KidStranglehold: When will people get over the obsession of using the term Negroid. Africans are NOT limited to being Negroid. Negroid is just a phenotype, it has no bearing to anything genetically.

Are these 'Bantu' Tutsi's Caucasoid?



Yet their more related to their neighboring Bantu 'Negroid' brethren.

Using Negroid for your argument is worthless and ridiculous. Using Negroid for trying to prove the Ancient Egyptians were African is even more worthless and ridiculous and your just limiting yourself...

EXACTLY BRO! GO TELL THIS ROSIKK DUDE!

NOW HES CLAIMING ASSYRIANS ARE NEGROID! I MEAN WTF?! THERE IS A LIMIT!

PAGAN 9JA:



EXACTLY BRO! GO TELL THIS ROSIKK DUDE!

NOW HES CLAIMING ASSYRIANS ARE NEGROID! I MEAN WTF?! THERE IS A LIMIT!

People should just stop using that term. Don't people realize that Negroid was used to LIMIT Africans and divide them up. Meanwhile 'Caucasoid' was by Eurocentrics used to claim almost EVERY civilization and people, from Indians, Middle Easterners, Horners,etc... I don't get why the heck people still use the terms, its beyond me. Thank god for genetics, if weren't for that then people would still believe Tutsi are a part of some Hamite myth BS, which is what caused the Rwandan genocide in the first place.

KidStranglehold:

People should just stop using that term. Don't people realize that Negroid was used to LIMIT Africans and divide them up. Meanwhile 'Caucasoid' was by Eurocentrics used to claim almost EVERY civilization and people, from Indians, Middle Easterners, Horners,etc... I don't get why the heck people still use the terms, its beyond me. Thank god for genetics, if weren't for that then p[b]eople would still believe Tutsi are a part of some Hamite myth BS, which is what caused the Rwandan genocide in the first place. [/b]

GBAM!

I swear you are truly enlightened with regards to these matters. I salute you once again!

you know I had these 2 common encyclopedias and they both showed the entire Middle-East, India, North Africa, etc., as Caucosoid? it sucks.

These racial theories are the biggest Flaw ever and have caused most world problems.

PAGAN 9JA:


WTF>?! ARE YOU CRAZYY?!

THAT OLD RUINED STATUE! WHAT IS NEGROID ABOUT IT!

Maybe they swore for you in your village so that you cannot recognisse a black man when you see one?

AND LMAO! YOU ARE COMPARING IT TO OBASANJO! AM I SUPPOSED TO LAUGH HERE?

No, you're not supposed to laugh. You're supposed to use your brain. Which you're obviously incapable of.

dude whats their on the head? Hair right?! its all metaphorical.

as if only their heads are black and their bodies are green colour.

stop taking these things literally. you are so narrow I swear.

You are a complete thicko. Always with one excuse or the other to deny what your own history is showing you. Must be your inferiority complex that prevents you from seeing that Africans have a long, distinguished history far beyond your puny mud hut village.

^The Gods help you ooo.

I will not lie just to claim achievements to things I have no hand in. know that well and begone.

PAGAN 9JA:



GBAM!

I swear you are truly enlightened with regards to these matters. I salute you once again!

you know I had these 2 common encyclopedias and they both showed the entire Middle-East, India, North Africa, etc., as Caucosoid? it sucks.

These racial theories are the biggest Flaw ever and have caused most world problems.

Yes and thank you. Again we should thank genetics.

Eurocentrics tried claiming Indians, but Indians especially southern Indians males carry Haplogrup H and C. As for females...Females carry significant amount of MtDNA M. NON of those clades listed are carried by Europeans whether they be male or female.

Eurocentrics also loved saying how Near easterners are mixed with them. But thats actually false. J haplogroup is the main male haplogroup in the near east and it arose IN the near east and was BROUGHT INTO Europe by near easterns. Europe actually had waves and waves of different population entering the continent from the Near East, Africa, Central Asia,etc...Similar to Indian, its actually Europeans that are mixed...

Yes racial theories are flawed and they have been put to rest by genetics.

PAGAN 9JA:
^The Gods help you ooo.

I will not lie just to claim achievements to things I have no hand in. know that well and begone.

You're a COMPLETE DUNCE. Aristotle, Homer, Diodorus, Herodotus and many others who wrote that the Egyptians were blacks with kinky hair were also ''LYING'' because they really loved blacks and wished to grant them undue credit for what was not theirs? You're a disgrace to learning.

Rossikk:

You're a COMPLETE DUNCE. Aristotle, Homer, Diodorus, Herodotus and many others who wrote that the Egyptians were blacks were also ''LYING'' because they really loved blacks and wished to grant them undue credit for what was not theirs? You're a disgrace to learning.

Im not interested in any discourse with you whatsoever. Begone.

KidStranglehold:

Yes and thank you. Again we should thank genetics.

Eurocentrics tried claiming Indians, but Indians especially southern Indians males carry Haplogrup H and C. As for females...Females carry significant amount of MtDNA M. NON of those clades listed are carried by Europeans whether they be male or female.

Eurocentrics also loved saying how Near easterners are mixed with them. But thats actually false. J haplogroup is the main male haplogroup in the near east and it arose IN the near east and was BROUGHT INTO Europe by near easterns. Europe actually had waves and waves of different population entering the continent from the Near East, Africa, Central Asia,etc...Similar to Indian, its actually Europeans that are mixed...

Yes racial theories are flawed and they have been put to rest by genetics.

Yes true.

abot the Indians, I would put the significantly" mixed population at 60%.

The remaining pure groups are the indigenous tribal populations (mostly Afro-Asiatic), the North-Eastern Mongoloid tribes and of the Northern Fringes, and the certain upper-caste tribes who have maintained their Indo-Aryan grouping and Scythian groupings, such as the Bantaru ppl, Rajputs, Jats, Gujjars, and other such tribes (Note these are castes who have ethnicities as well) , due to the caste marriage laws. and these mostly arrived later into the peninsula

KidStranglehold: When will people get over the obsession of using the term Negroid. Africans are NOT limited to being Negroid. Negroid is just a phenotype, it has no bearing to anything genetically.

Are these 'Bantu' Tutsi's Caucasoid?



Yet their more related to their neighboring Bantu 'Negroid' brethren.

Using Negroid for your argument is worthless and ridiculous. Using Negroid for trying to prove the Ancient Egyptians were African is even more worthless and ridiculous and your just limiting yourself...

Also Negroid and Caucasoid are both Eurocentric coined terms, by using them you're only playing THEIR game.

Negroid is simply another term for black. Those people you posted are negroid Africans. Black Africans. The only confusion is in your head.

PAGAN 9JA:


Im not interested in any discourse with you whatsoever. Begone.

And you can get lost too.

Rossikk:

And you can get lost too.

you get lost yourself.

PAGAN 9JA:


Im not interested in any discourse with you whatsoever. Begone.




Yes true.

abot the Indians, I would put the significantly" mixed population at 60%.

The remaining pure groups are the indigenous tribal populations (mostly Afro-Asiatic), the North-Eastern Mongoloid tribes and of the Northern Fringes, and the certain upper-caste tribes who have maintained their Indo-Aryan grouping and Scythian groupings, such as the Bantaru ppl, Rajputs, Jats, Gujjars, and other such tribes (Note these are castes who have ethnicities as well) , due to the caste marriage laws. and these mostly arrived later into the peninsula

Agreed...

^^^Experts in other races but clueless in their own...

Rossikk:

Negroid is simply another term for black. Those people you posted are negroid Africans. Black Africans. The only confusion is in your head.

Okay...Let me educate you...

I repeat NEGROID DOES NOT MEAN BLACK, I REPEAT NEGROID DOES NOT MEAN BLACK! Again you're playing the Eurocentrics game and you ignorantly DON'T even know it. My god most of you Afrocentrics fall for it all the time.

No...The Tutsi I posted WOULD NOT be grouped in as Negroid by old western science back in the day...

This is a 'Negroid'.


"Negroids [generally] differ from Caucasoids... flattish nose, flat root of the nose, narrower ears, narrower joints, frontal skull eminences, later closure of premaxillary sutures, less hairy, longer eyelashes, [and] cruciform pattern of second and third molars."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid#Features

The Tutsi I posted DO NOT have the above! Which is why they were NOT grouped in with other Africans, which is why the Belguim thought as them as superior. This is NOT Negroid...


Straight nose was NOT a trait for Negroid type people during those days.

Do you get what I'm saying? I have no confusion YOU DO!

Rossikk: ^^^Experts in other races but clueless in their own...

Yet your the one who thinks Negroid=black, when 'black' can really mean anything. -__-

You don't even know what Negroid means.

The Hamitic hypothesis affected the policies of European imperial powers in the twentieth century. In Rwanda it was linked to the German and Belgian preferential attitudes to the Tutsis over the Hutu during the colonial period of rule. Some scholars believe this colonial bias was a significant factor contributing to the Rwandan genocide by the Hutus in 1994.
The League of Nations Mandate of 1916 appointed Belgium to govern Rwanda after Germany's defeat in World War I; Philip Gourevitch claims that “the terms Hutu and Tutsi had become clearly defined opposing “ethnic” identities, and the Belgians made this polarization the cornerstone of their colonial policy.”[13] Belgian officials measured numerous Rwandans to define traits among the various tribes; they used the differences to justify the Tutsis' majority of control throughout the country.
They defined racial differences between the Tutsi and Hutu peoples, differences which would impose a wholly inflexible ceiling on those classified as Hutu, rather than one that varied with social status.
Scholars such as Mahmood Mamdani suggested that the Hutu began to view the Tutsi as outside invaders to their land, as "aliens" and usurpers, and that this led, in the end, to genocide. He states that reforms of local government by the Belgian colonial rulers in the 1920s led to a situation in which the Hutus "were not ruled by their own chiefs but by Tutsi chiefs. The same reforms constructed the Tutsi into a different race: the Hamitic race." A major contributing force to the animosity between Hutu and Tutsi is derived from Spekes’ “Hamitic hypothesis”. Namely the notion that since the Tutsi were considered the Hamitic race, "the Hutu could frame the Tutsis as foreign invaders, as by definition, the Hamitic race is synonymous with a settling identity."
Following World War II, Belgium’s colonial administration had been placed under United Nations trusteeship; it was to prepare Rwanda for eventual independence as a self-governing nation. Hutu political activists emerged in great numbers and exploited this as an opportunity to rally the masses to unite in their "Hutuness," as this was their chance to finally gain power after decades of oppression.[13] This philosophy, coupled with other political incidents, led to the social revolution of 1959 when Hutus killed ten thousand Tutsis, predominantly those within the political structure, and displaced thousands more from their homes. What followed was essentially a racial and ethnic hierarchy similar in most respects to that of one year prior; however, the roles were simply reversed – Hutu dominated the institutions and established discrimination against Tutsi in education, the civil service and armed forces.
This creation of an artificial racial caste was unique to Rwanda and Burundi. While other ethnic groups outside Rwanda, such as the Bahima, were also identified by Europeans as "Hamites", they were not given institutionalised superior status. "Only in Rwanda and Burundi did the Hamitic hypothesis become the basis of a series of institutional changes that fixed the Tutsi as a race in their relationship to the colonial state."
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamitic#Rwanda_and_Burundi

For all you clueless people who don't know, 'Hamite' people were a part of the larger CAUCASOID RACE!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race#Classification

Hamites(Horners, Tutsi,etc) were deemed 'black' skinned Caucasoid! Why do you think the Europeans gave the Tutsi's higher power if they were 'Negroid'

Again this...


Was deemed superior to this...


Because the former was closer to this...


Get the picture? This isn't rocket science. But genetics has debunked all of this.

Rossikk:

I think the joke is on you. Qualified and eminent scholars in the field routinely draw up linguistic evidence as proof of filial connections between peoples, and you cannot trash it by sounding smug.

This is bullshit. If someone can disprove a stupid theory then they've disproven a stupid theory, no matter who it was written by. You talk about smugness right after you go on about "qualified and qualified scholars" as if that makes any difference to an argument. If something is wrong anybody with a proper argument as to why that thing is wrong has a say.

Rossikk: Utterly insufficient and unsatisfactory basis to explain the wide range of linguistic congruences.

Can you even confirm any of those so called ancient Egyptian words? Look at the pure thirst to stretch the meanings of the Yoruba words to fit with the Egyptian. And there's even comparisons with proper nouns without elaborating on the etymology and how they are cognates and not just similar sounding words, kind of like comparing Orlu with Orleans. According to your list Ausa is 'father' in Yoruba (? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?), and that's just one I'm willing to go through because I know it's filled with more bullshit. By the way how is the plethora of ethnic groups in West Africa, including those speaking language isolates, explained by this theory?

Rossikk: What languages pre-date Medu Neter, the language of Ancient Egypt??

Care to name them?

The early period of Ancient Egypt is closer to our time than island hopping migrations in the Pacific. In fact the first Australians arrived on the southern continent equivalent to ten times the time between now and pre-historic Egypt. Some of the oldest languages in Africa belong to the Khoisan. Not to even talk about 200,000 year old human remains.

Were you serious with this question?

Rossikk: And a ''similar sounding word'' for a thousand and one other things. NOT JUST WATER.

Oh, and linguistic evidence is only ONE in a collection of evidence elements. You tie in the linguistic evidence with evidence drawn from similarities in cultural practices, religion, philosophies, archaeology, oral traditions etc etc. Based on this you then form a theory. So it is not just all based on linguistic evidence.

What archaeology are you talking about?

Rossikk: Igbo and Yoruba MIGRATION from the Nile Valley thousands of years ago meant that their languages would adapt to those of the West African forest regions over time, while yet retaining the stamp of their Nile Valley heritage via similarity of words used with ancient Medu Neter etc.

Doesn't make any bloody sense, the languages are still completely different. What migrations were these and from what dynasty, era, so we can know what kind of Egyptian we're even talking about. 'Adapting to the forest', what does that mean? Arabic is distantly related but still sounds close to Coptic today. You mean a giant of a culture like Egypt went to a forest region and nothing of them is recognisable today. Your diffusionist theory has been proven wrong.

Rossikk: Spare us your colonial-invented AFRICAN language classifications.

And who exactly do you think started this word of West Africans descending from Ancient Egyptians? I will like for you to tell me why Hausa or any other language should not be classified as Afro-asiatic. All your arguments are too emotionally driven. You don't have any proper sources whether indigenous or from academics. What would you say to West Africans that claim they did not migrate from anywhere, are you going to suggest to them that they came from Egypt a civilisation they did not know existed until Colonial expeditions started in the 1800s?

At the end of the day this Egypt shit was started by insecure people that know nothing about West African history. All the so called evidence is pure shit. You can use those methods to link West Africans to early India, but wait, don't tell me, the West Africans founded Indian civilisation right? Funny how we're never talking about how West Africans are connected to people in the east or south.

Bunch of insecure shit.

Any group of people with 80 to 90% similarity in language are related. Igbo people are all related to each other. I dont know why some people are trying hard to change that.

KidStranglehold:

Okay...Let me educate you...

I repeat NEGROID DOES NOT MEAN BLACK, I REPEAT NEGROID DOES NOT MEAN BLACK! Again you're playing the Eurocentrics game and you ignorantly DON'T even know it. My god most of you Afrocentrics fall for it all the time.

No...The Tutsi I posted WOULD NOT be grouped in as Negroid by old western science back in the day...

This is a 'Negroid'.


"Negroids [generally] differ from Caucasoids... flattish nose, flat root of the nose, narrower ears, narrower joints, frontal skull eminences, later closure of premaxillary sutures, less hairy, longer eyelashes, [and] cruciform pattern of second and third molars."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid#Features

Don't be dishonest. That was just ONE man's definition of 'negroid'. Ashley Montagu, a British.

The Tutsi I posted DO NOT have the above! Which is why they were NOT grouped in with other Africans, which is why the Belguim thought as them as superior. This is NOT Negroid...


Straight nose was NOT a trait for Negroid type people during those days.

Do you get what I'm saying? I have no confusion YOU DO!

But YOU are the one playing THEIR game Mr Man.

It is YOU who is accepting THEIR definition of negro and negroid.

To conscious blacks, a negro is a BLACK PERSON. END OF STORY.

To YOU, a negro is who Ashley Montagu says he is.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND US CONSCIOUS BLACKS. WE DON'T LET THEM TELL US WHO WE ARE. WE TELL THEM, AND YOU, WHO WE ARE.

Africans never were racists or differentiated people based on skin colour as black or white, before the colonial period. only tribe mattered.

so all those racists should GTFO Africa. please "they" must not deign to pollute the mindset of our children.

Rossikk:


Don't be dishonest. That was ONE man's definition of 'negroid'. Ashley Montagu, a British.



But YOU are the one playing THEIR game Mr Man.

It is YOU who is accepting THEIR definition of negro and negroid.

To conscious blacks, a negro is a BLACK PERSON. END OF STORY.

To YOU, a negro is who Ashley Montagu says it is.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND CONSCIOUS BLACKS.

Lol please explain to me how I 'accept' when I'M the one TELLING you how negatively the term was used and how it was used to limit Africans. So please elaborate more...You didn't even know what the term meant and how negative it was. Both negro and negroid are OUTDATED terms! So again how do I accept? Not only that, I don't really subscribe to race. And Africans are to DIVERSE to have 'negroid' put onto them.

PAGAN 9JA:
Africans never were racists or differentiated people based on skin colour as black or white, before the colonial period. only tribe mattered.

First of all, kindly STOP using the word ''tribe'' to denote African ethnic groups.

so all those racists should GTFO Africa. please "they" must not deign to pollute the mindset of our children.

Second get your head out of the sand and get with the program. RACE is an issue today and has been for at least the last 1000 odd years courtesy of western machinations. Africans, victims of slavery, colonisation and exploitation based on racism, have become far more race conscious than their forbears, and far more conscious of the need for racial solidarity, and rightly so.

Rossikk:

First of all, kindly STOP using the word ''tribe'' to denote African ethnic groups.

why should I stop? whats wrong with tribe?

In my opinion, ethnic groups are just larger tribes.

Second get your head out of the sand and get with the program. RACE is an issue today and has been for at least the last 1000 odd years courtesy of western machinations. Africans, victims of slavery, colonisation and exploitation based on racism, have become far more race conscious than their forbears, and far more conscious of the need for racial solidarity, and rightly so.

I knew you were a daym racist. i suppose you live in the americas? because that stuff dont work here. .

KidStranglehold:

Lol please explain to me how I 'accept' when I'M the one TELLING you how negatively the term was used and how it was used to limit Africans. So please elaborate more...You didn't even know what the term meant and how negative it was. Both negro and negroid are OUTDATED terms! So again how do I accept? Not only that, I don't really subscribe to race. And Africans are to DIVERSE to have 'negroid' put onto them.

First, I probably was into all this before you were born, so curb the snide remarks. Second, using Ashley Montagu's narrow definition of negro does NOT mean we should not use the term in a more sensible manner to denote ALL BLACKS. In fact, the vast majority of PEOPLE ON EARTH TODAY would call a Somalian or Ethiopian NEGROID without hesitation. This shows that the term is understood by the majority in its proper context, and cannot be based on definitions proposed by individuals like Ashley Montagu. Plus there is NO NEED to discard the term either, especially in debates to do with race, anthropology, history etc.

PAGAN 9JA:


why should I stop? whats wrong with tribe?

In my opinion, ethnic groups are just larger tribes.

Do you also refer to the English, Italians, and French as tribes?

I knew you were a daym racist. i suppose you live in the americas? because that stuff dont work here. .

I knew you were a damn Uncle Tom pretending to be an Africanist. Are you based inside the asss of 'whitey'? Cost that stuff don't work outside it.

Rossikk:

Do you also refer to the English, Italians, and French as tribes?

you ID.IOT! SARKIN ALJINNU SAVE ME OOOOOOooooo!


the ENGLISH, ITALIANS AND FRENCH HAVE LOST THEIR TRIBES!

Todays english are a mixture of Angles, Saxon, Norman and to some extent, early Biton/Brythonic tribes.

The French are a mixture of the tribes: Gauls, Franks, Visigoths and in the province of Normandy, the Norsemen.

same with the italians, who are mixed.


Go read some history. this happened after the arrival of christianity in europe. the church made sure to assimilate and destroy europes tribes so she could not return to Pagan religion, by proming single families and destroy the compound structure, trible structure and invalidating tribal law by replacing them with church laws.


todays mostly west Europeans are all MIXED.

Rossikk:


I knew you were a damn Uncle Tom pretending to be an Africanist. Are you based inside the asss of 'whitey'? Cost that stuff don't work outside it.

abeg SHUT UP!

I AM NOT AN AFRICANIST! I AM A TRIBALIST!

Rossikk:

First, I probably was into all this before you were born, so curb the snide remarks. Second, using Ashley Montagu's narrow definition of negro does NOT mean we should not use the term in a more sensible manner to denote ALL BLACKS. In fact, the vast majority of PEOPLE ON EARTH TODAY would call a Somalian or Ethiopian NEGROID without hesitation. This shows that the term is understood by the majority in its proper context, and cannot be based on definitions proposed by individuals like Ashley Montagu. Plus there is NO NEED to discard the term either, especially in debates to do with race, anthropology, history etc.

You still do not know what the term means. No people do not classify Somalis as negroid. Why do you think Eurocentric always claim them. Why do you think the Somali troll use 'negroid' to differentiate from other Africans. Again you still do not understand what Negroid means and the racist origins of it..

Yes I'll use negroid in an anthropology debate. But other then that, not really.

KidStranglehold: The Hamitic hypothesis affected the policies of European imperial powers in the twentieth century. In Rwanda it was linked to the German and Belgian preferential attitudes to the Tutsis over the Hutu during the colonial period of rule. Some scholars believe this colonial bias was a significant factor contributing to the Rwandan genocide by the Hutus in 1994.
The League of Nations Mandate of 1916 appointed Belgium to govern Rwanda after Germany's defeat in World War I; Philip Gourevitch claims that “the terms Hutu and Tutsi had become clearly defined opposing “ethnic” identities, and the Belgians made this polarization the cornerstone of their colonial policy.”[13] Belgian officials measured numerous Rwandans to define traits among the various tribes; they used the differences to justify the Tutsis' majority of control throughout the country.
They defined racial differences between the Tutsi and Hutu peoples, differences which would impose a wholly inflexible ceiling on those classified as Hutu, rather than one that varied with social status.
Scholars such as Mahmood Mamdani suggested that the Hutu began to view the Tutsi as outside invaders to their land, as "aliens" and usurpers, and that this led, in the end, to genocide. He states that reforms of local government by the Belgian colonial rulers in the 1920s led to a situation in which the Hutus "were not ruled by their own chiefs but by Tutsi chiefs. The same reforms constructed the Tutsi into a different race: the Hamitic race." A major contributing force to the animosity between Hutu and Tutsi is derived from Spekes’ “Hamitic hypothesis”. Namely the notion that since the Tutsi were considered the Hamitic race, "the Hutu could frame the Tutsis as foreign invaders, as by definition, the Hamitic race is synonymous with a settling identity."
Following World War II, Belgium’s colonial administration had been placed under United Nations trusteeship; it was to prepare Rwanda for eventual independence as a self-governing nation. Hutu political activists emerged in great numbers and exploited this as an opportunity to rally the masses to unite in their "Hutuness," as this was their chance to finally gain power after decades of oppression.[13] This philosophy, coupled with other political incidents, led to the social revolution of 1959 when Hutus killed ten thousand Tutsis, predominantly those within the political structure, and displaced thousands more from their homes. What followed was essentially a racial and ethnic hierarchy similar in most respects to that of one year prior; however, the roles were simply reversed – Hutu dominated the institutions and established discrimination against Tutsi in education, the civil service and armed forces.
This creation of an artificial racial caste was unique to Rwanda and Burundi. While other ethnic groups outside Rwanda, such as the Bahima, were also identified by Europeans as "Hamites", they were not given institutionalised superior status. "Only in Rwanda and Burundi did the Hamitic hypothesis become the basis of a series of institutional changes that fixed the Tutsi as a race in their relationship to the colonial state."
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamitic#Rwanda_and_Burundi

For all you clueless people who don't know, 'Hamite' people were a part of the larger CAUCASOID RACE!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race#Classification

Hamites(Horners, Tutsi,etc) were deemed 'black' skinned Caucasoid! Why do you think the Europeans gave the Tutsi's higher power if they were 'Negroid'

Again this...


Was deemed superior to this...


Because the former was closer to this...


Get the picture? This isn't rocket science. But genetics has debunked all of this.

GBAM!!

KidStranglehold:

Okay...Let me educate you...

I repeat NEGROID DOES NOT MEAN BLACK, I REPEAT NEGROID DOES NOT MEAN BLACK! Again you're playing the Eurocentrics game and you ignorantly DON'T even know it. My god most of you Afrocentrics fall for it all the time.

No...The Tutsi I posted WOULD NOT be grouped in as Negroid by old western science back in the day...

This is a 'Negroid'.


"Negroids [generally] differ from Caucasoids... flattish nose, flat root of the nose, narrower ears, narrower joints, frontal skull eminences, later closure of premaxillary sutures, less hairy, longer eyelashes, [and] cruciform pattern of second and third molars."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid#Features

The Tutsi I posted DO NOT have the above! Which is why they were NOT grouped in with other Africans, which is why the Belguim thought as them as superior. This is NOT Negroid...


Straight nose was NOT a trait for Negroid type people during those days.

Do you get what I'm saying? I have no confusion YOU DO!

^^^^^ the truth.

and btw i consider myself afro-centric and i do not like the term negro.

so please say "some lol

PAGAN 9JA:



GBAM!

...you know I had these 2 common encyclopedias and they both showed the entire Middle-East, India, North Africa, etc., as Caucosoid? it sucks....

just like kid said
it was an agenda to claim that every great civilization on earth was created by or had something to do with whites. did you know pagan, that there are white folks who SWEAR the "Dark caucasoids" were originally white people who went into africa and through time darkened because of over exposure to the sun and uv rays?

[size=98pt]-_-[/size]
and some people actually believe that bullshyt.