That's racist!

#23,227
#23,227
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
The point about the hairstyles is it shows a similarity in hair texture. The only people with a history of locks, twists, braids, and afros are people with tightly curled to coily hair. If different races didn't have different hair textures it wouldn't be a salient point. But given the fact we have different hair textures as different races it's significant.

It's amazing to me that yall wanna act oblivious to the fact black people have a different hair texture to other races and this difference impacts the culture around hair styling. It's like yall wanna act dumb about the most obvious things because you don't like what they imply in relation to Ancient Egypt.
Click to expand...
When you faked going to Duke did you not fake failing mental gymnastics? Because this is the kind of mental gymnastics that makes me realize that it is possible that people can believe the earth is flat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens
#23,228
#23,228
PEPPERJAX said:
This thread makes me appreciate D4H. I have an abundance of knowledge about dreadlocks now.
Click to expand...
That may or may not make you a descendent of the most advanced civilization this world has ever known.

I love this though. It was only a matter of time before he hopped back on the Egypt train which leads to an inevitable mandatory "hiatus" from the boards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, tbh, PEPPERJAX and 1 other person
#23,229
#23,229
  • Like
Reactions: tbh
#23,230
#23,230
My barber texturizes my nappy curly hair. I think I'll change my name to Amenhotep Neferneferuaten McCurlsalot IV and embrace my new identity as direct blood (due to hair texture) relative to the 69th Dynasty of the New Kingdom. Pretty sure I can get a online startup specializing in Jim Jones-eques Egytpian pseduo-genealogy and rake in the dough. Maybe even start a new fake religion? (Im looking at you Rastafarians)
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh
#23,232
#23,232
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
The issue here isn't the DNA sequences. The main criticism is they errored when it came to SAMPLING. They choose mummies from only ONE SITE during a time period when Egypt was ruled by GREECE. The grave site was shared by both Egyptians and Greeks meaning some of the mummies they tested were most likely of Greek origin. So when you find that these mummies of potentially Greek origin are more closely related to Europeans than Africans then it shouldn't be surprising.

What the critics said was if you wanted to actually get a REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE of Ancient Egyptians then go to more than one site. And look at mummies from the time periods before Greek and other foreign rule where we can be sure the mummies being tested are just native Egyptians rather than foreigners.

You nor the original researchers who did the study have made a response to this criticism. You're simply ignoring it and arguing that because Oxford or Cambridge didn't take the study off its website that it's somehow impervious from criticism.
Click to expand...
The mummies date from 1400 BC - a thousand years prior to Ptolemaic rule.

And the DNA sequencing didnt say they were more closely related to Europeans, it said they were more closely related to peoples from the Levant.

Maybe you should stick to afro picks 🤷‍♀️
 
#23,233
#23,233
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
Seems I'm more well-versed in the Bible than yall since I know Egypt (Mizraim) and Nubia (Cush) are sons of Ham (said to be father of the black race) while the Arabs and Jews are sons of Shem and the Persians and Greeks are sons of Japeth.

Genealogy is important in the Bible. The writers wouldn't go through the ages and relationships if it wasn't. Just because these genealogies go against your preferred opinions doesn't make the Bible devoid of these claims. Whether you like it or not the Bible views the Ancient Egyptians as a black race. And all biblical scholars in antiquity believed this. It's why the Jewish scholars created the Curse of Ham as a validation for the enslavement of black people. Curse of Ham - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

When did the ancient Israelites enslave Africans? If anything, they were enslaved by Egypt per the Bible in Exodus.
 
#23,234
#23,234
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
I'll do you one better. Here's a collection of afro picks that were recovered in the tombs of Pharoahs being shown at museums:

View attachment 741952

The one on the left is obviously a modern afro comb while the one on the right was recovered from an Ancient Egyptian tomb. The resemblance is pretty amazing showing that the design of the afro comb has more or less stayed the same for almost 6000 years.

View attachment 741953

View attachment 741954




That's Dr. Sally Ann Ashton. Curator for the University of Cambridge Museum exhibit on the history of the Afro comb. And naturally it starts in Ancient Egypt where we find the oldest Afro combs in the world. Origins of the Afro Comb

For the record, I wasn't posting random individuals. Most of those images are of Pharoahs like this guy:

View attachment 741941

That's Pharoah Amenemhat III not just a random person.

And finally, you're speaking from a position of privilege in thinking history doesn't matter. Most black people are taught nothing about their history before slavery so all they think is they were slaves. Knowing you are capable of more matters. Its gives people the confidence to accomplish more than just being athletes or rappers.
Click to expand...

The brothers I went to elementary school with used to carry those exact picks. They’d either have them in their back pockets or stuck in their fro 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Dobbs 4 Heisman and marcusluvsvols
#23,235
#23,235
C-south said:
To be honest I believe most people just don’t care that much. I could see you citing something like the 1619 project so not sure I would take many of your other sources that seriously. I’m sure you think you’re adding some historical significance to African Americans but I don’t think you are. If anything you’re claiming they regressed while the rest of the world made monumental progress. How can you go from pyramids, huge monuments, gold, riches, civilized society, etc and then get scattered across a continent living in huts and barbaric tribes, constantly fighting, ultimately selling your own people into slavery? Hell even today Africa doesn’t offer much. It’s still the vast majority a 3rd world s***hole. They’ve sold out their people, land, and have nothing to show for all the resources they had. It really is sad. If what you said was true Africa should be the greatest continent on earth by FAR……at least economically yet they’ve been passed by virtually everyone.
Click to expand...

I wanted someone to go here. There are several reasons why Africa has failed that make logical sense and any race would face these challenges in that circumstances:

1. Main reason is Geography for a variety of reasons
a. Large areas of Africa are isolated from other regions by massive jungles, mountain ranges, or deserts. You can really split Africa up until several subcontinent regions that would have difficult accessing each other with air plants or boats sailing around the continent. This includes East Africa, South Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, and North Africa.
b. Not a lot of river traffic to enter the center of the continent. The rivers are often broken up with rapids or other features that prevents boats from sailing straight through. Take Europe which has Rhine, Elbe, Danube, Rhone, Volga, etc. for boats to navigate to get to interior
c. Not a lot of solid farmland regions. The continent itself is made up of harsh deserts, dry savannahs, jungles, and mountains. Very little plain farmland regions

2. Africa has the MOST nations of any continent. Braking the continent up until so many nations is problematic for a variety of reasons. The smaller nations have less access to resources, must compete with each other, and create more complexity. If Africa could consolidate its nations down, they could have stronger nations to organize armies, government systems, resource extraction, etc.

3. Tribalism - This was the main complaint for most Africans that I spoke to about why they fail (even over the liberal narratives about European colonialism). These tribals really show up in the election process where the top candidate is basically with a tribe and everyone in that tribe votes for them at the expense of the nation. The governments are highly unstable and highly corrupt across Africa. Tribalism has also been the breeding ground for many of the civil wars and even wars between nations that have torn the continent a part and destroyed economies (Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, 1st and 2nd Congolese Wars, etc. have all been tribal conflicts).

Before you throw crap at Africa. Remember that Europe was very tribal with the various Celtic Tribes across Gaul, Spain, the Balkans, and Briton until their outside colonizer (the Roman Empire) arrived on the scene to Civilize them. The Germanic Tribes were also very tribal but Charlemagne's Empire helped define and modernize modern Europe. Even with Rome taken Europe into the "modern" age for their time, Europe went into a dark age that took 100s of years for them to recover. Perhaps Africa is in the same path. They need to consolidate regions like Europe did (i.e. France becoming a single nation after the Hundred Years war breaking up regions like Burgundy, Gascony, Brittany, Aquitaine, Flanders, Lorraine, Savoy, etc. that didn't consider themselves French initially). Europe was tribal or broken up even as late as 1400s. Go play EU4 as an example. Europe slowly integrated into Centralized nations that became super powers. It didn't happen over night. Nations like England, France, Spain, etc. had to become a concept and often unite various Feudal Kingdoms to get where they were. Heck, Germany was a broken up mess called the Holy Roman Empire until Prussia united them all in the 1870s.

4. Neo-Colonialism - African governments are often dependents or under the heavy influence of other outside parties including France, Russia, and recently China.

5. Africa receives very little outside help in Capital Investment or build-up. If money enters Africa, it is usually for individual aid programs and not meaningful efforts to industrialize or modernize the Continent

6. The wildlife (including insect and diseases) is very hostile to humanity. Africa has one of the most hostile biodiversity's of any continent (Australia might have an argument here as well)


There are probably other factors that I have left out as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo, EasternVol, Dobbs 4 Heisman and 2 others
#23,236
#23,236
volbound1700 said:
I wanted someone to go here. There are several reasons why Africa has failed that make logical sense and any race would face these challenges in that circumstances:

1. Main reason is Geography for a variety of reasons
a. Large areas of Africa are isolated from other regions by massive jungles, mountain ranges, or deserts. You can really split Africa up until several subcontinent regions that would have difficult accessing each other with air plants or boats sailing around the continent. This includes East Africa, South Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, and North Africa.
b. Not a lot of river traffic to enter the center of the continent. The rivers are often broken up with rapids or other features that prevents boats from sailing straight through. Take Europe which has Rhine, Elbe, Danube, Rhone, Volga, etc. for boats to navigate to get to interior
c. Not a lot of solid farmland regions. The continent itself is made up of harsh deserts, dry savannahs, jungles, and mountains. Very little plain farmland regions

2. Africa has the MOST nations of any continent. Braking the continent up until so many nations is problematic for a variety of reasons. The smaller nations have less access to resources, must compete with each other, and create more complexity. If Africa could consolidate its nations down, they could have stronger nations to organize armies, government systems, resource extraction, etc.

3. Tribalism - This was the main complaint for most Africans that I spoke to about why they fail (even over the liberal narratives about European colonialism). These tribals really show up in the election process where the top candidate is basically with a tribe and everyone in that tribe votes for them at the expense of the nation. The governments are highly unstable and highly corrupt across Africa. Tribalism has also been the breeding ground for many of the civil wars and even wars between nations that have torn the continent a part and destroyed economies (Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, 1st and 2nd Congolese Wars, etc. have all been tribal conflicts).

Before you throw crap at Africa. Remember that Europe was very tribal with the various Celtic Tribes across Gaul, Spain, the Balkans, and Briton until their outside colonizer (the Roman Empire) arrived on the scene to Civilize them. The Germanic Tribes were also very tribal but Charlemagne's Empire helped define and modernize modern Europe. Even with Rome taken Europe into the "modern" age for their time, Europe went into a dark age that took 100s of years for them to recover. Perhaps Africa is in the same path. They need to consolidate regions like Europe did (i.e. France becoming a single nation after the Hundred Years war breaking up regions like Burgundy, Gascony, Brittany, Aquitaine, Flanders, Lorraine, Savoy, etc. that didn't consider themselves French initially). Europe was tribal or broken up even as late as 1400s. Go play EU4 as an example. Europe slowly integrated into Centralized nations that became super powers. It didn't happen over night. Nations like England, France, Spain, etc. had to become a concept and often unite various Feudal Kingdoms to get where they were. Heck, Germany was a broken up mess called the Holy Roman Empire until Prussia united them all in the 1870s.

4. Neo-Colonialism - African governments are often dependents or under the heavy influence of other outside parties including France, Russia, and recently China.

5. Africa receives very little outside help in Capital Investment or build-up. If money enters Africa, it is usually for individual aid programs and not meaningful efforts to industrialize or modernize the Continent

6. The wildlife (including insect and diseases) is very hostile to humanity. Africa has one of the most hostile biodiversity's of any continent (Australia might have an argument here as well)


There are probably other factors that I have left out as well.
Click to expand...
^ Well done. 👏
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo
#23,237
#23,237
LouderVol said:
no they were not. there is nothing in the bible discussing that.
Click to expand...

Then explain why the Ancient Egyptians were considered the sons of Ham along with the other black races of the world like the Nubians? Why did Christians, Jews, and Muslims in later years use the story of Ham as a justification for the enslavement of black people?

The Bible is explicit in its categorization of the Ancient Egyptians with other black groups. Usually when people are siblings with the same father they tend to look similar.
 
#23,238
#23,238
FLVOL_79 said:
When you faked going to Duke did you not fake failing mental gymnastics? Because this is the kind of mental gymnastics that makes me realize that it is possible that people can believe the earth is flat.
Click to expand...

More ad-hominem attacks without ever responding to my actual arguments.

Once again why are you running from the obvious point that black people have a different hair texture than other races and that difference has impacted the culture around hairstyles? So if we see the exact same culture of hairstyling in Ancient Egypt as we see in every other black ethnicity then shouldn't it be obvious the Ancient Egyptians were black as well? In addition to all the other evidence I've posted.
 
#23,239
#23,239
85SugarVol said:
The mummies date from 1400 BC - a thousand years prior to Ptolemaic rule.

And the DNA sequencing didnt say they were more closely related to Europeans, it said they were more closely related to peoples from the Levant.

Maybe you should stick to afro picks 🤷‍♀️
Click to expand...

This shows how little you know about Ancient Egyptian history. By 1400 BC you already had the Hyksos Invasion which started in 1700 BC. The Hyksos were a group of West Eurasian invaders that conquered northern Egypt during the Second Intermediatary Period. They were the first non-native group to rule Egypt after that foundation of Egyptian Civilization in 3150 BC. Second Intermediate Period of Egypt - Wikipedia

Ancient Egypt existed for 1750 years before the date they started testing mummies. The argument from the critics was if you wanted a true sample of Ancient Egyptians then you should have tested mummies before the invasion of other groups into Egypt. Especially northern Egypt which was under foreign occupation during those periods. Testing sites in the south in Upper Egypt where the Pharaohs originated which were not known to have been conquered by Hyksos during those time periods would have been the right move if you wanted a sample of Ancient Egyptians without any foreigners mixed in. Instead they went for mummies with the highest likelihood of having foreign admixture. They tested just one site known to have been under foreign occupation. And they tested it starting from the time periods after which we know foreigners were there. Its almost like they wanted to avoid the times and places where you were guaranteed only native Egyptians to be present and instead went for times and places where foreigners from Europe and Western Asia would be present.
 
Last edited:
#23,240
#23,240
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
This shows how little you know about Ancient Egyptian history. By 1400 BC you already had the Hyksos Invasion which started in 1700 BC. The Hyksos were a group of West Eurasian invaders that conquered northern Egypt during the Second Intermediatary Period. They were the first non-native group to rule Egypt after that foundation of Egyptian Civilization in 3150 BC. Second Intermediate Period of Egypt - Wikipedia

Ancient Egypt existed for 1750 years before the date they started testing mummies. The argument from the critics was if you wanted a true sample of Ancient Egyptians before any race mixing you should have stuck to mummies before the invasion of the Hyksos and Greeks. And you should probably test more than one site especially those in the south in Upper Egypt where the Pharaohs originated which were not known to have been conquered by Hyksos during those time periods.
Click to expand...
Lolz….

You -
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
The grave site was shared by both Egyptians and Greeks meaning some of the mummies they tested were most likely of Greek origin.
Click to expand...

Me -
85SugarVol said:
The mummies date from 1400 BC - a thousand years prior to Ptolemaic rule.
Click to expand...
 
#23,241
#23,241
85SugarVol said:
Lolz….

You -


Me -
Click to expand...

That's called drawing you in to expose your ignorance on the topic. You probably have no idea who the Hyksos were. When they ruled. And Where they ruled. I'll jump ahead and give you another nugget. Even before the Greeks ruled Egypt, another foreign group (the Persians) also conquered the nation.

So it was never just from Egyptian rule to Greek rule. You had periods of foreign rule in Egypt that started around 1700 BC. That's why if you actually wanted a sample of just native Egyptians you would be wise to look at mummies from BEFORE that date. And it's not like there wasn't enough time before that date. You only have 1450 years of nothing but Egyptians ruling Egypt.
 
#23,242
#23,242
volbound1700 said:
I wanted someone to go here. There are several reasons why Africa has failed that make logical sense and any race would face these challenges in that circumstances:

1. Main reason is Geography for a variety of reasons
a. Large areas of Africa are isolated from other regions by massive jungles, mountain ranges, or deserts. You can really split Africa up until several subcontinent regions that would have difficult accessing each other with air plants or boats sailing around the continent. This includes East Africa, South Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, and North Africa.
b. Not a lot of river traffic to enter the center of the continent. The rivers are often broken up with rapids or other features that prevents boats from sailing straight through. Take Europe which has Rhine, Elbe, Danube, Rhone, Volga, etc. for boats to navigate to get to interior
c. Not a lot of solid farmland regions. The continent itself is made up of harsh deserts, dry savannahs, jungles, and mountains. Very little plain farmland regions

2. Africa has the MOST nations of any continent. Braking the continent up until so many nations is problematic for a variety of reasons. The smaller nations have less access to resources, must compete with each other, and create more complexity. If Africa could consolidate its nations down, they could have stronger nations to organize armies, government systems, resource extraction, etc.

3. Tribalism - This was the main complaint for most Africans that I spoke to about why they fail (even over the liberal narratives about European colonialism). These tribals really show up in the election process where the top candidate is basically with a tribe and everyone in that tribe votes for them at the expense of the nation. The governments are highly unstable and highly corrupt across Africa. Tribalism has also been the breeding ground for many of the civil wars and even wars between nations that have torn the continent a part and destroyed economies (Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, 1st and 2nd Congolese Wars, etc. have all been tribal conflicts).

Before you throw crap at Africa. Remember that Europe was very tribal with the various Celtic Tribes across Gaul, Spain, the Balkans, and Briton until their outside colonizer (the Roman Empire) arrived on the scene to Civilize them. The Germanic Tribes were also very tribal but Charlemagne's Empire helped define and modernize modern Europe. Even with Rome taken Europe into the "modern" age for their time, Europe went into a dark age that took 100s of years for them to recover. Perhaps Africa is in the same path. They need to consolidate regions like Europe did (i.e. France becoming a single nation after the Hundred Years war breaking up regions like Burgundy, Gascony, Brittany, Aquitaine, Flanders, Lorraine, Savoy, etc. that didn't consider themselves French initially). Europe was tribal or broken up even as late as 1400s. Go play EU4 as an example. Europe slowly integrated into Centralized nations that became super powers. It didn't happen over night. Nations like England, France, Spain, etc. had to become a concept and often unite various Feudal Kingdoms to get where they were. Heck, Germany was a broken up mess called the Holy Roman Empire until Prussia united them all in the 1870s.

4. Neo-Colonialism - African governments are often dependents or under the heavy influence of other outside parties including France, Russia, and recently China.

5. Africa receives very little outside help in Capital Investment or build-up. If money enters Africa, it is usually for individual aid programs and not meaningful efforts to industrialize or modernize the Continent

6. The wildlife (including insect and diseases) is very hostile to humanity. Africa has one of the most hostile biodiversity's of any continent (Australia might have an argument here as well)


There are probably other factors that I have left out as well.
Click to expand...

You say “reasons” which could just as easily be called excuses. Either way it doesn’t debunk anything I said. Africa as a whole has all the resources they need to be a thriving society for the most part. The problems you list as them having are all problems 1st world countries have overcome and as the birthplace of humanity you wouldn’t think they would rank at or near the bottom of the developed world.
 
#23,243
#23,243
C-south said:
You say “reasons” which could just as easily be called excuses. Either way it doesn’t debunk anything I said. Africa as a whole has all the resources they need to be a thriving society for the most part. The problems you list as them having are all problems 1st world countries have overcome and as the birthplace of humanity you wouldn’t think they would rank at or near the bottom of the developed world.
Click to expand...

Not having farmland is a BIG deal. Not having navigable rivers is a BIG deal. Having killer viruses and animals everyone is a BIG deal.

There is a reason most the first world is in Temperate Climates that are farmland rich (Eastern/Central USA, Europe, China-Japan).

Even in Africa, the areas that have traditionally been richer are the farmland heavy regions of West Africa and South Africa. Kenya, for example, has a better geography than say Chad which more resembles New Mexico.



The video above sums it up better than anyone.

Compare that to the United States:




If you want to make fun of people for being a failure, make fun of the Native Americans. They got Eastern United States and didn't do jack with it. Eastern United States is arguable the greatest single spot in the entire Earth for building a great civilization.
 
#23,244
#23,244
Listening to a black democrat saying the white Africans need to go back to their ancestors home, instead of here, 😆😆. After defending illegals who aren't white, sneaking here. That's a level of ignorance that's pretty impressive.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nooga, 825VOL, marcusluvsvols and 8 others
#23,246
#23,246
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
More ad-hominem attacks without ever responding to my actual arguments.

Once again why are you running from the obvious point that black people have a different hair texture than other races and that difference has impacted the culture around hairstyles? So if we see the exact same culture of hairstyling in Ancient Egypt as we see in every other black ethnicity then shouldn't it be obvious the Ancient Egyptians were black as well? In addition to all the other evidence I've posted.
Click to expand...
lol. No. That means absolutely nothing. ANYONE can make their hair look like an ancient Egyptian wall painting. Anyone. It doesn't mean anything unless you want it to. You can put a jackal mask on, doesnt make you Anubis..
 
#23,248
#23,248
#23,250
#23,250
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
That's called drawing you in to expose your ignorance on the topic. You probably have no idea who the Hyksos were. When they ruled. And Where they ruled. I'll jump ahead and give you another nugget. Even before the Greeks ruled Egypt, another foreign group (the Persians) also conquered the nation.

So it was never just from Egyptian rule to Greek rule. You had periods of foreign rule in Egypt that started around 1700 BC. That's why if you actually wanted a sample of just native Egyptians you would be wise to look at mummies from BEFORE that date. And it's not like there wasn't enough time before that date. You only have 1450 years of nothing but Egyptians ruling Egypt.
Click to expand...
Lol. It was you who said the mummies were “most likely” Greek.

I pointed out the mummies predated Ptolemaic rule by 1000 years.

Ha! I tricks’d you!! Hyksos… derp derp…
-D4H
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top