₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
Here's some facts about the defacement of Akhenaten, and not by europeans.
https://www.livescience.com/46978-egyptian-carving-discovered.html

no actually it is about defacement by Akhenaten of images of Amun and other old gods in promotion of his personal religion of the sundial Aten, the later king Tuthankamun restored the polytheistic worship of the old gods back. This is about religious conflict in which it is acceptable that old gods can destroyed in favour of new ones, what I am arguing about with the other guy is why ever same treatment will be extended to statues of humans not recipients of any form of worship

benalvino3:
First off all, it is not all statues that are vandalized, many are but not all. Also, I said gods who received offering or icons who give offering has their hands cut of. The nose is not an instrument for giving and taking offering the hand is. So the hands are cut off.

The nose is used for breathing and they think cutting the nose off will stop the icon from breathing. Again, some kings warned about vandalism of their statues.

Also, cutting of nose was also a thing in Rome. Roman statues have missing nose. Will you say the Europeans did it or its kintakunte this time?

you must think yourself clever by half when you're very much not clever, quick Google search of pictures I'm sorry isn't enough, if you read about the pictures you presented as being from outside Egypt, their explanation will have prevented you from posting them, firstly earthquakes, Italy and Greece were prone to earthquakes, Egypt was never, secondly religion, both the catholic church and the Ottoman empire specifically destroyed statues en masse for their exposure of genetalia and also when they were revered to prevent idolatry, thirdly conquest, when Greece was conquered, almost anything depicting Greek excellence was destroyed so many of these statues were buried and underground they started chipping of around the face especially those made of sandstone, in fact the plateau on which Sparta stood was specifically destroyed by employed saboteurs of the catholic church who smashed everything with hammers, not just the noses, everything.
So how does this apply to Egyptian statues
1. Their vandalism is more recent
2. The catholic church never held sway there even though the Ottomans did
3. The statues were never objects of veneration or religious worship, they were representations of Pharaohs and high court officers
4. The vandalism is specific to the noses and not generalised, just the noses
5. And don't give me the Egyptology BS of destroying the life essence by destruction of the nose, it makes no sense, if that excuse didn't apply to other cultures, it shouldn't apply to Egypt

DissTroy:
Dude, evolution happens and it continues to happen daily and exponentially over thousands of years.

The first set of humans (if we'd call them that) weren't exactly blacks as we are today.

We are Homo sapiens. You'd always used Neanderthals as the connecting dots between the evolutionary chain but that is wrong. 60 years ago, you would have been assumed as right but not today.

Humans even as Homo erectus (ape-like) were already dispersing to different parts of the world. After Neanderthals, the next phase is Homo sapiens.
The next phase was actually Homo longi : http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/homo-longi-09804.html .

Ironically, Homo longi evidence was discovered in China is dated back to 146,000 years ago. Humans continued to evolve to Homo sapiens. Before we became Homo sapiens. So what's your bases for claiming ancient Europe was dominated by blacks.

The humans who built the Egyptian empire were the Homo Sapiens evolving from some of the Homo longi who remained in Africa. This took many more tens of thousands of years.

The residents of Ancient Europe and China and other places look nothing like the African residents.

I don't argue facts I've not researched for a long time. I don't argue then research about it. Don't put the cart before the horse.

If you know little about a topic, take a backseat and don't insult those knowledgeable about it with misinformation.

Egypt was the main center of recorded and evidential Homo sapiens civilisation but that doesn't mean others in every other part of the world were us - blacks. The evolution to Homo sapien didn't happen at in same time in every place.

You are doing exactly what we accuse the whites of doing to African history by whitifying it - 'Africanising' historical facts.

You are either misquoting me or misrepresenting my position, I didn't disagree about evolution, I disagreed about the nature it took, and I presented that genetics stays true to base even when far removed from original ancestry as long as similar genetic carriers are available to reproduce with, I also argued that dominance of certain phenotypic traits can be determined favourably or unfavourably by outside factors like weather, what I disagreed with in specific was the evolution of dark skinned pigmentation into white skinned pigmentation over time without the significant introduction of people in whom this pigmentation is dominant into the breeding population to introduce this genetic characteristic in the first place
https://qz.com/1201718/cheddar-man-dna-testing-of-a-10000-year-old-skeleton-upends-a-common-idea-about-race/

DNA doesn't lie, while we might theorise, argue, agree and disagree, DNA and numbers leave no room for manoeuvring or lying, the above article supports what I have been saying, whiteness was a random mutation that occurred everywhere, in some places it was favourably predisposed to survive in others it was not, because it survived in certain places doesn't mean the earlier dark skinned inhabitants evolved into white skin Europeans. We can argue about dating of artefacts, culture of ancients and history but we can not argue about genetics, genetics and evolution takes fixed patterns, for evolution to occur there has to be a mutation, for mutation to occur there has to be a mutagen, anything else is just speculation

madeofblavk:
shey na talk be this xha? they might not have parts? so why do they keep producing phones that they won't make the parts available.

I taya oh. Na the only point I have been trying to make when one cursed animal come dey say I no get right to complain like say na him papa give me money buy phone, my old phones were Samsung before I bought infinix, when I buy a new phone, I fix the old one up and give as a gift to someone who needs it since I can't use multiple phones at a time, most of my phones were Samsung, one iPhone 6, one gionee, na the only infinix I ever bought that is in my drawer unfixed and making me angry whenever I see it

talktalk4u:
oga I buy Xiaomi device and when I had issues no one could help does that make the brand bad ? No it doesn't. Phone of how many years you want them to keep the parts ? You must be stupid big one at that . Your stupid government has refused OEMs to produce devices here because they want import duties from all mobile brands ... Then you are expecting them to house or ship in old parts more than 2 years device ? Are you normal ?

you are a very stup1d son of a very worthless father! Am I competing with you on what to expect and what not to expect from product manufacturers? Did I drag your own expectations with you? If you are the best that infinix and their marketers can come up with then you have failed in dissuading me, you only succeeded in making me more determined to demarket them! Samsung of 10years ago, 6years ago still have parts in the market and the one you can't find, if you write an email to Samsung they will respond to you and try to fix it, that is the way you encourage old customers to buy new products, by giving them a fantastic experience with previous products but you woe begotten 1imbecile birthed of a nonentity feel you have the right to question my basic expectations as the customer who bought a company's product? Who do you think you are?

benalvino3:
that's is nonsense. you saw a pattern does not mean that what you saw has anything to do with with what you claim. you got to move away from your bias. I am not disputing black Egypt, I believe Egypt was a diverse society from a specific Dynasty and different Kings ruled including women.

the talk that Nose are cut off to hide their black heritage is a nonsense talk with no basis. truth is not only nose are cut off. Hands of status giving offering are cut off, hands of gods use to receive offering are cut off this is the left hand for giving, right hand for receiving. this is a pattern as well. Ears are cut off too of statues receiving prayers. I don't see any sense in saying nose can be used to identify their black heritage, same conspiracy nuts talk about about black lips being different from white lips but the lips are not really damaged.

you have not examined the statues, you have no understanding of egyptian beliefs and religion. there is no evidence of what you are claiming. till you give us a source you are spreading conspiracy theory

I saw a pattern specific to a location and nowhere else, a pattern limited to a certain period with the significant associated factor of influx of Europeans post slavery, to the rest of the ancient world, it never mattered what race these Pharaohs were, to these Europeans it did, now I asked you to replicate this elsewhere, you didn't and that is my and your evidence, the lack of any similar evidence elsewhere, Egyptian statues of chimaeras with animal faces, the gods, the ones who receive offerings who should be vandalised according to your theory still have their noses intact so what the hell are you saying? I don't remember making any mentions of lips, I was specific on the noses. And on ears being cut of, I won't dispute that because I haven't researched that, rather I am open to a convincing argument, if your argument is that gods have their hands cut of so as not to receive offerings and ears cut of so as not to hear prayers, then what is the explanation of having noses removed from statues of humans or faces of chimaeras with human faces? Is it to prevent them from sniffing vandals?

Kokobilo87:
Ya spread ya lie witha no evidence but ya want evidence to neutralize ya lie? Ya donkey yeah

I know you're simple minded but you don't have to add being daft to that to boot
Firstly, that the faces of Egyptian statues were vandalised is not in dispute by anyone here or is it? I mean vandalised as in deliberately destroyed by humans not weathered down and crumbled by age and elements of nature, destroyed by actual people and not long ago, in the last 4 centuries, before Europeans started going to and through post conquest Egypt, there were Babylonian conquerors, Assyrian and Persian satraps, Hellenic Ptolemys, Roman imperialists, Byzantine imperialists, Arabian jihadists, mamluk rulers and Ottoman imperialists and all Egyptians feared about their ancient artefacts in this long period spanning millennia was grave robbery for buried treasures of ancient egyptian dead by these foreign invaders, not defacing of statues except probably for prohibition of idol worship under Muslim rulers, the defacing of statues came in recent history when Europeans assumed the role of researching Egypt by themselves and created the discipline called Egyptology to explain what they claimed to find in Egypt to suit their narrative.
When Napoleon invaded Egypt was when the nose of the sphinx at Giza was destroyed by his troops.

If benalvino3 is to be even believed that statues were desecrated across the world for nefarious purposes based on what the monarchs valued most then in Egypt's case it would be the bodies of the Pharaohs and the wealth they accumulated to ease themselves into the afterlife that will be targeted not their noses for what they held most valuable they kept close to their sarcophagus at death.

Secondly, if what I stated above is not in dispute, then where else were the noses of ancient statues thousands of years old destroyed while the rest of the statue was left intact?
And also what was the peculiarity of the Egyptian statues noses that wasn't present elsewhere?
If you can answer these questions maybe you can cure your own doubt and stop making silly accusations.

Lastly, where and what is the lie I told here? I want your own personal answer not regurgitating someone else's

budaatum:
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.

This order is very questionable, they settled after wars for resources or they warred for resources because they settled?
Even while humans were still hunter gatherers, they lived in caves and those were still settlements, they painted art of their daily activities, cycles of activities in these caves and war was never depicted, hunting was, rituals were, planting wasn't so that's how we know they were still hunter gatherers, the tools unearthed from this period all over the world shows they hunted, gathered, had ceremonies, made music, relaxed and entertained but didn't wage wars, I stand to be corrected

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.

The Zulu example is because of its peculiarity or lack of it, they threw spears, these spears by their design are made for hunting animals not people, if waging war as we understand it was a factor in the development of these spears, the necessity of waging war against a similarly intelligent creature determined to kill you would have resulted in different, better and more effective weapons period! Throwing spears the farthest was simply a method of conflict resolution among the Zulus, that we misinterprete it as war was simply us colouring it with our modern European originated bias that can't see why we shouldn't kill to take what we want. Across the world, many indigenous communities developed their own methods of conflict resolution without the need to evolve into open warfare or attrition because simply, before the idea was introduced to them, killing another human or groups of humans for resources simply wasn't thought of. In east Africa, the leaping of a massai is another test of manliness, back home In many opposing communities wrestling was another form of unarmed combat. Attrition and annihilation weren't always the go to for early humans and that is why when exposed to groups that had no scruples they stood no chance, same way American Indians of Greenland stood no chance against early seafaring Vikings from northern Europe, one group was warlike, the other wasn't

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.

Spearheads and arrowheads are still being found till today and their dating paints a picture that warfare started at a much later stage though it gives no clue as to who was waging war on who to prove or disprove the theory of conquest of dark skinned peoples by light skinned peoples

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.

societal conflicts are different from wars for resources, modern day inhabitants of delta state are said to have migrated from Bini upon the ascension of a particular oba whose rival they favoured, they migrated rather than warred and this is recent history, in most aboriginal communities, conflict resolution took many forms, ceremonial, ritual, migratory, banishment e.t.c in fact the spread of humans is very likely the avoidance of competition in overpopulated communes and the need to keep communal cohesion by banishing the offending party

benalvino3:
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.

no source? My source is the lack of that specific form if vandalism anywhere else, defacing a statue by destruction of its nose, if you have a "sauce" please present it and debunk my conspiracy theory.
Also, on the earliest humans being all black irrespective of the location on the planet, check out cheddar man in England

Ruchytechy:
im sure they might not have the parts ooooo.. na zero X them they now

I pity who buy the zero x, na to go their page go demarket am! They should learn to treat customers better if they want continued loyalty

Happy reading

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.

True

The Homo sapien took thousands of years before he formed communities and became a seafarer.

Wrong, humans were always communal, never solitary creatures, we have an innate impulse to seek out others like us for the protection afforded by a community, not just protection of self, also protection of interests, check our closest living primate relatives chimpanzees for reference

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.

True about the spreading, though I subscribe to the school of thought that there was only ever one ice age

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.

True again about the spread, but the bone of contention between you and I is about the color of humans involved in this spread, I posit that they were all black, maybe different shade of black but still black like their original African ancestors and herein is the crux of our disagreement, you posit that they evolved into white people over time, I totally disagree, genetics doesn't work like that

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.

On this method of spreading, very plausible, can't fault that

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.

Wrong and very very wrong! The phenotype for melanin is dominant and as long as breeding is done with a spouse of same colouring, skin colour will never change! Neither will hair thickness, yes there may be slight changes from time to time depending on weather and the perfusion of blood underneath the skin to keep warm but those changes aren't permanent. Whiteness is a recessive trait that resulted from genetic quirks due to certain populations exposure to mutagens that favoured survival in certain places over generations! Simple point being white people evolved from a specific period of time at a specific location and spread from there and the rest is history. My favourite theory on this is that they evolved around the ice age at the base of the icewall near the steppes in Asia, how this is socially possible amongst a black population you may ask, ostracization, we talk about world history in terms of those that survived to breed, never the human cost of the survival, when whiteness resulted from genetic mutation over and over again and again across generations in a given population, ostracization meant they were cast out and also that they had only each other to breed with perpetuating the recessive gene for whiteness amongst their descendants and at a certain point they were large enough to form their own communities during the ice age but being forced to live in the habitable extremes of a harsh period of time on the planet favourably disposed them to previously unconsidered means of survival---> violence which later became a mainstay of their psyche and conditioned them to prevail against other groups of humans in later stages but that is a topic for another day. The point is, whiteness evolved at a particular place and at a particular time due to the presence of mutagens favouring its evolution and social factors unkind to whiteness ensured it survived and thrived and when it spread out in conquest, it discovered that most habitats in the north favourably disposed them to better chances of survival than others, this greater rate of survival made them dominant over a long period of competition with other races and human subspecies like denisovians and Neanderthals, not an evolution of skin color as you put it. Do you know that over 90% of blue eyed people in the world can trace their ancestry to a single individual from that Caucasus thousands of years ago? That is genetics for you, there's always a source code no matter how remote and far fetched, there's always a first.

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,

Wrong, wrong and super duper wrong!
At no point in time was Africa ever frozen during the ice age or in any ice age! Get this right, Africa was never frozen, the ice wall didn't go south beyond northern Europe! Africa was wetter and more humid yes, frozen? Never! The sahara was a savanna with an inland sea yes, frozen with a temperate forest or tundra hell no! So at no point in time did homo sapiens evolved in Africa ever need the physical adaptations to withstand any extremely cold weather

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.

True and false!
True on the migration, false on the not looking exactly like us, they would look exactly like us with the only difference being the effect of weather on the production of melanin and its effects on our skin, more sunshine, slightly darker, less sunshine slightly lighter but all phenotypically black!

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).

Wrong, if Jim iyke and mercy Johnson had kids in the artic circle and their kids had kids with others of same skin coloration, generations down the line they will still look like Jim iyke and mercy Johnson, get this, genetics stays true irrespective of weather, the question is whether your genetic make up favourably predisposes you to survive in certain conditions or not, the survivors are adjudged to have evolved from those who didn't, whites were favourably predisposed to survive in temperate Europe, blacks were favourably predisposed to survive in tropical Africa and Asians/native Americans were favourably predisposed to survive in regions that had extremes of both tropical and temperate in different seasons. Now back to the genetics, white people populate the colder parts of the world because they conquered and dominated darker skinned peoples who were the original settlers there and were also more favourably predisposed to survival in that weather meaning more often than not, their offspring survived infancy there, look at modern day Jews as an example, they migrated from Palestine brown and swarthy skinned with thicker hair and came back many generations later looking exactly like Europeans, except the ones that migrated back from the middle East from places like Iran, those stayed truer to their original colouration but still looked more whiter as Iranians are descended from same Aryan stock as Europeans only mixed with south Asians, then contrast this to the Innuit tribes and Eskimo tribes of the Americas, they have lived thousands of years on the ice, close to the north pole, hunted and fished, lived and died generation after generation after generation but their skin never became whiter or their noses narrower because their stock population never changed so they never went through this evolution over time you talked about simply because there were no or not enough phenotypically white people to breed with and induce this change, so they remained true to their stock breed, the Asiatics who crossed the land bridge and the Polynesians who roamed the seas.

Point being, weather doesn't induce mutation even in nature, mutagens do, and survival of a mutagenic trait is then influenced by weather. That is the correct cycle.
And a point on survival of a mutagenic trait, phenotypic expression of skin color in a given location is determined by the amount of sunlight present and the rate of production of vitamin D by its absorption by the skin and also by the carcinogenic effects of prolonged unprotected ultraviolet exposure, black skin has more melanin and produces less vitamin D with less exposure to sunlight reducing chances of survival in areas of reduced periods of sun exposure, white skin contains less melanin and is able to create more vitamin D even with that little exposure to sunlight. Black skin thrives in areas of copious exposure to sunlight producing enough vitamin D while shielding the skin from ultraviolet radiation preventing skin burn and skin cancer, white skin on the other hand is stretched beyond its limits on exposure to tropical sunlight with less protection from ultraviolet radiation leading to skin burns and skin cancers.
On the nose issue, that is a trait adapted to living beneath an ice age ice wall where your breath can freeze in your nose and lungs and suffocate you than it is on polar regions where though cold is not that extreme, narrower, longer noses tend to compress and humidify the breath better than flatter broader noses hence the theory that white people started at the southernmost parts of the icewall along the steppes of modern day Russia

Never take one archaeological research as your evidence. This is an unwritten rule. Even archaeologists disagree on many issues.

True

The date of Pangea when the continental plates shifted to form continents today are still being argued.

True again

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.

Acceptable but still open for debate

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.

Yes they were genetically identical, not just closer and the genetic differentiation implies they interbred with other races over and over again and again, even before mixing with white people, the slight differences in color and hair texture can be explained by the breeding with Neanderthals and denisovians over many generations but essentially they were still black.

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.

Those morphological differences are minuscule and inconsequential as we are essentially the same peoples of Bantu origins migrating from modern day Nigeria and the Cameroons and tens of thousands of years of migration essentially changed nothing

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.

True, that is why I said humans are essentially and basically communal creatures driven to seek each other out, share and exchange ideas, trade, war e.t.c and when isolated from others, we evolve unique traits and cultures

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 are not unique, these sentinel islands are on the the Indian ocean right? I might have read of them, black, hunter gatherers, naked, elaborate ceremonies?
Well there are similar tribes in the Amazon rainforest deforestation is exposing as still being in the stone age but generally when we come across them, they are all tool makers.

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.

They will look different only in the sense that different locations predisposed certain selective mutations to better survival, when the mutation isn't necessary for survival, they will look different only in that single trait or group of traits but essentially remain genetically black like their African ancestors e.g the Solomon islands, or is it the Christmas islands? Has a black population with woolly hair like us Africans with only difference being in color, they are all blonde, then there's another island on which a 17th century British ship was shipwrecked with one of the crew being color blind, with a significant part of the population up to 20% if I recollect correctly being color blind as s result of that one crew member, that is the effect a single mutation over time can have on a population group.

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.

this I have disproved in the mercy Johnson, Jim iyke scenario

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

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

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

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.

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

itoyo:
my dear your reason is kuku justified, just take heart. but which infinix phone is that?

na zero six, wasted phone, wasted money

benalvino3:
if you don't know what I and budaatum was discussing why don't you just keep quiet? you didn't refute one thing i said or address anything i said, I doubt you even read it. you went from Copyright to this nonsense again.

what do you mean by scientific discovery?
The topic was Niger river. all my post is inline with the topic but nothing you post here is about the topic.

was the topic about the Niger river? I didn't refute anything you said about the Niger river because it was at best tangential to the point about the claim of Pythagoras being the author of the theorem named after him since that was my point of entry into this conversation and as a side note, learn some manners young man

Kokobilo87:
who isa do the unearthing europeans?

everyone hombre, everyone! mehn! Explaining stuff a kid would understand to an adult is infuriating! 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? What if I told you delineating Egypt into different kingdoms upper and lower Egypt and Nubia was also a European creation to delineate Africa from Egypt and pretend everything about ancient Egypt isn't African and Europe and some proto Europeans had a heritage in ancient Egypt that built the pyramids, what if I told all these claims I made are facts that are only seeing limelight after being suppressed for centuries even with the Vatican involved in this misdirection! What of if I told you the inhabitants of ancient Europe were blacks before white normads invaded Europe from the steppes of Asia? Look, academic debates are still ongoing disputing the veracity of European accounts so while i won't discourage you from reading history written by Europeans, take it with a pinch of salt, before the invention of race in the 1600s by white Americans, people were seen as tribes, nations and faiths and competition and discrimination was along those lines, so there were black Roman emperors, black Russian lords, poets, generals, Moorish aragonian lords, kings, emirs e.t.c, Hannibal who sacked Rome in the Punic wars was a black general leading a Phoenician city with Numidian soldiers, the later Roman empire was hardly ruled by anyone of original Roman patrician or plebeian descent, these are things coming to light in historical revisions that weren't allowed some centuries ago, Hollywood has helped in the project of rewriting history and creating the white saviour trope which has subtly and subconsciously miseducated you to the real truths about the ancient world

itoyo:
lol, that's why you lashing out at them

is my reason not justified? I tried different carlcare offices with the same response then I tried the streets and confirmed that the bastards definitely did not produce parts for my phone and they make the parts for new phones non compatible with those of old phones so no workaround either

I have by an exes dad, and I didn't even get to do the do sef

Kokobilo87:
so you isa agree witha benalvino3?
benalvino isa say nothing isa wrong witha calling tha river Niger river niger tha budaatum isa call everything ah racist because isa weak man witha victim addiction. you isa agree witha budaatum not witha benalvino

oh gosh! Where is the facepalm emoji when you need one? you're just too simple minded, okay for starters, I disagree "again" with benalvino3, just to make that clear to you.
Then secondly, benalvino3 is just dribbling around the fact by comparing things that predate humanity like rivers, mountains e.t.c to things created by humans like theories, inventions, concepts, even languages and religions which have definite origins and periods and focal points in time and place of evolution be it good or bad. If it really doesn't matter, then how come Europeans lay claim to scientific discoveries but label non patronising issues like cannibalism and human sacrifices as largely non European in origin when such occurrences are not factually accurate or historically correct? History never started with Europeans, infact European recording is just actual history's footnotes, real history is still being unearthed on a daily basis

benalvino3:
No content was stolen, copyright has nothing to do with this. Please give us the man or country who has copyrighted the river before it was called Niger? ever heard about the word Nigger, neger, nigro and negre. The europeans call the river black River, the Country Niger and Nigeria got their names from the River. I dont see Budaatum and you crying about whatever Nigeria was called before a white woman called Flora named our country.

mungo Park was the first to study the river and make documentation about his studies. He tried to find the origin of the river and the length of the river. He wrote a book for educational purposes. On his second expedition, he lost his life, drowned in the river trying to escape the local tribes men.

You and Buda should reason.

It is clear that the names various tribes call the river still stands today. You can call it what you wish to call it. when the Europeans were documenting and making scholarly books, they make a standard in which the river is called. and in their various languages they called it the black river. you rely on their book for education and no one is saying you cant call the river kwara or Jeliba river. if you want the River to be called Jeliba or kwara, the people in those ancient time living their should have written books studying the river for the rest of the world to teach them what the river is called etc.

The native-born population call River Niger with different names such as ‘Jeliba’ or ‘Joliba’ in Manding dialect which means ‘great river’. It is called ‘Orimiri’ or ‘Orimili’ in Igbo language, which means ‘great water’.’Egerew n-Igerewen’ in Tuareg dialect which means river of rivers. ‘Isa Ber’ in Songhay dialect which means ‘big river’. Kwara, in Hausa dialect and lastly it is[b] called Oya in Yoruba dialect[/b]. However, Nigeria and Niger got their names from the River Niger, thus it is commonly called; The Niger River; or River Niger which all mean the same thing

We have kwara state and Niger State all based from the name the river is called in One country that is Called Nigeria which is named from the same river. So call it whatever you wish it means the same thing. but the standards for the rest of the world is "Niger"

From Igbos. Yoruba, Hausa etc. who is racist or who stole the name from who or who studies the river, its origin and length and make a book (geography/philosophy) about it? None abi?

What name should the europeans have called it? or in our study book? jeliba or kwara? will you still complain they stole the name from the igbos by not calling it what the igbos call it ? what will your complain be?

why didn't the igbos take the name the hausa call it? why do they call it their own name? when you figure that out you might have figured out why the europeans call it Niger.

China is busy making technological advancement with maths regardless of what they call what theory. they accept the maths and forget the unimportant things. Budaatum is focussed on the name a maths was called in 1700 in 2021. that's how far he wants to blame whites for racism instead of him to focus on the one that affects him today, this very moment. Americans are now advocating for equity. if you are a fool you can be a professor and budaatum is in support of these foolishness. its a shame.

you guys have been taught by the left to be nothing but victims and as it seems the west is getting weaker and weaker while the ones who don't breath and eat wokeness is getting stronger.

and so on and so forth by your logic knowledge only started in recent history when its documentation began by Europeans, and comparing the naming of a concept, idea or invention to the naming of a physical entity or landmark is just being duplicitous or arguing for the sake of argument, things like those landmarks are eternal (hopefully) and predate man's earliest memories so knowledge of them is universal and claims of ownership are by extension redundant but on the other hand, concepts, ideas, religions, inventions, even language groups are items, physical and non physical of human creation and as such have dates of creation or earliest references/attributable origins, ordinarily it shouldn't matter, in the greater part of human history it never mattered � the rise of Europe in recent history and their attitude to ownership both physical and intellectual in a bid to prop up a never existing sense of superiority has put the rest of the ancient world on the defensive and things that never mattered before like ownership of an idea or invention definitely do matter now and investigations into recorded history of non European authorship is continuing to reveal the great European lie of truth suppression of earlier history and narratives in favour of the one you now incorrectly think is correct history, the fact that you stubbornly hold on to the belief that it shouldn't matter is a product of your Western miseducation

talktalk4u:
which service they didnt offer you ?

they refused to repair my phone after one year three months after I purchased it saying it has been phased out!

Kokobilo87:
so you isa agree witha benalvino3?
benalvino isa say nothing isa wrong witha calling tha river Niger river niger tha budaatum isa call everything ah racist because isa weak man witha victim addiction. you isa agree witha budaatum not witha benalvino

No i didn't agree with benalvino3, I said what he wrote isn't a defence against content theft or copyright infringement

[quote author=Kokobilo87 post=106826116][/quote]how do you defend your post by quoting benalvino3's defence which in turn makes exactly the point I was trying to make?
That he referred to history books and the earlier authors being relatively unknown is inconsequential to the fact that history didn't start with Europeans documentations and since these Europeans had interactions with many of these source oriental cultures, refusing to credit them as the source of their discoveries goes to prove Baldwin's point that Europeans never created anything that wasn't geared to perpetuate the myth of their superiority or give themselves advantage, most of all their greatest creation is the "patent office" where they can go and register a claim to sh×××t they blatantly stole, plagiarized and simply have no business claiming. Early greco-roman sciences borrowed heavily from Egyptian, Persian, Assyrian and Mesopotamian sources without crediting them, even their religion and religious legends follow same pattern, later European sciences borrow heavily from Arab, oriental, Indian sources without crediting them too. Europeans have made discoveries too and that can't be disputed but in the age of truth, history must reflect accuracy and no history is too ancient and obscure to be a bother to follow up with and credit the many wonderful brilliant scientistsof ancient times who never sought fame or thought to lay a claim to their discoveries until Europeans thought ownership and fame to be such a grand thing

itoyo:
hmm word, but bro be calming down these people are not forcing their products on anyone, they are just doing what they know how to do and if you are not comfortable with what they are doing or it doesn't meet your standard, you leave it and stop criticizing.

they are not forcing the products on anybody and that's true, but they are marketing a big fat lie, and withholding critical information like if your phone breaks down after a year or more we would have phased it out and won't provide technical services for you will also influence whether people want to risk the product or not. If people must buy their products, they must know what to expect, anything less than that is criminal

An eagle has fallen

Kokobilo87:
Ya donkey read tha exchange.

don't be daft! Unless you intend to point to me something I missed, I suggest you stop missing the point and apply an impartial mindset which obviously for you is a big ask and use your brain which hopefully exists

JOACHINpedro:
This thing showed me shege for 10goodyears.
Tinea versicolor is a stubborn fungi.


Note- it's not eczema

and how did you treat it?

Cornpop:
what do ya know ya?

enough, enough to know that Pythagorean theorem did not originate with Pythagoras, and you would know that too if you weren't too daft as to choose not to read beyond headlines for propaganda sakes

kwinbeee:
did you say evil brand, lol its just a brand nau, what is evil bayi? but all the same i think they are trying with their products lately

It is evil to produce a product and refuse to provide customer service after the product has been purchased all so you can presumably force the buyer into buying a newer product from your line, as if that will even work sef