Jump to content
Azacotogan

Salawa (karma) in Vodun and it's ramification for maroons part 1

Recommended Posts

Kareem



They also want to further connect black and LGBTP.


Brother you don't know how ON POINT you are with this statement.
Did you see where they used BILLY PORTER (they're using that clown for a lot nowadays) to give some buffoonish State of the LGBT Address?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g18Z81h8-3A

 


I have deep connections with Indians. And I call them that because most are proud and/or at least ok with that word.


I've noticed the same thing with most of the ones I've talked to. They would RATHER be called Indians regardless as to the origin of the name. I think it's their way of rebelling against the politically correct establishment's labeling them "Native American" rather than them choosing their own name to describe the entire group.
 

 

 

 

I went up to Standing Rock during all that crazy shit three years ago. Oglala Sioux land. It was twenty below everyday up in North Dakota. But yeah. Interesting being in the middle of the "Indian" vs. "Mexican" thing down in Arizona. That's a long story.


Man, has it been 3 years????
Time is flying.
You said "Indian vs Mexican" down there, and I know you said it was a long story but I'm interested in what type of beef they're having with eachother?
You know most Mexicans are part Indian themselves, so I'm curious as to the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2020 at 8:37 AM, Kareem said:

Bring @Troy with you so you, I and @Chevdove can snap the brother out of his "they wouldn't do that to us" mentality! 😊

 

@Kareem I saw this comment back in January 31, when you posted but, I have just now returned. I wanted to 

comment back then, but now that I've returned, I see that there is a whole lot of dialogue between you and Pioneer

on other subjects that has clouded my initial intention to respond to what was the earlier topic. So, because you tagged me, and

I have read some of the dialogue, I am passionate to respond to some of the comments.

Although I can see that you directed your questions and statements to Pioneer and on some of this topic, I have been in a debate 

with Pioneer and we have disagreed, I want you to know that I understand that this dialogue does not include me. Nevertheless,

I still want to comment on some of what was stated about the topic addressed.

Some where earlier, you address the subject of 'CAUCASIAN ORIGINS' to @Pioneer1 and so, I am going to go

back and interject and throw my findings in on this topic because I am passionate about this topic as it relates to

Black origins and how we today, all over the world, have been influenced by this subject.

I read over some of the dialogue and IMO, some of the conclusions seem vague and opinionated, so, I too want to give my opinions

based on my experiences as a Black AFrican American on the  subject of how 'Caucasian people' have influenced me.

 

On 1/25/2020 at 8:01 PM, Kareem said:

Since you called them "Jews,"

 

On 1/25/2020 at 8:01 PM, Kareem said:

I assume you're talking about the Ashkenazis from Genesis 10:3-5, that is only in the King James Bible and eliminated from the other versions.

 

So here, @Kareem You addressed this comment to Pioneer in his definition of CAUCASIANS being JEWS. And you reference the KJV of the Bible. Then Pioneer responded [paraphrasing] that there are different kinds of CAUCASIANS and that the JEWS are just one branch of CAUCASIAN:

 

On 1/25/2020 at 9:53 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Yes sir, but not just Europeans but ALL Caucasians....including Iranians, Arabs, northern Indians, ect.
Europeans are just one branch of the Caucasian race.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I agree with what you said, partially, in that, 

 

"The Israelis today claim to be Ashkenazis and the chosen people of God.  But their own Torah (Old Testament) says they are "gentiles" in those aforementioned verses 

You mind talking more about our journeys into the Caucasus?

. I'm trying to draw a timeline to understand this better."

 

Pioneers definition of CAUCASIAN absolutely fits today's world, but it is also completely admitted by scholars today, in that the term for White Europeans in these modern times as being CAUCASIAN stems from a movement. This term revolves around 'a racial construct', from what I can see but this term originally did not apply to White people. I think one of the best examples in this movement may from my research might be understood with a comparison to another term. 

 

What do you think about or imagine when you hear the term to refer to SOUTH AFRICANS?

 

Today, we know that this term CAN apply to White Europeans who have been a part of South African for many decades since the Colonial times, however, the ORIGINAL SOUTH AFRICANS still exist in South Africa amongst these White 'SOUTH AFRICANS'. The origins of the White 'SOUTH AFRICANS' does NOT directly stem from all of the White Europeans intermixing 'sexually' with these Africans, but they migrated down into South Africa and dominated over the original South Africans. This modern RACIAL CONSTRUCT OF TODAY'S 'SOUTH AFRICANS' [White] would absolutely not define their origins as steming directly from sexual selection with the Black indigenous South Africans who also came to be in South Africa at a much earlier time.

 

 

 

 

 

So, the origins of the ORIGINAL CAUCASIANS becomes relative to a certain time period in how they came to exist and then yes, intermix with White people who now are called CAUCASIANS. But as PIoneer did reply, he does not really believe this process in the way that I have explained it, however, he does contradict himself, IMO, but he won't admit it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2020 at 8:01 PM, Kareem said:

You mind talking more about our journeys into the Caucasus? This is something that piques my interest. I've heard Minister Farrakhan talk about this, and read some of Elijah Muhammad's writings on this. I'm trying to draw a timeline to understand this better.

 

@Kareem you posed that question and Pioneer addressed it [paraphrasing]:

 

He is saying some Caucasians look African-ish, Black-ish because of White Caucasian women were intermixed with BLACK AFRICAN MEN—but where and when did this happen? At the time of Moses? 

Pioneers time period reference is "in the cave-man days of the Caucasian"

 

 

However, ‘cave-man days’ would be way before the time of Moses and the term ‘Caucasian’ is not used to define the caveman period.

Pioneer said:

 

"I used to believe the original Jews were Black… Original Jews were for the most part Caucasians.
 

However, the Biblical timeline for the Original Jews stem from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob [Israel], and then Judah and some of his brothers. At this time period, between 2000 BC to 1800s BC the term Caucasian would not define the Jews at all.

 

@Pioneer1 says:

 

"Now the original HEBREWS were/are African and they still exist as the Ibo tribe in Nigeria." And, then,

"But Jews and Hebrews aren't the same."

 

 This is extremely misleading. The very definition of their origins stipulates that they are the same in their original formations.

The Jews are also defined as the original Hebrews and it was more than a thousand years since their cultural origins that their was a division and then more than thousands of years later after that the Ibo people of Africa became defined for a significant JEW PRESENCE. I can understand this aspect of the Ibo as one of my ancestors was stolen from this area of the Slave Coast in West Africa. But these Jews presence was not known until some time after the downfall of the Ghana Empire. 

 

14 minutes ago, Chevdove said:

do

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pioneer says: [paraphrazing]:

 

--Central Asia and that's why that mountain region is called the "Caucasus mountains".

-- Great walls and other barriers were built to keep them in.

-- They stayed in that condition for 2,000 years and turned into straight savages and then Moses and a crew was sent up from Kemet (ancient Egypt) to civilize them

 ---4000 B.C. Caucasians come into existence
-2000 B.C. Moses and his men are sent up to civilize them
 

Moses was not born at this time. Moses would not be born until hundreds of years later after 2000 BC. Also, the Caucasus mountains and 'CENTRAL ASIA' are two different geographic areas. I don't even know how to address the thought that people would be confined behind a wall for 2000 years with no contact with other civilizations all around them.

 

@Pioneer1 said: [paraphrasing]:

 

 

-1500 B.C. after a few centuries of being civilized and organized they began to leave the mountains and conquere the rest of the world like Sumer, India, and Africa and eventually the Americas and Australia.

 

1500 BC, -- By this time Sumer had already been conquered hundredds of years prior. India being conquered--What a thought?

 

@Kareem You said, "I don't know if you meant to open this Pandora's Box. But what do you mean "c[a]me into existence?"

 

and then PIoneer stated "Yes sir, I believe they were MADE from our people through a process of selective breeding.
 

So, the origin of CAUCASIANS are then BLACK AFRICAN. But somehow, they BE-CAME into existence and were WHITE. That means that THE ORIGINAL CAUCASIANS WERE BLACK AFRICAN.

Pioneer: "... but were made from the Dravidic (south Indian) branch."

 

So then not all YDNA stems from African origins? And Pioneer goes against the scientist of today that make this scientific claim of one origin for YDNA--Black Africa?  Pioneer states that 'Dravidic Indians and Caucasians are originally DARK BROWN MEN with their own YDNA with no origins from BLACK AFRICA.'

 

So, the historical records all over India today about their ancient BLACK, straight haired Indians are wrong? Their ancient scripts  and Art form of carvings and depictions of BLACK East INDIANS are a mistake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, okay, there is so much more to this dialogue, but what I saw later was that both you and Pioneer began to talk about END TIMES:

 

"but why they were allowed to rule"

 

"AND why they are STILL ruling despite various dates

that claimed that their time of rulership was supposed to be up."
"--I've heard that their time was up in 1914.
I've heard their world or THE world was supposed to end in the year 2000 or before 2000.
Then I heard 2012 was the Mayan prophecy for the old world to fall and a new one to rise. ..."

--" And when will their rule REALLY come to an end?
Those are the questions that have been on my mind for years."

 

 

Aha! So there is a half-belief in Biblical prophecy. This then seems like a CONTRADICTION. 

So, there is a hope that this all powerful DIVINE POWER will get rid of White Supremacy and/or White people that 'WE CREATED'? So now, 'do we' want to get rid of them, and live happily ever after in an all-Black world—completely void of White people?

 

Okay, this would be one of the last dramatic points that I read from you @Pioneer1:

 

 

"...It appears that there seems to be a certain "type" of AfroAmerican or African in general that Caucasians can't seem to even touch let alone harm no matter how hard they try. We've all met these type of people who seem to be able to get away with doing or saying anything…"

 

I agree with KAREEM in that some of the Blacks that are protected to further the cause of White Supremacy will also be abandoned or attacked, based on the relativity of the issue. Bill lCosby was never a threat until a certain point that many White females became victims. Then his ‘Black righteous movement’ was thrown down. But up until that point, he was secretly supporting White Supremacy. They knew he had a fetish for White women, but when he began to oppress these women and abused them so badly…, then the government dropped him. Again you said:

 

 why The Divine protects them to such an extent that they are never harmed

 

Pioneer, LOL. YOU ARE DOING JUST FINE! You just keep on speaking against Jesus and the Jews ‘NOT BEING ORIGINALLY BLACK’ and SOLOMON being White Caucasian and no White person will ever bother you! You’ve found the secret to success in America, you are on your way to making big bucks! LOL. But the fella that started this thread may have you beat on that score. LIke you, he stated that all of the Hebrew Israelites of ancient script are mythological. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chev

Black Rob said  "Whoa"  .....lol.

I'm glad I decided to check in and see what was going on in here after days (weeks?) of my focus being elsewhere with all of this "corona" shit jumping off.

You certainly gave me a lot to respond to but I'm wrapping things up for tonight and don't have the time to give your posts the response they deserve so it may take a few days. 

Glad to read from you again, btw.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2020 at 9:36 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Black Rob said  "Whoa"  .....lol.

 

LOL!

 

On 3/13/2020 at 9:36 PM, Pioneer1 said:

I'm glad I decided to check in and see what was going on in here after days (weeks?) of my focus being elsewhere with all of this "corona" shit jumping off.

 

Well, I am glad you checked in!

 

On 3/13/2020 at 9:36 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Glad to read from you again, btw.

 

@Pioneer1 Thank you! That means a lot to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chev

 


But as PIoneer did reply, he does not really believe this process in the way that I have explained it, however, he does contradict himself, IMO, but he won't admit it.


How so?
.....do tell.

 

 

 


However, ‘cave-man days’ would be way before the time of Moses and the term ‘Caucasian’ is not used to define the caveman period.


The "cave-man days" would be cira 4000 B.C. - 2000 B.C or about the time frame between the Caucasians being driven into the Caucasus mountains (around 4000 B.C.) AND Moses being sent up to civilize them (around 2000 B.C.).
If you research the history of that area BETWEEN those two time periods I just gave you, you will find Caucasians primarily living a life of savagery, violence, sheltering themselves in caves and mountains.  In other words, living a "cave man" life.

 

 

 

 

However, the Biblical timeline for the Original Jews stem from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob [Israel], and then Judah and some of his brothers. At this time period, between 2000 BC to 1800s BC the term Caucasian would not define the Jews at all.


You're right that this is the BIBLICAL timeline, but like much of what is in the Bible...this isn't necessarily factual. The very EXISTENCE of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are called into question let alone the time periods they allegedly lived in.

 

 

 

 

This is extremely misleading. The very definition of their origins stipulates that they are the same in their original formations.

The Jews are also defined as the original Hebrews


Are you SURE about this sis?

In the biblical Book of Esther chapter 8 vs 17 we read:

"
And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them."

It says that some people BECAME Jews...clearly implying that they weren't Jews to begin with.
Surely these people who CONVERTED to being Jews aren't from the same original Hebrew stock you speak of.

 

 

 

 

Also, the Caucasus mountains and 'CENTRAL ASIA' are two different geographic areas
 

How can this be when the Caucasus mountains are IN Central Asia?
That's like saying Watts and Los Angeles are in two different geographical areas when one lays within the boundaries of the other.



 

So, the origin of CAUCASIANS are then BLACK AFRICAN. But somehow, they BE-CAME into existence and were WHITE. That means that THE ORIGINAL CAUCASIANS WERE BLACK AFRICAN.
 

No.
First of all there is no such thing as "Original Caucasians"...it's a contradiction of terms.
If they are Caucasian then they CAN'T be original.
And as I said before, the Caucasians were made from the Black ASIAN (Dravidian) not the Black African.

 

 

 

 

Pioneer states that 'Dravidic Indians and Caucasians are originally DARK BROWN MEN with their own YDNA with no origins from BLACK AFRICA.'

So, the historical records all over India today about their ancient BLACK, straight haired Indians are wrong? Their ancient scripts and Art form of carvings and depictions of BLACK East INDIANS are a mistake?


Not sure what you're talking about because I don't recall making any of those statements above.

Dravidic Indians are dark brown but Caucasians (today as in the past) pretty much lack melanin and therefor lack color except for the few (like Italians, Jews, ect....) showing trace amounts as a result of ancestral interbreeding with other races.

 

 

 

 

 

So, there is a hope that this all powerful DIVINE POWER will get rid of White Supremacy and/or White people that 'WE CREATED'? So now, 'do we' want to get rid of them, and live happily ever after in an all-Black worldcompletely void of White people?


The Caucasian power structure will be broken and eliminated, yes....but whether or not Caucasians themselves will go....I'm not sure. Some say they will continue to exist for another 1,000 years after their power has been removed from them, others say they will actually destroy themselves, once again I'm not sure.

 

 

 

 

Thank you! That means a lot to me.


You're more than welcome my sister!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2020 at 11:06 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Moses being sent up to civilize them (around 2000 B.C.).

 

@Pioneer1 Moses was not dated to even be born no where near the 2000 B.C. time period.

But, you know, I really don't have much to say about the 4000 BC mark on this subject because I don't actually agree with 

what has been presented by historians when it comes to any type of well defined civilization for even Black humans at this time period.

So, not only would White people (Caucasians) be living in caves but so would Black people too, imo.

 

I think the first well marked record for a civilization would be around the 3500 BC time period.

 

 

 

 

On 3/19/2020 at 11:06 PM, Pioneer1 said:

The very EXISTENCE of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are called into question let alone the time periods they allegedly lived in.

 

ALL COLLEGES across the world validate the Biblical records that regard many facts that match other civilizations stated to interact with AbraHam and his descendants. As I mentioned long ago, right now today, tours are given daily in 'the Middle East' for to visit the very COFFIN OF JOSEPH and regular tours are given pretty much daily to see the very tomb of Moses in Egypt that began construction before he fled Egypt. No big government in the past discount the existence of the Hebrew Israelites in those times. No one simply because many of them became a part of other civilizations in their high class levels and were scripted and in their books. We are descendants of slaves and therefore may not realize this.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2020 at 11:06 PM, Pioneer1 said:

And as I said before, the Caucasians were made from the Black ASIAN (Dravidian) not the Black African.

 

I like this! @Pioneer1 You're good and you know a lot!--But however, if you don't anchor your statements, then you will not be able to be complete! 

I partially agree with you, however, what your phrase 'Black Asian-Dravidian and 'Black African' IN CONTEXT are one in the same!!!

It took a while to respond to you because it has been many years since I read about the DRAVIDIANS, so I had to check the internet before I could respond to you on this score. Therefore, what I see is that the origins of the Dravidians are linked with many terms that I am familiar with already and the time periods they are noted to first be known in ancient Indian civilizations and their Matriarchal worship and their idols and artwork, and etc. only makes me confirm that they are definitely linked to the 'ORIGINAL CAUCASIANS'!!! Now, I understand that you don't believe in that term though. 

On 3/19/2020 at 11:06 PM, Pioneer1 said:

No.
First of all there is no such thing as "Original Caucasians"...it's a contradiction of terms.
If they are Caucasian then they CAN'T be original.

 

They cannot just appear to be 'WHITE' so therefore, this term 'CAUCASIAN' does stem from a darker source! 

The term 'Caucasian' does not originally define white people, however, we keep addressing this issue and I

am hoping that I can provide more information on my research and want to do this through DIALOGUE.

 

 

On 3/19/2020 at 11:06 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Are you SURE about this sis?
In the biblical Book of Esther chapter 8 vs 17 we read:

"... 
And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them."
It says that some people BECAME Jews...clearly implying that they weren't Jews to begin with.
Surely these people who CONVERTED to being Jews aren't from the same original Hebrew stock you speak of.

 

 

But you are not focusing on the term, 'FOR FEAR OF THE JEWS FELL UPON THEM."!!!

 

Just like today, the actress KIM KARDASHIAN and her children may be defined as AFRICAN AMERICAN but, we know that she is not of the same cultural origins as her husband! However, her husband, Kanye would be and he originates from an old time period when this AFrican American culture developed.

 

The time of Esther was around the 500s BC, but the original Jews' culture formed like, a thousand years prior!

By the time of Esther, the Israelites went through a civil conflict and separated into two divisions. After this, the NOrthern Israelites 

had their own capital and king and then they were overthrown by the Assyrians. But the Southern Nation existed for a while.

Soon, the Jews, who had their own Capital were also overthrown by the NeoBabylonians and it was after this time that eventually

Esther was born.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 3/19/2020 at 11:06 PM, Pioneer1 said:

How can this be when the Caucasus mountains are IN Central Asia?
That's like saying Watts and Los Angeles are in two different geographical areas when one lays within the boundaries of the other.

 

Had it not been for the extensive history that comes from those two separate areas, I suppose it could be thought of as you say, but the history of these two areas becomes crazy intense and it became dominated by BLACK NEGROES, [Black and Brown African-type] people for hundreds of years. so I have to look at a map to be sure though, in what you say about 'one lying within the boundaries of the other'; I cant remember off hand. 

I just know that the conflict between the civilizations of the Caucasus mountain areas, at times, clashed violently with the 'Negroes' of the civilizations in Central Asia, and there were more than one. I don't think they considered them to all be Central Asia. 

I need to look at a map and references to see how the Altai Mountains are defined, Kwarazin is defined, Chorazin is defined, and etc. I can't remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sup @Chevdove. That's A LOT to read and respond to! LOL! Very in-depth, interesting stuff. I'm going to need a day or two to absorb all that and @Pioneer1's subsequent responses. This is a fascinating topic (origin of "white" people). I'll be back later tonight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chev

Moses was not dated to even be born no where near the 2000 B.C. time period.

But, you know, I really don't have much to say about the 4000 BC mark on this subject because I don't actually agree with

what has been presented by historians when it comes to any type of well defined civilization for even Black humans at this time period.


Well if you don't trust (or agree with) the information you get from historians about the 4000 B.C. time period....why should 2000 B.C. be any different?

 



So, not only would White people (Caucasians) be living in caves but so would Black people too, imo.


In our cases things are a little different.
There's a documented history of Caucasians living in caves and mountains for an extended period of time.....generations. There is no documented evidence of African people collectively making caves their homes. They may STORE things in caves, or RETREAT to caves for military or ritualistic purposes or even religious purposes...but no evidence of us as groups LIVING in caves and making them our abode.

 

 

 

I think the first well marked record for a civilization would be around the 3500 BC time period.


I can't argue with you there sis....lol.
People can begin RECORDING civilization whenever they like.
Earthquakes have been around...probably since the Earth itself..but I don't think Caucasians started RECORDING them until a couple hundred years ago.

Likewise, the Black woman and man and our civilizations have been around millions of years.
Now if Caucasians just got around to recording it for THEIR records around 3500 BC, then they're late as hell....lol.

 

 

 

ALL COLLEGES across the world validate the Biblical records that regard many facts that match other civilizations stated to interact with AbraHam and his descendants.


This is news to me!
I didn't know most colleges (outside of Christian and Jewish private universities) even acknowledged that Abraham actually even existed, let alone had documented records of his interactions with others.

 

 

 

 

It took a while to respond to you because it has been many years since I read about the DRAVIDIANS, so I had to check the internet before I could respond to you on this score. Therefore, what I see is that the origins of the Dravidians are linked with many terms that I am familiar with already and the time periods they are noted to first be known in ancient Indian civilizations and their Matriarchal worship and their idols and artwork, and etc. only makes me confirm that they are definitely linked to the 'ORIGINAL CAUCASIANS'!!! Now, I understand that you don't believe in that term though.


Instead of doing all of that research you could have saved yourself some time and believed me when I told you that the Dravidians are the direct ancestors of the Caucasians....lol.
It was the Dravians (Blacks of Asian) of whom the Caucasians were bred from.

 

 

 

They cannot just appear to be 'WHITE' so therefore, this term 'CAUCASIAN' does stem from a darker source!

The term 'Caucasian' does not originally define white people, however, we keep addressing this issue and I

am hoping that I can provide more information on my research and want to do this through DIALOGUE.


The TERM "Caucasian" didn't come from them, it came from us.
The TERM "Caucasian" according to Nation of Islam theology means weak boned and weak blooded.

And you're correct to a certain extend that the term "Caucaian" doesn't originally define White people because "white" is more of a social status term than a term of accuracy.
Very few people are actually "White".
They are more pinkish or reddish and in many cases tannish.
But the term "white" has been established more for social status....especially here in the West.

"Caucasian" however is a racial term that covers the entire spectrum of that racial group we are refering too who's predominate origins are of the mountains of the Caucasus, despite their social status or nationality.

 

 

 

Just like today, the actress KIM KARDASHIAN and her children may be defined as AFRICAN AMERICAN but

 

I can see the children, but Kim Kardashian defined as an "African American"?????
First time I'm hearing (seeing) this!

 

 

 

 

Had it not been for the extensive history that comes from those two separate areas, I suppose it could be thought of as you say, but the history of these two areas becomes crazy intense and it became dominated by BLACK NEGROES, [Black and Brown African-type] people for hundreds of years. so I have to look at a map to be sure though, in what you say about 'one lying within the boundaries of the other'; I cant remember off hand.

I just know that the conflict between the civilizations of the Caucasus mountain areas, at times, clashed violently with the 'Negroes' of the civilizations in Central Asia, and there were more than one. I don't think they considered them to all be Central Asia.

I need to look at a map and references to see how the Altai Mountains are defined, Kwarazin is defined, Chorazin is defined, and etc. I can't remember.

 

You're speaking of the Colchans and other Black peoples who either already lived or were stationed in Central Asia to guard the Caucasians and keep them in their designated area.
Again, it's ALL Central Asia.....but different groups lived in different parts.
The Caucasians were concentrated (originally but eventually spread out) in the Caucasus mountains region but they were surrounded by other groups of people of color both Black and Brown in other regions of Central Asia and Europe (to their West).

The violent clashes often occured because many of the Black groups were military units sent to the region and assigned to keep the Caucasians inside those boundaries and from spilling out until their allotted time to leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2020 at 3:19 PM, Kareem said:

(origin of "white" people). I'll be back later tonight.

 

@Kareem Truth is vital to survival, imo.

We should try to figure this because of all the thousands of years of being attack on this issue of racism.

Thank you!

On 3/23/2020 at 8:37 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Well if you don't trust (or agree with) the information you get from historians about the 4000 B.C. time period....why should 2000 B.C. be any different?

 

@Pioneer1 Because the further up in time, the more certain stories about the past can be proven due to better record keeping, I suppose. 

There are some stories that I believe about the 4000s, Bc and way, way before due to art history and archeology, etc.

On 3/23/2020 at 8:37 PM, Pioneer1 said:

In our cases things are a little different.
There's a documented history of Caucasians living in caves and mountains for an extended period of time.....generations. There is no documented evidence of African people collectively making caves their homes. They may STORE things in caves, or RETREAT to caves for military or ritualistic purposes or even religious purposes...but no evidence of us as groups LIVING in caves and making them our abode.

 

Interesting! So now, I am thinking too, about the Ice Age, though.

 

On 3/23/2020 at 8:37 PM, Pioneer1 said:

I don't think Caucasians started RECORDING them until a couple hundred years ago.

 

Now see!-- There you go--taking credit away from Black people and giving to 'Caucasians'. 

Record keeping originated with Black people! -- Outside of the Cave 'art history' all over the world, it becomes proven that 

RECORDING was perfected by the Black man!

 

On 3/23/2020 at 8:37 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Likewise, the Black woman and man and our civilizations have been around millions of years.
Now if Caucasians just got around to recording it for THEIR records around 3500 BC, then they're late as hell....lol.

 

Okay, but where are the records then, of these Black  people of whom you say lived and recorded millions of years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2020 at 8:37 PM, Pioneer1 said:

It was the Dravians (Blacks of Asian) of whom the Caucasians were bred from.

 

Okay, @Pioneer1I can understand you here, but still, the term 'Caucasian' also defined those 'Black' people too. 

Hopefully I can add more to this point soon.

 

On 3/23/2020 at 8:37 PM, Pioneer1 said:

And you're correct to a certain extend that the term "Caucaian" doesn't originally define White people

 

yes, thank you.

On 3/23/2020 at 8:37 PM, Pioneer1 said:

I can see the children, but Kim Kardashian defined as an "African American"?????
First time I'm hearing (seeing) this!

 

lol! Okay, I'm thinking 'Old World' here!

I'm thinking 'spiritual' too.

Long ago, if a person married into another culture, then they became apart of that culture, 

however, they could also be viewed as 'bi-cultural'.

On 3/23/2020 at 8:37 PM, Pioneer1 said:

The violent clashes often occured because many of the Black groups were military units sent to the region and assigned to keep the Caucasians inside those boundaries and from spilling out until their allotted time to leave.

 

okay, lol... NO comment for now. 

Okay, oh well, You know there are other art history of Pale Faces all over the world, even in the ancient Americas?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chev
 

We should try to figure this because of all the thousands of years of being attack on this issue of racism.


Lol, well you don't have to try too hard because there are records of their origins available.

They were "bred" into existence from Dravidian type Black people through a process of selective breeding on an island that some may call "Atlantis".

 



Okay, but where are the records then, of these Black people of whom you say lived and recorded millions of years ago?


Many of them were stored in ancient libraries like the Library of Alexandria and Timbuktu and Babylon where they were either burned down or confiscated by Europeans invaders and hauled off to Rome where they sit in the Vatican under lock and key to this very day.

But the vast majority of ancient records about the trillions of years of history of this planet is in a place you may know or have heard of as the "Akashic Records".
Similar to how information is stored on the internet or the "cloud" but much more advanced.
Most people need a shaman or spiritual man/woman to access them.

The ancients knew that with this smart Caucasian running around trying to scan every square inch of the globe, putting precious information in material books wouldn't be the safest move to make...lol.





Okay, oh well, You know there are other art history of Pale Faces all over the world, even in the ancient Americas?


Ofcourse.
Ancient people all over the planet KNEW that the Caucasians were coming and their presence was prophecied and documnented in heiroglyphs all over the planet from Africa to Europe to the Americas to Australia.
Infact, according to NOI theology the coming of the Caucasian on the planet was predicted 9000 years BEFORE he even came ito existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so you two @Chevdove and @Pioneer1 are breaking down the history in very comprehensive ways, with lots of details. There seem to be a lot of sticking points about dates/time periods and nomenclature. But otherwise there's some agreement here.

 

I admit I'm more of a recent history guy (1600-present) versus ancient like you two. I do consider myself a Biblical scholar, but as Pioneer alluded to, its not 100% factual. But from what I'm reading, the both of you seem to agree in the existence of "Black Dravidian Asians." Is that fair to say? If so then I need to read up some on this subject matter before I can comment further. The words black and Asian combined is weird in and of itself. I assume these people had kinky/nappy hair?

 

The second preliminary conclusion I'm getting, based on both of your comments, is that the Black Dravidians did in fact play a role in creating today's "Caucasians" aka white people? If not, correct me. Again I'll contribute more to this discussion once I learn more about our Dravidian cousins.

 

On 3/19/2020 at 8:06 PM, Pioneer1 said:

First of all there is no such thing as "Original Caucasians"...it's a contradiction of terms.
If they are Caucasian then they CAN'T be original.

 

They are not original, meaning they didn't come into existence naturally. Is that what you're saying?

 

On 3/21/2020 at 11:41 AM, Chevdove said:

The term 'Caucasian' does not originally define white people

 

This is/was my position from the beginning. I always felt white people (Europeans) usurped the term "Caucasian" from the people of Georgia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, etc. But this whole discussion even calls that into question. I believe Pioneer's position is that Arabs and Europeans are Caucasian. Make sense. Just more to wrap our heads around.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Kareem said:

This is/was my position from the beginning. I always felt white people (Europeans) usurped the term "Caucasian" from the people of Georgia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, etc.

 

@Kareem Exactly! This term is usurped.

 

48 minutes ago, Kareem said:

But otherwise there's some agreement here.

 

Yes.

 

49 minutes ago, Kareem said:

the both of you seem to agree in the existence of "Black Dravidian Asians." Is that fair to say?

 

Oh yes. 

50 minutes ago, Kareem said:

The words black and Asian combined is weird in and of itself. I assume these people had kinky/nappy hair?

 

Again, I say, yes. 

On 3/25/2020 at 11:00 AM, Pioneer1 said:

hey were "bred" into existence from Dravidian type Black people through a process of selective breeding on an island that some may call "Atlantis".

 

LOL. @Pioneer1 No.

 

 

On 3/25/2020 at 11:00 AM, Pioneer1 said:

Most people need a shaman or spiritual man/woman to access them.

 

If they are not access, then it means nothing. If they cannot be cross referenced and apply to something concrete, then it means nothing.

so, the documented records of ancient civilizations begin with Blacl 'African-type' people that we can access today.

On 3/25/2020 at 11:00 AM, Pioneer1 said:

The ancients knew that with this smart Caucasian running around trying to scan every square inch of the globe, putting precious information in material books wouldn't be the safest move to make...lol.

 

Mute point @Pioneer1! White peole dominate the globe today! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Kareem



I admit I'm more of a recent history guy (1600-present) versus ancient like you two. I do consider myself a Biblical scholar, but as Pioneer alluded to, its not 100% factual. But from what I'm reading, the both of you seem to agree in the existence of "Black Dravidian Asians." Is that fair to say?
 

Yes sir.

 



If so then I need to read up some on this subject matter before I can comment further.

You can start with the history of the land now known as India and Pakistan.
In India, they are found mostly in the Tamil Nadu  or Bengal regions.
Keep in mind that originally these Black Asians were found ALL OVER Asia...not just India. But many of them were either killed off by the Caucasian invaders (Aryans, Persians, Babylonians, ect...) or mixed and bred away and the rest driven to that region and certain other spots, much like what happened to the Native Americans.





The words black and Asian combined is weird in and of itself. I assume these people had kinky/nappy hair?

No sir, unlike the kinky haired Africans.....the Asian Black race for the most part had straight hair with thin noses and lips....similar to the features of most of the Caucasians you see today.
Though one would be in error to say that their features are LIKE the Caucasian, lol.
It's more accurate to say that the Caucasian has features LIKE THEM because they were first and the Caucasians actually came FROM them.

Both the African and Dravidian are very dark (in come cases jet Black) but their features are still different and they are actually of different races.


Do you find black, Dravidian women hot? - GirlsAskGuys

The Dravidians | Black History & Culture  The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

 

 

 

 

The second preliminary conclusion I'm getting, based on both of your comments, is that the Black Dravidians did in fact play a role in creating today's "Caucasians" aka white people?
 

Yes sir, THEY were the racial group that the Caucasians were bred from.
Not the African Black race.

 





They are not original, meaning they didn't come into existence naturally. Is that what you're saying?


No sir.
Albinism indeed is a result of nature, but Caucasians aren't albinos.

Caucasians were brought into existence through ARTIFICIAL or MAN-MADE means through a process of selective breeding.
Kind of like how one would breed a certain type of horse, or dog, or cat.
I'm not saying Caucasians are animals like those describe....just giving an example of how you produce a certain species by limiting reproduction to those of only a certain phenotype until you produce the desired result.

When you read in the bible "Let us MAKE man".....it's the Caucasian man  (Adam) they were talking about making.

 


 

This is/was my position from the beginning. I always felt white people (Europeans) usurped the term "Caucasian" from the people of Georgia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, etc. But this whole discussion even calls that into question. I believe Pioneer's position is that Arabs and Europeans are Caucasian. Make sense. Just more to wrap our heads around.


The region is CURRENTLY called the Caucasus, but was it ALWAYS called the Caucasus?

According to NOI theology, the term "Caucasian" means weak boned and weak blooded.
These people were named this even BEFORE they were driven into that area and confined there for causing trouble among the original people.
Only AFTER the Caucasians arrive did it receive that name.

Me and my sister have gone round after round over this....lol.

I said  it like this.......
The original Greeks were Caucasian.
But the original inhabitants of the LAND CALLED Greece were Black people!

Now those two facts don't disagree with eachother and can EASILY be reconciled because all it simply means is that the Greeks were Caucasians long before they even brought their asses TO the land and NAMED it "Greece" after themselves!

And it's the same with the Caucasus.
It had a name BEFORE the Caucasians arrived and it became named AFTER them.

Further........

Just to clarify my position, the ORIGINAL ARABS were Caucasian....but the majority of Arabs today are mixed and vary from being Caucasian to Black and anywhere in between.
To be even clearer, similar to the Greek analogy.....the original people OF the LAND NOW CALLED ARABIA  were Black , but the original ARABS who invaded the land were Caucasians from the mountains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chev

 

LOL. @Pioneer1 No.

Now WAIT A MINUTE sis!
What do you mean "no"?

Don't just say "no" and then run down the hallway giggling, leaving me to wonder exactly what you're objecting to, lol.

 

 

 

 

If they are not access, then it means nothing. If they cannot be cross referenced and apply to something concrete, then it means nothing.

so, the documented records of ancient civilizations begin with Blacl 'African-type' people that we can access today.


Well the truth is the truth and always means "something" and is of some value (especially to those seeking it) even if it can't be documented or cross referenced.

If you're in severe pain and a lady comes along and give you a simple cure that works, will you refuse to acknowledge it or recommend it to others UNTIL she writes it down?

Our people come from a long and strong ORAL TRADITION where much of the knowledge was passed down from mouth to ear to mouth and committed to memory. There are African griots who can tell you the history of their tribe going back thousands of years, so don't play undocumented history too cheap.

Having said that, I can see how skeptical the average person would find it if asked to accept something as historically accurate if there is no physical evidence or documentation of it, so I do understand your point.

However, as I said earlier the fact that it MAY not be documented (or it maybe they ARE documented but those documents are hidden!)  doesn't negate the truth of it.

Remember, there are plenty of "documented lies".....lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Don't just say "no" and then run down the hallway giggling, leaving me to wonder exactly what you're objecting to, lol.

 

Okay, @Pioneer1 You are not backing this up by any source. Your 'Atlantis' statement has documentation and it does not even support what you write. okay.

 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Our people come from a long and strong ORAL TRADITION

 

. .. And again, that is why the continent of Africa has been completely [ie except for Ethiopia and Sierra Leone]

controlled by Europeans! LOL. 

You have to refer to script that can be confirmed.

 

 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

doesn't negate the truth of it.

 

Yes it does, to any of the civilizations that controls you. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Remember, there are plenty of "documented lies".....lol.

 

true and we need to continue to dispell these lies.

 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

No sir, unlike the kinky haired Africans.....the Asian Black race for the most part had straight hair with thin noses and lips....similar to the features of most of the Caucasians you see today.

 

@Pioneer1 Those photos are no different than what you see in America, ancient America today and with some of my husbands relatives.

Some of his uncles have bone straight hair, and some have a little kink to they hair texture--- Yes, within the same family.

And yes, on my side of the family too, some of my relative, such as my sister, shows those same dynamics of hair type!!!

One of my sisters has very, very black hair and it does not kink at all!!!

My Great grandfather was from India, when it was called Pakistan!!!

Those people from India intermixed with ethiopians very early in time. 

My mother's hair is very, very black [or was] now, it white, silver white.

One of my aunt's has bone straight hair, like her mother, my grandmother.

My father-in-law was very fair skinned but his brother was really dark, almost black skinned. And, they know their male lineage and are not from India.

Photos mean nothing.

Those photos are similar to people of Ethiopia too. Dravidians are no different than any other dark race of people as the scientiest conclude on the BASAL-A [ADAM] YDNA--OUT OF AFRICA RESEARCH.

All malefactors with a viable y-dna stem from ONE SOURCE--a malefactor out of africa. period.

@Kareem As I shared in another link with Troy, the only other Y-DNA outside of the origin of the African man, 

is expressed as an INTERSEXED. The male, 'viable y-dna' linked to Africa is very stable and it does NOT recombine.

This is why it is so easy to test and verify those paternity test with such accuracy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chev

 


Your 'Atlantis' statement has documentation and it does not even support what you write. okay.


I'll admit that I personally don't have any documentation for what I said however why do you say it doesn't support what I write?

I never said Caucasians were made IN the Caucasus mountains.
I've been maintaining through out this conversation that they were DRIVEN into the Caucasus mountains and confined there. But their being brought into existence or "bred" from the Dravidians took place in ANOTHER place.
The Nation of Islam says this breeding process took place on an island in the Mediterranian.
If you study the writings of anient Greece and Kemet the priests of Kemet tell the Greeks (Caucasians) of their origins on an island.




And again, that is why the continent of Africa has been completely [ie except for Ethiopia and Sierra Leone] controlled by Europeans! LOL.

You have to refer to script that can be confirmed.


I agree we should document ESTABLISHED FACTS and not simply rely on word of mouth transmission of important matters; however I'm not sure if this is the only or even the major reasons for African colonization.

 

 


Yes it does, to any of the civilizations that controls you.


Chev, come on now.
Whether or not something is documented DOES NOT eliminate or negate the fact that it didn't happen or doesn't exist...lol.
It just means you'll have a harder time trying to PROVE it to many people.

I used to live in Georgia.
That is a FACT whether I have documentation to verify this fact or not.
The fact that I don't have a driver's license or utility bill from my residence in Georgia to PROVE that I used to live there doesn't negate this fact.


 

 

Those photos are no different than what you see in America, ancient America today and with some of my husbands relatives.

Some of his uncles have bone straight hair, and some have a little kink to they hair texture--- Yes, within the same family.

And yes, on my side of the family too, some of my relative, such as my sister, shows those same dynamics of hair type!!!

One of my sisters has very, very black hair and it does not kink at all!!!

 

You said these photos are no different than what you see in America today, but I must take issue with this statement for several reasons:

1. TODAY there are a lot of immigrants from India so yes you're likely to see Dravidians with dark skin and straight hair walking down the street, but only after they MOVED here from Asia.

2. Many of the very dark skinned people you see in the United States with straight hair actually STRAIGHTENED their hair out with hot combs and relaxers. If they are of African descent, mostly likely it's not naturally that straight.

3. Many Africans both here AND abroad are not "pure Africans" but MIXED with Asian and European and they may be born with the dark African skin but depending on their genetics their hair may come out bone straight. Just like others may come out light skinned with kinky hair....it's a matter of the genetic lottery.

You seem to be picking out a few EXCEPTIONS and pointing to them as example of how Africans also have keen features and straight hair when in fact that isn't the usual case. Those type of Africans are in the minority as compared to the vast majority of Africans who have dark skin, broader featurs, and kinky hair.

 

 

 

 

 

Photos mean nothing.


Haven't you heard the old saying "a picture is worth a thousand words"...lol...?

I just posted the photos as examples, but if you don't believe them you can go to India or any Indian neighborhood in the United States and SEE FOR YOURSELF the millions of dark skinned "Black" Asians with straight hair.

 

 


 

Those photos are similar to people of Ethiopia too.


But most Ethiopians aren't pure African; they are HEAVILY MIXED with Caucasian (Persians, Greeks, Arabs, Assyrians, ect....) from times past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

On 4/1/2020 at 10:53 AM, Pioneer1 said:

Haven't you heard the old saying "a picture is worth a thousand words"...lol...?

 

Oh yes, I agree, but still it needs to be within context. 

 

On 4/1/2020 at 10:53 AM, Pioneer1 said:

SEE FOR YOURSELF the millions of dark skinned "Black" Asians with straight hair.

 

 

Yes, again, my relative has this trait! Well, and my Great-grandfather was from Pakistan when it was still a part of India. 

Also, a Pastor years back came from Trinidad and Tobago, his wife was almost black skinned and she and one of her daughters had

bone straight hair. The pastor had a tight afro and blue eyes. 

So, I understand about India, Australia and again, some Native American tribes like the Cheyenne have this trait that is

dominant part of their populations.

I the Pow wows I have been to, these natives are like--BLACK!!!-- this  Virginian tribe, Man! I couldn't believe it! They were much darker than me and bone straight hair.  

 

On 4/1/2020 at 10:53 AM, Pioneer1 said:

But most Ethiopians aren't pure African; they are HEAVILY MIXED with Caucasian (Persians, Greeks, Arabs, Assyrians, ect....) from times past.

 

True, but they are still mostly Nappy headed AFricans though. Just like the late Haile Selassie

 

 

On 4/1/2020 at 10:53 AM, Pioneer1 said:

only after they MOVED here from Asia.

 

@Pioneer1 I am telling you this is NOT true! I have done research. 

The Cheyenne natives look like this too--Chief Black Kettle and etc. They appear to be black skinned and have

bone straight hair. This was a part of ancient America as well, but did they come from India or the Caucasus Mountains or ?

I agree with you in that--way back when-- they probably did! 

 

Ancient people of India, whether Dravidian or not, many of them were Black skinned or brown skinned and they had nappy hair 

or bone straight hair. So, you need to put what you are referring to some kind of context in order to understand the origin.

 

The Dravidians you speak of, are reported to worship a Mother Goddess and I think this is important in understanding their origins

and who they intermixed with, especially regarding your statement about Caucasians. 

 

On 4/1/2020 at 10:53 AM, Pioneer1 said:

Chev, come on now.
Whether or not something is documented DOES NOT eliminate or negate the fact that it didn't happen or doesn't exist...lol.
It just means you'll have a harder time trying to PROVE it to many people.

 

Yes absolutely. I agree. 

On 4/1/2020 at 10:53 AM, Pioneer1 said:

I agree we should document ESTABLISHED FACTS and not simply rely on word of mouth transmission of important matters; however I'm not sure if this is the only or even the major reasons for African colonization.

 

African colonization, as you are addressing, happened for many reasons but, I am saying that, script has been severely manipulated and this is one factor that led to how AFrican people became deceived and then eventually controlled by the Western Civilization.   

 

PIoneer, yes, all of the ancient Black Afican civilizations were overthrown and based on my research, one of the key factors had to do with their script being manipulated by foreign people that they intermixed with! 

On 4/1/2020 at 10:53 AM, Pioneer1 said:

...their being brought into existence or "bred" from the Dravidians took place in ANOTHER place.
The Nation of Islam says this breeding process took place on an island in the Mediterranian.
If you study the writings of anient Greece and Kemet the priests of Kemet tell the Greeks (Caucasians) of their origins on an island

 

"... took place in ANOTHER place."

 

What other place?

 

On 4/1/2020 at 10:53 AM, Pioneer1 said:

why do you say it doesn't support what I write?

 

There are many 'European' myths about Atlantis and THE GREEK ISLES and part of this is deliberate with their rendition of GONDWANALAND, a time when India became a subcontinent. However, the Kemet scripts do NOT support this confusion. their accounts of the White GREEKS of ancient MYECENAE is well dated! 

The myth of Atlantis is varied but many place this legend somewhere in the ATLANTIC OCEAN region and not the Mediterranean.

 

Now, I am basing this on a cross reference with Black Afican ancient history and Kemet. 

 

Way before the 'White Greeks' became defined, this earth was NOT split and there were NO ISLANDS and NO Indian Subcontinent!!!

So, by the time that the DRAVIDIANS are dated to be a culture, the earth did split!!!

The ancient Pre-Greek world existed when the earth was one mass, but White Greek people and the Dravidians became scripted

around the 2000 BC mark. The earth split at some point around around the 2000 BC time period and this can be seen in ancient Kemet text with regard to context in how they interacted with Minoa and Europe and etc. 

 

Prior to this time period 2000 BC, there were many White or fair skinned people though, but the earth was one mass.   

The myth of ATlantis stems from another time period when the earth split again!

The Greek civilization marked by CRETE was another time that the earths split.

The EXPLOSION of THERA marks this Atlantis myth of which was about 1600s BC!

 

So, it was about a 400 years time difference in both of these accounts of 'the formation of the Greek Isles' and then 'Atlantis'.

The Dravidians are being correlated to ancient Iranians etc.

 

 

 

So, it's difficult to mark the Dravidians based on how this western world has debauched script with their myths.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment I am trying to teach myself Sanskrit and I have a feeling that there may be some connections to the Egyptians and the Indians. Both Alphabets seemed to be different than most languages that have letters in their alphabets vs symbol sets. Also their mythology is less linear or perhaps there is a stronger connection to Astrology. Since both civilisations built structures to measure the heavens.

 

Although I am quite familiar with Greek Roman Mythology. I am less familiar with Indian Egyptian and Native American fables. Which all seem a bit more philosophical or to impart lessons like folklore and pepper ways to live. Whereas Greek/Roman mythology send more explanatory and more biographical.

 

Although that may be a function of my friendship with two Hindu Astrologers. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chev


Also, a Pastor years back came from Trinidad and Tobago, his wife was almost black skinned and she and one of her daughters had bone straight hair.


This could be because there are a LOT of East Indians (Dravidians) in Trinidad, Tobago, and Guyana South America!
The English brought them in to be slaves and work the land along with the Africans and a lot of people don't know this.
Many of those dark skinned people in South America and places like Trinidad are actually not African descent but Indian descent.

The British enslaved both Africans AND Indians.


 

 

I the Pow wows I have been to, these natives are like--BLACK!!!-- this Virginian tribe, Man! I couldn't believe it! They were much darker than me and bone straight hair.


There are 2 reasons for this:

1. Black people have been coming to the Americas for CENTURIES before Columbus and many Africans were already here mixing in with the Indians, so ofcourse you will see some people who are predominately Indian with African traits among them. This existed centuries before Columbus. But that doesn't mean that Native Americans are Black. It simply means they have trace amounts of Black (African) Ancestry from those Africans who had been coming over for centuries.

2. Most people aren't used to seeing REAL Native Americans.
Most REAL Native Americans (meaning those not mixed with Caucasians) are DARK BROWN in color; not tan or yellow or pale or even light brown.

 

Rare, Old Photos of Native American Women and Children | Native ...Reference Volumes on Native American Tribes | Washington ...
They are DARK BROWN with bone straight hair and most are that way without a drop of African ancestry in them!

 

 


The problem is people are so used to seeing THIS type of "Indian".......
Native Americans Take PowerAmerican Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) Youth | Youth.gov

most of whom have a ton of Caucasian ancestry in them and look nothing like the real ones.  So when people finally see a REAL Indian they wanna call them Black.
It's like looking at Michael Jackson and Prince and thinking THEY are what "Black people" look like just because they identify as Black.

No sister, the REAL Native Americans are dark brown in color NATURALLY without having any African ancestry. Some do have African ancestry....but even those who don't are naturally dark brown with bone straight hair.

 

 

 

Ancient people of India, whether Dravidian or not, many of them were Black skinned or brown skinned and they had nappy hair or bone straight hair.


Yes, their hair was MOSTLY straight but they did have SOME (a tiny minority) with kinky hair.
Just like you have some Caucasians with kinky hair.
Most of them have straight hair but some....even unmixed ones....have curly and even kinky hair. No group is 100% of anything.

 

 

 

The Dravidians you speak of, are reported to worship a Mother Goddess and I think this is important in understanding their origins and who they intermixed with, especially regarding your statement about Caucasians.


Are you talking about Kali?
In the pre-vedic religion of ancien Indian they worshiped multiple gods and godesses.

As far as who they are mixed with.....
Most Dravidians today are mixed with the Caucasian Aryans who invaded that land thousands of years ago.  Just like most so-called Black Americans are mixed with Caucasians.

 

 

 


What other place?


According to NOI theology, they were "made" on the island of Patmos or Pelan which sits in the Mediterranian sea.
According to the Bible John of Revelations had his visions there on that island.

 

 

 

 


The Dravidians are being correlated to ancient Iranians etc.


True
But I'd rather call them the "Elamites".

The Elamites and Sumerians were Black and were in that land before the Iranians/Persians invaded from the north.





Del

 

At the moment I am trying to teach myself Sanskrit and I have a feeling that there may be some connections to the Egyptians and the Indians.


There are some connections.
Sanskrit in it's written form has been heavily influenced by Arabic, but the original Sanskrit in it's oral form is a very precise language.
It's the language of northern India and according to common history it was introduced to Indian by the Aryans (Caucasians) who invaded the land thousands of years ago.




Although that may be a function of my friendship with two Hindu Astrologers.


You should study SOUTH Indian (Dravidian based) Astrology because it's more accurate and much older.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Delano said:

Pioneer can you post either references or reasons for your two statements to me.


Just take my word for it......I wouldn't tell ya wrong ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del

Yeah I remember you making a prediction, but remind me again as to EXACTLY what the prediction was so I can respond to it. I can tell you now that I didn't stop working in December.

 

 

 

 


Given the fact that I didn't go to college, I don't care too much for digging up references to back up everything I say. I know it makes things look more credible, but it seems to take away from the "flow" if you know what I mean. But as for the reasons for my statements:

Ancient India was originally inhabited by Black Asians called Dravidians but a group of Caucasians called Aryans invaded the land and enslaved some of them, killed some of them, and drove the others south into southern India.
The Black Dravidians had many languages AND writing systems; but the Aryan Caucasians had only one...Sanscrit. And it was only ORAL and not written down. It didn't have a written form until the Persians and Arabs invaded India and then the Aryans adopted the Persian/Arabic alphabets and writing system to represent Sanscrit.


South Indian Astrology is much older because the society itself is much older. Again, the southern Indians are the Black Dravidians who were driven out of the north by the Caucasian Aryans. While the Aryans of northern India can't trace their history beyond 6,000 years ago the Black Dravidians are MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of years old and they say this in their ancient writings. They've been studying the stars and planets for millions if not billions of years and this makes them more accurate.

I mentioned to you before in another thread about the Naadi palm leaves. You should do some research on them and how accurate they are.  Much of the history and FUTURE of this planet was already written thousands of years ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try to read a bit and I heard of the leaves from a former boss who was from India. 

There is no benefit to me to research something, that is inaccessible. Instead of following I am developing my own system. 

 

Which is preferable than following a system that is not mine. This is what happens with some Practioners. At some point your craft speaks to you if you are devoted 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2020 at 3:10 PM, Pioneer1 said:

This could be because there are a LOT of East Indians (Dravidians) in Trinidad, Tobago,

 

@Pioneer1 Absolutely not! The pastor is originally from Australia NOT East India. Both he and his wife look like Aboriginal Australians.

On 4/13/2020 at 3:10 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Most REAL Native Americans (meaning those not mixed with Caucasians) are DARK BROWN in color; not tan or yellow or pale or even light brown.

 

No way. The Paleo-Indians are not dark brown.

On 4/13/2020 at 3:10 PM, Pioneer1 said:

No sister, the REAL Native Americans are dark brown in color NATURALLY without having any African ancestry.

 

WOW. No way. Anyone can see how both Africa, North and South America fit like a puzzle before this earth split. 

Pioneer, you are so wrong. Native/Ancient American 'Indians' were definitely of AFRICAN-TYPED descent--by the millions!

You thinking from an Americanized format-brainwashed because that is what you are trained to believe.

From CHAMBRAZIL, 'Brazil' to the Zuni, to the Olmecas, to the millions of Athabascans .... the African presence in 

both North America and South America goes back for thousands of years, but yes, the straight haired pale faced and

brown faced natives go back much farther than the African-typed as far as records reveal. 

You are way off.

 

On 4/13/2020 at 3:10 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Most Dravidians today

 

No, NOT talking about Dravidians today. 

 

On 4/13/2020 at 3:10 PM, Pioneer1 said:

According to NOI theology, they were "made" on the island of Patmos ...

 

What date!? That island is ancient Pre-Greek Shem. Dravidians are not Semitic.

 

On 4/13/2020 at 3:10 PM, Pioneer1 said:

True
But I'd rather call them the "Elamites".

The Elamites and Sumerians were Black and were in that land before the Iranians/Persians invaded from the north.

 

Oh no. You are defining the Dravidians as having straight hair and dark brown. The Elamites [Original] and Sumerians are 

defined in script as being ETHIOPIANS; THAT IS BLACK SKIN and Nappy hair.

Elamites are not Iranians, you are right. Dravidians are not defined as being Elamites at all. 

 

On 4/13/2020 at 3:10 PM, Pioneer1 said:

t's the language of northern India and according to common history it was introduced to Indian by the Aryans (Caucasians) who invaded the land thousands of years ago.

 

LOL. So the Caucasians-Aryans had script!!! 

Pioneer! Wow. 

 

 

21 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

but the Aryan Caucasians had only one...Sanscrit.

 

No. @Pioneer1 Modern books agree that SANSKRIT [ie Samskrit] came from SUMERIA--Cuneiform script]

You give 'White' Caucasians too much credit. Is it too much for you to believe that Black African-typed people could have

been the foundation for script?

 

 

21 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

It didn't have a written form until the Persians and Arabs invaded India and then the Aryans adopted the Persian/Arabic alphabets and writing system to represent Sanscrit.

 

NO WAY. The Persian script is based on Old Phoenician script that they had developed from the Hebrew Israelites. Prior to this the more early form of Persian script also came from the ancient Cuneiform script of the Sumerians. The Aramaic script too stems from the Old Phoenician script. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...