tintingz:
This didn't answer the question.

How come Africa was colonized for years?

What exactly is the purpose of juju?

if this don't answer the question . then i don't know the kind of answer you are looking for.

Juju as is used by Africans today is European superstition. What I'm saying is african people ruled the earth for hundreds and thousands of years before Europeans even came into existence. The fact that the European rule now does not have anything to do with a spiritual powers, it has to do with everything happening in it's cycle. When the law of universe say it's time for a thing to happen, no magical power nor supernatural abilities can stop that thing from occurring. it's the law of cause and effect call it what you will

vaxx:
if this don't answer the question then i don't know the kind of answer you are looking for.

Juju as is used by Africans today is European superstition. What I'm saying is african people ruled the earth for hundreds and thousands of years before Europeans even came into existence the fact that the European rule now do not have nothing to do with a spiritual powers it has to do with everything happening in it's cycle. When the University say it's time for a thing to happen no magical power no supernatural abilities can stop that thing from occurring it's the law of cause and effect call it what you will

Serious question, are you high sometimes when you post?

LordReed:


Serious question, are you high sometimes when you post?

what is that suppose to mean. Is there any error or false claim with what I post

vaxx:
what should that suppose to mean. Is there any error or false with what I post

Dude your posts are full of errors most times. On occasion its lucidly clear and error free, I wonder if its the same person. Don't be offended though it doesn't mean much, just a question.

LordReed:


Dude your posts are full of errors most times. On occasion its lucidly clear and error free, I wonder if its the same person. Don't be offended though it doesn't mean much, just a question.

You mean grammatical errors.

vaxx:
You mean grammatical errors.

And spelling errors too.

LordReed:


And spelling errors too.

i am on the phone but we take care of that......

vaxx:
if this don't answer the question . then i don't know the kind of answer you are looking for.

Juju as is used by Africans today is European superstition. What I'm saying is african people ruled the earth for hundreds and thousands of years before Europeans even came into existence. The fact that the European rule now do, does not have anything to do with a spiritual powers, it has to do with everything happening in it's cycle. When the University say it's time for a thing to happen, no magical power nor supernatural abilities can stop that thing from occurring. it's the law of cause and effect call it what you will

Juju is used to protect, since it didn't work when the white came, it is useless.

Kindly tell how Africa ruled the earth for hundred and thousands of years?

vaxx:
if this don't answer the question . then i don't know the kind of answer you are looking for.

Juju as is used by Africans today is European superstition. What I'm saying is african people ruled the earth for hundreds and thousands of years before Europeans even came into existence. The fact that the European rule now does not have anything to do with a spiritual powers, it has to do with everything happening in it's cycle. When the law of universe say it's time for a thing to happen, no magical power nor supernatural abilities can stop that thing from occurring. it's the law of cause and effect call it what you will

Vaxx is that really you?

tintingz:
Juju is used to protect, since it didn't work when the white came, it is useless.

Kindly tell how Africa ruled the earth for hundred and thousands of years?

. Well for the purpose of limited definition; juju fall into science of the mind. Psychological controling, what was used as a means of protection back then is their mind. Some who positively used it well were saved .

As for the second question. Do a little goggle search and ask me question if flaws exist in my post.

obinna58:

Vaxx is that really you?

Any problem

vaxx:
. Well for the purpose of limited definition; juju fall into science of the mind. Psychological controling, what was used as a means of protection back then is their mind. Some who positively used it well were saved .

As for the second question. Do a little goggle search and ask me question if flaws exist in my post.

Does it mean juju has another meaning cos in accordance to what you re saying, it kinda means juju doesn't really exist.
We all know juju involves doing extraordinary things

obinna58:

Does it mean juju has another meaning cos in accordance to what you re saying, it kinda means juju doesn't really exist.
We all know juju involves doing extraordinary things

for a start what is juju ?Hope you know Nigeria constitution recognize it.

vaxx:
for a start what is juju ?Hope you Nigeria constitution recognize it.

I'm talking of how people sees it, juju can be shown physically not only in the mind, involves charm, doing beyond human abilities

obinna58:

I'm talking of how people sees it, juju can be shown physically not only in the mind, involves charm, doing beyond human abilities

there are a lot ways of mind controlling that can manifest physically. It depends on the fellow. Even our politicians use it everyday.

This is a very good question

vaxx:
for a start what is juju ?Hope you know Nigeria constitution recognize it.

vaxx:
. Well for the purpose of limited definition; juju fall into science of the mind. Psychological controling, what was used as a means of protection back then is their mind. Some who positively used it well were saved .

Lol, I don't think it's only a mind thing, it is also seen as some kind of supernatural power e.g Sango is said to breathe out fire, is it a thing of the mind?

When you said it is mind thing, can you explain further?

As for the second question. Do a little goggle search and ask me question if flaws exist in my post.

I mostly see Egypt, the question now is, is ancient Egypt consider black civilization?

tintingz:
[b[Lol, I don't think it's only a mind thing, it is also seen as some kind of supernatural power e.g Sango is said to breathe out fire, is it a thing of the mind?
[/b]

shango fire is simply a symbolism . (I.e) it is a metaphor for the deification of the power of the will.

When you said it is mind thing, can you explain further?

it is about psychological controlling

I mostly see Egypt, the question now is, is ancient Egypt consider black civilization?[/quote]This is not what i was expecting you to talk about. There is a solid scientific research that Homo sapiens first appear in africa , somewhere betweeen Ethiopia and kenya over 2humdered and thousand years.

But to compliment it, the first occupant of egypt were blacks and egypt is situated in africa.

We submit a university of cambridge research to back up this assertion later

vaxx:
shango fire is simply a symbolism . (I.e) it is a metaphor for the deification of the power of the will.

Lol

Well it's a myth, what do we expect.

it is about psychological controlling

So the bulletproof, disappearing, telekinesis juju are not real?

This is not what i was expecting you to talk about. There is a solid scientific research that Homo sapiens first appear in africa , somewhere betweeen Ethiopia and kenya over 2humdered and thousand years.

Does that mean they ruled the world?

But to compliment it, the first occupant of egypt were blacks and egypt is situated in africa.

We submit a university of cambridge research to back up this assertion later

Most scholars reject the hypothesis that the ancient egyptians are black or white.

tintingz:
Lol

Well it's a myth, what do we expect.

well, it happens to be the best way to get our point across . Using a story and sometimes the best story for the job isn't entirely factual.

Mythology is a useful tool in our societal development just like a hammer is a useful tool in construction. The question isn't whether mythology is true or not, it's whether or not that particular myth is useful to a particular person at a particular point in their life journey. How the myth is conveyed and in what context is equally important.. so myth in tbis case isn't entirely falsified.

So the bulletproof, disappearing, telekinesis juju are not real?

Reality is but an illusion, albeit a persistent one. Einstein. Is the bulletproof , disappearing or telekinesis persistent? You yourself can evaluate it yourself.

Does that mean they ruled the world?

Yes they rule their own world which was predominantly found in africa.

Most scholars reject the hypothesis that the ancient egyptians are black or white.

It depends on how far back you go. 1,500 BC Queen Tiye was black with an Afro and other African (Negroid) features.


This is an authority report on the historical colour of the Egyptians ? Cambridge university data

https://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept/ant/egypt/kemet/virtualkemet/faq/

I just tire for vaxx

obinna58:
I just tire for vaxx

like wetin. Tell me what you don't understand about my view.

vaxx:
well, it happens to be the best way to get our point across . Using a story and sometimes the best story for the job isn't entirely factual.

Mythology is a useful tool in our societal development just like a hammer is a useful tool in construction. The question isn't whether mythology is true or not, it's whether or not that particular myth is useful to a particular person at a particular point in their life journey. How the myth is conveyed and in what context is equally important.. so myth in tbis case isn't entirely falsified.

Mythologies can be useful but it shows supernatural events are fictions.

Reality is but an illusion, albeit a persistent one. Einstein. Is the bulletproof , disappearing or telekinesis persistent? You yourself can evaluate it yourself.

Ok

Yes they rule their own world which was predominantly found in africa.

Not conquering.

It depends on how far back you go. 1,500 BC Queen Tiye was black with an Afro and other African (Negroid) features.


This is an authority report on the historical colour of the Egyptians ? Cambridge university data

https://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept/ant/egypt/kemet/virtualkemet/faq/

From what I read, scholars don't regard ancient Egyptians as blacks nor whites.

The hypothesis is regarded as a fringe theory. Mainstream scholars reject the notion that Egypt was a white or black civilization; they maintain that, despite the phenotypic diversity of Ancient and present day Egyptians, applying modern notions of black or white races to ancient Egypt is anachronistic.[10][11][12] In addition, scholars reject the notion, implicit in the black Egypt hypothesis, that Ancient Egypt was racially homogeneous; instead, skin color varied between the peoples of Lower Egypt, Upper Egypt, and Nubia, who in various eras rose to power in Ancient Egypt.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Egyptian_hypothesis

tintingz:
Mythologies can be useful but it shows supernatural events are fictions.

Not exactly, Myth can be viewed as archetype and as such can have an underlying and eternal truth, whatever the external facts may be. Currently, the word 'myth' is often used as a synonym for 'not true' but this is far too simplistic.

Not conquering

. Homo sapiens was biologically adapted to survive any where on earth before he ever left Africa. Both netherdthal and hobbit were all dominated.

From what I read, scholars don't regard ancient Egyptians as blacks nor whites.

The hypothesis is regarded as a fringe theory. Mainstream scholars reject the notion that Egypt was a white or black civilization; they maintain that, despite the phenotypic diversity of Ancient and present day Egyptians, applying modern notions of black or white races to ancient Egypt is anachronistic.[10][11][12] In addition, scholars reject the notion, implicit in the black Egypt hypothesis, that Ancient Egypt was racially homogeneous; instead, skin color varied between the peoples of Lower Egypt, Upper Egypt, and Nubia, who in various eras rose to power in Ancient Egypt.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Egyptian_hypothesis

when postulating an evidence on a research paper. A Cambridge report will outweigh Wikipedia report.

Wikipedia report depends on both second and third source. Cambridge report was essentially verified as an authority on its own. Even from the Wikipedia you quoted averagely to support what you wish. It established that ancient Egyptians refers to their homeland as kemet ( The land of the black people).

Read the page to verified

vaxx:
Not exactly, Myth can be viewed as archetype and as such can have an underlying and eternal truth, whatever the external facts may be. Currently, the word 'myth' is often used as a synonym for 'not true' but this is far too simplistic.

Myth is a myth, it can be useful but not base on reality and fact.

Homo sapiens was biologically adapted to survive any where on earth before he ever left Africa. Both netherdthal and hobbit were all dominated.

It seems you forget the premise of this argument.

when postulating an evidence on a research paper. A Cambridge report will outweigh Wikipedia report.

Wikipedia report depends on both second and third source. Cambridge report was essentially verified as an authority on its own. Even from the Wikipedia you quoted averagely to support what you wish. It established that ancient Egyptians refers to their homeland as kemet ( The land of the black people).

Read the page to verified

Are you now arguing from authority? Where is the consensus that Cambridge report is the ultimate authority on this?

My argument still stands, Ancient Egyptians are not regard neither as blacks nor whites.

tintingz:
Myth is a myth, it can be useful but not base on reality and fact.

myth is about cuiltural influence, true, mythology is something which we dont have any fix solid proof to say it really exist! Which mean we can neither say it doesn't exist nor can say it does exist! Simply it's existence is like mystery type. But saying it is false it entirely too simplistic to say.

I

it seems you forget the premise of this argument.

will you kindly remind me? Or you are not seeing the dot i am connecting in my postulation.

Are you now arguing from authority? Where is the consensus that Cambridge report is the ultimate authority on this?

Cambridge university herself is an authority on her own "" A trademark ""an established consensus of its own. Wikipedia is not recognised in an academia world when it comes to citation of academic paper . How can you underestimate the community that pull some of the well known elites together.

my argument still stands, Ancient Egyptians are not regard neither as blacks nor whites.

Your arguments is weak and a complete hogwash especially when Cambridge is correcting it. What is Wikipedia if that is your source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, built at a reference that itself points to original sources. It is not an original source itself.

vaxx:
myth is about cuiltural influence, true, mythology is something which we dont have any fix solid proof to say it really exist! Which mean we can neither say it doesn't exist nor can say it does exist! Simply it's existence is like mystery type. But saying it is false it entirely too simplistic to say.

Myth doesn't have proof, it is just a story anybody can made up.

People don't just say a story is myth, they say it when there is no evidence to back it up.

I will you kindly remind me? Or you are not seeing the dot i am connecting in my postulation.

We are talking about conquering nations, how did early primitive humans conquered the whole world?

Cambridge university herself is an authority on her own "" A trademark ""an established consensus of its own. Wikipedia is not recognised in an academia world when it comes to citation of academic paper . How can you underestimate the community that pull some of the well known elites together.

Your arguments is weak and a complete hogwash especially when Cambridge is correcting it. What is Wikipedia if that is your source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, built at a reference that itself points to original sources. It is not an original source itself.

Wikipedia has always attached sources to their articles, not just one source, different sources from reliable and original sources when it comes to scholars agreement and disagreement. I personally prefer using Wikipedia because it is easy to understand the debates between scholars and tells you when there's a consensus or not about a subject, that's when we can use the authoritative arguments.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Egyptian_hypothesis

Go to the site, the highlighted numbers are sources you can click on them, you have access to them or scroll down for the references.

Kindly stop using one source and said it is the only authoritative source which was not consensus by all scholars, stop arguing from authority, it is a fallacy!

tintingz:
Myth doesn't have proof it is just a story anybody can made up.

People don't just say a story is myth, they say it when there is no evidence to back it up.

Hogwash, Nobody can prove that things will always fall down when you drop them.

Nobody can prove that energy is conserved.

Nobody can prove that dark matter exists.

Nobody can prove that quantum physics is real.

Proof is limited, therefore not enough . All what you can gather are evidence. Even myth are not evidence based neither is it proved based.. When scrutinizing mythology, you are not checking if it is true or false but it's usefulness. , you cannot fully understand much of what was written in the past without understanding the allusions to mythological events and references to mythical stories and themes, and frequently history as well.

Crack open any bit of literature, especially from the 19th century or before and especially poetry, and you will find references to people, places and events the author can reasonably assume are ‘common knowledge’ among his intended audience enabling him to make metaphors and allusions in a shorter space.

We are talking about conquering nations, how did early primitive humans conquered the whole world?

Thru biological adapitve process and many more.

Wikipedia has always attached sources to their articles, not just one source, different sources from reliable and original sources when it comes to scholars agreement and disagreement.

Wikipedia on its own is not a standard source, that is my argument. Wikipedia depends on multiple source that is why i called it a third party source. Using it as as a reference in a researched paper is unacceptable as it is not standard.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Egyptian_hypothesis

Go to the site, the highlighted numbers are sources you can click on them, you have access to them or scroll down for the references

i am aware of this, i had refer you to it earlier.my argument again, Wikipedia on its own is an encyclopedia. So not suitable as a refrence .better still, cite out the document the Wikipedia is referencing. . And justapose it with Cambridge claim.

Kindly stop using one source and said it is the only authoritative source which was not consensus by all scholars, stop arguing from authority, it is a fallacy!

citing university of cambridge is not one source. As the report is based on scholarly resarch conducted by Cambridge historians themselves. When it comes to citing of academic paper. Cambridge is a trademark.

The Argument from Authority is misunderstood to be a fallacy in all cases, when this is not necessarily so. The argument becomes a fallacy only when used deductively, or where there is insufficient inductive strength to support the conclusion of the argument.

I have used it inductively here as a lawyer will cite constitution as an authority to position his view in court of law.

vaxx:
Hogwash, Nobody can prove that things will always fall down when you drop them.

Nobody can prove that energy is conserved.

Nobody can prove that dark matter exists.

Nobody can prove that quantum physics is real.

Proof is limited, therefore not enough . All what you can gather are evidence. Even myth are not evidence based neither is it proved based.. When scrutinizing mythology, you are not checking if it is true or false but it's usefulness. , you cannot fully understand much of what was written in the past without understanding the allusions to mythological events and references to mythical stories and themes, and frequently history as well.

Crack open any bit of literature, especially from the 19th century or before and especially poetry, and you will find references to people, places and events the author can reasonably assume are ‘common knowledge’ among his intended audience enabling him to make metaphors and allusions in a shorter space.

How do scholars know when a story or a figure is real, historical and a myth?

Quantum physics, dark matter are theories that are predicted, observed and calculated.

Thru biological adapitve process and many more.

I still don't get the connection how biology adaptive process equate to conquering the world.

Wikipedia on its own is not a standard source, that is my argument. Wikipedia depends on multiple source that is why i called it a third party source. Using it as as a reference in a researched paper is unacceptable as it is not standard.

Are sources Wikipedia attached to their articles original, reliable or not?

i am aware of this, i had refer you to it earlier.my argument again, Wikipedia on its own is an encyclopedia. So not suitable as a refrence .better still, cite out the document the Wikipedia is referencing. . And justapose it with Cambridge claim.

citing university of cambridge is not one source. As the report is based on scholarly resarch conducted by Cambridge historians themselves. When it comes to citing of academic paper. Cambridge is a trademark.

Cambridge has it own research, their research doesn't outweigh other research, it is just one of those research, there are various research on this subject and from different sources as references In Wikipedia and it says scholars don't agree with the hypothesis of ancient black Egyptians.

Wikipedia collated research from each sources. Again the links are there.

The Argument from Authority is misunderstood to be a fallacy in all cases, when this is not necessarily so. The argument becomes a fallacy only when used deductively, or where there is insufficient inductive strength to support the conclusion of the argument.

I have used it inductively here as a lawyer will cite constitution as an authority to position his view in court of law.

Argument from authority is not a fallacy when we all agree on the reliability, authority and consensus of a subject.

When two authorities disagree with themselves about a subject, then we can say it's still a debate.

You're trying to push me to agree that Cambridge is the only authority here whereas there are other authorities on this subject.

Religion / Juju / black magic etc etc = successful brainwashing

Come to think of it things like advertisements / celebrity endorsements / peer pressure / # Twitter is also = modern version of juju / black magic etc etc

Only difference is packaging and delivery modes

If majority of humans are smart then how does one explain the 100 $ juju street level fees to million $ advertisement deals to billion $ religion based global industry. The customers got nothing to show for it or end up paying but the other side ends up laughing to the bank

There seems to be a primal tendency among humans to get conned

tintingz:
How do scholars know when a story or a figure is real, historical and a myth?

simple. , they are diffrence. Mythology is a collection of tales that generally explain the past: these may have a basis in fact but are embroidered to explain the present. They are simply to demonstrate a point.

History is an attempt to uncover and create a factual account of the past.

Quantum physics, dark matter are theories that are observed and calculated.

They are not proven, they are evidence base assertion not a proof based. That is the message i am passing thru.

i still don't get the connection how biology adaptive process equate to conquering the world

maybe you need a personal study on this. You could go ahead and read your beautiful Wikipedia report on that.

Are sources Wikipedia attached to their articles original, reliable or not?

The bone of my argument is simple. Wikipedia is not a standard source
. Wikipedia itself acknowledged that it is not reliable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

Cambridge has it own research their research doesn't outweigh other research, it is just one of those research, there are various research on this subject and from different sources from Wikipedia and it says scholars don't agree with the hypothesis of ancient black Egyptians.

The postulation you read on Wikipedia is not even falsed. It was called an hypothesis for a reason . I advice you to read the Wikipedia itself. It postulate some beautiful evidence on the subject. You are reading too much of the criticisms. Cambridge is an established authority and a reputable higher institution of learning, hence making its assertion a grandaur on this feild.

Wikipedia collated research from each sources. Again the links are there

i don't know your buggle. Wikipedia already accept it is not a realiable source.the link is up there. .

Argument from authority is not a fallacy when we all agree on the reliability, authority and consensus of a subject.

Good.

When two authorities disagree with themselves about a subject, then we can say it's still a debate.

it depends, here prestige and trademark become a yardstick. People will likely reference a trusted and a well known authority above the lesser known. The reasons is obvious.

You're trying to push me to agree that Cambridge is the only authority here whereas there are other authorities on this subject.

No i am trying to let you know that cambridge as an authority is trusted amd realiable .simple.

Your almighty Wikipedia is not reliable.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

vaxx:
simple. , they are diffrence. Mythology is a collection of tales that generally explain the past: these may have a basis in fact but are embroidered to explain the present. They are simply to demonstrate a point.

Myths are stories widely known In cultures, they are usually tales about gods, supernaturals that has no evidence. History and myths are mix together that most people don't even know what's historical and myth. A tale may actually be true but with time it is distorted when re-telling, this is when it becomes myth.

History is an attempt to uncover and create a factual account of the past.

Yes, history mostly deals with facts because they are investigated.

They are not proven, they are evidence base assertion not a proof based. That is the message i am passing thru.

Ok

maybe you need a personal study on this. You could go ahead and read your beautiful Wikipedia report on that.

Lol

The bone of my argument is simple. Wikipedia is not a standard source
. Wikipedia itself acknowledged that it is not reliable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

You are mixing things up, what that page is saying was Wikipedia don't have self research or original research therefore don't take them reliable when sources are not attached to it.

From the same link you presented it said,

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

Here is another one

Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Kindly read carefully before present your claims.

The postulation you read on Wikipedia is not even falsed. It was called an hypothesis for a reason . I advice you to read the Wikipedia itself. It postulate some beautiful evidence on the subject. You are reading too much of the criticisms.

The article clearly said that scholars disagree with the black or white ancient Egyptians.

Cambridge is an established authority and a reputable higher institution of learning, hence making its assertion a grandaur on this field

Cambridge is not only the authority on this subject, how many times will I say this?

i don't know your buggle. Wikipedia already accept it is not a realiable source.the link is up there. .

No, I have refuted this claim above.

Good.

it depends, here prestige and trademark become a yardstick. People will likely reference a trusted and a well known authority above the lesser known. The reasons is obvious.

Lol. One of the reference in that Wikipedia page about Black Egyptians is from Yale university, are they not trusted?

No i am trying to let you know that cambridge as an authority is trusted amd realiable .simple.

No, you are forcing me to accept it as the only source on this subject.