That's racist!

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[Carl Pickens]

Well he Fake attended Duke

I missed this. I do remember his claiming to have attended Duke, but not his being exposed.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

do you read your own links dude?
"Nevertheless, many Christians, Muslims and Jews now disagree with such interpretations, because in the biblical text, Ham himself is not cursed, and neither race nor skin color are ever mentioned"

Guess you missed the key word. They NOW disagree. I said they used the Curse of Ham to justify the enslavement of black people when slavery was actually going on. Obviously they're gonna change their tune now that slavery and racism aren't acceptable.

My entire point with bringing up the Bible was not to argue about if Noah and his sons actually existed. Nor what people believe today. But rather what people believed AT THE TIME. And whether you like it or not. At the time the Bible was written and in the following centuries Ham was viewed as the forefather of the black races of the world. The Ancient Egyptians were considered part of this black race. And these Biblical genealogies were even used to justify the enslavement of black people centuries later during the European conquest of the world.

The key here is HAM = BLACK PEOPLE. Ancient Egyptians were considered sons of Ham. Thus they were part of the black race according to the Bible. That is an indisputable biblical fact.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Yes, yes… so where are the major universities and media discussing this refutation?

Same place as those refuting covid or whatever bs the mainstream is pushing. Maybe you'll get wise enough to start thinking for yourself when you get older rather than just believing what you're told.

 

[85SugarVol]

Same place as those refuting covid or whatever bs the mainstream is pushing. Maybe you'll get wise enough to start thinking for yourself when you get older rather than just believing what you're told.

So… there are none. That’s what I figured.

 

[StarRaider]

I missed this. I do remember his claiming to have attended Duke, but not his being exposed.

Nike Adidas and Under Armour Tell Lavar Ball To Pound Sand

Lamelo needs to tighten up his handle quite a bit if he wants to be a PG. It doesn't look much better than your average high school player. If he doesn't stick at PG he's not nearly as good of a prospect as his older brother

www.volnation.com

 

[EasternVol]

Got to turn it into the rest of Africa.

How so?

 

[C-south]

Same place as those refuting covid or whatever bs the mainstream is pushing. Maybe you'll get wise enough to start thinking for yourself when you get older rather than just believing what you're told.

Thinking for yourself has nothing to do with just making s*** up.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

So… there are none. That’s what I figured.

One again arguing based on authority is a logical fallacy. You've yet to actually refute the sampling question. Do you think we can deduce the racial makeup of a civilization that spanned 4000 years and the entire borders of the modern Egyptian nation by only sampling mummies from one city during periods when the Greeks ruled?

That's the criticism. And you nor the scientists who did the study can respond to it. They just hope people ignore the obvious and just go with the desired result they wanted which was a result that said the Ancient Egyptians were closer to Europeans than Africans.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Thinking for yourself has nothing to do with just making s*** up.

I'm the only person here who has cited primary source materials. I've posted actual images of how the Ancient Egyptians depicted themselves as well as modern Africans looking exactly like them. I've also posted quotes from Ancient Greek historians like Diodorus Siculus who traveled through Ancient Egypt and Nubia. And I've refuted the fallacious DNA study that tried to claim the Ancient Egyptians were more closely related to Europeans than Africans with another scholarly article challenging its claims. I've even posted Biblical accounts supporting my claims.

There's not been a single claim I've made that I haven't supported with primary sources.

 

[C-south]

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.

 

[FLVOL_79]

But what about the pictures!….

Dude bases his proof off ancient drawings, coincidence, and ancient "historical" books which, as he conveniently leaves out, includes the existence of "monopods" (people with one giant foot) who used those giant feet to shade themselves from the desert sun... Makes for a good read I'll give him that.

I get it though. Most people want to feel more important than they are. Its human nature to seek validation. Granted most of the time that's women, but dudes do it too. Folks should worry about themselves more than others. Competitive? Be competitive with yourself because in the end that will be all that matters.

Actually, in the end none of it matters so do whatever you want.

 

[FLVOL_79]

I believe D4H. Who else would copy an ancient hairstyle unless they were direct descendants of them? You can't fake hair guys.

 

[85SugarVol]

One again arguing based on authority is a logical fallacy. You've yet to actually refute the sampling question. Do you think we can deduce the racial makeup of a civilization that spanned 4000 years and the entire borders of the modern Egyptian nation by only sampling mummies from one city during periods when the Greeks ruled?

That's the criticism. And you nor the scientists who did the study can respond to it. They just hope people ignore the obvious and just go with the desired result they wanted which was a result that said the Ancient Egyptians were closer to Europeans than Africans.

When it comes to analyzing DNA sequences? Yea, I’m gonna defer to the experts, and the opinions of Oxford & Cambridge.

And certainly when the counter argument is your pseudo-analysis of pictures.

 

[tbh]

Dude bases his proof off ancient drawings, coincidence, and ancient "historical" books which, as he conveniently leaves out, includes the existence of "monopods" (people with one giant foot) who used those giant feet to shade themselves from the desert sun... Makes for a good read I'll give him that.

I get it though. Most people want to feel more important than they are. Its human nature to seek validation. Granted most of the time that's women, but dudes do it too. Folks should worry about themselves more than others. Competitive? Be competitive with yourself because in the end that will be all that matters.

Actually, in the end none of it matters so do whatever you want.

I'd love to know more about how domesticated dogs have changed since the middle ages and Renaissance. I mean, look at these primary sources!



Some dogs were quite talented back then!

 

[hndog609]

When it comes to analyzing DNA sequences? Yea, I’m gonna defer to the experts, and the opinions of Oxford & Cambridge.

And certainly when the counter argument is your pseudo-analysis of pictures.

His "eye" is legendary in how much it weights his POV. Making judgments about Antonio Callaway on his face and predicting qb greatness on arm vascularity are just 2 off the top of my head.

His hit rate has been shown to be...let's just say "poor".

 

[whodeycin85]

Was it this Duke that was so racist?? That race scandels were made up and fraudulent.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/14/us/crystal-mangum-duke-lacrosse-allegations/index.html

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

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.

First of all, just because Egypt and Nubia were thriving doesn't mean all of Africa was. Most of the world until very recently was living in huts and barbaric tribes. When Ancient Greece was thriving in 500 BC they said the Germanic tribes to their north were uncivilized barbarians. Also when the Romans first arrived in Britain in the first century AD they said the English were living like animals.

So the fall off wasn't all Africans. It was only some. And I agree with you it's embarrassing that black people lag behind every other race now when it comes to intellectual achievement. However, the reason history is important is it let's us know that if we did it once before then we can do it again. Most black people have internalized the very point you're making. That were at the bottom of the human ladder right now. And they believe that's how it's always been. But if you teach our kids we were once at the pinnacle then maybe they'll have the confidence and determination to succeed in academics rather than just looking to sports or entertainment.

So I don't disagree with anything you said. We fell off and are behind everybody else now. But the first step to getting back in the race is knowing you've won it before.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

I believe D4H. Who else would copy an ancient hairstyle unless they were direct descendants of them? You can't fake hair guys.

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.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

When it comes to analyzing DNA sequences? Yea, I’m gonna defer to the experts, and the opinions of Oxford & Cambridge.

And certainly when the counter argument is your pseudo-analysis of pictures.

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.

 

[LouderVol]

Guess you missed the key word. They NOW disagree. I said they used the Curse of Ham to justify the enslavement of black people when slavery was actually going on. Obviously they're gonna change their tune now that slavery and racism aren't acceptable.

My entire point with bringing up the Bible was not to argue about if Noah and his sons actually existed. Nor what people believe today. But rather what people believed AT THE TIME. And whether you like it or not. At the time the Bible was written and in the following centuries Ham was viewed as the forefather of the black races of the world. The Ancient Egyptians were considered part of this black race. And these Biblical genealogies were even used to justify the enslavement of black people centuries later during the European conquest of the world.

The key here is HAM = BLACK PEOPLE. Ancient Egyptians were considered sons of Ham. Thus they were part of the black race according to the Bible. That is an indisputable biblical fact.

way to selectively quote me. its no wonder you struggle to understand what you are talking about.

read your link dude. they started out not believing it. they then used it as justification centuries if not millennia later for a brief period of time. and now they don't believe it any more. it was never part of the bible.

the first reference to HAM=BLACK PEOPLE was made in the 4th century AD. that is long after Genesis was written, and well after most of the individual books of the bible were written. it is not mentioned in the bible that Ham was black.

read your own links.

racist people trying to use the bible to justify a racist cause does not mean the actual bible has those racist causes in it. it means the racist people are twisting something else to make it fit their tortured argument. its a very similar argument style you are using. you are purposefully misquoting/referencing things, ignoring the parts you don't like, ignoring the context that would give any sort of real UNDERSTANDING, and just jumping to your conclusion.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

way to selectively quote me. its no wonder you struggle to understand what you are talking about.

read your link dude. they started out not believing it. they then used it as justification centuries if not millennia later for a brief period of time. and now they don't believe it any more. it was never part of the bible.

the first reference to HAM=BLACK PEOPLE was made in the 4th century AD. that is long after Genesis was written, and well after most of the individual books of the bible were written. it is not mentioned in the bible that Ham was black.

read your own links.

racist people trying to use the bible to justify a racist cause does not mean the actual bible has those racist causes in it. it means the racist people are twisting something else to make it fit their tortured argument. its a very similar argument style you are using. you are purposefully misquoting/referencing things, ignoring the parts you don't like, ignoring the context that would give any sort of real UNDERSTANDING, and just jumping to your conclusion.

Sure. At the beginning there wasn't racism. Then the racists did latch onto the story of Ham to justify their racism. But that doesn't refute my actual point which is that the Ancient Egyptians were viewed as black by the Bible writers.

The key is the Ancient Egyptians were linked with the Nubians as both being sons of Ham in comparison to the Arabs, Jews, Greeks, Romans, and Persians who were the sons of Shem and Japeth respectively. Ham doesn't have to be the one who was black. The argument is his descendants are the ones who became black. Remember all humans were originally the same. So regardless of what Noah and his sons looked like it was their descendants that would become all the races of man we see today.

No matter how you try to spin it the Bible is clear. The Ancient Egyptians were grouped with the Nubians as both being sons of Ham. Then centuries later to justify their racism certain groups used the story of Ham to target all black people since at the time it was understood that the descendants of Ham were the black peoples of the world in which the Ancient Egyptians were included.

So no matter what the Bible views the Ancient Egyptians as a black people.

 

[C-south]

First of all, just because Egypt and Nubia were thriving doesn't mean all of Africa was. Most of the world until very recently was living in huts and barbaric tribes. When Ancient Greece was thriving in 500 BC they said the Germanic tribes to their north were uncivilized barbarians. Also when the Romans first arrived in Britain in the first century AD they said the English were living like animals.

So the fall off wasn't all Africans. It was only some. And I agree with you it's embarrassing that black people lag behind every other race now when it comes to intellectual achievement. However, the reason history is important is it let's us know that if we did it once before then we can do it again. Most black people have internalized the very point you're making. That were at the bottom of the human ladder right now. And they believe that's how it's always been. But if you teach our kids we were once at the pinnacle then maybe they'll have the confidence and determination to succeed in academics rather than just looking to sports or entertainment.

So I don't disagree with anything you said. We fell off and are behind everybody else now. But the first step to getting back in the race is knowing you've won it before.

In the grand scheme it’s just the past and it should have nothing to do with present, especially when we’re talking thousands of years. You’re cherry picking a few hieroglyphic pics to make you feel good about something that is (or should be) completely irrelevant. Who cares about someone’s hair texture over 2000 years ago? Until I see a hieroglyphic with a hair pick with a black fist I’m going to stick with what most historians say. If we go with your opinion we might as well believe Anubis was a real person.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

In the grand scheme it’s just the past and it should have nothing to do with present, especially when we’re talking thousands of years. You’re cherry picking a few hieroglyphic pics to make you feel good about something that is (or should be) completely irrelevant. Who cares about someone’s hair texture over 2000 years ago? Until I see a hieroglyphic with a hair pick with a black fist I’m going to stick with what most historians say. If we go with your opinion we might as well believe Anubis was a real person.

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:



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.








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:



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.

 

[LouderVol]

Sure. At the beginning there wasn't racism. Then the racists did latch onto the story of Ham to justify their racism. But that doesn't refute my actual point which is that the Ancient Egyptians were viewed as black by the Bible writers.

The key is the Ancient Egyptians were linked with the Nubians as both being sons of Ham in comparison to the Arabs, Jews, Greeks, Romans, and Persians who were the sons of Shem and Japeth respectively. Ham doesn't have to be the one who was black. The argument is his descendants are the ones who became black. Remember all humans were originally the same. So regardless of what Noah and his sons looked like it was their descendants that would become all the races of man we see today.

No matter how you try to spin it the Bible is clear. The Ancient Egyptians were grouped with the Nubians as both being sons of Ham. Then centuries later to justify their racism certain groups used the story of Ham to target all black people since at the time it was understood that the descendants of Ham were the black peoples of the world in which the Ancient Egyptians were included.

So no matter what the Bible views the Ancient Egyptians as a black people.

no they were not. there is nothing in the bible discussing that. you are making several leaps to get to that point. and as always you are using things that would happen in the future to justify what was the current/past mindset/reality. that just doesn't work.

Jews have been scattered beyond Israel for their entire existence. there being a son in Ethiopia/Nubia doesn't require that he was black. even in ancient times peoples intermingled in different lands, those sons could have just settled in those areas with other existing people. there is nothing in the bible saying the sons were the progenitors of those races. that ASSUMPTION came AFTER the bible was written, and is mostly pushed by racists to justify racism, not because it is factually supported.