Interracial relationships

[Asclepias]

I would draw from that the Greeks werent too found of you pale skins from their north. There is a reason they called you people savages. While here Plato is calling you a coward along with Blacks like the Egyptians and the Ethiopians as he so vividly pointed out. Its amusing to me you never addressed the fact that you got caught trying to pass a forgery as the real thing. What are you excuses for this?

Of course I have an agenda. Its to bury you with evidence from people that actually saw the Egyptians and the words of the Egyptians themselves. So we have numerous greeks who freely admit the Egyptians were Black.

I addressed your sources individually already. You're posting stuff out of context and referring to mythology. I am referring to scientific fact. Can your degenerate negro brain comprehend that?

We have the Bible that irrefutably says the Egyptians were Black. We have the Egyptians themselves that called their land Kmet which means Black Land or Black People. We have the Egyptians drawing pictures of Black people and making statues of Black people while mysteriously never depicting themselves as whites.. We have Egyptians telling you that the present day continent of Africa was deemed to be the top of the world. We have the Egyptians proclaiming themselves they came from Black Africa. We even have DNA of Black Pharaohs. Then we have some insecure white writers trying to argue Herodotus was lying while not offering a shred of proof as to why and not addressing the fact that other Greeks said they were Black. Gimme a break clown. Who are you going to believe?

BTW here is the original mural the white guy forged his copy from.

Actually, this looks more like the original:View attachment 149496

I suspect the author got the color of the two figures on the right from the legs. Do those look black to you?

DNA, hieroglyphs, paintings, sculpture, and quotes from historians are not myth. I think youre just upset I killed you with all the evidence.

Count Constantin de Volney (1757-1820). Volney had gone to Egypt between 1783 and 1785, while Negro slavery flourished. He reported as follows on the Egyptian race, the very race that had produced the Pharaohs: the Copts.

"... all 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. ..." 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 Romans and Greeks, must have lost the intensity of its original color, while retaining nonetheless the imprint of its original mold. We can even state as a general principle that the face is a kind of monument able, in many cases, to attest or shed light on historical evidence on the origins of peoples."


I got a million quotes from historians and images from the Egyptians themselves as well as their own writings. Keep it coming. Its fun burying you to the point you are reduced to deflecting instead of answering my questions.

So are you going to comment on the image I attached? I already know your stupid 'groid brain can copy and paste. The question is whether you can analyze and weigh evidence and make a reasonable conclusion. You made a big deal of the "forgery" earlier. So will you comment on the actual image? Looks to me like the author's interpretation was very reasonable. What do you say to that?

Not until you address my questions. You dont get to deflect then expect me to do anything other than mock you do you?

"Lycinus (describing a young Egyptian): "This boy is not merely black; he has thick lips and his legs are too thin . . . his hair worn in a plait behind shows that he is not a freeman."

Timolaus: "But that is a sign of really distinguished birth in Egypt, Lycinus, All freeborn children plait their hair until they reach manhood. It is the exact opposite of the custom of our ancestors who thought it seemly for old men to secure their hair with a gold brooch to keep it in place."
(Lucian, Navigations, paras 2-3)"

Here, I'll address your stupid negro argument using time periods. You're posting something by a source from:

Lucian of Samosata (c. AD 125 – after AD 180), who wrote in Ancient Greek.

I'm posting stuff from over 1,000 years before that! Given your complaints about going back further, my evidence trumps your evidence. There, now you can address the image I posted you dumb 'groid!

You never posted any evidence. I have to put you on time out for a minute. You have been overwhelmed and are now angry. I have more interesting conversations to address.

 

[MarkDuffy]

The Two Lands & King Menes - Ancient Egypt for Kids

Ancient Egypt was a land in flux. Lots of talk about uniting the two kingdoms of lower and upper.

Studies have been done on Pharoahs & family along with mummies. These indicate the higher class, normal people did not mummy. This I would assume means more evidence of invaders rather than indigenous peoples. Kinda like trying to find Native American in our DNA of today.

Also, it is not scientific to assume that the original human was black cuz he came from Africa. Black might be a derived characteristic, not an original one.

Black is the color the first homo sapiens had as a skin color. That was worked out long before humans became human. About 1 million years before the first homo sapiens. There is also scientific proof of this fact. Basically its natures best design because the melanin protects against the suns rays. The gene for light (white) skin is relatively new appearing just over 10k years ago as a mutation. Its not just a coincidence that the Egyptians revered the color Black as did the civilizations of the Indus Valley. Their gods were Black because Black was the color of divinity.

Also of note is that upper Egypt literally is in the south near Sudan while lower Egypt is closer to europe. This is in line with the way the Egyptians oriented themselves geographically with the continent of Africa associated with going forward and europe being behind them..

Yes, I know about the melanin hypothesis. I think that is waaay over-played.

I can easily argue that the loss of hair caused ancient Africans to get the hell outta Dodge and this explains the radiation to the rest of the planet. The ones who stayed turned darker.

The climate of Egypt and the near east is not THAT much different.

What about it makes you think its overplayed? Natural selection supports this hypothesis. Black genes are dominant white white genes are recessive.

If black genes are dominant, then that is even more reason to conclude once black would stay black.

Natural selection would ensure that dark skinned hominoids evolved into humans.

Natural selection ensures no such thing.

1 million years is a long time to "turn darker" before the first homo sapiens appeared. Do you have an alternate hypothesis that would change the idea that the first humans were Black?

Already stated. You and the consensus need to explain what selection caused black man to turn lighter. Protection from UV is no longer important? Modern blacks appear to be very strong. Why was all of that lost to evolution. Weaker was a positive for selection?

 

[Asclepias]

The Two Lands & King Menes - Ancient Egypt for Kids

Ancient Egypt was a land in flux. Lots of talk about uniting the two kingdoms of lower and upper.

Studies have been done on Pharoahs & family along with mummies. These indicate the higher class, normal people did not mummy. This I would assume means more evidence of invaders rather than indigenous peoples. Kinda like trying to find Native American in our DNA of today.

Also, it is not scientific to assume that the original human was black cuz he came from Africa. Black might be a derived characteristic, not an original one.

Black is the color the first homo sapiens had as a skin color. That was worked out long before humans became human. About 1 million years before the first homo sapiens. There is also scientific proof of this fact. Basically its natures best design because the melanin protects against the suns rays. The gene for light (white) skin is relatively new appearing just over 10k years ago as a mutation. Its not just a coincidence that the Egyptians revered the color Black as did the civilizations of the Indus Valley. Their gods were Black because Black was the color of divinity.

Also of note is that upper Egypt literally is in the south near Sudan while lower Egypt is closer to europe. This is in line with the way the Egyptians oriented themselves geographically with the continent of Africa associated with going forward and europe being behind them..

Yes, I know about the melanin hypothesis. I think that is waaay over-played.

I can easily argue that the loss of hair caused ancient Africans to get the hell outta Dodge and this explains the radiation to the rest of the planet. The ones who stayed turned darker.

The climate of Egypt and the near east is not THAT much different.

What about it makes you think its overplayed? Natural selection supports this hypothesis. Black genes are dominant white white genes are recessive.

If black genes are dominant, then that is even more reason to conclude once black would stay black.

Natural selection would ensure that dark skinned hominoids evolved into humans.

Natural selection ensures no such thing.

1 million years is a long time to "turn darker" before the first homo sapiens appeared. Do you have an alternate hypothesis that would change the idea that the first humans were Black?

Already stated. You and the consensus need to explain what selection caused black man to turn lighter. Protection from UV is no longer important? Modern blacks appear to be very strong. Why was all of that lost to evolution. Weaker was a positive for selection?

Not really. If you carry a recessive gene its always there. For example. People in areas with malaria had a mutation that produced a gene for sickle cell that protects against malaria. If two of these people pass on the recessive gene to their offspring the off spring will have the condition known as sickle cell anemia. Since Black people have obviously carried the white recessive gene since forever its possible that a child with one black ancestor can appear white over time. However if you reintroduce the dominant Black gene it cancels out the recessive white one. Not only that but the dominant Black gene that child has can pop up down the line even with no reintroduction of more Black genes. There is a reason two Black people can produce a white child but 2 whites cant produce a Black child unless they have black ancestry.

Of course natural selection ensures this. If you have an example refuting this scientific fact please show me.

Thats been explained already in various peer reviewed research papers. A mutation would cause that. How do you think albinos are born with no pigmentation even in Black races?

Light skin in Europeans stems from ONE 10,000-year-old ancestor who lived between India and the Middle East, claims study | Daily Mail Online

 

[MarkDuffy]

Fossils of H. erectus also show that the species lived in numerous locales across the globe, including South Africa, Kenya, Spain, China, and Java (Indonesia).

Homo Erectus: Facts About the 'Upright Man'

Homo erectus was black?

 

[Asclepias]

Fossils of H. erectus also show that the species lived in numerous locales across the globe, including South Africa, Kenya, Spain, China, and Java (Indonesia).

Homo Erectus: Facts About the 'Upright Man'

Homo erectus was black?

As far as I know. Do you have something that proves he wasnt Black? You do realize that homo erectus isnt homo sapiens dont you?

 

[Cossack1483]

White Identity Faiths freely admit to a pre Adamic race of non Whites. No arguement. Non Whites were here first. I believe we diverge from that point. LOL. It's also important to remember that time is not always recorded in the same Biblical manner that we currently use a measurement. As numerology intervenes the year Aryan Tribes left Judea could also be the number of racial laws present in the Old Testament.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

All Black everything.

They already tested the DNA you knuckle-dragging moron.

Ancient Egyptians were closely related to people who lived along the eastern Mediterranean, the analysis showed. They also shared genetic material with residents of the Turkish peninsula at the time and Europe.
“The other big surprise,” Krause said, “was we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ancestry.”

Egyptians sculpted and drew lots of things symbolically. I guess you believe there was really a sphinx, huh?

Great Sphinx of Giza - Wikipedia

You still haven't explained how these ******* that supposedly taught us dumb whites to read and do math can't teach their own nigglets to do so in the present and fall significantly behind the aforementioned whites.

Cmon. Everyone knows that Egyptians are White!!

White people like to think that their civilization emanates from Antiquity (Greece and Rome) which itself emanates from Ancient Egypt.

In these fictionalised barely-historical tales of the beginnings of White civilization, White people like to think that their White ancestors ruled these places. Obviously, this is completely untrue. Greeks may have looked more Arab than anything else.

But if you are marketing a movie, it is the easiest way to do it. Plant loads of white people in the film. It is bound to appeal to the White dollar.

Look....Yeah Yeah I know.....I know that the.“Black people never developed a civilization” belief is one of the most stalwart and enduring mythologies among white supremacists and that may be true if you get your history from Stormfront or quack YouTube historians.

But if you actually go to University, or even subscribe to magazines like… I don’t know… National Geographic, you will learn about Black Pharaohs as a matter of course, as well as many other high Egyptian officials.

Egypt was first settled by blacks. They built the first civilization. Black people were the first to have government, street, talk, soap, study Maths, Physics, Chemistry.

With time other people came in from other areas of the world because they heard of its glory and grandeur. Those who decided to settle married the indigenous people and with time some of them became light skinned.

You and others have reason to downplay the blackness of ancient Egypt while blacks have reason to play it up because if civilization goes all the way back to Egypt and if it turned out to be founded by black people.......what would that say ?

Reconstructions :

Using high-powered computers, experts can now get a rough idea of how someone looked from their skull. They make a living at it by doing it for the police for murder cases. When the same thing is done to the skulls of King Tut and Queen Nefertiti, here is what you got :

What they said in ancient times ::

• Herodotus said Egyptians had black skin and woolly hair, which is how he said the Ethiopians looked too.
• Aristotle called both the Ethiopians and Egyptians black.
• The Bible calls both the Ethiopians and Egyptians sons of Ham.
• The Egyptians themselvessaw themselves as belonging to their own race, different from blacks to the south – but also different from all their other neighbours. On the other hand:
• They called themselves kemet - “black”, though some say it just means they are from the land of black soil (the Nile).
• They said they came from the land of Punt – a place they drew as having elephants and giraffes

What the DNA says :

Present-day Egyptians are, by blood, about 60% Eurasian, like the Arabs who took over their country, and 40% black African. In the past they were, if anything, blacker because since the glory days of Ancient Egypt they have been taken over by the Persians, Greeks, Romans and Arabs.

It sure looks like both modern, and ancient Greeks, and Egyptians both were more like Arabs, rather than being White, or Black.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Again , Sir , sounds great to me. Let me the first to offer you the opportunity to create your own racial destiny. Old or New Africa , irrelevant. Make either one great. Please. Point is ; self segregation is for the future of civilization.

That is USA is already one the most segregated places on earth

You wake up ? Look one way ? What do you see ? White people !!

Look another way ? Yipee !!! More white people !!

Suburban life is an unnatural form of social organization from a human perspective. Children grow up in a relative social vacuum. Many of the pathologies in today’s youth (the school shootings, the “emo” culture, cutting, eating disorders are related to the social isolation imposed on young people by the suburban lifestyle.

Also the suburban lifestyle consumes a high level of natural resources to sustain an individual life. Petroleum to fuel not only the high level of automobile use, but also to supply utilities, water and sewer service to a large number of small individual users. Paving, repairing, plowing and maintaining miles and miles of roadway used by few users.

All down to the system of racism

As the point of peak oil is passed and the natural cycle of supply and demand is driving up the price of petroleum, millions of Americans are feeling the sting of the suburban lifestyle, at the gas pump and on their utility bill.

However, in America, the number of Americans inhabiting suburbs is so large, the infrastructure that has been built to support the suburbs so vast, that they simply lack the ability, from an economic perspective, to effect any sort of mass movement of populace from the suburbs into the cities.

In my region that changed in a big way.

It's truly astounding how fast Danbury CT, and Brewster, NY in my general region, flooded in with Latinos.

Both 25 years ago were like 95% White places.
Now I'm thinking like 35% White places.

Yes, suburban life is blah.

I'm glad I live now in the village of Pawling New York, within walking distance to a good deal of stuff.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

All Black everything.

Of course the regiments of soldiers and OCCURRENCE of Deep Africans in ancient Egypt records would be expected. Because an advanced civilization like Egypt in 1000 to 300BC would be totally integrated with their "neighborhood". And it's EXPECTED that dynasties like that would have regiments of soldiers, royal emissaries and assistants from the surrounding cultures.

It's possibly not as TOTAL a picture as you've been led to believe. The DNA evidence is not really that clear because of mixing for centuries. But the link I read said the Deep Africa roots were more prevalent as you closer to the present. Departing from Levant and other Northern strains with time..

Its just the opposite. The further you go back in Egypts timeline the Blacker it gets. There is a reason they pointed to the interior of Africa as the land of the of gods. There is a reason their orientation in regards to geographical north was the opposite of what it is now. They viewed present day Africa as the top of the world. Civilizations always occurs upstream first of major waterways. Upstream on the Nile is in the heart of Black Africa. There is really no debate on the issue. They said these things themselves.

So sorry, but the original Egyptians were probably Cro Magnon's (Mechta-afalou) before being flooded with Levantine people who bore agriculture.

 

[Asclepias]

White Identity Faiths freely admit to a pre Adamic race of non Whites. No arguement. Non Whites were here first. I believe we diverge from that point. LOL. It's also important to remember that time is not always recorded in the same Biblical manner that we currently use a measurement. As numerology intervenes the year Aryan Tribes left Judea could also be the number of racial laws present in the Old Testament.

Adam was Black. He was made from the ground which brown or Black. His name literally means brownish red earth from the hebrew word Adamha

What is the meaning of the Hebrew word adamah?

You diverged relatively recently as I pointed out earlier as a mutation that occurred somewhere in the middle east and India.

 

[MarkDuffy]

The Two Lands & King Menes - Ancient Egypt for Kids

Ancient Egypt was a land in flux. Lots of talk about uniting the two kingdoms of lower and upper.

Studies have been done on Pharoahs & family along with mummies. These indicate the higher class, normal people did not mummy. This I would assume means more evidence of invaders rather than indigenous peoples. Kinda like trying to find Native American in our DNA of today.

Also, it is not scientific to assume that the original human was black cuz he came from Africa. Black might be a derived characteristic, not an original one.

Black is the color the first homo sapiens had as a skin color. That was worked out long before humans became human. About 1 million years before the first homo sapiens. There is also scientific proof of this fact. Basically its natures best design because the melanin protects against the suns rays. The gene for light (white) skin is relatively new appearing just over 10k years ago as a mutation. Its not just a coincidence that the Egyptians revered the color Black as did the civilizations of the Indus Valley. Their gods were Black because Black was the color of divinity.

Also of note is that upper Egypt literally is in the south near Sudan while lower Egypt is closer to europe. This is in line with the way the Egyptians oriented themselves geographically with the continent of Africa associated with going forward and europe being behind them..

Yes, I know about the melanin hypothesis. I think that is waaay over-played.

I can easily argue that the loss of hair caused ancient Africans to get the hell outta Dodge and this explains the radiation to the rest of the planet. The ones who stayed turned darker.

The climate of Egypt and the near east is not THAT much different.

What about it makes you think its overplayed? Natural selection supports this hypothesis. Black genes are dominant white white genes are recessive.

If black genes are dominant, then that is even more reason to conclude once black would stay black.

Natural selection would ensure that dark skinned hominoids evolved into humans.

Natural selection ensures no such thing.

1 million years is a long time to "turn darker" before the first homo sapiens appeared. Do you have an alternate hypothesis that would change the idea that the first humans were Black?

Already stated. You and the consensus need to explain what selection caused black man to turn lighter. Protection from UV is no longer important? Modern blacks appear to be very strong. Why was all of that lost to evolution. Weaker was a positive for selection?

Not really. If you carry a recessive gene its always there. For example. People in areas with malaria had a mutation that produced a gene for sickle cell that protects against malaria. If two of these people pass on the recessive gene to their offspring the off spring will have the condition known as sickle cell anemia. Since Black people have obviously carried the white recessive gene since forever its possible that a child with one black ancestor can appear white over time. However if you reintroduce the dominant Black gene it cancels out the recessive white one. Not only that but the dominant Black gene that child has can pop up down the line even with no reintroduction of more Black genes. There is a reason two Black people can produce a white child but 2 whites cant produce a Black child unless they have black ancestry.

Of course natural selection ensures this. If you have an example refuting this scientific fact please show me.

Thats been explained already in various peer reviewed research papers. A mutation would cause that. How do you think albinos are born with no pigmentation even in Black races?

Light skin in Europeans stems from ONE 10,000-year-old ancestor who lived between India and the Middle East, claims study | Daily Mail Online

LOL, first you argue dominant is cool but now claim recessive is even more cool?

I know about heterozygous vigor. I learned it in dumb dumb evolutionary biology class.

You are a mess.

Another link from the Journal Science instead of the Daily Mail which covers the same study and much more

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

This paragraph

When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.

The research is about lighter skin from darker, not black and it claims evolution was VERY recent. This research is interesting, I do admit. However I think you want to read into it more than is there.

I'm not claiming we came from white white. The evidence is more like the original man was arab type color.

 

[Asclepias]

All Black everything.

Of course the regiments of soldiers and OCCURRENCE of Deep Africans in ancient Egypt records would be expected. Because an advanced civilization like Egypt in 1000 to 300BC would be totally integrated with their "neighborhood". And it's EXPECTED that dynasties like that would have regiments of soldiers, royal emissaries and assistants from the surrounding cultures.

It's possibly not as TOTAL a picture as you've been led to believe. The DNA evidence is not really that clear because of mixing for centuries. But the link I read said the Deep Africa roots were more prevalent as you closer to the present. Departing from Levant and other Northern strains with time..

Its just the opposite. The further you go back in Egypts timeline the Blacker it gets. There is a reason they pointed to the interior of Africa as the land of the of gods. There is a reason their orientation in regards to geographical north was the opposite of what it is now. They viewed present day Africa as the top of the world. Civilizations always occurs upstream first of major waterways. Upstream on the Nile is in the heart of Black Africa. There is really no debate on the issue. They said these things themselves.

So sorry, but the original Egyptians were probably Cro Magnon's (Mechta-afalou) before being flooded with Levantine people who bore agriculture.

You can be sorry all day long but it doesnt change the facts. There is zero proof Cro Magnon man had anything to do with Egypt. He was a cave man that rarely left the caves of France.

 

[Asclepias]

Black is the color the first homo sapiens had as a skin color. That was worked out long before humans became human. About 1 million years before the first homo sapiens. There is also scientific proof of this fact. Basically its natures best design because the melanin protects against the suns rays. The gene for light (white) skin is relatively new appearing just over 10k years ago as a mutation. Its not just a coincidence that the Egyptians revered the color Black as did the civilizations of the Indus Valley. Their gods were Black because Black was the color of divinity.

Also of note is that upper Egypt literally is in the south near Sudan while lower Egypt is closer to europe. This is in line with the way the Egyptians oriented themselves geographically with the continent of Africa associated with going forward and europe being behind them..

Yes, I know about the melanin hypothesis. I think that is waaay over-played.

I can easily argue that the loss of hair caused ancient Africans to get the hell outta Dodge and this explains the radiation to the rest of the planet. The ones who stayed turned darker.

The climate of Egypt and the near east is not THAT much different.

What about it makes you think its overplayed? Natural selection supports this hypothesis. Black genes are dominant white white genes are recessive.

If black genes are dominant, then that is even more reason to conclude once black would stay black.

Natural selection would ensure that dark skinned hominoids evolved into humans.

Natural selection ensures no such thing.

1 million years is a long time to "turn darker" before the first homo sapiens appeared. Do you have an alternate hypothesis that would change the idea that the first humans were Black?

Already stated. You and the consensus need to explain what selection caused black man to turn lighter. Protection from UV is no longer important? Modern blacks appear to be very strong. Why was all of that lost to evolution. Weaker was a positive for selection?

Not really. If you carry a recessive gene its always there. For example. People in areas with malaria had a mutation that produced a gene for sickle cell that protects against malaria. If two of these people pass on the recessive gene to their offspring the off spring will have the condition known as sickle cell anemia. Since Black people have obviously carried the white recessive gene since forever its possible that a child with one black ancestor can appear white over time. However if you reintroduce the dominant Black gene it cancels out the recessive white one. Not only that but the dominant Black gene that child has can pop up down the line even with no reintroduction of more Black genes. There is a reason two Black people can produce a white child but 2 whites cant produce a Black child unless they have black ancestry.

Of course natural selection ensures this. If you have an example refuting this scientific fact please show me.

Thats been explained already in various peer reviewed research papers. A mutation would cause that. How do you think albinos are born with no pigmentation even in Black races?

Light skin in Europeans stems from ONE 10,000-year-old ancestor who lived between India and the Middle East, claims study | Daily Mail Online

LOL, first you argue dominant is cool but now claim recessive is even more cool?

I know about heterozygous vigor. I learned it in dumb dumb evolutionary biology class.

You are a mess.

Another link from the Journal Science instead of the Daily Mail which covers the same study and much more

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

This paragraph

When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.

The research is about lighter skin from darker, not black and it claims evolution was VERY recent. This research is interesting, I do admit. However I think you want to read into it more than is there.

I'm not claiming we came from white white. The evidence is more like the original man was arab type color.

You must be confused. I said nothing about recessive being cool. If so please quote where I said it.

Thats correct. From dark skin to light. You do realize that Black is pretty much as dark as it gets right? Where is this evidence we came from Arabs? You do realize Arabs were also Black in origin?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

How many Sub-Saharans look like this?

Besides, you are aware that haplogroups only pinpoint a minor sliver of paternal ancestry, going by father, grandfather, great grandfather, great, great grandfather etc.

Probably close to millions. Why do you ask?

Not a whole lot of Blacks have noses, and chins that prominent.

I disagree. You arent Black so obviously you dont know what you are talking about.

Um, maybe you forget that 20% of African American genes, and 40% of Etihiopian genes are West Eurasian (Caucasoid)

i'm not even talking about AA's but they are Black so you dont get to exclude them. Most AA's are on average at least 75% Black African or white boy term sub-saharan. If so many of them have thin noses it pretty much invalidates your claim right there. Pretty sure you dont know what you are talking about regarding Ethiopians either. They say they are Black which makes sense because they are Africans. I know this because one of my best friends is from Ethiopia. Here are some from the Hamer people from Ethiopia. Obviously they are Black. Try again.

No, most African Americans do not have prominent noses.

But, unlike in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, the African American is more likely to have prominent noses.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

All Black everything.

Of course the regiments of soldiers and OCCURRENCE of Deep Africans in ancient Egypt records would be expected. Because an advanced civilization like Egypt in 1000 to 300BC would be totally integrated with their "neighborhood". And it's EXPECTED that dynasties like that would have regiments of soldiers, royal emissaries and assistants from the surrounding cultures.

It's possibly not as TOTAL a picture as you've been led to believe. The DNA evidence is not really that clear because of mixing for centuries. But the link I read said the Deep Africa roots were more prevalent as you closer to the present. Departing from Levant and other Northern strains with time..

Its just the opposite. The further you go back in Egypts timeline the Blacker it gets. There is a reason they pointed to the interior of Africa as the land of the of gods. There is a reason their orientation in regards to geographical north was the opposite of what it is now. They viewed present day Africa as the top of the world. Civilizations always occurs upstream first of major waterways. Upstream on the Nile is in the heart of Black Africa. There is really no debate on the issue. They said these things themselves.

So sorry, but the original Egyptians were probably Cro Magnon's (Mechta-afalou) before being flooded with Levantine people who bore agriculture.

You can be sorry all day long but it doesnt change the facts. There is zero proof Cro Magnon man had anything to do with Egypt. He was a cave man that rarely left the caves of France.

Mechtoid's, the African version of Cro Magnon's, were found also South of Egypt, in Sudan.

 

[Asclepias]

Probably close to millions. Why do you ask?

Not a whole lot of Blacks have noses, and chins that prominent.

I disagree. You arent Black so obviously you dont know what you are talking about.

Um, maybe you forget that 20% of African American genes, and 40% of Etihiopian genes are West Eurasian (Caucasoid)

i'm not even talking about AA's but they are Black so you dont get to exclude them. Most AA's are on average at least 75% Black African or white boy term sub-saharan. If so many of them have thin noses it pretty much invalidates your claim right there. Pretty sure you dont know what you are talking about regarding Ethiopians either. They say they are Black which makes sense because they are Africans. I know this because one of my best friends is from Ethiopia. Here are some from the Hamer people from Ethiopia. Obviously they are Black. Try again.

No, most African Americans do not have prominent noses.

But, unlike in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, the African American is more likely to have prominent noses.

All Africans and African americans have prominent noses unless they have too much white in them.

 

[Asclepias]

All Black everything.

Of course the regiments of soldiers and OCCURRENCE of Deep Africans in ancient Egypt records would be expected. Because an advanced civilization like Egypt in 1000 to 300BC would be totally integrated with their "neighborhood". And it's EXPECTED that dynasties like that would have regiments of soldiers, royal emissaries and assistants from the surrounding cultures.

It's possibly not as TOTAL a picture as you've been led to believe. The DNA evidence is not really that clear because of mixing for centuries. But the link I read said the Deep Africa roots were more prevalent as you closer to the present. Departing from Levant and other Northern strains with time..

Its just the opposite. The further you go back in Egypts timeline the Blacker it gets. There is a reason they pointed to the interior of Africa as the land of the of gods. There is a reason their orientation in regards to geographical north was the opposite of what it is now. They viewed present day Africa as the top of the world. Civilizations always occurs upstream first of major waterways. Upstream on the Nile is in the heart of Black Africa. There is really no debate on the issue. They said these things themselves.

So sorry, but the original Egyptians were probably Cro Magnon's (Mechta-afalou) before being flooded with Levantine people who bore agriculture.

You can be sorry all day long but it doesnt change the facts. There is zero proof Cro Magnon man had anything to do with Egypt. He was a cave man that rarely left the caves of France.

Mechtoid's, the African version of Cro Magnon's, were found also South of Egypt, in Sudan.

That doesnt really help your argument.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Not a whole lot of Blacks have noses, and chins that prominent.

I disagree. You arent Black so obviously you dont know what you are talking about.

Um, maybe you forget that 20% of African American genes, and 40% of Etihiopian genes are West Eurasian (Caucasoid)

i'm not even talking about AA's but they are Black so you dont get to exclude them. Most AA's are on average at least 75% Black African or white boy term sub-saharan. If so many of them have thin noses it pretty much invalidates your claim right there. Pretty sure you dont know what you are talking about regarding Ethiopians either. They say they are Black which makes sense because they are Africans. I know this because one of my best friends is from Ethiopia. Here are some from the Hamer people from Ethiopia. Obviously they are Black. Try again.

No, most African Americans do not have prominent noses.

But, unlike in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, the African American is more likely to have prominent noses.

All Africans and African americans have prominent noses unless they have too much white in them.

Uh, more like the Blacks with the most prominent noses, are the ones mixed with more Caucasoid.

 

[Asclepias]

I disagree. You arent Black so obviously you dont know what you are talking about.

Um, maybe you forget that 20% of African American genes, and 40% of Etihiopian genes are West Eurasian (Caucasoid)

i'm not even talking about AA's but they are Black so you dont get to exclude them. Most AA's are on average at least 75% Black African or white boy term sub-saharan. If so many of them have thin noses it pretty much invalidates your claim right there. Pretty sure you dont know what you are talking about regarding Ethiopians either. They say they are Black which makes sense because they are Africans. I know this because one of my best friends is from Ethiopia. Here are some from the Hamer people from Ethiopia. Obviously they are Black. Try again.

No, most African Americans do not have prominent noses.

But, unlike in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, the African American is more likely to have prominent noses.

All Africans and African americans have prominent noses unless they have too much white in them.

Uh, more like the Blacks with the most prominent noses, are the ones mixed with more Caucasoid.

Nope. Blacks with a lot of white admixture have little noses not prominent ones.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Of course the regiments of soldiers and OCCURRENCE of Deep Africans in ancient Egypt records would be expected. Because an advanced civilization like Egypt in 1000 to 300BC would be totally integrated with their "neighborhood". And it's EXPECTED that dynasties like that would have regiments of soldiers, royal emissaries and assistants from the surrounding cultures.

It's possibly not as TOTAL a picture as you've been led to believe. The DNA evidence is not really that clear because of mixing for centuries. But the link I read said the Deep Africa roots were more prevalent as you closer to the present. Departing from Levant and other Northern strains with time..

Its just the opposite. The further you go back in Egypts timeline the Blacker it gets. There is a reason they pointed to the interior of Africa as the land of the of gods. There is a reason their orientation in regards to geographical north was the opposite of what it is now. They viewed present day Africa as the top of the world. Civilizations always occurs upstream first of major waterways. Upstream on the Nile is in the heart of Black Africa. There is really no debate on the issue. They said these things themselves.

So sorry, but the original Egyptians were probably Cro Magnon's (Mechta-afalou) before being flooded with Levantine people who bore agriculture.

You can be sorry all day long but it doesnt change the facts. There is zero proof Cro Magnon man had anything to do with Egypt. He was a cave man that rarely left the caves of France.

Mechtoid's, the African version of Cro Magnon's, were found also South of Egypt, in Sudan.

That doesnt really help your argument.

Cro Magnon's are older in North Africa than Negroid's are.