₦airaland Forum

Mpele:
We are Africa's last hope.

http://www.satba.org/h8.htm

Hehehehehehehe!!!!!

last hope. Men ya'll haven't even started

Don't worry Mpele they will release your bros back to SA fully intact with arms and legs


Just Pay the DOLLARS$$$$$$$$

Sorry I mean RANDZZZZZZZZZZ!!!

This boy keeps baiting you guys into these useless discussions that have no bearing. Stop replying the boy he is a TROLL!!!!

Today he is black, tomorrow he is white, next he is colored, then brazilian, then russian.

Can't you see the poor boy needs help. He doesn't know where he fits in.

Give him a break. His legs that is.

ladi02:
to the best of my knowledge, Obama fits well to be the anti christ,

this is not only assumed in Nigeria, its all over the world,

infact, im almost convinced he is the anti christ, i always wondered there was something different about this guy, lol

well the end is near people, live right!!!

so does Mugabe judging from what he is doing to his people, he could be the anti christ too you know

Imagination is a scary thing. I hope when this Anti Christ comes you guys will tell me so I can send Frodo Baggins and the fellowship of the ring to Mordo to assasinate him so we can all live in peace on earth and men will rule again.


Madness!!!

If Obama is the Anti Christ, I guess the world is about to come to an end.

Damn it iahd so much already I hadn't done yet, like sleep tieh Rihanna

Oh Obama can't you delay your rise to powe until at least 2012

PRETTY PLEASE!!!!!!!!

Bastage:
@coolruler

The reason they were not a race or ethnically distinctive was purely because of the outside breeding that took place.

In Egypt, they would have absorbed some Egyptian characteristics, some from foriegn converts and after the Exodus, they would have taken on the attributes of those they bred with from the lands they conquered.

Once has to remember that there were only a finite number in the 12 tribes when Moses went up the mountain and there were always incidents where many lives were lost. Their numbers would need replenishing. This could not be done with inter-breeding amongst themselves as they simply didn't have the numbers.

Therefore, they were not a distinct race. Rather a mish-mash of many peoples throughout the Middle East.

@morpheus24. Relax, man. I didn't claim you made such a statement.

I was refering to Davidylan in my response

coolruler:
Explain please!

I say hebrews were a distinct religous, ethnic and liguistic group

Bastage:
The concensus amongst theologians is that the Hebrews had "olive" skin tone.
They were neither black nor white.


To the poster who says that there was no inter-marriage because it was forbidden - You are wrong. There are many instances in the Bible where the early Hebrews (by the command of their god) pillaged and destroyed cities, murdered all the men and took the women away to be their wives. Over a few generations, this would also have affected skin tone.

The Hebrews were not a race. They were a religion.

If anyone reads through my posts you will certainly notice that no where did I make a claim that hebrews or jews where black. Davidlyn simply assumed that . What I rebutted was the statement that Jews are and where always white. I used many comparisons as well as evidence of Traces of Middle eastern DNA affiliations that would argue the point that they did not originate from Europe to warrant the designation "White" as we define it in this world today.

I stand by my statement that Jews did not become White until recent.

merge:
You can not even write in plain English that makes sense what else Pidgin english

This woman you are finding my trouble oh!

You will not like it oh!

You want us to put a vote to it.

All those who think my statment doesn't make sense vote Hillary

all those who say it does. Vote Obama. Shikena.

merge:
Well that life there always someone else that can understand incomprehensible post.

so sorry , I will try to write in Pidgin english next time.


please if someone other than Merge did not get what I was saying then let me know too.

Hello anyone?

merge:
This post does not make sense

To you it doesn't but someone else will get it.

toluxa1:
That does not mean that Obama should do the same. ok?

Winning is not everything in my book. Its how you conduct yourself at the aftermath. It shows your true character.  I believe if Obama had lost the election he wuold have bowed out graciously but for a Clinton no way. its do or Die.

i am not saying it ain't admirable to fight tothe finish but when it becomes an obsession, you loose your soul in the process and to me thats a huge judge of character.

merge:
Clinton should have been the VP or the nominee.

Obama has made it more difficult for himself to win.
If he picked Clinton as his VP, then a definite win.

You are sulking. I seriously disagree with you. if Obama picked Clinton.it would be a loose loose situation for him cause he would be seen as succumbing to the pressures of the Clintons and not necessarily the will of the people. How can one person hold captive the fundamental american right to cast your vote for the best Candidate besides waht is the differene between Biden and Clinton in terms of experience or you want Bill to be a third wheel in the White house. The democrats have spoken. Win or loose I will forever respect Obama for not succumbing. It already shows good leadership skills. I have respected the Clintons for yeard but its time to turn the page. If she does run in 2012. i wil nto vote for her, She has lost my respect in the way she conducted herself this election.

merge:
Same way Obama voted for Joe Biden, who is the status quo. He preaches change but with his VP choice proves the opposite.

I will not be casting my vote for Obama because of Joe Biden, What Biden offers is not a safeguard to Obama's so called inexperience but someone who will challenge his decision making process in an effort to create an atmosphere where the commander in chief will make effective decisions.

Now what does Palin offer Mcain?

If Cinton supporters (I.e obviously women) vote for Palin because she is a woman then obvious they are thinking with what is under their skirts as a matter of fact. How in the hell would you throw away your vote liek that with all the cirtical issue at hand and what direction the country should be moving.

To hell with them . How much concession are they asking for. if they do vote Mcain and he wins by that particular margin then ti only confirms the fact that women are really not ready to lead this country since they are too tied to their emotions than their intellect.

I would have voted for Clinton regardless of the gender because she has goo qualities of leader in experience and drive.

Its better they stay home and cast no vote than vote for the opposition in spite. Thats not using your brain.

davidylan:
you don't understand genetics yourself. Variation is a random event, why is it something that has occured wholesale to the jewish race only and no one else?

Go to Brazil (not the one you see on TV once in a yr), much of the population is actually black (u wouldnt be able to tell the difference from other African blacks).

I can equally show you a brazilian who looks no different from a Ghanaian.

because it is black.

Have you compared them side by side before and confirmed this fallacy?

See pictures of Anwar Sadat below.

Sephardic jew refers to jews from the Iberian peninsular - parts of Spain, Portugal and France. Clearly Europe.
What a ridiculous shame.

Because it unfortunately is . . . see above.

Yep actually compared them side by side and the results still the same.

Anwar Sadat is a poor example of a typical coptic egyptian seeing that his mother was a sudanese lady.

This phenomemon did not only occur with the jewish race. I gave coloreds that live in SA that one doesn't make sense to you, I gave you brazil but you ignored that one too obviously cause genetics plays no part in your equation. how a people look 1000 years ago is exactly how they will look like today even when you factor in volutanry or involuntary migration and obvious gene flow thorugh these populations yet a very high percentage of black brazilians cannot be matched eyebrow for eyebrow with a congolese African in just 400 years. For you no change. variation is random in this instance.

It is not intelligent to think that you could take hank azaria,Roseane bar, Donald trump, Seinfeld and stick them in ancient egypt match for match with your coptic egyptians and think that how they looked like today was how they looked like back then and don't tell me i am using today's racial construct to figure that out. It doesn't make sense to me if it does to you.

davidylan:
Morpheus, no point arguing with you . . . someone described another in a sense i think fits you perfectly - plenty of emotion, very little substance.

plenty of nonsense that does not answer the REAL QUESTION - how did the Jews suddenly become white? what were they 3000yrs ago? Where is the DNA evidence? What do you genetically define as white?

Pretending to no a lot of genetics does not phase me at all as long as you keep avoiding the real issues.

you make a lot of fuzz about genetics . . . you tend to forget that this time u're dealing with an entire race here. How did millions of people change genetical identity in less than 1000yrs? why did others not undergo the same change? Dealing with dumb people like you is worse because you actually think you know more than you do. you read off some "fascinating" stuff you don't understand and suddenly start clowning like authorities on the subject.

The jews changed genetic information overnight . . . and everyone else remained the same? Cock and bull.

You use DNA (less than 40yrs old) from ashkenazis and sephardic jews as evidence they were not once white.
Ashkenazi - german
Sephardic - Spanish/Iberian.

What of the polish, russian, iranian, tunisian, morrocan jew?

Its not possible . . you can call me an idiot if you want. Prove your case, its that simple . . .

your
Like you said arguing with you is of no use because your definitions are not consistent with mine in regards to race.

When you say middle eastern people are white or caucasian then of course my arguement with you won't make any sense.

You challenged my assertion that Jews became"white" just recently by ascertaining they were always white and nothing other than that.

I define white as being of European ancestry excluding the middle east and most parts of North Africa. You define white as caucasian people including arabs, semitic peoples and so in in your classification of race.

I use genetic markers to prove to you that jews do not have the same genetic make up as they once did 1000- 3000 years ago which illudes to their variations but you see that as nonsensical and having no bearing on variations in their outward appearance .

how do people change their genetic make up by migration. you dumb ass thats how theirgenetic makeup changes.

Stick to your definition of caucasian and White. IF you don't know what I am talking about its okay because by your very acceptance of the contemporary definition of white, ancient egyptians would fall into that category as well. Read a little more on race and anthropology as well.

I guess genetics are an arab propaganda as well. We can continue this thing forever if you so please.

davidylan:
Morpheus "educating" me? The same morpheus who thinks euroasian = race, is it the same one who didnt know that Egypt wasnt initially arab? The same morpheus who doesnt know who the copts are and can't tell what ashkenazi jews are? The same morpheus who perhaps thinks kurds and persians are semitic?

Not only do i worry about the level of education these days, i worry more about those who just swallow any gullible nonsense as a means of getting back at someone else. I might dislike someone, but not their views as long as they are proven facts.
To be honest, you really are a sad individual . . . no kidding this time around.

If you think morpheus is "educatiing" me then one wonders what you really have upstairs, i hope its more than cottonwool.

I didn't ask for a history lesson. You simply offered the information assuming I ever said euroasian was a race. Didn't say that neither did I say ashkenazi's were the only group of jews in the world but made reference to them to prove your point of jews always being white, neither did I tell mention anything about arab invasions in African that spread into iberia.

Please don't assume this is the first time I am hearing all this.

davidylan:
I find it a hard time believing that DNA evidence (DNA itself as a part of science is less than 50yrs old) can be used to "conclusively" prove the genetic make-up of a race of people who lived 3000yrs ago. Someone tell me i'm not reading double please.

DNA by itself isnt conclusive proof even in a court of law, it was not admissible in court for criminal proceedings until the late 80s early 90s. What DNA does is simply exclude or include a certain grp of persons by statistical significance, it cannot by itself tell you that Mr. A once lived in this city 900yrs ago and those 2 girls there are his descendants.

Thats how stupid you are when it comes to this subject matter,not knowing it is actually possible to do that.

davidylan:
1. You copied this, it is NOT your own write-up, kindly give reference next time as its defined as plagiarism.

2. This clearly says NOTHING about how the jews suddenly becoming white . . . what is the white genetic make-up? Is this widespread among ALL whites? Where did the jews pick up these white genes ALL OF A SUDDEN?

3. Look at the portion in bold - note the phrase "it is believed to . . ." , clear indication that as usual THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF.

4. This claim talks about "middle-eastern" people . . . forgetting that the middle east wasnt what it was 1000 years ago!!! Iranians are persian NOT arab . . ., kurds are NOT arab, Egypt prior to AD 641 was NOT arab ditto for Libya, Jordan, Lebanon (which actually used to be christian until the early 1960s).

So when they talk about "southern levant" . . . who really are they refering to? ancient occupants of these regions or the present civilisations who call it home?

Source' Wikipedia: Topic Israelites.

you are a dummy explaining genetics to you is useless when you keep defining white in terms of skin tone. A haplogroup or clade preceeds a subclade in alpa numeric tems. The clade and subclades carry codes that detemine who our closet relatives and give us a clue to our outer appreances. Thats why when a white person has a child with a black person the child is intermediary because he inherits codes from each parent.Thats why people collect data so they can make accurate or as as accurate as possible decisions.you just don't get it. African American subclades are slightly different  from West African subclades which accounts for the noticeable difference in some of them. Though they still remain predominantly black due to dominant nature of the gene as it evolved first. If not for deliberate segregation you would have seen the faces of a different set of people much like brazilians today addding to the fact it has only been less than 400years since they moved out of Africa.

Maybe you want me to show it to you  in pictorial form for you to get it.

And please stop telling me about Kmt and black. The congolese black does not look like the Egyptian black yet you define both of them as negro/black. A sephardic jew is not white/European. An ashkenazi, russian, baltic., polish jew is. your clalim that I don't know the diffence is stupid.

Again it bokd down to yoru definition of black. Thats the premise.

davidylan:
That's why arguments like these are ultimately defeatist. Initially you CLAIMED WITHOUT PROOF that Moses was accepted into the house of pharaoh as possibly looking like Egyptian since they could not identify him, now that the bible has proven your claim to be false all of a sudden it becomes an allegorical bible?

The same bible you initially used to say this -
has suddenly become allegorical that can not be used to make sense? how did you then use it to show me "concrete proof"? I guess the question i shld ask is simple, how did pharaoh's daughter determine within seconds that a baby less than 1 yr old was hrebrew?

My argument isnt essentially defeated, the problem is you either don't understand the issues at stake or you want to prove "i too know something" by running rings around facts. Whites were once a part of Nigerian population, after independence the vast majority of them emigrated back to Europe . . . does that defeat the argument that fundamentally whites have physically distinct features from us?

Now you make another fallacy WITHOUT PROOF . . . how are you sure that there were no white people around those territories in those days? where is your source?

What it boils down to is not my definition of white but YOUR own insistence on making spurious claims that don't hold water all because you must show you at least know something.

Race is not defined by skin color alone, even a 5yr old knows that. Your help was not needed there considering you didnt even know that euroasian did not define a race but geegraphy.

My point is to show how the so called jews you claimed are and were always white is a false statment as well by asking you to define what you mean by White. the jews do not look like how they did in ancient times by simple genetics. They didn't evolve in the sense of the word as it is used in mutation of genes.

my statement is still not incorrect in saying it is concieivable to deduce that the Jews were phenotypicaly similar to the Egyptians. i provided you with genetic evidence that traces gene flow in around the levant tofurther strengthen the fact that even the definition of Egyptians as black can apply to the jews without restriction depending on your strict defintion of what that word means. Negro is not a race. black is skin color. hebrews were not white as you define jews today.

If its confusing for you thats not my fault. The definitions are quite complex in this day and age.

davidylan:
Its easy to note that you view color with the lenses of a 21st century victim of racism and slavery . . . a thing the black Egyptians of 3000 years ago did not have to contend with. The fact that Pharaoh's daughter so easily figured out the child (less than 6 months old) was hebrew is small evidence to prove there was some form of physical distinction between the Egyptians and Jews of that time.
there is historical evidence to show that the Egyptians did infact intermarry with whites . . . i suppose reading a bit of history shldnt be beyond a man who cries so much.

the problem here exactly is that you advance NO theories for your claims. Lets even assume the Jews were once black, i asked earlier - how did they become white and EVERYONE FAILED TO EVOLVE . . .? Where is your answer since this question was first mooted a page earlier?

Negroid derives itself from a latin root word that means black. It therefore, without much thinking, means that people with black skin are refered to as negroid. Simple as ABC buddy.

Again like i said earlier . . . its perfectly ok to say "i don't know" . . . you can't keep digging a hole to cover a hole. Once you've been caught in a lie, stop digging.

[edit]

Genetic evidence of common descent
Main articles: Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) and Y-chromosomal Aaron

Map showing the diversion of Y-chromosome Haplogroup IJ and its descendants.
Aaron, Waterlooplein, Amsterdam.Patrilineal descent can be documented by analysis of the Y-chromosome, passed from father to son. Of the many variants, or haplogroups, of the Y-chromosome, haplogroups J1 and J2, both originating from the Middle East, are the most common among Jewish men.

J2 is found in 23% of Ashkenazi Jews and 29% of Sephardi Jews. It is equally common among Muslim Kurds, Northern Iraqis, Modern Turks, Greeks, Italians, and Lebanese. J2 is thought to have originated in the Northern Levant.
J1 is found in 19.0% of Ashkenazim and 11.9% of Sephardim. It is more common among Arab populations, especially Arab Bedouins.
A variant of J1 and J2, called the Cohen Modal Haplotype, is found in a high proportion (about 65%) of Jewish males with the surname Kohen or its variants, less frequently among other Jews (25%) and other Middle-Eastern people (22% or less)[6]. Kohanim claim descent from Aaron, brother of Moses and the first priest of the temple. Aaron was from the house of Levi, the third son of Jacob.
The Cohen Modal Haplotype is more frequent in haplogroup J1, suggesting that this variant of the Y-chromosome is the one carried by Aaron and hence Abraham and all his descendants, including Jacob and the Israelites. J1 is believed to originate from the Southern Levant (modern day Israel, Palestinian territories and Jordan; biblical Canaan) or Egypt approximately 10,000 - 15,000 years ago. [7] Biblical tradition holds that Abraham and his ancestors, the Semitic tribes, originated from Southern Arabia or East Africa (Genesis 10). The high frequency of J1 among Arabs can be seen as confirming their descent from Ishmael, son of Abraham. [8] [9]

Thus, genetic evidences support a common patrilineal descent for a small portion of Jews, which probably represents descent from one of the Israelite tribe. The discovery of the Cohen Modal Haplotype confirms the Biblical and priestly claim of descent from a unique ancestor, namely Aaron, and also provides an objective test of claims of Israelite origin, as for example with the Lemba people. Note however that several Kohen families carry other Y-chromosome variants.[10] Note also that, given enough time, new mutations will blur the origin of a specific chromosome and decrease the usefulness of genetic information.



Like I said you have not knowledge of genetics which is why you claim I said Jews were black people rather that "recenty became white" cause yout probably think an Arab is a caucasian.

davidylan:
Its easy to note that you view color with the lenses of a 21st century victim of racism and slavery . . . a thing the black Egyptians of 3000 years ago did not have to contend with. The fact that Pharaoh's daughter so easily figured out the child (less than 6 months old) was hebrew is small evidence to prove there was some form of physical distinction between the Egyptians and Jews of that time.
there is historical evidence to show that the Egyptians did infact intermarry with whites . . . i suppose reading a bit of history shldnt be beyond a man who cries so much.

the problem here exactly is that you advance NO theories for your claims. Lets even assume the Jews were once black, i asked earlier - how did they become white and EVERYONE FAILED TO EVOLVE . . .? Where is your answer since this question was first mooted a page earlier?

Negroid derives itself from a latin root word that means black. It therefore, without much thinking, means that people with black skin are refered to as negroid. Simple as ABC buddy.

Again like i said earlier . . . its perfectly ok to say "i don't know" . . . you can't keep digging a hole to cover a hole. Once you've been caught in a lie, stop digging.

Eh what whites did they intermarry with, from what era, before or after the ptolemic dynasty, during what dynasty,of course there were small incursions across the sinai but that wouldn't count for the acceptance of a would be hebrew whom everyone could identify with as such living as a prince in egypt.

I never said the jews were black in your definition of the world negro. what I said is they did not become white until recently. White meaning european phenotypical traits which included lighter skin.

Stop telling me about what or how negro was derived I am quite versed on that and stop trying to give me history lessons I am quite shrpon that too. I am talking about genetics and phenotypical traits when populations move out of certain regions.

davidylan:
One thing i notice from your incoherent rambling, you woefully declined to take on ANY of the issues i took you out on. You've made several CLEARLY FALSE claims (ashkenazi, euroasian, moses being undetected by the egyptians, egyptians being white), each time i expose them you decide to run into the arms of ad hominems which frankly are the last refuge of the clueless.

Next post shld sort out most of the thrash you posted last.

I just did but you are too square headed to see any of it by using an allegorical bible verse to prove that because pharoah's daughter exclaimed Moses was a hebrew therefore everyone else knew he was one.  If it makes sense to you. Good for you.

You defeat your own arguement by mentioning copts as the last remnants of Ancient Egyptians by strenghting the point that they were indeed two distinct polulations in terms of phenotypical features between ancient egyptians and ancient hebrews  and yet still support the arguement that jews were white when no white people were around those territories in thoses days. unless of course you will contend that ancient libyans wer white people in your definition of caucasian.

Again it boils down to your definitiion of White which your eurocentric masters have so confused you with that you can't tell the difference between a greek and a swede. I hope you know caucasian also defines morphology and anthropology as well before you think its only skin color and therefore crosses between your lines of Race.

davidylan:
Ashkenazi refers to jews who descended from ancient jewish communities that once thrived in areas of Germany. You could so easily have given names to russian jews, polish jews, iranian jews . . . Ashkenazi jews is simply German jews in another name . . . nothing special.

the largest jewish migration in history occured after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 when millions of jews were dispersed around the world including Europe. the probably intermarried with other Europeans . . . and thus may have some distinct different genetic markers as compared to jews who settled in Iran or those who remained in smaller communities in Israel.

Unless you of course want to prove that the ashkenazi jews suddenly mutated within 1000 years then we're left to ask the question, why arent the black genes passed onto native Germans among whom these jews settled?

modern jews are descended from ancient jews . . . all the hullabaloo has been arab propaganda to dispossess the jews of Israel.

my friend, i work in a science lab where genes are routinely handled so stop bandying false facts around. Data interpretation is dependent on what you, the author of the data, wants it to say. finito. Argue from now till next yr.

Pretty silly here methinks. Caucasian describes a race, negroid/black CLEARLY defines a race. African does NOT define a race. Every person with black skin is negroid but not every negroid is African.

Who told you he passed for an Egyptian? Please like i told Madamkoko earlier . . . enough of these ribald, baseless claims . . . here is the true story.

Exodus 2:5 And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash [herself] at the river; and her maidens walked along by the river's side; and when she saw the ark among the flags, she sent her maid to fetch it.

  2:6 And when she had opened [it], she saw the child: and, behold, the babe wept. And she had compassion on him, and said, [size=14pt]This [is one] of the Hebrews' children.[/size]

So Moses was the only White guy among black people and they made him a prince. sssssshh!!!. They were obviously color blind or too stupid to notice which is why they let a white jew sit along side pharoah and didn't notice he was hebrew, same goes for Joseph too but of course.

The Jews of today look absolutely the same way they looked like during pharoahs time. Makes sense to me. You win. I concede. Genotype does not affect Phenotype in any way. I agree with that too. cause I am too stupid to know how human populations evolve.

Every person with black skin is negroid. Hear yourself talk. Its cause you think Caucasians= White and you work in a lab where they mess with the human genome. Quit volunteering you ain't learning anything.

davidylan:
Just an example of the silliness that passes for "facts" on these boards nowadays . . .

Morpheus24 makes a completely false claim: "Those people did not become white until many centuries later."

Madamkoko, without even logically thinking through the claim, says - "good point".

The question you're left asking is why is it so common nowadays for people to just make spurious claims without thorough research? If black people from Egypt, who intermarried more than the jews, did not evolve to become white after 3000 years how come the jews did? What of the black ethiopians who even intermarried with jews? How did they remain black and not evolve to white?

Is it too much to ask empty heads to prove their claims before they make them?

Which black people from Egypt are you talking about. The ones who lived there lond ago or the ones who liver there no. Come get your timelines straight here.

I don't think the people there are still considered black.

You just don't understand do you. Not worth arguing.

davidylan:
You have simply run around the question . . . which was plainly - HOW (with concrete evidence) did the 2 tribes of Judah evolve to become white?

1. you claim they intermarried - that is not very true . . . white people have intermarried and it is yet to completely dilute their race ditto for blacks and asians. Now the bible and jewish tradition is VERY strict on forbidding intermarriage. One of the strongest problems with the jews in the wilderness (read the book of Exodus) and those before the exile in Babylon was INTERMARRIAGE.

2. Migration - this is false. The jews of Israel have been on that land for 3000 years. There were only 2 distinct periods of migration, the 70 yr exile in babylon (read Daniel, Nehemiah or Ezra) and the roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Where did the jews migrate to?

You say the proof is in the DNA . . . which proof? DNA can say anything you want it to say, like a professor of mine once said - data is data, you can give it whatever meaning you want.

Euroasia does not describe a race, rather it describes an expanse of land encompassing Europe and Asia.

You don't get it. Please read up on Ashkenazi's before you make that statement of intermarriage. I am not going to start lecturing you on Y chorosome and Mithchrocondial DNA in Ashkenazi. You can wikipeida it or I'll be here all day explaining it to you.

i don't know if you are aksing about acinet hebrews or modern day Jews as far as "White people" are concerned

Just the statement from your professor lets me know you can't have a concrete understanding of how what DNA works. How can he make such a statment when the intepretation of the Data is what helps any sensible person make sound judgments that are factual and true.

Caucasion does not denote a race either. Neither does negro. pseudo science. Therefore Black does not describe a race cause Africans are not the only people with black skin in this world.

If the Jews were and have always been white and Egyptians have always been black. How in the hell did Moses pass for and Egyptian in pharoah's house without being detected. There's the concrete proof you are looking for.

davidylan:
Nigeria is one funny country. When it comes to retrogressive laws we suddenly start hearing of the states quasi-independence from the federal arm . . . the minute it comes to cold hard cash (aka federal allocation), states become appendages of the federal government.

Good point.

Please somebody brush this one down if you can.

davidylan:
then i'D ask my own question . . . how did the kingdom of Judah evolve to become white? Please i'D be more than willing to see proof of the phrase in highlights.
by the way, semitic people (arabs and jews) are regarded as caucasians NOT euroasians.

They didn't evolve, they simply inter-marriaged, migrated and at the same time retained their religious and cultural practices. the proof is in DNA. I'll give you an example, the colored people that live in South African today are a seperate ethnic group consists of admixtures of khosian peoples, europeans and malays. The have distinctive features that seperate them from the other african tribes that surround them. slowy but surely as they lean towards the Black side becuase of majority rule and power. There is a probability that over generations they will become more akin in phenotype to the black south africans though retaining certain distinguishable features over generations. Like wise if you swing the pendulum to the left and they stay islolated or lean to the whites,slowly but surely they would be akin to Whites though carrying distinguishable features that would no doubt seperate them from their White neighbours. It all depends.


American regards euroasians as caucasians cause they are dumbassess. They also define some tribes in Ethiopia and ancient Egyptians as caucasians or caucasoid. Nothing more that misnomers.

I think it happens when you start hearing voices and hallucinating.