Braden2:
The inhabitants of Greece ,Italy and Spain are still white . The inhabitants of Egypt are not black today . If blacks claim Nubians of Sudan that would be understandable .it just makes no sense claiming Egypt . look,there's nothing you can say now to salvage the image of blacks than to move forward and build organized society. absolutely nothing

''Salvage the image of blacks''? In whose eyes? YOURS? We don't give a Goddamn what YOU and your ilk think. This thread is by Africans FOR Africans. Not for you. Don't you have a North American forum to join? You've no business here, you racist trailer trash.

LordAdam16:


Because North Africans are different from sub-Saharan Africans. Even to this day. Despite the fact that North Africa and much of Sub-Saharan Africa are Muslims and share core Arabic influences, the difference is like Night and Day. Western Europeans and Eastern Europeans differ, but not as much as North Africans and sub-Saharan Africans.

If you don't someone to compare Sub-Saharan Africa with the whole world, don't start talking about African Supremacy. I said you guys should bring any civilization in sub-Saharan Africa that rivals anything of the great civilizations of the Ancient World. I said anything. You can't find any.

Ancient Egyptian and Nubian Empires are North African. Nubian Empire cannot even compete with Egyptian not to talk about competing with the Persian or Greek empires. Xerxes I the Persian king burned Athens to the ground. Alexander conquered all of Asia. The Egyptian Empire did not not cross the Mediterranean.

The Abbysinia Empire can not rival the Egyptian Empire not to talk of the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, or Roman Empires. They did not even have a massive navy.

And that's arguably the best in sub-Saharan Africa.

I don't know why you guys can't be objective. Make arguments that can't stand the test of time.

There is nothing in sub-Saharan Africa that rivals any of the great civilizations. That's a fact.

So you can't be talking about African Supremacy. That's what I am against here. There is no such thing as African or Black Supremacy.

-Lord

Why should Abyssinia have a navy when they were far from the waters and on a mountaineous region all about them? It seems like you are now just arguing because you want to argue and you have been officially confirmed as a troll.

All manners of genetic testing has been done and inspite of the fact that many Arabs and Europeans have inflitrated North Africa, yet, most North Africans bear exactly the same genetic markers with other Africans.
DNA cannot lie. I would have bombarded this thread with the results of similarities of the genetic markers of North Africans and SubSaharan africans but i really don't think you are worth the effort.
You are nothing but a troll here.
Initially i thought you had a reasonable perspective and i was on partly on your side, but i think now, it has been clear to all observing parties that you and Braden2 have ulterior motives and missions here which i bet you guys have failed.

Kudos to our heroes once again, Rosskii and Horus and every other Black and African loving African who has contributed positively to this thread to this thread.

Rosskii:


For crying out loud the guy was advocating for a FUTURE roadmap or ideology going forward. He wasn't saying Africans are superior to other races. He said we OUGHT TO develop a ''supremacist ideology'' going forward, since he sees this as a way of reversing the centuries of inferiorization of the African. He's making a policy proposal!

Hear yourself.

You said no one "mentioned" supremacy apart from me.

Now, I've quoted someone that mentioned it, you're talking trash.

My question is: Did he "mention" supremacy yes nor no?

Pathological liar.

-Lord

.

Anyone else think the last Moor posted is dressed like Santa Claus, aka father christmas? Intriguing.

Braden2:
You have no plans for Africa except meaningless and outdated fairy tales .You're a racist . I'm not going to reply you any further . you're an old fool who's demise is just around the corner. The world doesn't need you. I';m going to live to a 100 and Africa and the rest of the world will eventually be developed and all humans will have good quality of life.

Thanks. Get lost and stay lost. Trailer boy. You don't know how long you are gonna live. You didn't create yourself. God can end it all for you tonight, so shut it.

African101:
I believe the op is more intelligent than you if not you will have show or give us concrete evidence or proof against the op. Why can't you do your own research about this interesting Africa history and prove the op wrong.

He can't because he's wrong.

LordAdam16:


Hear yourself.

You said no one "mentioned" supremacy apart from me.

Now, I've quoted someone that mentioned it, you're talking trash.

My question is: Did he "mention" supremacy yes nor no?

Pathological liar.

-Lord

Sure he did, but in a totally unrelated context. So when someone mentions ''supremacy'' it doesn't matter in what context he mentioned it? The very word makes you jump off your seat and start lashing out? Are you sure you are ok? Or you just cannot fathom blacks even contemplating the notion? You seem pretty adept at propagating white supremacy around here, even if you haven't used the word.

Nowenuse:


Why should Abyssinia have a navy when they were far from the waters and on a mountaineous region all about them? It seems like you are now just arguing because you want to argue and you have been officially confirmed as a troll.

All manners of genetic testing has been done and inspite of the fact that many Arabs and Europeans have inflitrated North Africa, yet, most North Africans bear exactly the same genetic markers with other Africans.
DNA cannot lie. I would have bombarded this thread with the results of similarities of the genetic markers of North Africans and SubSaharan africans but i really don't think you are worth the effort.
You are nothing but a troll here.
Initially i thought you had a reasonable perspective and i was on partly on your side, but i think now, it has been clear to all observing parties that you and Braden2 have ulterior motives and missions here which i bet you guys have failed.

Kudos to our heroes once again, Rosskii and Horus and every other Black and African loving African who has contributed positively to this thread to this thread.

If you want to conquer other lands across the ocean, you build a navy. Simple as.

Oga, you say DNA say the genetic markers of the North Africans had not been influenced much despite Arabic and European infiltration. Yet when I say they are a mixed raced in the past as they are today, you say that is untrue.

Why contradict yourself openly?

You guys can feed your self lies, lie openly, and contradict yourself without shame. And when I call you guys out, you can call me a racist or having ulterior motives. That's your own problem. It doesn't bother me.

I'm just not going to allow you guys throw unsubstantiated trash all over the place without firm rebuttal. And I've achieved that.

I did not set out to change the minds of racists and supremacists. I only set out to balance out the skewed rhetoric.

That's all I've done. Everyone has the right to believe anything they like. But they must know if they're believing half truths there is a full truth. Then if the person still wants to believe the half-truth then no problem. Freedom of Information mate.

-Lord

Rosskii:


Sure he did, but in a totally unrelated context. So when someone mentions ''supremacy'' it doesn't matter in what context he mentioned it? The very word makes you jump off your seat and start lashing out? Are you sure you are ok? Or you just cannot fathom blacks even contemplating the notion? You seem pretty adept at propagating white supremacy around here, even if you haven't used the word.

Really, so when a white KKK member mentions "white supremacy" on a thread about white conquering blacks, a black person should wait to understand context.

You said no body mentioned "supremacy." Why are you shifting the goal post to say he mentioned it but in a innocuous context.

He mentioned it simple. And black supremacy is black supremacy. There is no way to turn it around.

You just accepted that you lied openly on this thread.

A white person cannot say White supremacy and it's mean anything other than White supremacy. E no get as u 1 turn am.

Except you want us to open pandora's box and then white supremacy is acceptable if used in a certain context. Racism is acceptable if used in a certain context. Africans are primitive mindless apes if said in a certain way.

Sometimes I wonder if you guys are actually human beings or robots. If you make a mistake, retrace your steps and apologize. Don't prove that you made a mistake but it's not a mistake.

That just makes you look stupid.

That's the way donnie was trying to say there's a way Egyptian history progressed that means Alexander did not conquer Egypt in 332 AD and was proclaimed Pharoah of Egypt.

Stop lying brazenly. It ruins discussions.

-Lord

LordAdam16:


And oga, what I'm saying is that do the majority of those people have lighter skin tones? They are like the Igbos. And they're predominantly black.

They are nothing like the Egyptians. The Ancient Egyptians are mixed, because they had completely black Egyptians that could pass as sub-Saharan black people, as well as very light-skinned people that could pass as Arabs. That's the definition of a mixed race.

The KhoiSan people are not mixed, none of them can pass as light-skinned Arabs. They're predominantly black.

In all of Sub-Sahara Africa, you can only identify the KhoiSan and Igbos as predominantly black people with a decent percentage of their people having lighter skin tones. In North Africa, the majority of peoples there are mixed race. From the ancient Libyans to the ancient Nubians. The Ancient Nubian people had more dark people in their population than the Libyans for example, but it doesn't make them black Africans. They're mixed. And they're nothing like sub-Saharan Black Africans.

I showed you a painting of Egyptians depicting themselves and Nubians as mixed people. You conveniently ignored that one.

-Lord

The Sumerians are not mixed
The Hittites are not mixed
The Chinese are not mixed
The Phoenicians are not mixed
The Romans are not mixed
The Assyrians are not mixed
The Vikings are not mixed
The Greeks are not mixed
The people of Indus Valley civilization are not mixed
The Mayans are not mixed
The Incans are not mixed
The Celts are not mixed
The Gauls are not mixed
The Aztecs are not mixed

But when it comes to ancient civilization from Africa, they have to be mixed. How can negros be so smart to build pyramids and have advancement in almost all facets of life?

Guess what? Since Caucasians came up with the one drop rule, then Egyptians are black either mixed or not. Plain and simple

slurryeye:


The Sumerians are not mixed
The Hittites are not mixed
The Chinese are not mixed
The Phoenicians are not mixed
The Romans are not mixed
The Assyrians are not mixed
The Vikings are not mixed
The Greeks are not mixed
The people of Indus Valley civilization are not mixed
The Mayans are not mixed
The Incans are not mixed
The Celts are not mixed
The Gauls are not mixed
The Aztecs are not mixed

But when it comes to ancient civilization from Africa, they have to be mixed. How can negros be so smart to build pyramids and have advancement in almost all facets of life?

Guess what? Since Caucasians came up with the one drop rule, then Egyptians are black either mixed or not. Plain and simple

Oga tell yourself anything you like.

I've said it here already that supremacy of any kind has no place in this world. White like Black is a spectrum.

That's why the 18th-century Europeans too claimed to be superior to the Asians despite the fact that Asians were 'white' too.

Persians are mixed.
Indians are mixed.
Aztecs are mixed. (Have you seen the American Indians--do they all look white to you)?
The Australian native Aborigines are mixed.

Pure black dominated African population is in sub-Saharan Africa. That is indisputable. It is a fact. After all, sub-Saharan Africa is the cradle of mankind. Na for North Africa nai skin color start dey change.

And there is no sub-Saharan African civilization that can rival the great ancient civilizations in all the other habitable continents and sub-continents. That is fact. This is not about being patriotic.

So tell yourself whatever you like. Doesn't change the facts.

Take care.

-Lord

LordAdam16:


Really, so when a white KKK member mentions "white supremacy" on a thread about white conquering blacks, a black person should wait to understand context.

You said no body mentioned "supremacy." Why are you shifting the goal post to say he mentioned it but in a innocuous context.

He mentioned it simple. And black supremacy is black supremacy. There is no way to turn it around.

You just accepted that you lied openly on this thread.

A white person cannot say White supremacy and it's mean anything other than White supremacy. E no get as u 1 turn am.

Except you want us to open pandora's box and then white supremacy is acceptable if used in a certain context. Racism is acceptable if used in a certain context. Africans are primitive mindless apes if said in a certain way.

Sometimes I wonder if you guys are actually human beings or robots. If you make a mistake, retrace your steps and apologize. Don't prove that you made a mistake but it's not a mistake.

That just makes you look stupid.

That's the way donnie was trying to say there's a way Egyptian history progressed that means Alexander did not conquer Egypt in 332 AD and was proclaimed Pharoah of Egypt.

Stop lying brazenly. It ruins discussions.

-Lord

Selective altruism. You care more about one forumer's use of a certain word than the entire thrust of the thread. Where is your outrage over the whitewashing of African history by your foreign friends? The many atrocities committed by them? All you've done here is praise them and insult Africans. YOU are an advocate of white supremacy, whether you use the word or not. FAR MORE than that guy is an advocate of black supremacy. Your words throughout this debate bury you. Your racist attacks on Africans show you up as an apologist for white racists. Your seeking to divide blacks into ''sub Saharan'' and ''non-sub Saharan'' is classic white racist divide and rule, and an attempt to separate black Africans from their mighty Egyptian heritage. A racist philiosophy that presupposes that Hamitic Africans are somehow more intelligent than ''sub Saharan'' Africans. We know all that stuff and where it comes from. It comes from discredited 19th century white racist philosophies relating to the so called Hamitic Hypothesis. So I know where you are coming from, and the racist, white supremacist ideology you are trying to propagate here.

That is why you flew off your handle when a ''sub-Saharan'' African, the ''lowest'' on your wretched racist ladder, 'dared' to utter the word 'supremacy' over white people. Nonsense. If the guy is advocating a black supremacist ideology, he certainly has more of a right to do so than anyone else considering the grossly brutal experience Africans have been been through at the hands of their ''brothers'' in white and yellow skin across the world.

Allied to that is their penchant for falsifying history to place Africans as the world's ''non achievers'' DESPITE what the history says. So I'm not angry at the brother for suggesting a black supremacist ideology to counter the tide of anti-Africanism. He may not be 100% right, but he sure has every right to suggest his way forward without you flying off your handle..

LordAdam16:



And there is no sub-Saharan African civilization that can rival the great ancient civilizations in all the other habitable continents and sub-continents. That is fact. This is not about being patriotic.

So tell yourself whatever you like. Doesn't change the facts.

Take care.

-Lord

This sub-saharan nonsense of yours only makes sense when you are a white racist who thinks that blacks in Nubia or Sudan, are somehow superior to, or more intelligent than blacks in southern Nigeria or Congo. Egypt was a black African civilization. Countless visitors to Egypt stated the Egyptians were black people. NOT MIXED, NOT SOME WHITE, SOME YELLOW, but BLACK.

Whether it was sub-saharan, north-saharan, south-saharan, inside-saharan or outside-saharan, is 10000% immaterial. They were black Africans. End Of Story. Out ancestors. When the Nile Valley blacks were conquered, many of them found their way to West, Central, and East Africa. Your miserable attempt to divide us from our majestic Kemetic heritage is a spectacular failure.



The Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt. Estimated Date of Construction - UNKNOWN....PRE HISTORY!!

[img]https://bolstablog.files./2010/03/sphinx-riddle.jpg[/img]



DE VOLNEY


Count Constantine de Volney -- a French nobleman, philosopher, historian, orientalist, and politician -- embarked on a journey to the East in late 1782 and reached Ottoman Egypt were he spent nearly seven months.


"All the Egyptians," wrote de Volney, "have a bloated face, puffed-up eyes, flat nose, thick lips – in a word, the true face of the mulatto. I was tempted to attribute it to the climate, but when I visited the Sphinx, its appearance gave me the key to the riddle. On seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features, I remembered the remarkable passage where Herodotus says:

' As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians
because, like them, they are black with woolly hair...

"When I visited the Sphinx, I could not help thinking that the figure of that monster furnished the true solution to the enigma (of how the modern Egyptians came to have their 'mulatto' appearance)

"In other words, the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same type as all native-born Africans. That being so, we can see how their blood, mixed for several centuries with that of the Greeks and Romans, must have lost the intensity of its original color, while retaining nonetheless the imprint of its original mold.

"Just think," de Volney declared incredulously, "that this race of Black men, today our slave and the object of our scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, sciences, and even the use of speech! Just imagine, finally, that it is in the midst of people who call themselves the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that one has approved the most barbarous slavery, and questioned whether Black men have the same kind of intelligence as whites!

"In other words the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same stock as all the autochthonous peoples of Africa and from the datum one sees how their race, after some centuries of mixing with the blood of Romans and Greeks, must have lost the full blackness of its original color but retained the impress of its original mould."

M. Constantine de Volney, Travels through Syria and Egypt in the Years 1783, 1784, and 1785 (London: 1787), p. 80-83.

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/sphinx.htm

Rosskii:


Selective altruism. You care more about one forumer's use of a certain word than the entire thrust of the thread. Where is your outrage over the whitewashing of African history by your foreign friends? The many atrocities committed by them? All you've done here is praise them and insult Africans. YOU are an advocate of white supremacy, whether you use the world or not. FAR MORE than that guy is an advocate of black supremacy. Your words throughout this debate bury you. Your racist attacks on Africans show you up as an apologist for white racists. Your seeking to divide blacks into ''sub Saharan' and ''non-sub Saharan;' is classic white racist divide and rule, and an attempt to separate black Africans from their mighty Egyptian heritage. A racist philiosophy that presupposes that Hamitic Aricans are somehow more intelligent than ''sub Saharan'' Africans. We know all that stuff and where it comes from. It comes from discredited 19th century white racist philosophies relating to the so called Hamitic Hypothesis. So I know where you are coming from, and the racist, white supremacist ideology you are trying to promote here.

That is why you flew off your handle when a ''sub-Saharan'' African, the ''lowest'' on your wretched racist ladder, dared to utter the word 'supremacy' over white people. Nonsense. If the guy is advocating a black supremacist ideology, he certainly has more of a right to do so than anyone else considering the grossly brutal experience Africans have been subjected to by their ''brothers'' in white and yellow skin across the world.

Allied to that is their penchant for falsifying history to place Africans as the world's ''non achievers'' DESPITE what the history says. So I'm not angry at the brother for suggesting a black supremacist ideology to counter the tide of anti-Africanism. He may not be 100% right, but he sure has every right to suggest his way forward without you flying off your handle..

What's up with my mention?

donnie:


What's up with my mention?

He's mad that you were advocating a ''black supremacist ideology''. He can't stand it.

Rosskii:

He's mad that you were advocating a ''black supremacist ideology''. He can't stand it.

Me ke

-

the mulattos are your problem...not realy the whites........

mulattos:
A mulatto is someone who has one white and one black parent or someone whose ancestors are also mixed white and black. Also known as half-caste or mixed race. Alot of South American countrys have large percentages of mulattos. Bob Marley was a mulatto and so is Halle Berry.
I am black but i married a white woman so my child is a mulatto

mulatto:
A person with European and African ancestry. Is not just having " one white parent and another black" like some ignorant idiots have said here. Mulatto does not derive from " Mule". The word derrives from "Muladi", which is from Arabic " Muwaladeen", which means white mixed with Moor. It comes from medieval times. If the slavers wanted to call people " mules", they just call would've call them " mulas" instead of " mulattos" just like the Jews that converted to Christianity in Medieval Spain were reffered to as " Marrano" ( pig in Spanish). Mulatto as " mule" was invented by some racist white assholes in the mid 18th century,who resented that some of them were richer than them. That's why Mulatto is not offensive in Latin America. It is just a pc idiots in the U.S that think that they know it all,and don't know shit about Spanish Medieval history nor Latin American history.




am just copy pasteing....am telling you,the main issue is with mulattos,not realy whites....

mulattos hate blacks like no tommorow....whites dont realy hate blacks that much like mulattos....

its not the whites that drove you away from europe...it was the mulattos....

its a psychological thing...why mulattos hate you that much..??...i dont know......go ask them yourselfs..

i only know i dont want them as children.....

its up to una now to stop having mulattos or whatever??..

alot of fun...........................................................