RamessesIV:
Negroid came from the era of scientific racism used to classify dark skinned people...

Negroid is a derrogatory term.

What dont you understand about that?

Go and research the Transatlantic Slavetrade.

Go and rearch Jim Crow.

RamessesIV:
Doesn't change you can lie about history,again white nationalism,scientific racism etc it is not a new thing hence my skepticism,once history starts spending half of it's time claiming borders,people,without credible evidence is already clear what it is for

Our evidence is based on analytic, scientific and pictoral proof.

Read the document below.

I am talking about negroid in terms of classifications,you can't use caucasoid and not use negroid,black,white these where classification done for white supremacy to justify slavery I am well aware of these,and negro is the spanish word for "black",again I am referring to concept of racial classification(which are not even accurate) not politics

Amujale:


Negroid is a derrogatory term.

What dont you understand about that?

Go and research the Transatlantic Slavetrade.

Go and rearch Jim Crow.

RamessesIV:
I am talking about negroid in terms of classifications..

Negroid is not a valid classification, its a derrogatory terminology.

Assuming anyone is supposed to be doing the classification, it has to be the African.

And as an African historian, i say Negroid isnt a valid classification.

African is a valid classification.

RamessesIV:
...classification done for white supremacy to justify slavery I am well aware of these,and negro is the spanish word for "black",..

Thank you.

That is absolutely correct.

Now can you understand my point when i say that the term Negroid isnt a valid classification for the African to embrace.

See what I mean check the original document it isnt real,it was produced for the internet,there is an exact copy saying same for india not africa,this is why I say I am very skeptic

Amujale:


Our evidence is based on analytic, scientific and pictoral proof.

Read the document below.

It is not about embrace,it was negro before it became derogatory even black is derogatory,I am using it for racial classification (which isn't accurate),white race black race both were created the same time for the same purpose,even negroid is still use till today

Amujale:


Thank you.

That is absolutely correct.

Now can you understand my point when i say that the term Negroid isnt a valid classification for the African to embrace.

If you are a african historian you will know that Africa is very diverse,Africa was first used to refer to north africa,is like saying don't classify easy asians as mongoloid call them Asian even though Asian is very diverse

I hope you get my point

Amujale:


Negroid is not a valid classification, its a derrogatory terminology.

Assuming anyone is supposed to be doing the classification, it has to be the African.

And as an African historian, i say Negroid isnt a valid classification.

African is a valid classification.

RamessesIV:

Indus people was "black" again this has not been proven,genetic testing done in 2017 did not show such evidence,and you mean "black" you refer to the people with "sub-saharan ancestry or the negritos

I have already shown you pictoral proof, theres more deeper proof but i intentionally havent shared due to the fact that it touches ancient Indo spirituality that are privy to the scholars.

Kindly choose to use 'South of the Sahara', opposed to 'sub-sahara'.

We are not 'sub'to anyone or anything, nevermind the Sahara.

RamessesIV:
If you are a african historian you will know that Africa is very diverse,Africa was first used to refer to north africa,is like saying don't classify easy asians as mongoloid call them Asian even though Asian is very diverse

I hope you get my point

Africa is a huge continent that comprises of over fifty countries.

The Arabian and Eurocentric warmongers refered to it as a country, they still does today.

Pictures isn't evidence,that picture shows one of the waves for "out of africa" migration,and stop being sentimental,sub-means beyond the sahara part of the sahara is grouped with north africa

Amujale:


I have already shown you pictoral proof, theres more deeper proof but i intentionally havent shared due to the fact that it touches ancient Indo spirituality that are privy to the scholars.

Kindly choose to use 'South of the Sahara', opposed to 'sub-sahara'.

We are not 'sub'to anyone or anything, nevermind the Sahara.

No one calls Africa a country,educated people know Africa is a continent,people all over the world call every asian person "chinese",see why I said you are being sentimental

Amujale:


Africa is a huge continent that comprises of over fifty countries.

The Arabian and Eurocentric warmongers refered to it as a country, they still does today.

RamessesIV:
white race black race both were created the same time for the same purpose,even negroid is still use till today

I get your point, eventhough i maintain the view that due to the history of that term, it remain toxic.

For clarification, there was never a time that the term wasnt used as a derrogatory term, and that includes whilst in its maiden language of Spanish.

Perform a thorough perusal and you will realise that the term was created in the 1500's during the era of the conquistadors.

RamessesIV:
No one calls Africa a country,educated people know Africa is a continent,people all over the world call every asian person "chinese",see why I said you are being sentimental

Did you read the statement i posted earlier?

Here, now take the time to read it properly.

Did Thomas Macaulay incorrectly refer to Africa as a country a couple of times in his 1835 address?

Or am i making it up?

RamessesIV:
...sub-means beyond

Show me the dictionary you are using.

sub-
/sʌb,səb/
prefix
prefix: sub-
1.
at, to, or from a lower level or position.
"subalpine"
lower in rank.
"subaltern"
of a smaller size; of a subordinate nature.
"subculture"
2.
somewhat; nearly; more or less.
"subantarctic"
3.
denoting subsequent or secondary action of the same kind.
"sublet"
4.
denoting support.
"subvention"
5.
CHEMISTRY
in names of compounds containing a relatively small proportion of a component.
"suboxide"

RamessesIV:
...sub-means beyond

Learn to make use of the term 'South of the Sahara' oppose to 'Sub Sahara', the communities in these regions arent 'sub' to anyone or anything, nevermind the 'Sahara'.

......

Please go and check the history of the word "sub-saharan" again stop being sentimental south of the sahara isn't even geographically correct,just use black Africa if you don't find "sub-saharan comfortable,just imagine someone comes and say is not middle east cause "middle" and they aren't middle of anyone,hope you see how you're adding sentiments

Amujale:


Show me the dictionary you are using.

sub-
/sʌb,səb/
prefix
prefix: sub-
1.
at, to, or from a lower level or position.
"subalpine"
lower in rank.
"subaltern"
of a smaller size; of a subordinate nature.
"subculture"
2.
somewhat; nearly; more or less.
"subantarctic"
3.
denoting subsequent or secondary action of the same kind.
"sublet"
4.
denoting support.
"subvention"
5.
CHEMISTRY
in names of compounds containing a relatively small proportion of a component.
"suboxide"

Again this has been debunked,there is also an exact copy using india instead of africa,thomas macaulay didn't give this speech and he wasn't a british officer in africa but india.

Amujale:


Did you read the statement i posted earlier?

Here, now take the time to read it properly.

Did Thomas Macaulay incorrectly refer to Africa as a country a couple of times in his 1835 address?

Or am i making it up?

Derogatory the whole point of racial classification was,but it isn't the same today,if you're going to throw away the term then you have to throw away "Caucasoid" again negro was the word for black it became derogatory cause of the mentality at that time,there was a time jew was seen derogatory should jewish throw away the name cause of history

Amujale:


I get your point, eventhough i maintain the view that due to the history of that term, it remain toxic.

For clarification, there was never a time that the term wasnt used as a derrogatory term, and that includes whilst in its maiden language of Spanish.

Perform a thorough perusal and you will realise that the term was created in the 1500's during the era of the conquistadors.

RamessesIV:
Again this has been debunked,there is also an exact copy using india instead of africa,thomas macaulay didn't give this speech and he wasn't a british officer in africa but india.

I have heard of the rebuttal, whether he was reffereing to India or the continent of Africa, the message resonates the same.

The fact that the name Africa sufficed is why i have to bring this up.

The Eurocentric warmongers used the same concepts everywhere they visited.

This was fake news I wonder why you use it,and "africa is a country" is due to ignorance

And if they used it everywhere why making an isolated claim for africa

Amujale:


I have heard of the rebuttal, whether he was reffereing to India or the continent of Africa, the message resonates the same.

The fact that the name Africa sufficed is why i have to bring this up.

The Eurocentric warmongers used the same concepts everywhere they visited.

RamessesIV:
again negro was the word for black it became derogatory cause of the mentality at that time..

Wrong, the term was originally a derrogatory term from the off.

How old is the Spanish language?

The term that was originally used was ater, furvus, pullejaceus, pulleiaceus, carbo e.t.c

The noun was always CARBO

This particulare term nigrans became negreos and was juxtaposed by the Spanairds during the era of the Conquistadors and it continued to be used in a derrogatory throughout the over 2000 year slave trades, Colonisation, Jim Crow and today.


There was never a time in history that the term Negro meant anything positive.

Is that correct?

If that is correct, then what is the justification of using it today?

Caucasoid however, isnt a derrogatory term, its a valid description, a kind of identification similar to Nubian(African) or Mongoloid.

RamessesIV:
Please go and check the history of the word "sub-saharan"

I dont need to check the history of anything.

'sub - ' is a gramatical construct, a prefix, hence it doesnt matter what it history says, its meaning is self explanatory.

Ok you sound as though you are justifying the use of the term when i just showed you that its wrong.

The devil is in the detail.

What is the meaning of 'sub -'

Do you believe that the communities living 'South of the Sahara' are subordinate to the 'horners'?


Lets cut to the chase.


Lets continue the discussion here:

https://www.nairaland.com/5795996/african-origin-civilisation

The word negro was used by spanish and Portuguese explorers when they came to southern africa to refer to the natives,it was during the transatlantic slave trade it became derogatory, in spanish speaking countries the word is still used,you are confusing using America terms which is wrong,phillipines the word negro is used for "dark colored people" and negritos is for dark colored natives,a country "montenegro" has black in it,the word negro has different uses,and again your point still doesn't stand the word "black" was also used offensively should we also stop using the word "black"

And again I repeat I am using negro in the terms of racial classification regardless of it's history this is 2020,not every black person is negroid,not every african is black

Amujale:


Wrong, the term was originally a derrogatory term from the off.

How old is the Spanish language?

The term that was originally used was ater, furvus, pullejaceus, pulleiaceus, carbo e.t.c

The noun was always CARBO

This particulare term nigrans became negreos and was juxtaposed by the Spanairds during the era of the Conquistadors and it continued to be used in a derrogatory throught the 2000 year slave trades, Colonisation, Jim Crow and today.


There was never a time in history that the term Negro meant anything positive.

Is that correct?

Sub is not subordinate,is like saying middle east is middle of the desert or east,again sub mean down/south of the sahara,part of the sahara makes up north africa,if you want to use south no problem,but I am not a sentimental person who goes around getting offensive over everything from the past,africa was onced used to refer to parts of north africa,is it also derogatory too,and you have not proven to me why a geographical term should turn political

Amujale:


I dont need to check the history of anything.

Ok you sound as though you are justifying the use of the term when i just showed you that its wrong.

The devil is in the detail.

What is the meaning of 'sub -'

Do you believe that the communities living 'South of the Sahara' are subordinate to the 'horners'?


Lets cut to the chase.


Lets continue the discussion here:

https://www.nairaland.com/5795996/african-origin-civilisation

"I don't need to check" see why i say sentimental,anyways call it south of the Saharan call it sub-saharan is the same thing

Amujale:


I dont need to check the history of anything.

'sub - ' is a gramatical construct, a prefix, hence it doesnt matter what it history says, its meaning is self explanatory.

Ok you sound as though you are justifying the use of the term when i just showed you that its wrong.

The devil is in the detail.

What is the meaning of 'sub -'

Do you believe that the communities living 'South of the Sahara' are subordinate to the 'horners'?


Lets cut to the chase.


Lets continue the discussion here:

https://www.nairaland.com/5795996/african-origin-civilisation

RamessesIV:

And again I repeat I am using negro in the terms of racial classification regardless of it's history this is 2020,not every black person is negroid,not every african is black

And again you are wrong.

There are no such thing as race classification.

As there's no such thing as multi-race.

Theres only one race of significance, they call it the Human Race.

Even if we was to go along with the so-called classification, the term 'Negroid' is:

Invalid.
Null and Void.
Squashed
Quashed

Rather than using such a term, you would be better using African, Kush, Ethiopian, Nubian e.t.c these are all the terminologies that foreigners used to refer to blacksic.


Again lets not derail this thread.

For further discussion, follow the link here:

https://www.nairaland.com/5795996/african-origin-civilisation

RamessesIV:
Sub is not subordinate

Show me in the lexicon where it says that the prefix sub- doesnt mean subordinate.

You dont know what your on about.

Moving on now.

and there is no such thing as african as they are very diverse is like saying asian or chinese people to refer to all mongoloid people,I never said race classification was right,yes one race which are very diverse,and foreigners used negroid for racial classification,you seem okay with Caucasoid but negroid is wrong again as I said I don't do sentiments if i was,i will refuse the term "africa" and "black"

Amujale:


And again you are wrong.

There are no such thing as race classification.

As there's no such thing as multi-race.

Theres only one race of significance, they call it the Human Race.

Even if we was to go along with the so-called classification, the term 'Negroid' is:

Invalid.
Null and Void.
Squashed
Quashed

Rather than using such a term, you would be better using African, Kush, Ethiopian, Nubian e.t.c these are all the terminologies that foreigners used to refer to blacksic.


Again lets not derail this thread.

For further discussion, follow the link here:

https://www.nairaland.com/5795996/african-origin-civilisation

RamessesIV:
saying middle east is middle of the desert or east,

In case you havent figured that out already, Middle East doesnt make sense.

You cannot be in the Middle of the East with no particular coordinates.

East of where?

Middle East is either properly known as West Asia or North Africa.

Lol north africa is not part of the middle east only Sinai,parts of west asia is what makes up the "middle east" and it's called that till today.

Amujale:


In case you havent figured that out already, Middle East doesnt make sense.

You cannot be in the Middle of the East with no particular coordinates.

East of where?

Middle East is either properly known as West Asia or North Africa.