₦airaland Forum

Kokobilo87:
ibime isa kind of ah nigger who will ah stab in tha back. ibime isa donkey, ah houseboy donkey

Dant ya have ah mining tah do fah dah rednecks ina ah Texas?
Using nah N word ina Dat manner like dah Sambo redneck bootleeker we isa ah knoe ya isa is. Sad sad mule. Ya papa failed dah weld by nat Cummings on dah floor

DissTroy:
I agree with the whitewashing of African history,including the Europeanisation of Egyptian and Nubian histories. Solomon was black and all. Comparative migratory history has proven the Arabs and Berbers invading and dwelling in Egypt, North Africa and many areas of the Middle East only happened recently.

But the inhabitants of ancient Europe weren't blacks. Parts of Southern Europe were inhabited by blacks (obviously the Iberian Peninsular) but that was it. Just like part of Asia (close to the Horn of Africa) was.

Northern and Central Europe have traditionally been occupied by whites - the real whites who are Aryans.

Don't ruin your good points with misinformation.

wrong, I don't have the link to give you offhand, but a recently unearthed human dated to around 50,000 years if I remember correctly, was reconstructed based on bone mapping, facial structure of the chin and nasal cavity and was pronounced to be indisputably black or close enough, Trevor Noah even joked about it on the daily show when talking about Meaghan markle saying she wasn't there to darken the royal family, she was only there to recover lost territory, thing is, whiteness was never common from ancient genetic records, even with sizeable Neanderthal settlements in northern Europe, the homo sapiens that habited most of the known world had dark skin as the weather was normal and the seasons were stable, whiteness as a recessive gene only emerged from the ice ages around the steppes of Asia where the icewall ranged southernmost and the weather was extremely frigid,, whiteness is recessive, also almost everyone on planet earth with blue eyes and blonde hair have if not one , just a handfull of ancestors in whom those genetic mutations originally occurred tens of thousands of years ago give or take around the Aryan mountain ranges, red hair in most northern Europeans is linked directly to the amount of Neanderthal DNA they have, this things are mappable, the science isn't foolproof but it can give relatively accurate pointers.
So, no human who evolved and came out of Africa could have been black given our weather during the periods of migration and so if we still agree that modern humans came out of Africa, my summation will remain theoretically correct till you present a better argument

DissTroy:
I agree with the whitewashing of African history,including the Europeanisation of Egyptian and Nubian histories. Solomon was black and all. Comparative migratory history has proven the Arabs and Berbers invading and dwelling in Egypt, North Africa and many areas of the Middle East only happened recently.

But the inhabitants of ancient Europe weren't blacks. Parts of Southern Europe were inhabited by blacks (obviously the Iberian Peninsular) but that was it. Just like part of Asia (close to the Horn of Africa) was.

Northern and Central Europe have traditionally been occupied by whites - the real whites who are Aryans.

Don't ruin your good points with misinformation.

also, the invasion and conquest of Egypt by non Africans was recorded in hieroglyphs as the hyskos invasion pushing the ruling African dynasty of the throne forcing them to flee south leading to generations of war till they won and pushed out the invaders reuniting the kingdom and founding a new dynasty. The Pharaohs of Egypt were almost entirely all black with a brief non African intermission at some point, but European egyptologists would always publish and display hieroglyphs showing fairer skinned humans from that hyskos intermission and claim they were the Egyptians who built the pyramids when northern Sudan of today has more pyramids than Egypt of today and African monarchs even in subsahara have always had elaborate burial ceremonies even till modern times as a vestigial proof of more ancient, more flamboyant burials.

WispyEthereal:
wrong, I don't have the link to give you offhand, but a recently unearthed human dated to around 50,000 years if I remember correctly, was reconstructed based on bone mapping, facial structure of the chin and nasal cavity and was pronounced to be indisputably black or close enough, Trevor Noah even joked about it on the daily show when talking about Meaghan markle saying she wasn't there to darken the royal family, she was only there to recover lost territory, thing is, whiteness was never common from ancient genetic records, even with sizeable Neanderthal settlements in northern Europe, the homo sapiens that habited most of the known world had dark skin as the weather was normal and the seasons were stable, whiteness as a recessive gene only emerged from the ice ages around the steppes of Asia where the icewall ranged southernmost and the weather was extremely frigid,, whiteness is recessive, also almost everyone on planet earth with blue eyes and blonde hair have if not one , just a handfull of ancestors in whom those genetic mutations originally occurred tens of thousands of years ago give or take around the Aryan mountain ranges, red hair in most northern Europeans is linked directly to the amount of Neanderthal DNA they have, this things are mappable, the science isn't foolproof but it can give relatively accurate pointers.
So, no human who evolved and came out of Africa could have been black given our weather during the periods of migration and so if we still agree that modern humans came out of Africa, my summation will remain theoretically correct till you present a better argument

ya sound like ah conspiracy donkey

WispyEthereal:
wrong, I don't have the link to give you offhand, but a recently unearthed human dated to around 50,000 years if I remember correctly, was reconstructed based on bone mapping, facial structure of the chin and nasal cavity and was pronounced to be indisputably black or close enough, Trevor Noah even joked about it on the daily show when talking about Meaghan markle saying she wasn't there to darken the royal family, she was only there to recover lost territory, thing is

Dude(?), if you're basing your anthropological and archaeological evidence on what Trevor Noah, a comic-cum-political-tv-show-host, says then it leaves much left to be desired.

Except it is completely or partially mummified, you can never tell the race of a person simply from the nasal cavity. Whites and blacks essentially have similar skeletal nasal cavities which only become differentiated when skin is add. Just like you can't tell what skin type a person had based simply on their skeletal bones.

Also, the Japanese and the Nubian have similar broad chins even though they are geographically farther than Europe to Africa so where's the proof?

, whiteness was never common from ancient genetic records, even with sizeable Neanderthal settlements in northern Europe, the homo sapiens that habited most of the known world had dark skin as the weather was normal and the seasons were stable, whiteness as a recessive gene only emerged from the ice ages around the steppes of Asia where the icewall ranged southernmost and the weather was extremely frigid,, whiteness is recessive, also almost everyone on planet earth with blue eyes and blonde hair have if not one , just a handfull of ancestors in whom those genetic mutations originally occurred tens of thousands of years ago give or take around the Aryan mountain ranges, red hair in most northern Europeans is linked directly to the amount of Neanderthal DNA they have, this things are mappable, the science isn't foolproof but it can give relatively accurate pointers.

This is only as true and valid as Pluto's planetary designation in our solar system. In the last 50 years alone, archaeological findings have continually changed what is the oldest inhabitant of a place or their lifestyles.

Evidently, the earliest homo sapiens would have dark hued skin but as they migrated to different parts of the world, their phenotype and morphology became altered. The 50,000 years ago you referred to can't be referred to as "Ancient Europe" when homo sapiens were still very crude.

By the time Europe became Europe per say, these people had very different characterises from the rest of us.
Just like, while many tribes in present day Nigeria migrated and passed through Sudan as we moved south, within a few hundred years, the physical differences between us and the South Sudanese are obvious, even today. They are taller, darker with broader noses. We are shorter, fairer with less broad noses.
But are we going to say the inhabitants of the ancient Nigeria were Sudanese? No?

Compare that to Europe. As at the most recent archaeological findings in those areas of Europe you claim are inhabited by blacks, they had changed drastically. The last Ice Age even ended about 12,000 years ago. And before then there were thousands of years which seperated mass would-be migrants in Africa from the inhabitants of Europe during the Ice Age who had already been altered.

So, no human who evolved and came out of Africa could have been black given our weather during the periods of migration and so if we still agree that modern humans came out of Africa, my summation will remain theoretically correct till you present a better argument

The ironic thing is, the Afro-migration almost 120,000 years ago was through East Africa to Asia and beyond to Europe. By the time they got to Europe, they were phenotypically different from the African residents.

And no, blacks as we know them today weren't the same blacks years go. You don't look exactly like the inhabitants of this continent 150,000 years ago. You've evolved as the continent got warmer and other characteristics. Just because you live in the present-day continent doesn't mean its ancestral inhabitants looked like you.

50,000 years from now and the descendants of the Berbers of Morocco would think, like you, that the original dwellers of the lands looked exactly like them.

WispyEthereal:
also, the invasion and conquest of Egypt by non Africans was recorded in hieroglyphs as the hyskos invasion

Again, I agree with the whitewashing of European and Nubian histories. The inhabitants of these places as at the time when Egypt was a world power, by comparative migratory history, proves they were blacks. Not necessarily blacks like darkskinned but 'blackish'.

And there are modified forms of the hieroglyphs in Nigeria. The Ekpe cultural society of the Ibibio-Efik groups use s language system called "Nsibidi". Do comparative analysis and its similar to hieroglyphs if you can decipher them.

There was a secondary school history book written in the seventies owned by some folks I know which I came upon some years ago and it taught how to read hieroglyphs.
There's a decoding system for Nsibidi too.

It all comes into play when you realised the later group migrated from Sudan/Egypt axis to Guinea to Mali to Nigeria through present-day Benue (then the Arochukwu-Ibibio war where they split into subethicities about 800 years ago) to the bank of the Atlantic Ocean.

DissTroy:
Dude(?), if you're basing your anthropological and archaeological evidence on what Trevor Noah, a comic-cum-political-tv-show-host, says then it leaves much left to be desired.

Except it is completely or partially mummified, you can never tell the race of a person simply from the nasal cavity. Whites and blacks essentially have similar skeletal nasal cavities which only become differentiated when skin is add. Just like you can't tell what skin type a person had based simply on their skeletal bones.

Also, the Japanese and the Nubian have similar broad chins even though they are geographically farther than Europe to Africa so where's the proof?


This is only as true and valid as Pluto's planetary designation in our solar system. In the last 50 years alone, archaeological findings have continually changed what is the oldest inhabitant of a place or their lifestyles.

Evidently, the earliest homo sapiens would have dark hued skin but as they migrated to different parts of the world, their phenotype and morphology became altered. The 50,000 years ago you referred to can't be referred to as "Ancient Europe" when homo sapiens were still very crude.

By the time Europe became Europe per say, these people had very different characterises from the rest of us.
Just like, while many tribes in present day Nigeria migrated and passed through Sudan as we moved south, within a few hundred years, the physical differences between us and the South Sudanese are obvious, even today. They are taller, darker with broader noses. We are shorter, fairer with less broad noses.
But are we going to say the inhabitants of the ancient Nigeria were Sudanese? No?

Compare that to Europe. As at the most recent archaeological findings in those areas of Europe you claim are inhabited by blacks, they had changed drastically. The last Ice Age even ended about 12,000 years ago. And before then there were thousands of years which seperated mass would-be migrants in Africa from the inhabitants of Europe during the Ice Age who had already been altered.



The ironic thing is, the Afro-migration almost 120,000 years ago was through East Africa to Asia and beyond to Europe. By the time they got to Europe, they were phenotypically different from the African residents.

And no, blacks as we know them today weren't the same blacks years go. You don't look exactly like the inhabitants of this continent 150,000 years ago. You've evolved as the continent got warmer and other characteristics. Just because you live in the present-day continent doesn't mean its ancestral inhabitants looked like you.

50,000 years from now and the descendants of the Berbers of Morocco would think, like you, that the original dwellers of the lands looked exactly like them.

I agree, I never implied being black is homogenous as nurture or environment also has its own effects on genetic modification, but as compared to whiteness or our modern classification of racial differentiation they were black or more black than white, the point here being that the groups that migrated out of Africa were all back before location induced mutation introduced certain specificities to their genome, so across the world, there were different variations of being black, in Asia where the weather ranged from extreme heat/humidity to extreme cold/aridity a different type of black skinned people emerged before they were subsumed by the more whiter middle kingdom of China, around southern Asia, mixture with Polynesian groups who roamed the seas produced the characteristic asianess we have in modern Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia e.t.c, the Indus valley was peopled with black peoples more typical to what southern Indians look like before the ruling caste of indoaryans invaded, in Australia and new Zealand before western invasions the Maori and the native Australians weren't alike but they were different shades of black with hair ranging from wooly to straight, the last living Tasmanian whose picture was taken after the Tasmanian genocide was black with broad nose and woolly hair like a native Australian or subsaharan African, before Asiatic peoples crossed the land bridge into Americas, most inhabitants of the Americas were a crossbreed between dark skinned, straight haired Polynesian seafarers and swarthy, black, woolly haired Africans as their carvings and statues depict, the people of the Solomon islands (I might be wrong on the location) are all dark skinned, all woolly blond hair, there are genetically black people with pure blue eyes, the list goes on and on and on. Blackness of different shades is a trait that survived from their ancestral forbears who came out of Africa, as different as modern Chinese are today, a study by a certain university professor in China (forgive me, I am dry on specific references) revealed that every living Chinese is genetically descended from African migrants without a single exception. The only reason these black peoples are not globally dominant as they once were is that they inherited a specific cultural trait from their African ancestors, they had art, they had music, they had culture but they never studied war and as such the warlike white European and proto-white Europeans from the steppes of modern Russia and Mongolia who were nomadic, murderous and warlike in general murdered and conquered every indigenous black peoples they met across the world until they became the dominant group, check the Tasmanian genocide of the modern era with native Tasmanians wiped out to the last child by British settlers as recently as the eighteenth century, now multiply that over millennia across different locations in the world then the modern distribution of groups begins to make sense.
Also, I wasn't using Trevor Noah as my source, I was using his reference of what was common knowledge in academia and the media a few years ago as my emphasis, the fact that the researchers described the individual as genetically black was why he used him as a prop in the Meaghan markle story, hope you get my gist

WispyEthereal:
The only reason these black peoples are not globally dominant as they once were is that they inherited a specific cultural trait from their African ancestors, they had art, they had music, they had culture but they never studied war...

I wish this were true, but war is a trait of all humans from as far back as you go.
https://historyofyesterday.com/the-100-000-years-war-between-neanderthals-and-homo-sapiens-65caaf781b7

Informative article on Jan 6 fake insurrection.

https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/


Ray Epps a member of oathkeepers identified urging protesters enter the Capitol days before and during the protest.
FBI publishes his photo as No 16 . He is identified within 3 days. FBI arrests and incarcerate hundreds of protesters but not him. Six months later FBI removes his photo of wanted suspects after an article appears in the media. He has never been arrested. Trump supporters in their hundreds remain in jail today months later some in solitary. compare
With: A student shoots 4 colleagues. He is bailed out within 24 hours , goes home and gets a welcome party.

WispyEthereal:
I agree, I never implied being black is homogenous as nurture or environment also has its own effects on genetic modification, but as compared to whiteness or our modern classification of racial differentiation they were black or more black than white, the point here being that the groups that migrated out of Africa were all back before location induced mutation introduced certain specificities to their genome, so across the world, there were different variations of being black,

Just because the Homo sapiens became doesn't mean he wasn't crude. He was. Just because he could make fire doesn't mean he was civilised.

The Homo sapien took thousands of years before he formed communities and became a seafarer. Even as homo erectus, he was spreading into different areas so by the time he evolved to Homo sapien, he was already in different areas of the world in between the thawing of ice and periodical warming of the earth.

If you research, you'd find archaeological findings of human remains in Europe dating back to 300,000 years ago. Those were part of the people spreading.

It's just like monkeys or say lions. A male gets kicked off at adolescent to got start his own pride so he moved far away. Then his own progeny moved farther away. Then farther away. Remember the Homo sapien was also a hunter gatherer with no map of the world or guide.

By the time the homo sapien would have moved from, say, Sudan to Sweden, tens of thousands of years had passed and at that point he looked nothing phenotypically like his ancestors in Sudan. The colder climate and lesser sunshine changed their skin colours and hair type over the thousands of years as adaptation.

And Africa was mostly frozen over too at a point during the Ice Age for thousands of years, until, 10,000 to 5,000 years ago, the Sahara wasn't even a desert so its inhabitants during the Ice Age would have the physical adaptations to withstand the cold (hair and others) which we, the present-day inhabitants don't have, and some migrated north as hunter-gatherers forming nuclear groups would not exactly look like us. Our skin colour and hair type are adaptations to Africa's climatic conditions in thw last 10,000 years or so.

Put the very darkskinned Jim Iyke and Mercy Johnson in the Artic Circle (the conditions of many parts of the world during the Ice Age) procreating and you'd notice their progeny growing lighter (little sunlight) with thicker hair (the cold adaptation), and less broad noses (easing breathing in the cold).

Also, I wasn't using Trevor Noah as my source, I was using his reference of what was common knowledge in academia and the media a few years ago as my emphasis, the fact that the researchers described the individual as genetically black was why he used him as a prop in the Meaghan markle story, hope you get my gist

Never take one archaeological research as your evidence. This is an unwritten rule. Even archaeologists disagree on many issues. The date of Pangea when the continental plates shifted to form continents today are still being argued.

The age range of the first humans in Europe have changed more than 4 times in recent years, from 60,000 years to 300,000. The safe bet is taking the mean hence why I was focusing on about 150,000 in my earliest response to you.

They were genetically more closer to black than white but the genetic differentiation from present day blacks is noted meaning we evolved. And we didn't look exactly like them obviously.

Even the typical Nigerian in Lagos or Bayelsa has morphological variations from the typical South African. There are physical attributes you can tell which is which, including facial features. Imagine what 30,000 years of isolation would change us.

budaatum:
I wish this were true, but war is a trait of all humans from as far back as you go.
https://historyofyesterday.com/the-100-000-years-war-between-neanderthals-and-homo-sapiens-65caaf781b7

Exactly! Humans didn't migrate as one group. During different stages of evolution even during the Ice Age, migration happened, even as Homo erectus. The evolution happened at different paces and it's not all humans who discovered fire at the same time. That's why we didn't all enter the Stonge Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age at the same time.

The inhabitants of Sentinel Island, for example, are just barely coming to grasp with their own Iron Age. The most isolated and crude set of humans on earth. They still walk with a slight bend.

These groups came upon each other e.g The Afro-migration 150,000, 60,000 and 12,000 years (the end of the last Ice Age when they earth began to warm finally) would come upon people who had migrated thousands of years before them and would fight. They even looked different from each other in many ways at that point.

Blacks are phenotypically blacks due to the conditions found in Africa. Take blacks and put then in Greenland for 10,000 years (removing global warming) even without outside interactions and we'd look different from the African residents.
Evolution is slow and requires a lot of time.

DissTroy:
Just because the Homo sapiens became doesn't mean he wasn't crude. He was. Just because he could make fire doesn't mean he was civilised.

The Homo sapien took thousands of years before he formed communities and became a seafarer. Even as homo erectus, he was spreading into different areas so by the time he evolved to Homo sapien, he was already in different areas of the world in between the thawing of ice and periodical warming of the earth.

If you research, you'd find archaeological findings of human remains in Europe dating back to 300,000 years ago. Those were part of the people spreading.

It's just like monkeys or say lions. A male gets kicked off at adolescent to got start his own pride so he moved far away. Then his own progeny moved farther away. Then farther away. Remember the Homo sapien was also a hunter gatherer with no map of the world or guide.

By the time the homo sapien would have moved from, say, Sudan to Sweden, tens of thousands of years had passed and at that point he looked nothing phenotypically like his ancestors in Sudan. The colder climate and lesser sunshine changed their skin colours and hair type over the thousands of years as adaptation.

And Africa was mostly frozen over too at a point during the Ice Age for thousands of years, until, 10,000 to 5,000 years ago, the Sahara wasn't even a desert so its inhabitants during the Ice Age as some migrated north as hunter gatherers forming nuclear groups would not exactly look like us. Our skin colour and hair type are adaptations to Africa's climatic conditions.

Put the very darkskinned Jim Iyke and Mercy Johnson in the Artic Circle (the conditions of many parts of the world during the Ice Age) procreating and you'd notice their progeny growing lighter (little sunlight) with thicker hair (the cold adaptation), and less broad noses (easing breathing in the cold).


[b]Never take one archaeological research as your evidence. This is an unwritten rule. Even archaeologists disagree on many issues. The date of Pangea when the continental plates shifted to form continents today are still being argued.

The age range of the first humans in Europe have changed more than 4 times in recent years, from 60,000 years to 300,000. The safe bet is taking the mean hence why I was focusing on about 150,000 in my earliest response to you.

They were genetically more closer to black than white but the genetic differentiation from present day blacks is noted meaning we evolved. And we didn't look exactly like them obviously.

Even the typical Nigerian in Lagos or Bayelsa has morphological variations from the typical South African. There are physical attributes you can tell which is which, including facial features. Imagine what 30,000 years of isolation would change us.


Exactly! Humans didn't migrate as one group. During different stages of evolution even during the Ice Age, migration happens, even as Homo erectus. The evolution happened at different paces and it's not all humans who discovered fire at the same time. That's why we didn't all enter the Stonge Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age at the same time.

The inhabitants of Sentinel Island, for example, are just barely coming to grasp with their own Iron Age. The most isolated and crude set of humans on earth. They still walk with a slight bend.

These groups came up each other e.g The Afro-migration 150,000 60,000 and 12,000 years (the end of the last Ice Age when they earth began to warm finally) would come upon people who had migrated thousands of years before them and would fight. They even looked different from each other in many ways at that point.

Blacks are phenotypically blacks due to the conditions found in Africa. Take blacks and put then in Greenland for 10,000 years (removing global warming) and we'd look different from the African residents.

Many of the things that guy says they tire me. he could have done well by presenting his sources but it seems he is ashamed of it. conspiracy theorist will tell you that the nose of those statues were destroyed to hide the race but he did not think that all those statues are not a mirror representation of whom they represent. the statues does not look accurate. you will know this by looking at various part of the statues and compare to humans, especial their hands and body. so the nose in this case cannot be use to tell if they are one race from the other.

Murica isa die. how isa long before ya donkey prideoflincoln1 isa run back to ah nigeria for ah better life?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPhdaaPgONg

Kokobilo87:
Murica isa die. how isa long before ya donkey prideoflincoln1 isa run back to ah nigeria for ah better life?
https://www.youtbe.com/watch?v=nPhdaaPgONg

Shut ya dirty mouth. Stupid people Isa post dati nutcase tacker comedy Isa call news. Ya stoopid chief donkey

basilico:
[s]Informative article on Jan 6 fake insurrection.

https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/


Ray Epps a member of oathkeepers identified urging protesters enter the Capitol days before and during the protest.
FBI publishes his photo as No 16 . He is identified within 3 days. FBI arrests and incarcerate hundreds of protesters but not him. Six months later FBI removes his photo of wanted suspects after an article appears in the media. He has never been arrested. Trump supporters in their hundreds remain in jail today months later some in solitary. compare
With: A student shoots 4 colleagues. He is bailed out within 24 hours , goes home and gets a welcome party.[/s]

Apprentice donkey

budaatum:
I wish this were true, but war is a trait of all humans from as far back as you go.
https://historyofyesterday.com/the-100-000-years-war-between-neanderthals-and-homo-sapiens-65caaf781b7

your assertion is relatively true, meaning where there were Neanderthals, they contended with homo sapiens for resources, but Neanderthals were largely limited to northern Europe, same scenario I think played out in eastern Asia where homo sapiens breeded or waged war or both with another remote human ancestor the denisovian (I might not have spelled that correctly) but by and large in most other places in this time period humans were largely contentious but not to the point of waging wars of annihilation against each other, this can be referenced in the artefacts from those era and areas, implements of agriculture, instruments of music, instruments of art but not instruments of war so when more warlike races appeared they either adapted fast or were wiped out, also ownership was largely communal and conflict resolution had a community oriented not individual oriented approach, take the Zulus of south Africa as an example, at a time waging war was largely a ceremonial feat of manliness e.g how far a spear could be thrown, not to kill, but to impress the opposition, so yes with modern man waging war for advantage and resources is a universal trait, but that trait wasn't always universal

benalvino3:
Many of the things that guy says they tire me. he could have done well by presenting his sources but it seems he is ashamed of it. conspiracy theorist will tell you that the nose of those statues were destroyed to hide the race but he did not think that all those statues are not a mirror representation of whom they represent. the statues does not look accurate. you will know this by looking at various part of the statues and compare to humans, especial their hands and body. so the nose in this case cannot be use to tell if they are one race from the other.

Hahahaha this one of me, stay out of this conversation, you are obviously too underinformed to partake of it without advertising your ignorance on the topic, just a friendly advice


And I am the conspiratorial one? Lol

WispyEthereal:
Hahahaha this one of me, stay out of this conversation, you are obviously too underinformed to partake of it without advertising your ignorance on the topic, just a friendly advice


And I am the conspiratorial one? Lol

You have not provided a single source to back up your claims. This is nothing but a conspiracy theory. if the nose is cut off to hide their race, why do many have their right hand cut off, some their names wiped out, some their head cut off? Don't you think it has to do with ancient belief?

Some of the kings even warned about vandalism of their own image because they believe they can still be active in life through their statues that's why they bow and give offering and sacrifice to those statues. Most statues receiving offerings with their right hand got their right hand cut off, some statues giving offering got their hands cut off.

If you want anyone to take you seriously, you better start providing sources for your claims. No be to they yarn conspiracy crap here.

WispyEthereal:
your assertion is relatively true, meaning where there were Neanderthals, they contended with homo sapiens for resources, but Neanderthals were largely limited to northern Europe, same scenario I think played out in eastern Asia where homo sapiens breeded or waged war or both with another remote human ancestor the denisovian (I might not have spelled that correctly) but by and large in most other places in this time period humans were largely contentious but not to the point of waging wars of annihilation against each other, this can be referenced in the artefacts from those era and areas, implements of agriculture, instruments of music, instruments of art but not instruments of war so when more warlike races appeared they either adapted fast or were wiped out, also ownership was largely communal and conflict resolution had a community oriented not individual oriented approach, take the Zulus of south Africa as an example, at a time waging war was largely a ceremonial feat of manliness e.g how far a spear could be thrown, not to kill, but to impress the opposition, so yes with modern man waging war for advantage and resources is a universal trait, but that trait wasn't always universal

It depends on the periods you talk about, really. "Implements of agriculture, instruments of music, instruments of art", are relatively modern, and came into existence after sapiens stopped roaming, and settled down, which might have been after wars for the resource they settled by, if they did not discover the place first.

You "take the Zulus of south Africa as an example", but fail to recognise that waging war became "largely a ceremonial feat of manliness e.g how far a spear could be thrown", after, and because of their history of wagging wars. Its the same with the Olympics. Its modern form developed out of war.

Wars (a relatively new phenomena, depending on definition), were generally fought over resources needed for survival, and not to the "point of waging wars of annihilation" to wipe others out, and did not need to be fought if resources abounded, which they did when population was lots lower than it has eventually become. Hence, fewer wars, one might think, and to be honest, it might be a bit difficult to find an intact obsidian tipped spear or arrow or bow, since it might just seem like a stick.

Unfortunately, pre-humans didn't exactly supply us with historic records of wars, though in fact, they told tales about wars between 'the gods', as handed down to them and to us, so we are likely to assume wars weren't fought, but wars abound amongst some animals, and especially amongst those counted as our evolutionary cousins, so I would not agree that we Africans don't have traits for war, especially since our history shows we were as warrish as just about any race on earth.

WispyEthereal:
Hahahaha this one of me, stay out of this conversation, you are obviously too underinformed to partake of it without advertising your ignorance on the topic, just a friendly advice

And I am the conspiratorial one? Lol

He is telling you to educate him as if he has a right to your knowledge and time, and if you do attempt to educate him he'd keep insisting we are discussing racism of the nose.

budaatum:
He is telling you to educate him as if he has a right to your knowledge and time, and if you do attempt to educate him he'd keep insisting we are discussing racism of the nose.

That's your assertion. The guy keeps making claims and I am asking him to back up his claim. He is the one that make the claim it was Europeans who cut off the nose to hide race not me. I don't expect you to be unbiased because you might lose your life trying to.

You guys cannot even stay on a topic. Switch to a new one with every new post.

Like you said, he should educate me with real sources not what one conspiracy theorist have stated.

benalvino3:
That's your assertion. The guy keeps making claims and I am asking him to back up his claim. He is the one that make the claim it was Europeans who cut off the nose to hide race not me. I don't expect you to be unbiased because you might lose your life trying to.

You guys cannot even stay on a topic. Switch to a new one with every new post.

Like you said, he should educate me with real sources not what one conspiracy theorist have stated.

No one owes you an education, ben, especially not of the basics that you ought to have learnt yourself. If you'd paid schoolfees like I keep telling you to, you'd gave been taught this stuff already instead of ignorantly inferring "maths is racist".

budaatum:
No one owes you an education, ben, especially not of the basics that you ought to have learnt yourself. If you'd paid schoolfees like I keep telling you to, you'd gave been taught this stuff already instead of ignorantly inferring "maths is racist".

Yeah, no one owes me education, especially from conspiracy theorist.

What of if I told you, the study called "Egyptology" was a European creation to suppress the history of African excellence in the kingdom of Egypt? What if I told you statues of pharaoh's had their faces defaced specifically their noses just to have their African heritage disputed?

He make these BS claims, I am asking him to follow up with real information and evidence.

You are known for lying and putting words into people's mouth. You cannot debate without doing that. You are also known for dancing alanta when asked for a quote or source after a lie. Keep it up.


He also claimed they never studied war but they have a very disciplined army.

Kokobilo87:
Murica isa die. how isa long before ya donkey prideoflincoln1 isa run back to ah nigeria for ah better life?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPhdaaPgONg

Ya redneck bootleeker ya gonna bleach ya skin tah be whyte like ah Tucker?
Talking abt ah fake ah replacementa ah theory Dat isa ah nah happens.
Sad sad homoerotic mule. Kant goeth ah dai without ah coming on ah heer.

never gets old.

Ginalz:
Ya redneck bootleeker ya gonna bleach ya skin tah be whyte like ah Tucker?
Talking abt ah fake ah replacementa ah theory Dat isa ah nah happens.
Sad sad homoerotic mule. Kant goeth ah dai without ah coming on ah heer.

ibime isa bleach isa skin not isa me

Update to this story. Boy has been found guilty of sexual assault. To be sentenced.

Why this is sick. Leftists enact rules on inclusiveness. The underage boy dressed as a girl rapes a girl in the female wash rooms.
The School covers up and lies there was no assault reported. The dad to the girl in that meeting gets thrown out as a "domestic terrorist" .
Leftism I repeat. Is a mental illness.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10132015/Loudoun-County-judge-finds-boy-skirt-GUILTY-sexually-assaulting-female-student.html

Mainstream Media will ignore this story as they have.
Actually the boy sodomized the little girl.

basilico:
This is a sad story. Earlier I reported on how those misfits purport to be journalists. They would never report on this but will spend a week talking about how Melania Trump pushed away Trump's hands.
Sick bastards.

A boy dressed as a girl rapes a girl in woke school's washroom. Tranny is arrested and released on bond. Dad goes to school board meeting . Dad placed under gag order not to talk about it. He gets arrested after an altercation with a leftist scum accusing him of lying.
Tranny then goes ahead and sexually assaults another.
Garland cited this dad as an example of domestic terrorist.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/10/11/horror-in-loudoun-county-implicates-local-and-federal-officials-n455371

basilico:
Update to this story. Boy has been found guilty of sexual assault. To be sentenced.

Why this is sick. Leftists enact rules on inclusiveness. The underage boy dressed as a girl rapes a girl in the female wash rooms.
The School covers up and lies there was no assault reported. The dad to the girl in that meeting gets thrown out as a "domestic terrorist" .
Leftism I repeat. Is a mental illness.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10132015/Loudoun-County-judge-finds-boy-skirt-GUILTY-sexually-assaulting-female-student.html

Mainstream Media will ignore this story as they have.
Actually the boy sodomized the little girl.

Mainstream media wont report it while posting link from daily mail you consider to be left wing.

The boy is getting sentenced and you are still not happy, anyway try lend your outrage to students from Jerry Falwell university who couldn't even make a report of sexual assaults because school threatened them, a school managed by people of God.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jerry-falwell-liberty-university-rape-b1944963.html

sanpipita:
Mainstream media wont report it while posting link from daily mail you consider to be left wing.

The boy is getting sentenced and you are still not happy, anyway try lend your outrage to students from Jerry Falwell university who couldn't even make a report of sexual assaults because school threatened them, a school managed by people of God.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jerry-falwell-liberty-university-rape-b1944963.html

ya donkey dailymail isa not mainstream media ya donkey. mainstream media isa not leftwing media ya donkey

stanech:
never gets old.

Forever young.

Same smile through thick and thin - happy birthday to the future president! Face and smile of a champion

Imagine that young girl in your 6th grade class - fighting for your future helping you fight class bullies

Kokobilo87:
ibime isa bleach isa skin not isa me

He isa ya born Dat way. Ya isa ah bleach ya soul leeking dah arse of rednecks ina ah Texas. Sad sad homoerotic mule

sanpipita:
Mainstream media wont report it while posting link from daily mail you consider to be left wing.

The boy is getting sentenced and you are still not happy, anyway try lend your outrage to students from Jerry Falwell university who couldn't even make a report of sexual assaults because school threatened them, a school managed by people of God.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jerry-falwell-liberty-university-rape-b1944963.html

Him isa tink Dailymail isa left wing?

Ginalz:
He isa ya born Dat way. Ya isa ah bleach ya soul leeking dah arse of rednecks ina ah Texas. Sad sad homoerotic mule

ibime isa bleached ya donkey