genetics of other living things on this earth, not only the horse, but so many others, reveals the scientific truth about human skin color too But the scripture about the Bay and Grisled horse is detailed. 

I cannot see how that is relevant....but i am sure you will tell me.

 

This is a huge topic.

One prophet, the prophet Zechariah wrote this prophecy. And then other wrote later about the same prophecy that revolves around the issue of White Supremacy and Colorism. Yes, I hope to share more because this is relevant, of course. This whole world is plagued with the issue of White Supremacy and Colorism. 

I will now though, provide a Biblical reference; another Biblical reference and that would be the prophet Job. 

The very first entry in his book is linked to the 'bay and grisled' horse. But here in the Book of Job, the reference would be to the 'bay horse' and specifically not the grisled bay horse. So the prophets reveal that the embodiment of the Bay and Grisled Horse is the Great Adversary. 

 

On 7/12/2025 at 11:19 PM, frankster said:

Miscegenation by another name.....

One drop of black blood whether male or female....makes you black

 

I jumped down to this comment because I am tired and will come back and finish reading the rest, okay.

But, I want to address this and a little more before I take a break:

 

No way. This would not be true even in the scientific world as well as the Bible.

Today, scientist define Neanderthals as being a separate hominid versus the Denisovans of which is their MRCA.

The Neanderthal's Most Recent Common Ancestors are the Denisovans, however, the Neanderthals are distinct. 

The Denisovans are dark skinned, the Neanderthals are not.

The Denisovans produced males but are now extinct. The Neanderthals can be male or female, however, they cannot produce

any Denisovan male offspring!!!

They became so mutated that they lost that genetic material and therefore, are in a distinct scientific human classification apart from the Denisovan.

Likewise, it would be the same for animals and modern humans too. 

Like I said, through periods of 'sex selection' this kind of mutation can lead to a specific ethnic identity. It has nothing to do with having 

a certain amount of black blood. 

 

The White Supremacist movement formed many ethnic groups on this very basis. 

Although all modern humans have a common origin, nevertheless, due to certain kinds of movements of sex selective reproduction, many non-African nations exist today. To ignore this leads to great oppression. Calling a racist European, Black, is ridiculous because you would not be doing that to those kind of people, however, this kind of rhetoric is directed towards the victim. That is crazy. Black people need to stop that type of rhetoric towards each other.  

 

 

 

On 7/12/2025 at 11:19 PM, frankster said:

So is it true then that all humans today....that do not have African type hair and or black skin is a mutation from the Primitive Male due to intermixing?

 

I knew that I needed to come back and clarify this!!!

This is a huge topic that I have been hoping to share more about! I hope to start a separate thread though about it, however, I will clarify a little now.

Black African people can express all hair types, but the nation MUST express the phenotype of the Original Adam and Eve to a certain percentage.

In other words, it would be ridiculous for ancient men to bond with a foreign wife with light skin and straight hair and not define his offspring as being like him, African. His offspring would be African, no matter if they have straight, curly, wavy hair, etc. or no matter if they were fair skinned like the mother. 

I could say much more, but again, I will provide references to further explain the Biblical history on this very issue of interbreeding and sex selection due to White Supremacy. 

But I am going to provide a reference right now, one of them, and write more about it later, so that you can go and read it and confirm what I have written about in the meantime; The Book of JOB.

 

The prophet Job had to address this issue of Colorism in a most incredible way. Many Bible scholars believe that his book is one of the most profound.

At any rate, Job was not a Black African man as the Bible attest. However, he married an ethnic woman and his friends attacked viciously for this very reason. He was almost on his deathbed, and they came to badger him because they believed that he was being judged by God for his decision to embrace Black Africans. So although most Black people are sitting around waiting for Europeans to interpret the Bible for them, or either, they have believed the false interpretations byway of White Supremacist, and have rejected the Bible altogether, but that is one of my references!!!

 

Job told his friends that their problem was that they were afraid of the negroes. He told them that he was NOT stupid and he did not embrace the kind of Blacks [Sabeans and Chaldeans] that were evil. Job was mocked because his sons were evil, and his wife was lukewarm. Nevertheless, to the surprise of his friends, Job did not die, but went on to live for many more years. He was blessed through his daughters and one of his descendants came to be a mind blowing awesome 'Black African' man!!! Salah-a-Din! Yes, Saladin, this man of Syria that rose up and had to contend with the Crusaders was known in ancient times as 'Son-of-Job'. 

 

 

On 7/12/2025 at 11:19 PM, frankster said:

hold up....pass the cutchie - more fire please

You saying that there is today more than one human specie.....even after all the years of intermixing we still two or more distinct species?

On 7/12/2025 at 11:19 PM, frankster said:

So are you then saying that Neanderthals must then still be around?

Are you then insinuating that white people are Neanderthals? or are some form of modern type neaderthal?

 

On 7/12/2025 at 11:19 PM, frankster said:

Primitive humans did not have male reproductive organs?

 

 

Another huge topic, but I will say a little more and offer a 'general reference' for now;

 

According to the scriptures, by the time that Adam was created, the DOMINANT presence of ALL primitive males were completely extinct.

However, by the time that Adam was created, the RECESSIVE presence of primitive males [Hybridization] still exist on this earth!!!

In other words, when I explained about the lion and the tiger species reproducing, I was not complete and they would not be a good example to explain completely what happened to the human world. Perhaps I should throw in the genetics of the cheetah, because the scientific term 'Bottleneck' would explain the human world more complete. 

So, hopefully, I will share more about this topic later to better understand. 

 

So then, white people would no more be Neanderthals than I am, and I certainly possess some genes that come from primitive humans. It's simply not a big deal though. It doesn't deter me from being the best human being that I can be. 

 

And so, there is no way that I could have these genes in me, if at one point, the primitive human male was not reproducing. He was definitely reproducing, however, what our educational system has conveniently omitted is how their genes are distinct from modern mankind. This is a vast subject and why I cited the International Genome Project because they conducted gene sequencing and I find that some of their findings confirm the ancient scriptures. 

 

On 7/12/2025 at 11:19 PM, frankster said:

Please do say it another way..

and please do provide water evidence you can to back up your claim

I will admit to seeing some parallels in my own belief system....which are all not scientifically based.

I also did see some apparent contradictions...which warrant further exposition.

great read all in all looking forward to your response...

 

okay. I gotta take a break. 

Yes!

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

 

 

[frankster]

2 hours ago, Chevdove said:

 

WOW! I will respond to some now, but will take some time to respond to all of your comments. 

But when I saw this comment, I want to respond to this one first;

The term RACE, whether or not it is associated with skin color or based on skin color is NOT an argument to even address because, this issue is determined by this government and the western world and the leaders have used 'RACE' to determine human social groups.

We are in accord

 

2 hours ago, Chevdove said:

They did this! So therefore, they used 'SKIN COLOR' which is 

a GENETIC FACTOR to organize humans into a social construct. This government used a GENETIC FACTOR, which is SKIN COLOR to define humans 

and categorized us into racial categories. So therefore, Race is based on this genetic factor, and this government decided to use this genetic factor to define humans in this way. 

Everything about human beings physical is genetic....that is an inescapable truth at all times everywhere.

The question is is there a gene that is specifically responsible for skin color that is unqiue to any one race and is not found in any other race?

In other words is there a Race Gene....I think science say - No....there is no such gene.

Eumelanin and Pheomelanin are mostly responsible for human skin color variation....more or less of one or the other being expressed. - both are Melanin

Jews and Pole were not considered White at one time in the USA...they are Obviously visually and phenotypical what we call white/caucasians

Egyptians Arabs and Ethiopians were considered Caucasians at one time.....most are obviously visually and phenotypical black.

There was even a time when the English French and Spanish were considered three distinct races.

This Arbitrariness is what makes race less genetic and more a Socio-political Construct

 

2 hours ago, Chevdove said:

 

 

Again, this is a huge topic! But in short, as I tried to write some aspects of my research on it a little, this is due to the NEW CREATION of the color BLACK in the first modern human. He is the first and single origin of this 'gene expression'. I meant to come back and CORRECT my statement about it being 'a gene'. The gene is one aspect, and there is a specific gene that produces the pigment EUMELANIN, which is the BLACK PIGMENT.

Furthermore, this eumelanin is firmly linked to 'african hair type'. And since genes tend to travel in pairs, this is the key to your question!

Name this gene that is specifically linked to eumelanin

 

2 hours ago, Chevdove said:

And so, this one African male individual is the origin of it and all modern humans stem from him and have this kind of genetics. 

If All Human are his descendants....then all Humans are African - Yes or No

 

2 hours ago, Chevdove said:

But this gene is completely absent in the primitive humans. 

Therefore the primitive male genetics determines their 'kind' because in reproduction, the absence of this eumelanin will simply NOT be present! 

So, primitive human genes that produce skin color, in reproduction, will show how a female or male from this kind of reproduction is either male or female from that specific origin. And furthermore, females don't have male organs and this too is key.

 

Does this Primitive Human have Pheomelanin...Yes or No

What Primitive human gene is responsible for skin color 

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

I agree about the color 'red' but I have researched this  and know that this term has been debauched and mistranslated with regards to the complete meaning of Adam, the man created by God. This too is a huge topic. And I actually touched upon it when I spoke about the Biblical scriptures about Bay and Grisled horse. I hope to share much more about this topic. But for now, I will briefly say something about this planet earth and how the Bible says the Adam was created from the dust of the earth. When the astronauts bent down as picked up the ground on the moon, they were amazed and said, that it was black. This planet is black. Kemet.

Cool

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

There are minerals in this earth such as iron that causes some parts of the earth to have different color, but this planet is black.

Adam was black and he had red blood running through his veins. But again, there is a lot to this subject of why the name 'Adam' would also be connected to the color red as you have said. 

All humans have this red blood running through our veins, but this planet is black. 

I do not know if all the earth is black but I do know the earth surface differs as you say from place to place....my guess is that the oceans would appear blue and the land mass coverd by trees would appear green

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

You know, I am going to STOP using that term 'Malefactor'! I looked up the definition and WOW. I had no idea!

Yes....evil

Had me wandering if you were a misandrists/feminist..

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

I guess it's true that all mankind are born in sin, but my usage of the term 'malefactor' was not to reference that! 

Maybe I should say 'male individual' or something. I won't be using that word in context anymore for what I have been writing about with regards to the origins of mankind. 

I got your drift anyways.

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

Scientist use many different terms when they speak about primitive humans. For example, 'Denisovan', I think they said, they use that term because they found bones in a cave in Siberia of primitive beings and because there was a hermit in that cave with that name or something, that is the term they used to mark that cave.

Cool just trying to keep things in place....

These denisovans were lacking in Eumelanin? or Melanin altogether?

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

Then the term 'Neanderthal' was used due to an area where they found certain bones, or something. So there are many names used to define primitive hominids in the scientific world. But the Bible uses different terms. 

If you are references a spicific group it is best to label so as to keep all thins in there place....makes it easy to follow a line of thought.

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

The Bible uses terms like 'angel' and then of course 'Satan' and more. 

Are these Angels the Denisovans? or Satan?

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

I never said that there were two different black races. 

Adam is the first that has the gene that produces the Black pigment in humans. Prior to Adam, many animals have this black pigment. But he is the very first human to have it.

 

I got the idea that you were talking about two black races based on the quote below

  On 7/11/2025 at 4:58 PM, Chevdove said:

So technically, there is a Black Race, but but today not humans stem from that human race!!! Why because there were other humans on this earth long before this 

BLACK RACE and the proof is in GENETICS. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

Okay, so you are 'about to get real'!? I could expect that you and other men will get a little upset with me because I don't think that men can take it so well, at first, when a female enters into this kind of topic! LOL. But I hope that you are going to be okay.  

I love when any body is willing to have a discourse ....male or female

[frankster]

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

Okay. I will look at the International Genome Project again, and provide some references. But I will also add another reference and will re-look that up too:

 

The National Smithsonian Museum; Human Origins!

 

There, in that science museum, if you visit, you can see for yourself the many dark skinned primitive humans!

Even though some of them look very dark skinned, almost black, however, they are not black at all. 

What ever statements or pictures you can provide that supports your arguments with links will be well appreciated

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

There is no such presence of a false white 'race' of humans. 

I have no idea about the presence of primitive humans being 'white'.

Primitive humans like the Neanderthals were light skinned and express 'the pale gene' meaning, albinism. 

If Primitive Humans were Albinos then you are saying they had no Melanin...

What then is the pale gene?

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

But according to the Bible there are 'white' beings and completely pure and without blemish. 

The Biblical scriptures explain that 'pure white' skin comes from a black origin though. 

I meant to edit and clarify what I wrote about the 'bay and grisled horse'. The grisled horse is also a bay horse and there is a lot more scriptures about that too. 

Please chapter and verse on the bay and grisled horse and white beings pure without blemish....is Noah one ?

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

Furthermore, this kind of genetics of 'a pure white gene' gene expression is present in the modern human race too, however, due to interbreeding with impure primitive humans, this genetic expression of pure white skin and also that kind of gene, is rare. This type of genetics is also said to be found in colored humans too; it's a kind of gene transfer. Like I said, it is a huge topic. It is part of human reproduction though, but all humans today express some type of gene mutation due to our ancestors. 

IF the white gene is a by product of the mixture of eumelanin and the pale gene then can it be pure?

Or is the the source of albinism?

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

There is no such presence of 'a white race'; It's about White Supremacy. 

There is no such presence of 'a Pale Race'; It's about White Supremacy and Color Supremacy; Colorism.

All modern humans today, whether we are light skinned or dark skinned, Nigerian, or British, we are a manifestation of 

interbreeding. 

So the pure white beings and the white gene and the pale gene has nothing to do with present day humans?

Interbreeding with primitive human caused white skin today?

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

 

The Biblical scripture about the 'Pale Horse' is referring to 'the Bay Horse' a black horse with mutation.

The Pale horse or grisled horse is the embodiment of White Supremacy.

The Pale Horse represents 'albinism'. 

There is no such existence of an albino 'race' of people; people with albinism are either of African descent or European descent, or Asian, etc. 

I know that I have some of those genes in me and I am African American. Anyone can have that recessive trait. 

There is and has never been  no such thing as race genetically?

Is that what you are saying?

We are all of African descent with a mixture of Primitive Humans?

 

how is the pale/grisled horse white supremacy?

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

This is a huge topic.

One prophet, the prophet Zechariah wrote this prophecy. And then other wrote later about the same prophecy that revolves around the issue of White Supremacy and Colorism. Yes, I hope to share more because this is relevant, of course. This whole world is plagued with the issue of White Supremacy and Colorism. 

Please share scripture chapter and verse

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

I will now though, provide a Biblical reference; another Biblical reference and that would be the prophet Job. 

The very first entry in his book is linked to the 'bay and grisled' horse. But here in the Book of Job, the reference would be to the 'bay horse' and specifically not the grisled bay horse. So the prophets reveal that the embodiment of the Bay and Grisled Horse is the Great Adversary. 

 

 

I jumped down to this comment because I am tired and will come back and finish reading the rest, okay.

But, I want to address this and a little more before I take a break:

 

No way. This would not be true even in the scientific world as well as the Bible.

Today, scientist define Neanderthals as being a separate hominid versus the Denisovans of which is their MRCA.

The Neanderthal's Most Recent Common Ancestors are the Denisovans, however, the Neanderthals are distinct. 

The Denisovans are dark skinned, the Neanderthals are not.

The Denisovans produced males but are now extinct. The Neanderthals can be male or female, however, they cannot produce

any Denisovan male offspring!!!

According to you: whenever the Neanderthal and Denisovan intermix they cannot bring a Male offspring - true or false

The denisovan are dark skinned and no longer produce male offspring?

What of the sex of the parents it no longer matters?

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

They became so mutated that they lost that genetic material and therefore, are in a distinct scientific human classification apart from the Denisovan.

Likewise, it would be the same for animals and modern humans too. 

Like I said, through periods of 'sex selection' this kind of mutation can lead to a specific ethnic identity. It has nothing to do with having 

a certain amount of black blood. 

do not follow the above..

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

 

The White Supremacist movement formed many ethnic groups on this very basis. 

Although all modern humans have a common origin, nevertheless, due to certain kinds of movements of sex selective reproduction, many non-African nations exist today. To ignore this leads to great oppression. Calling a racist European, Black, is ridiculous because you would not be doing that to those kind of people, however, this kind of rhetoric is directed towards the victim. That is crazy. Black people need to stop that type of rhetoric towards each other.  

How can non Africans exist....if all modern human is descended from an African?

A racist European is of African descent.

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

I knew that I needed to come back and clarify this!!!

This is a huge topic that I have been hoping to share more about! I hope to start a separate thread though about it, however, I will clarify a little now.

Black African people can express all hair types, but the nation MUST express the phenotype of the Original Adam and Eve to a certain percentage.

In other words, it would be ridiculous for ancient men to bond with a foreign wife with light skin and straight hair and not define his offspring as being like him, African. His offspring would be African, no matter if they have straight, curly, wavy hair, etc. or no matter if they were fair skinned like the mother. 

I could say much more, but again, I will provide references to further explain the Biblical history on this very issue of interbreeding and sex selection due to White Supremacy. 

But I am going to provide a reference right now, one of them, and write more about it later, so that you can go and read it and confirm what I have written about in the meantime; The Book of JOB.

 

The prophet Job had to address this issue of Colorism in a most incredible way. Many Bible scholars believe that his book is one of the most profound.

At any rate, Job was not a Black African man as the Bible attest. However, he married an ethnic woman and his friends attacked viciously for this very reason. He was almost on his deathbed, and they came to badger him because they believed that he was being judged by God for his decision to embrace Black Africans. So although most Black people are sitting around waiting for Europeans to interpret the Bible for them, or either, they have believed the false interpretations byway of White Supremacist, and have rejected the Bible altogether, but that is one of my references!!!

 

Job told his friends that their problem was that they were afraid of the negroes. He told them that he was NOT stupid and he did not embrace the kind of Blacks [Sabeans and Chaldeans] that were evil. Job was mocked because his sons were evil, and his wife was lukewarm. Nevertheless, to the surprise of his friends, Job did not die, but went on to live for many more years. He was blessed through his daughters and one of his descendants came to be a mind blowing awesome 'Black African' man!!! Salah-a-Din! Yes, Saladin, this man of Syria that rose up and had to contend with the Crusaders was known in ancient times as 'Son-of-Job'. 

Chapter and verse please and quote salient verse.

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

Another huge topic, but I will say a little more and offer a 'general reference' for now;

 

According to the scriptures, by the time that Adam was created, the DOMINANT presence of ALL primitive males were completely extinct.

However, by the time that Adam was created, the RECESSIVE presence of primitive males [Hybridization] still exist on this earth!!!

In other words, when I explained about the lion and the tiger species reproducing, I was not complete and they would not be a good example to explain completely what happened to the human world. Perhaps I should throw in the genetics of the cheetah, because the scientific term 'Bottleneck' would explain the human world more complete. 

So, hopefully, I will share more about this topic later to better understand. 

If Adam was just created...

who were the primitive humans intermixing with?

Were there still primitive human females?

Could the primitive human male and the primitive human female bear offspring?

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

 

So then, white people would no more be Neanderthals than I am, and I certainly possess some genes that come from primitive humans. It's simply not a big deal though. It doesn't deter me from being the best human being that I can be. 

 

And so, there is no way that I could have these genes in me, if at one point, the primitive human male was not reproducing. He was definitely reproducing, however, what our educational system has conveniently omitted is how their genes are distinct from modern mankind. This is a vast subject and why I cited the International Genome Project because they conducted gene sequencing and I find that some of their findings confirm the ancient scriptures. 

Yeah genome project please ..

 

1 hour ago, Chevdove said:

 

 

okay. I gotta take a break. 

Yes!

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Yeah I need a spliff....

this has left me thinking

[Chevdove]

On 7/12/2025 at 11:19 PM, frankster said:

Yes...Xenophobia bigotry and prejudice(communitarianism)

but do they have the same meaning and usage as race/racism does today?

 

Yes, pretty much. 

 

On 7/12/2025 at 11:19 PM, frankster said:

On 7/11/2025 at 2:12 PM, Chevdove said:

Therefore 'race' defined as a social construct is definitely genetic-based,

No....

Irish Poles Jews and Italians were not always considered members of the White race...yet their skin was white

Whilst people from Iran Lebanon and Egypt or MENA Descent were consider members of the White race....yet the vast majority of whose skin is brown.

 

All Modern human origins are the same when it comes to male Y-DNA Haplogroups. So this means, both scientifically and Biblically, that all Modern mankind haplogroups begins with one Black African male individual. So, I can understand why you say this. 

 

Just like  the word 'race' again, the word 'White' is not scientifically accurate, however, since the big government has deemed the word to be acceptable, then it's not a big deal. 

 

So even though the word 'Race' is not accurate, again, it is deemed acceptable due to big government and their usage of it on a federal basis. 

 

All White people today that you mentioned, Irish Poles Jews and Italians considered themselves to be of the White race and that is a federal category. Their ethnicity may also be that they identify as an ethnic people or European, etc. but they are regarded by many today as being of the White race if they are European by others, even if some of them may agree or not. When I worked for in a census office, that is what all of those kinds of people you mentioned checked on the federal forms. Most of them, even the European Jews checked White and some may also check, along with the category 'white' as being 'other' and then wrote in that they wee Irish, or European, etc. But nevertheless, they identify as being White; of the White Race. 

 

Further down, you asked me about 'White' again with regards to Primitive mankind, and I will clarify, a little more now;

 

The Biblical 'Pale' horse I will put the reference and clarify more too. 

 

 

 

[Chevdove]

 The Primitive mankind, the Neanderthalensis species, are lighter skinned not completely 'pale' skin.

They are not completely albino at all. Is there such a human that is completely albino? No. 

Neanderthals have variations of phaeomelanin and the pale/albino gene. 

The albino gene is a recessive trait and it is also a disorder. 

Therefore, the original Black human was not albino at all because the eumelanin pigment has nothing to do with this kind of disorder. 

I will try to jump down and quote and try to address a little and then clarify more:

 

On 7/14/2025 at 10:28 PM, frankster said:

If Primitive Humans were Albinos then you are saying they had no Melanin...

What then is the pale gene?

 

The Bible reference to 'the pale gene' is the 'albino gene'.

 

On 7/14/2025 at 10:28 PM, frankster said:

Please chapter and verse on the bay and grisled horse and white beings pure without blemish....is Noah one ?

 

Okay. Noah could not possibly have the albino gene based on scripture because he would be the scientific term of 'Bottleneck' GENESIS and a direct descendant of both Adam and Eve therefore, he would be a perfect reproduction of them and of Seth, etc. He was perfect in his generations. Therefore he would express the eumelanin pigment and be a black man. 

 

And to also speak a little more about what you ask me to clarify what I mentioned about the reference to 'pure white', I will share a little more with this following scriptures about the 'bay and grisled' horse, however, it is a lot, so I will try and share some now and hopefully more later. I only earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology and therefore, I don't believe that I can provide the whole truth about genes and genetics, however, I can share what I know. Also, you asked me about the actual gene that produces the eumelanin, and I was surprised at how easy it was to get this information! I am well aware of how scientist have confirmed so many facts about certain genes and chromosomes, so in the past, I never really bothered to find out the actual gene. But since you asked, I did a quick research. 

 

The gene that produces the Eumelanin/Black pigment is called The MC1R gene.

This gene is located on Chromosome 16 in all Modern humans. 

Now the unique factor about the Afro would come from an additional gene on another chromosome.

The afro texture and other factors about hair texture stems from the LHX2 gene and is partially due to the gene

function about follicles. 

That gene is found to be on Chromosome 9. However, scientist say that it is complex in how African hair is expressed.

Now, the many variations of human pigment is due to other genes. I will put some references. 

 

The Black pigment in hair color is the same gene that is in Black skin and etc. in humans and the animal kingdom too. 

For this reason, it becomes easy to see how White Supremacist have published false reports to form their racist concepts and confuse the world. One of many lies would be that humans with Blue eyes have it because of Black/brown melanin; This is a complete lie because blue eyes stem directly from 'eumelanin' and not brown melanin. Eumelanin is not black and brown, rather, it is just black melanin. Phaeomelanin produces 'red', 'yellow' and 'brown' melanin. A young adult lion does not have brown melanin in his man, but pure black, unless there is the 'pale gene', but not brown. A pure black horse has eumelanin and absolutely no brown or phaeomelanin. 

Today, there is no such human that is completely black skin but they can appear as being black skin meaning phenotype. Due to the Original Sin, therefore, all black skinned people like some people of South Sudan, they express both the black and the brown gene. They express both the eumelanin and the phaeomelanin, but the western scholars put out false reports when they say that the eumelanin is black and brown. No. It's just black pigment. That's all. 

 

The MC1R gene, which plays a significant role in determining

human hair and skin pigmentation, is found on chromosome 16. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_hair#:~:text=African%20American%20hair-,Color,of%20melanin%20pigmentation%20called%20eumelanin.

 

 

 

Redheads typically carry two copies of a mutated version

of the MC1R gene, resulting in reduced production of eumelanin

(responsible for brown and black hair) and increased production of

pheomelanin (responsible for red and yellow tones).May 26, 2024

https://cosmoins.com/the-genetic-mystique-of-redheads-unique-mutations-and-health-implications/#:~:text=Redheads%20typically%20carry%20two%20copies,for%20red%20and%20yellow%20tones).

 

Black hair is the product of an inherited genetic trait. The most studied black hair

gene is MC1R which causes the body to produce a protein called melanocortin. [3]

This protein causes hair follicles to produce a type of melanin pigmentation called eumelanin. [3] … 

 

Black hair has the highest concentration of this pigmentation with

brown, blonde and red hair following behind.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_hair#:~:text=African%20American%20hair-,Color,of%20melanin%20pigmentation%20called%20eumelanin.

 

 

The specific gene versions that lead to textured hair are almost exclusive to Africans.

 

The LHX2 gene is located on chromosome 9 in humans. More specifically,

its human locus is 9q33.3, with coordinates on the forward strand being 124,001,670 to 124,033,301. 

https://answersresearchjournal.org/neanderthal/ancient-dna/#:~:text=A%20histogram%20of%20sequence%20similarity,Mez2%2C%20Elsd%2C%20and%20Spy1.

 

 

 

[Chevdove]

The Prophecy of the Bay & Grisled Horse

 

[1] And I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came four chariots

out from between two mountains; and the mountains were mountains of brass.

[2] In the first chariot were red horses; and in the second chariot black horses;
[3] And in the third chariot white horses; and in the fourth chariot

grisled and bay horses. ZECHARIAH 6:1-3.

 

The prophet Zechariah wrote this before the Jews were overthrown and it became known as 'the Four Horses of the Apocalypse'. He wrote this about 500 years before the rise of the Roman Empire and in the Gospel, when Jesus Christ walked, he said that the Jews attacked Zechariah. I think he was martyred. The prophets warned the Jews that they were going to be overthrown but most of them were powerful warriors and scriptures say that they laughed the prophets to shame because they did not believe them. Anyway, Zechariah was not the only prophet that wrote about this prophecy and it covers a huge subject about White Supremacy and Colorism that has plagued this world. So in order to understand the whole meaning about 'the Pale Horse' in how the prophets revealed the Movement of White Supremacy, other scriptures also need to be addressed so this is just part of it for now. About six (6) hundred years after Zechariah wrote, then John-the-Revelator also wrote and revealed more about this same prophecy in how the horse genetics was related to human genetics about the genetics of skin color and Colorism. By the time that the prophet John wrote his book, the Second Temple was destroyed and Jesus was long gone. John wrote his book about A.D. 90 and revealed more detail about this prophecy.

 

So I can understand why it would seem that there was a contradiction in what I wrote because there is a lot of information in what was written, by and by, and not all was revealed by one prophet. Even long before the prophet Zechariah was born, Solomon wrote about the contention that existed among the Israelites about Colorism and then long before that Moses wrote about it too. So, over thousands of years, more and more was written about issues of Colorism that existed among the human world. So, for now, I will try to share a little because there happens to be a lot of information. 

 

 

[1] And I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came four chariots

out from between two mountains; and the mountains were mountains of brass.
[2] In the first chariot were red horses; and in the second chariot black horses;
[3] And in the third chariot white horses; and in the fourth chariot

grisled and bay horses. ZECHARIAH 6:1-3.

 

[2] And I saw, and behold a white horse: ... 
[4] And there went out another horse that was red: ... 
[5] And I beheld, and lo a black horse; ... 
[8] And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death,

and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth,

to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

REVELATION 6: 2-8.

 

*****My Note: The Bible Concordance links the scriptures. The Bay and Grisled horses are the same as the Pale Horse. 

The Bay and Grisled horse would be linked to the Pale Horse. 

The Bay and Grisled horse genetically are black, however, they can look black or white, etc. 

The bay and grisled horses represent that they are not pure black or white, or other due to albinism/the pale gene. 

The prophet John refers to the 'bay and grisled' horses as the Pale horse [speckled horse] of death and destruction. 

The bay or grisled horse are not pure black and white because of the 'pale gene', however, their black tips reveal that they were originally a black horse.  

The grisled and bay horse [i.e. Gog and Magog] represent  the Pale Horse and would be the embodiment of the Pale Horse.

The grisled and bay horse represent White Supremacy and Colorism; the Roman Empire, the government of the Great Adversary. 

The Pale horses, as the bay horses, originate from the black horse, however, the Pale Horse of John's vision does not come from the Bay horses.  The bay horses, --both the grisled horse and the bay horse are bay horses,--both have black tips and are black horses, however, they are also connected to the Pale horse. But the Black horse and the White horse are not linked to the Pale horse.

 

The Black horse goes to the north first, [Solomon/Israel & the Chaldeans]-- the golden empire-- linked to Jesus Christ

The White horse goes to the north afterwards [the Church, Persians, & the Protestants] and are linked to Jesus Christ

The Bay horse of death and Hell go to the South -- Africa, etc. [the Transatlantic Slave Ship Trade empire; Rome/the Amorites]

 

[6] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,

and Satan came also among them.
[7] And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD,

and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. JOB 1:7.

[7] And the bay went forth, and sought to go that they might walk to and fro through the earth:

and he said, Get you hence, walk to and fro through the earth. So they walked to and fro through the earth.

ZECHARIAH 6:7.

 

 

 

[frankster]

13 hours ago, Chevdove said:

 

Yes, pretty much. 

 

 

All Modern human origins are the same when it comes to male Y-DNA Haplogroups. So this means, both scientifically and Biblically, that all Modern mankind haplogroups begins with one Black African male individual. So, I can understand why you say this. 

 

Just like  the word 'race' again, the word 'White' is not scientifically accurate, however, since the big government has deemed the word to be acceptable, then it's not a big deal. 

 

So even though the word 'Race' is not accurate, again, it is deemed acceptable due to big government and their usage of it on a federal basis. 

 

All White people today that you mentioned, Irish Poles Jews and Italians considered themselves to be of the White race and that is a federal category. Their ethnicity may also be that they identify as an ethnic people or European, etc. but they are regarded by many today as being of the White race if they are European by others, even if some of them may agree or not. When I worked for in a census office, that is what all of those kinds of people you mentioned checked on the federal forms. Most of them, even the European Jews checked White and some may also check, along with the category 'white' as being 'other' and then wrote in that they wee Irish, or European, etc. But nevertheless, they identify as being White; of the White Race. 

 

Further down, you asked me about 'White' again with regards to Primitive mankind, and I will clarify, a little more now;

 

The Biblical 'Pale' horse I will put the reference and clarify more too. 

 

 

 

Today Jews Irish Poles and Italian are considered white.....my point was that was not always the case through out US history

Which proves that the whole idea of race is social and political.

 

12 hours ago, Chevdove said:

 The Primitive mankind, the Neanderthalensis species, are lighter skinned not completely 'pale' skin.

They are not completely albino at all. Is there such a human that is completely albino? No. 

Neanderthals have variations of phaeomelanin and the pale/albino gene. 

The albino gene is a recessive trait and it is also a disorder. 

Therefore, the original Black human was not albino at all because the eumelanin pigment has nothing to do with this kind of disorder. 

I will try to jump down and quote and try to address a little and then clarify more:

 

 

The Bible reference to 'the pale gene' is the 'albino gene'.

 

 

Okay. Noah could not possibly have the albino gene based on scripture because he would be the scientific term of 'Bottleneck' GENESIS and a direct descendant of both Adam and Eve therefore, he would be a perfect reproduction of them and of Seth, etc. He was perfect in his generations. Therefore he would express the eumelanin pigment and be a black man. 

 

And to also speak a little more about what you ask me to clarify what I mentioned about the reference to 'pure white', I will share a little more with this following scriptures about the 'bay and grisled' horse, however, it is a lot, so I will try and share some now and hopefully more later. I only earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology and therefore, I don't believe that I can provide the whole truth about genes and genetics, however, I can share what I know. Also, you asked me about the actual gene that produces the eumelanin, and I was surprised at how easy it was to get this information! I am well aware of how scientist have confirmed so many facts about certain genes and chromosomes, so in the past, I never really bothered to find out the actual gene. But since you asked, I did a quick research. 

 

The gene that produces the Eumelanin/Black pigment is called The MC1R gene.

This gene is located on Chromosome 16 in all Modern humans. 

Now the unique factor about the Afro would come from an additional gene on another chromosome.

The afro texture and other factors about hair texture stems from the LHX2 gene and is partially due to the gene

function about follicles. 

That gene is found to be on Chromosome 9. However, scientist say that it is complex in how African hair is expressed.

Now, the many variations of human pigment is due to other genes. I will put some references. 

 

The Black pigment in hair color is the same gene that is in Black skin and etc. in humans and the animal kingdom too. 

For this reason, it becomes easy to see how White Supremacist have published false reports to form their racist concepts and confuse the world. One of many lies would be that humans with Blue eyes have it because of Black/brown melanin; This is a complete lie because blue eyes stem directly from 'eumelanin' and not brown melanin. Eumelanin is not black and brown, rather, it is just black melanin. Phaeomelanin produces 'red', 'yellow' and 'brown' melanin. A young adult lion does not have brown melanin in his man, but pure black, unless there is the 'pale gene', but not brown. A pure black horse has eumelanin and absolutely no brown or phaeomelanin. 

Today, there is no such human that is completely black skin but they can appear as being black skin meaning phenotype. Due to the Original Sin, therefore, all black skinned people like some people of South Sudan, they express both the black and the brown gene. They express both the eumelanin and the phaeomelanin, but the western scholars put out false reports when they say that the eumelanin is black and brown. No. It's just black pigment. That's all. 

 

The MC1R gene, which plays a significant role in determining

human hair and skin pigmentation, is found on chromosome 16. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_hair#:~:text=African%20American%20hair-,Color,of%20melanin%20pigmentation%20called%20eumelanin.

 

 

 

Redheads typically carry two copies of a mutated version

of the MC1R gene, resulting in reduced production of eumelanin

(responsible for brown and black hair) and increased production of

pheomelanin (responsible for red and yellow tones).May 26, 2024

https://cosmoins.com/the-genetic-mystique-of-redheads-unique-mutations-and-health-implications/#:~:text=Redheads%20typically%20carry%20two%20copies,for%20red%20and%20yellow%20tones).

 

Black hair is the product of an inherited genetic trait. The most studied black hair

gene is MC1R which causes the body to produce a protein called melanocortin. [3]

This protein causes hair follicles to produce a type of melanin pigmentation called eumelanin. [3] … 

 

Black hair has the highest concentration of this pigmentation with

brown, blonde and red hair following behind.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_hair#:~:text=African%20American%20hair-,Color,of%20melanin%20pigmentation%20called%20eumelanin.

 

 

The specific gene versions that lead to textured hair are almost exclusive to Africans.

 

The LHX2 gene is located on chromosome 9 in humans. More specifically,

its human locus is 9q33.3, with coordinates on the forward strand being 124,001,670 to 124,033,301. 

https://answersresearchjournal.org/neanderthal/ancient-dna/#:~:text=A%20histogram%20of%20sequence%20similarity,Mez2%2C%20Elsd%2C%20and%20Spy1.

 

 

 

So you use the  term "Almost Exclusive" means ??

In other words the LHX2 genes is not exclusive to or limited to African ethnicities alone...

 

9 hours ago, Chevdove said:

The Prophecy of the Bay & Grisled Horse

 

[1] And I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came four chariots

out from between two mountains; and the mountains were mountains of brass.

[2] In the first chariot were red horses; and in the second chariot black horses;
[3] And in the third chariot white horses; and in the fourth chariot

grisled and bay horses. ZECHARIAH 6:1-3.

 

The prophet Zechariah wrote this before the Jews were overthrown and it became known as 'the Four Horses of the Apocalypse'. He wrote this about 500 years before the rise of the Roman Empire and in the Gospel, when Jesus Christ walked, he said that the Jews attacked Zechariah. I think he was martyred. The prophets warned the Jews that they were going to be overthrown but most of them were powerful warriors and scriptures say that they laughed the prophets to shame because they did not believe them. Anyway, Zechariah was not the only prophet that wrote about this prophecy and it covers a huge subject about White Supremacy and Colorism that has plagued this world. So in order to understand the whole meaning about 'the Pale Horse' in how the prophets revealed the Movement of White Supremacy, other scriptures also need to be addressed so this is just part of it for now. About six (6) hundred years after Zechariah wrote, then John-the-Revelator also wrote and revealed more about this same prophecy in how the horse genetics was related to human genetics about the genetics of skin color and Colorism. By the time that the prophet John wrote his book, the Second Temple was destroyed and Jesus was long gone. John wrote his book about A.D. 90 and revealed more detail about this prophecy.

 

So I can understand why it would seem that there was a contradiction in what I wrote because there is a lot of information in what was written, by and by, and not all was revealed by one prophet. Even long before the prophet Zechariah was born, Solomon wrote about the contention that existed among the Israelites about Colorism and then long before that Moses wrote about it too. So, over thousands of years, more and more was written about issues of Colorism that existed among the human world. So, for now, I will try to share a little because there happens to be a lot of information. 

 

 

[1] And I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came four chariots

out from between two mountains; and the mountains were mountains of brass.
[2] In the first chariot were red horses; and in the second chariot black horses;
[3] And in the third chariot white horses; and in the fourth chariot

grisled and bay horses. ZECHARIAH 6:1-3.

 

[2] And I saw, and behold a white horse: ... 
[4] And there went out another horse that was red: ... 
[5] And I beheld, and lo a black horse; ... 
[8] And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death,

and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth,

to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

REVELATION 6: 2-8.

 

*****My Note: The Bible Concordance links the scriptures. The Bay and Grisled horses are the same as the Pale Horse. 

The Bay and Grisled horse would be linked to the Pale Horse. 

The Bay and Grisled horse genetically are black, however, they can look black or white, etc. 

The bay and grisled horses represent that they are not pure black or white, or other due to albinism/the pale gene. 

The prophet John refers to the 'bay and grisled' horses as the Pale horse [speckled horse] of death and destruction. 

The bay or grisled horse are not pure black and white because of the 'pale gene', however, their black tips reveal that they were originally a black horse.  

The grisled and bay horse [i.e. Gog and Magog] represent  the Pale Horse and would be the embodiment of the Pale Horse.

The grisled and bay horse represent White Supremacy and Colorism; the Roman Empire, the government of the Great Adversary. 

The Pale horses, as the bay horses, originate from the black horse, however, the Pale Horse of John's vision does not come from the Bay horses.  The bay horses, --both the grisled horse and the bay horse are bay horses,--both have black tips and are black horses, however, they are also connected to the Pale horse. But the Black horse and the White horse are not linked to the Pale horse.

 

The Black horse goes to the north first, [Solomon/Israel & the Chaldeans]-- the golden empire-- linked to Jesus Christ

The White horse goes to the north afterwards [the Church, Persians, & the Protestants] and are linked to Jesus Christ

The Bay horse of death and Hell go to the South -- Africa, etc. [the Transatlantic Slave Ship Trade empire; Rome/the Amorites]

 

[6] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,

and Satan came also among them.
[7] And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD,

and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. JOB 1:7.

[7] And the bay went forth, and sought to go that they might walk to and fro through the earth:

and he said, Get you hence, walk to and fro through the earth. So they walked to and fro through the earth.

ZECHARIAH 6:7.

I can not see how you connect race(as a social construct) and genetics with spiritual prophecies

[Pioneer1]

Uh oh.........

My girl Chevdove done pulled up and stepped in the house????

I think I'm going to sit down on the couch, mute the television, and watch THIS one.....lol.

Let me go get some of that sugary Ice Tea if them kids ain't drank it all.
I got some left-over Popeye's from last night I think I'm go warm up.

[Chevdove]

10 hours ago, frankster said:

Today Jews Irish Poles and Italian are considered white.....my point was that was not always the case through out US history

Which proves that the whole idea of race is social and political.

 

Oh. Okay.

 

10 hours ago, frankster said:

So you use the  term "Almost Exclusive" means ??

In other words the LHX2 genes is not exclusive to or limited to African ethnicities alone...

 

No, that was not me. That was just one part of the reference and scientific explanation. To clarify, I will have to re-post that reference and then perhaps share more of what the scientist have found out about that specific LHX2 gene, because there is much more about it. 

 

That gene is just one aspect of how Black African hair is made to 'nap' and they explain that there is much more genes and proteins that they do not understand right now in how African hair naps or locks. So the LHX2 gene is part of all humans and has something to do with follicles in all humans and even animals too. But African hair is specifically unique and this gene is one factor out of several others that scientist have not been able to understand. Some human follicles are circular shaped and I think African follicles are said to be more oval and so, this may just one of many other factors that make African hair unique. I say this; It is the SEAL of the Living God in the forehead. Scientist are probably not ever going to find out. lol.  

[Chevdove]

 

"I can not see how you connect race(as a social construct) and genetics with spiritual prophecies"

 

Ok. Wait-a-minute. I did not write this scripture. It was written thousands of years ago.

 

So, it is not about me but the prophet wrote about the genetics of color in reference to horses and he also wrote about the spirit of the horses in connection to their color. In other words, the Bay horses had 'an evil spirit'. So therefore, he definitely connected the issue of 'race' and 'racism' to the issue of color and spirit. 

 

Like I said, the prophet who wrote this prophecy initially, Zechariah, was hated so much by those stupid watered down Jews, for his writings, that they killed him for this prophecy about White Supremacy and Colorism. Then those idiots were completely overthrown by the Chaldees [Blacks]. So, if you cannot recognize that this 'spiritual' prophecy refers to the specific COLORS of the horses for a reason, that caused those stupid Jews to get upset, then what in the world do you think he wrote this 'spiritual' prophecy down for? 

 

The prophecy of 'the four horses of the apocalypse' became a powerful prophecy. But western scholars that are deceptive definitely do not reveal the real reason why it became such a major prophecy. Their hatred of 'Blackness' has caused them to debauch their interpretation to the point of being ridiculous. Even though, in this prophecy, the Black horse and chariot is defined as being completely positive, these western White Supremacists stumble over this aspect of the prophecy and misinterpret it. I can see though, how many African Americans have been made to completely misunderstand the real issues that the ancient prophets wrote about, but we need to re-look at these ancient scriptures because stuff is happening today and we are definitely living in the end end end times...

 

So now, the prophet Zechariah lived about 400 years after Solomon was dead and gone and, Solomon wrote that 'the Greatest Beloved' which is Jesus Christ was going to be 'ruddy' and have 'black hair'. And Solomon's father, David was defined to be 'Ruddy'.  But now, these crazy White people cast Richard Gere as being David-- lol. So therefore, after they carried millions of little African American children across the ocean from AFrica, we don't have any idea what those Devils did in deceiving us about the true identity of what the prophets wrote about. Therefore, Zechariah's prophecy of 'the Bay Horse' which means 'A RED HORSE' could possibly helps us to understand the issues of Colorism that has plagued the human 'Race'. We may be able to understand, through studying about the 'Bay HOrse' genetics that 'a bay horse' could actually appear to be a light skinned horse or even a dark skinned horse, so dark that the horse could actually appear to be black. And then we could understand why Solomon wrote about 'the color Black' as well and how the issues of Colorism was a contention even during his lifetime. We could also understand too, that David could not possibly look like a White man, or a Pole, or a European Jew, or Irish, because his sons were written to have NAPPY [i.e. Bushy] hair-type--Ya know! lol. 

-- Chromosome 16 and Chromosone 9, etc. Therefore no matter what, the Ruddy color and the hair type written about in scripture means that David couldn't possibly look like Richard Gere, a non-African man. Identity Theft is a reality. This would be why the book of GENES is crucial to understand. The Bible is much more than a book about historical events. There is definitely a spiritual aspect to this prophecy, especially when you consider the spirit of horses. Nevertheless, the reference to White Supremacy, Colorism, and the rise of the Roman Empire would be a major revelation in this prophecy. Those Jews did not attack Zechariah because he wrote about a spiritual awareness. lol. So, again though, I can understand why there would be a misunderstanding here, but hopefully, the truth about what happened in ancient times will come out. The prophet Daniel wrote that by and by, knowledge will increase and some will become wise but some people will never understand. 

 

[Chevdove]

 

The Genetics of the Bay Horse

 

 

Bay is a hair coat color of horses, characterized by a reddish-brown or brown

body color with a black point coloration on the mane, tail, ear edges, and lower

legs. Bay is one of the most common coat colors in many horse breeds. ... 

 

The black areas of a bay horse's hair coat are called "black points", and without

them, a horse is not a bay horse. ... 

 

 

Bay horses have black skin and dark eyes, except for the skin under markings,

which is pink. Skin color can help an observer distinguish between a bay horse

with white markings and a horse which resembles bay but is not. ...

 

 

…Therefore, "brown" can be an ambiguous term for describing horse coat color.

It is clearer to refer to dark-colored horses as dark bays or liver chestnuts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_(horse)

 

 

 

 

Dark bay/ black bay

By Montanabw - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0,

Purebred Arabian stallion Maclintock V (Desperado V x Marigold V) 

A very dark bay horse might appear to be almost black

 

 

 

Country Berry Bay Horse 

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/2111131052534029/ 

 

 

 

A Dapple [Grisled/Speckled] Bay Horse

https://horserookie.com/dapples-on-a-horse/

 

 

 

 

Dapple [Grisled] Horse 
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/AYYU2Z76hKIsv7nB-VrUV8dNJKBnztKTayvcdqCkFXP4VgyIBNqr7ho/

 

[frankster]

3 hours ago, Chevdove said:

 

Oh. Okay.

 

 

No, that was not me. That was just one part of the reference and scientific explanation. To clarify, I will have to re-post that reference and then perhaps share more of what the scientist have found out about that specific LHX2 gene, because there is much more about it. 

 

That gene is just one aspect of how Black African hair is made to 'nap' and they explain that there is much more genes and proteins that they do not understand right now in how African hair naps or locks. So the LHX2 gene is part of all humans and has something to do with follicles in all humans and even animals too. But African hair is specifically unique and this gene is one factor out of several others that scientist have not been able to understand. Some human follicles are circular shaped and I think African follicles are said to be more oval and so, this may just one of many other factors that make African hair unique. I say this; It is the SEAL of the Living God in the forehead. Scientist are probably not ever going to find out. lol.  

cool

Awaiting more info

 

 

2 hours ago, Chevdove said:

 

"I can not see how you connect race(as a social construct) and genetics with spiritual prophecies"

 

Ok. Wait-a-minute. I did not write this scripture. It was written thousands of years ago.

 

So, it is not about me but the prophet wrote about the genetics of color in reference to horses and he also wrote about the spirit of the horses in connection to their color. In other words, the Bay horses had 'an evil spirit'. So therefore, he definitely connected the issue of 'race' and 'racism' to the issue of color and spirit. 

 

Like I said, the prophet who wrote this prophecy initially, Zechariah, was hated so much by those stupid watered down Jews, for his writings, that they killed him for this prophecy about White Supremacy and Colorism. Then those idiots were completely overthrown by the Chaldees [Blacks]. So, if you cannot recognize that this 'spiritual' prophecy refers to the specific COLORS of the horses for a reason, that caused those stupid Jews to get upset, then what in the world do you think he wrote this 'spiritual' prophecy down for? 

 

The prophecy of 'the four horses of the apocalypse' became a powerful prophecy. But western scholars that are deceptive definitely do not reveal the real reason why it became such a major prophecy. Their hatred of 'Blackness' has caused them to debauch their interpretation to the point of being ridiculous. Even though, in this prophecy, the Black horse and chariot is defined as being completely positive, these western White Supremacists stumble over this aspect of the prophecy and misinterpret it. I can see though, how many African Americans have been made to completely misunderstand the real issues that the ancient prophets wrote about, but we need to re-look at these ancient scriptures because stuff is happening today and we are definitely living in the end end end times...

I would love to believe....but I do need more convincing arguments

 

 

2 hours ago, Chevdove said:

So now, the prophet Zechariah lived about 400 years after Solomon was dead and gone and, Solomon wrote that 'the Greatest Beloved' which is Jesus Christ was going to be 'ruddy' and have 'black hair'. And Solomon's father, David was defined to be 'Ruddy'.  But now, these crazy White people cast Richard Gere as being David-- lol.

I consider the man Called Jesus Christ to be Black skin (burnt brass) and woolly hair(white like lambs wool).

 

2 hours ago, Chevdove said:

So therefore, after they carried millions of little African American children across the ocean from AFrica, we don't have any idea what those Devils did in deceiving us about the true identity of what the prophets wrote about. Therefore, Zechariah's prophecy of 'the Bay Horse' which means 'A RED HORSE' could possibly helps us to understand the issues of Colorism that has plagued the human 'Race'. We may be able to understand, through studying about the 'Bay HOrse' genetics that 'a bay horse' could actually appear to be a light skinned horse or even a dark skinned horse, so dark that the horse could actually appear to be black. And then we could understand why Solomon wrote about 'the color Black' as well and how the issues of Colorism was a contention even during his lifetime. We could also understand too, that David could not possibly look like a White man, or a Pole, or a European Jew, or Irish, because his sons were written to have NAPPY [i.e. Bushy] hair-type--Ya know! lol. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Chevdove said:

-- Chromosome 16 and Chromosone 9, etc. Therefore no matter what, the Ruddy color and the hair type written about in scripture means that David couldn't possibly look like Richard Gere, a non-African man. Identity Theft is a reality. This would be why the book of GENES is crucial to understand. The Bible is much more than a book about historical events. There is definitely a spiritual aspect to this prophecy, especially when you consider the spirit of horses. Nevertheless, the reference to White Supremacy, Colorism, and the rise of the Roman Empire would be a major revelation in this prophecy. Those Jews did not attack Zechariah because he wrote about a spiritual awareness. lol. So, again though, I can understand why there would be a misunderstanding here, but hopefully, the truth about what happened in ancient times will come out. The prophet Daniel wrote that by and by, knowledge will increase and some will become wise but some people will never understand. 

 

I think Zechariah was addressing an spiritual loss of integrity among the people or social injustice....that is the aspect I am seeing and agreeing with you on...

I know it has nothing to do with racism...

Not sure how much of a role colorism and or xenophobia plays....

 

 

2 hours ago, Chevdove said:

 

The Genetics of the Bay Horse

 

 

Bay is a hair coat color of horses, characterized by a reddish-brown or brown

body color with a black point coloration on the mane, tail, ear edges, and lower

legs. Bay is one of the most common coat colors in many horse breeds. ... 

 

The black areas of a bay horse's hair coat are called "black points", and without

them, a horse is not a bay horse. ... 

 

 

Bay horses have black skin and dark eyes, except for the skin under markings,

which is pink. Skin color can help an observer distinguish between a bay horse

with white markings and a horse which resembles bay but is not. ...

 

 

…Therefore, "brown" can be an ambiguous term for describing horse coat color.

It is clearer to refer to dark-colored horses as dark bays or liver chestnuts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_(horse)

 

 

 

 

Dark bay/ black bay

By Montanabw - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0,

Purebred Arabian stallion Maclintock V (Desperado V x Marigold V) 

A very dark bay horse might appear to be almost black

 

 

 

Country Berry Bay Horse 

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/2111131052534029/ 

 

 

 

A Dapple [Grisled/Speckled] Bay Horse

https://horserookie.com/dapples-on-a-horse/

 

 

 

 

Dapple [Grisled] Horse 
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/AYYU2Z76hKIsv7nB-VrUV8dNJKBnztKTayvcdqCkFXP4VgyIBNqr7ho/

 

 

Thank you .....horse or great creatures

[Troy]

The only problem @Chevdove, and it is a big one: humans are not horses our genetics are different.  There are hundreds of breeds of horses while the concept of breed does not apply to human.  Differences of hair and skin colors of horses of the same breed that does not alter their breed.

 

Let me know when you get a chance to share the information from Stanford regarding different human races.

 

Also, all humans Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, and Denisovans are all from Africa evolving long after the continent we know today formed.

 

 

[Pioneer1]

frankster

We've already agreed....based on the actual DEFINITION of race....that nearly ANY difference among human beings can be a basis for racial classification

-skin color (genetic)
-language 
-even profession

According to definition, nearly ANYTHING that distinguishes one group of humans from another can be considered their race or racial classification depending on how society chooses to define it or "construct" it.

So what is the argument about????

Race can be based on skin color as easily as nose shape or hair texture.....all genetically based; depending on what that particular society CHOOSES to base their racial classification system on.

So why WOULDN'T race have a genetic basis?

 

[richardmurray]

@Pioneer1 @frankster @Chevdove 

what is it either of you want with this issue? I notice with the activities list this topic has gone on and on, you each continually reiterate your positions to each other. What is it either of you want? Do either of you want to convince the other two, proselytize? Or do you either of you love the banter? 

 

[Pioneer1]

1 hour ago, richardmurray said:

Or do you either of you love the banter?