midcan5

liberal / progressive
Jun 4, 2007
12,740
3,513
260
America
Arnold Toynbee writes in his study of civilizations about the Black Magi, imagine for a moment if that were done today? The cries would come, 'political correctness'. It would be equivalent to 'happy holiday', which while a sign of respect for others has been made into a tool to divide. Images and words so dominate the American mind today thought is nowhere to be found. Several times I have told posters and others that race is a myth. Race is a great divider but actually a myth.

"Our modern Western race-feeling was unknown in the Western Society in earlier times and has failed to assert itself in certain sections of this Western Society down to this day. During the so-called 'Dark Ages' and 'Middle Ages' - that is t say, during the ten centuries ending in about the last quarter of the fifteenth century of our era - the members of the Western Society, when they thought of Mankind as a whole, were accustomed to divide the human family into two categories, as we divide it nowadays. The principle of division, however, was utterly different. Instead of dividing Mankind, as we do, into white people and coloured people, our forefathers divided it into Christians and heathen; and we are bound to confess that their dichotomy was better than ours both intellectually and morally. It was better intellectually because a human being's religion is a vastly more important and significant factor in his life than the colour of his skin, and is therefore a vastly better criterion for purposes of classification. Again, the dichotomy into Christians and heathen is better morally than the dichotomy into white and coloured, because the gulf between religions, unlike the gulf between races, is not impassable. It is a division between sheep in the fold and sheep astray on the mountains, not between sheep and goats....In the eyes of the medieval Western Christian, when he looked abroad upon the world, the heathen, wandering unkempt in the wilderness, were neither incurably unclean nor irretrievably lost. Potentially, they were Christians like himself and he looked forward to the time when all lost sheep would be gathered into the fold.... " p91 'A Study of History' Abridged edition, Arnold Joseph Toynbee

'The Sapient Paradox'

"Archaeogenetic analysis of this kind is now widespread in anthropology and archaeology. It has been used to study the origin of specific languages and language families by considering the genetic relationships of their speakers. It has been used on the mtDNA from the bones of Neanderthal fossils to consider their relationship with our own species, and it has been used very effectively to consider the dates and the routes of the human dispersal or dispersals out of Africa.

The picture was summarized by the geneticist Peter Forster in 2004 in a clear and coherent way. On the basis of rntDNA analysis it can be asserted that all living humans are closely related, and descended from ancestors living in Africa some two hundred thousand [p77] years ago. Studies of the mutation rates for mtDNA now permit an approximate chronology that ties in reasonably well with the radiometric dating available for fossil remains. It turns out that our species did indeed emerge in Africa and that the "our-of-Africa" scenario is correct. The first and principal dispersal of humans ancestral to the living humans of today took place about sixty thousand years ago. The earliest fossil remains of Homo sapiens in Indonesia and Australia around forty-five thousand years ago support this view. 'The remarkable feature of all this DNA work illuminating the deep human past is that the work is based upon modern samples taken from living populations, and the analysis of these samples allows the reconstruction of prehistory: our past within us.

The results have further implications whose significance has not yet been sufficiently appreciated. In the first place the humans who dispersed out of Africa (as well as those who remained) were all very closely related. The physical (or racial) distinctions between different human groups in the world today must presumably have begun to develop from the time following The initial out-of-Africa dispersal of sixty thousand years ago. It is clear now that the human groups outside Africa are all descended from what are termed mtDNA haplogroups M. and N. It is possible now to follow in outline the story of the peopling of the globe by our species following this dispersal, using the evidence of mtDNA. The arrival of humans in Europe some forty thousand years ago can be traced-as can the first human population in America, although there is controversy there as to whether the results show a human arrival before about eighteen thousand years ago." 'Prehistory: The Making Of The Human Mind' by Colin Renfrew

Prehistory: The Making Of The Human Mind by Colin Renfrew

A Study of History by Arnold Joseph Toynbee

Adoration of the Magi

"Racism is not about how you look, it is about how people assign meaning to how you look." Robin D.G. Kelley
 
I get that the feeling that white people believe that they were white prior to leaving Africa or that they somehow became genetically better after leaving Africa. Both theories make zero sense as the first homo sapiens were Black people as we know them today, the gene for light skin is only 8k years old, and the people in europe have terrible genetics due to inbreeding and population bottlenecks.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
I get that the feeling that white people believe that they were white prior to leaving Africa or that they somehow became genetically better after leaving Africa. Both theories make zero sense as the first homo sapiens were Black people as we know them today, the gene for light skin is only 8k years old, and the people in europe have terrible genetics due to inbreeding and population bottlenecks.
Damn, even inbreds with bad genes consistently outperform black people? Thats super embarrassing for you guys. :laugh:
 
I get that the feeling that white people believe that they were white prior to leaving Africa or that they somehow became genetically better after leaving Africa. Both theories make zero sense as the first homo sapiens were Black people as we know them today, the gene for light skin is only 8k years old, and the people in europe have terrible genetics due to inbreeding and population bottlenecks.
Damn, even inbreds with bad genes consistently outperform black people? Thats super embarrassing for you guys. :laugh:

Except they don't. That's why you had to make laws stopping us. :auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg:
 
#TheLargerIssue #Fatherlessness #ChildNeglectMaltreatment #MentalHealth #SOLUTIONS

I get that the feeling that white people believe that they were white prior to leaving Africa or that they somehow became genetically better after leaving Africa.



Peace.
 
Arnold Toynbee writes in his study of civilizations about the Black Magi, imagine for a moment if that were done today? The cries would come, 'political correctness'. It would be equivalent to 'happy holiday', which while a sign of respect for others has been made into a tool to divide. Images and words so dominate the American mind today thought is nowhere to be found. Several times I have told posters and others that race is a myth. Race is a great divider but actually a myth.

"Our modern Western race-feeling was unknown in the Western Society in earlier times and has failed to assert itself in certain sections of this Western Society down to this day. During the so-called 'Dark Ages' and 'Middle Ages' - that is t say, during the ten centuries ending in about the last quarter of the fifteenth century of our era - the members of the Western Society, when they thought of Mankind as a whole, were accustomed to divide the human family into two categories, as we divide it nowadays. The principle of division, however, was utterly different. Instead of dividing Mankind, as we do, into white people and coloured people, our forefathers divided it into Christians and heathen; and we are bound to confess that their dichotomy was better than ours both intellectually and morally. It was better intellectually because a human being's religion is a vastly more important and significant factor in his life than the colour of his skin, and is therefore a vastly better criterion for purposes of classification. Again, the dichotomy into Christians and heathen is better morally than the dichotomy into white and coloured, because the gulf between religions, unlike the gulf between races, is not impassable. It is a division between sheep in the fold and sheep astray on the mountains, not between sheep and goats....In the eyes of the medieval Western Christian, when he looked abroad upon the world, the heathen, wandering unkempt in the wilderness, were neither incurably unclean nor irretrievably lost. Potentially, they were Christians like himself and he looked forward to the time when all lost sheep would be gathered into the fold.... " p91 'A Study of History' Abridged edition, Arnold Joseph Toynbee

'The Sapient Paradox'

"Archaeogenetic analysis of this kind is now widespread in anthropology and archaeology. It has been used to study the origin of specific languages and language families by considering the genetic relationships of their speakers. It has been used on the mtDNA from the bones of Neanderthal fossils to consider their relationship with our own species, and it has been used very effectively to consider the dates and the routes of the human dispersal or dispersals out of Africa.

The picture was summarized by the geneticist Peter Forster in 2004 in a clear and coherent way. On the basis of rntDNA analysis it can be asserted that all living humans are closely related, and descended from ancestors living in Africa some two hundred thousand [p77] years ago. Studies of the mutation rates for mtDNA now permit an approximate chronology that ties in reasonably well with the radiometric dating available for fossil remains. It turns out that our species did indeed emerge in Africa and that the "our-of-Africa" scenario is correct. The first and principal dispersal of humans ancestral to the living humans of today took place about sixty thousand years ago. The earliest fossil remains of Homo sapiens in Indonesia and Australia around forty-five thousand years ago support this view. 'The remarkable feature of all this DNA work illuminating the deep human past is that the work is based upon modern samples taken from living populations, and the analysis of these samples allows the reconstruction of prehistory: our past within us.

The results have further implications whose significance has not yet been sufficiently appreciated. In the first place the humans who dispersed out of Africa (as well as those who remained) were all very closely related. The physical (or racial) distinctions between different human groups in the world today must presumably have begun to develop from the time following The initial out-of-Africa dispersal of sixty thousand years ago. It is clear now that the human groups outside Africa are all descended from what are termed mtDNA haplogroups M. and N. It is possible now to follow in outline the story of the peopling of the globe by our species following this dispersal, using the evidence of mtDNA. The arrival of humans in Europe some forty thousand years ago can be traced-as can the first human population in America, although there is controversy there as to whether the results show a human arrival before about eighteen thousand years ago." 'Prehistory: The Making Of The Human Mind' by Colin Renfrew

Prehistory: The Making Of The Human Mind by Colin Renfrew

A Study of History by Arnold Joseph Toynbee

Adoration of the Magi

"Racism is not about how you look, it is about how people assign meaning to how you look." Robin D.G. Kelley
This would be Pocahontas'next arguement?
 
I get that the feeling that white people believe that they were white prior to leaving Africa or that they somehow became genetically better after leaving Africa. Both theories make zero sense as the first homo sapiens were Black people as we know them today, the gene for light skin is only 8k years old, and the people in europe have terrible genetics due to inbreeding and population bottlenecks.
Damn, even inbreds with bad genes consistently outperform black people? Thats super embarrassing for you guys. :laugh:
Yes, even where blacks don't live in their aboriginal shitholes, they live in shitholes of their own making.
 
I get that the feeling that white people believe that they were white prior to leaving Africa or that they somehow became genetically better after leaving Africa. Both theories make zero sense as the first homo sapiens were Black people as we know them today, the gene for light skin is only 8k years old, and the people in europe have terrible genetics due to inbreeding and population bottlenecks.
So that's why African nations are the world leaders in....
 
I get that the feeling that white people believe that they were white prior to leaving Africa or that they somehow became genetically better after leaving Africa. Both theories make zero sense as the first homo sapiens were Black people as we know them today, the gene for light skin is only 8k years old, and the people in europe have terrible genetics due to inbreeding and population bottlenecks.
So that's why African nations are the world leaders in....

Ask the white nations that depend upon Africa for their wealth that question.
 
I get that the feeling that white people believe that they were white prior to leaving Africa or that they somehow became genetically better after leaving Africa. Both theories make zero sense as the first homo sapiens were Black people as we know them today, the gene for light skin is only 8k years old, and the people in europe have terrible genetics due to inbreeding and population bottlenecks.
So that's why African nations are the world leaders in....

Ask the white nations that depend upon Africa for their wealth that question.
No one is dependant on Africa. Cellphones are nice, but we dont need them.
 
I get that the feeling that white people believe that they were white prior to leaving Africa or that they somehow became genetically better after leaving Africa.
Here goes the milkweed once again assigning COLORS to everything! Is nothing more than skin deep to you?

Both theories make zero sense as the first homo sapiens were Black people as we know them today, the gene for light skin is only 8k years old, and the people in europe have terrible genetics due to inbreeding and population bottlenecks.
Funny, I just watched a cutting edge PBS program on this the other night on Neanderthal Man and he goes back about 300,000 years and was light skinned. Homo Neanderthalenis goes back far earlier than Homo Sapiens. So much your your latest quack claim about an 8,000 year old skin gene, son, anyone's skin will become lighter as production of melanin goes down in response to decreasing need for defense against the Sun.
 
I get that the feeling that white people believe that they were white prior to leaving Africa or that they somehow became genetically better after leaving Africa. Both theories make zero sense as the first homo sapiens were Black people as we know them today, the gene for light skin is only 8k years old, and the people in europe have terrible genetics due to inbreeding and population bottlenecks.
So that's why African nations are the world leaders in....

Pretty much everything that whites know they were taught by African civilizations. Why do you ask?
 
I get that the feeling that white people believe that they were white prior to leaving Africa or that they somehow became genetically better after leaving Africa.
Here goes the milkweed once again assigning COLORS to everything! Is nothing more than skin deep to you?

Both theories make zero sense as the first homo sapiens were Black people as we know them today, the gene for light skin is only 8k years old, and the people in europe have terrible genetics due to inbreeding and population bottlenecks.
Funny, I just watched a cutting edge PBS program on this the other night on Neanderthal Man and he goes back about 300,000 years and was light skinned. Homo Neanderthalenis goes back far earlier than Homo Sapiens. So much your your latest quack claim about an 8,000 year old skin gene, son, anyone's skin will become lighter as production of melanin goes down in response to decreasing need for defense against the Sun.
Black is not just a color. Its a nation of people. Why do you think we have people in our nation that are light like you but have the ability to produce dark people like me?
 
I get that the feeling that white people believe that they were white prior to leaving Africa or that they somehow became genetically better after leaving Africa.
Here goes the milkweed once again assigning COLORS to everything! Is nothing more than skin deep to you?

Both theories make zero sense as the first homo sapiens were Black people as we know them today, the gene for light skin is only 8k years old, and the people in europe have terrible genetics due to inbreeding and population bottlenecks.
Funny, I just watched a cutting edge PBS program on this the other night on Neanderthal Man and he goes back about 300,000 years and was light skinned. Homo Neanderthalenis goes back far earlier than Homo Sapiens. So much your your latest quack claim about an 8,000 year old skin gene, son, anyone's skin will become lighter as production of melanin goes down in response to decreasing need for defense against the Sun.

What does neanderthal have to do with homo sapiens sapiens? You may be part neanderthal but you still came from humans.

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

"The a mutation, called A111T, is found in virtually every one of European ancestry."
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
I get that the feeling that white people believe that they were white prior to leaving Africa or that they somehow became genetically better after leaving Africa. Both theories make zero sense as the first homo sapiens were Black people as we know them today, the gene for light skin is only 8k years old, and the people in europe have terrible genetics due to inbreeding and population bottlenecks.
So that's why African nations are the world leaders in....

Pretty much everything that whites know they were taught by African civilizations. Why do you ask?

The Italians, Greeks and Jews were "Africans"....lol
 
I get that the feeling that white people believe that they were white prior to leaving Africa or that they somehow became genetically better after leaving Africa. Both theories make zero sense as the first homo sapiens were Black people as we know them today, the gene for light skin is only 8k years old, and the people in europe have terrible genetics due to inbreeding and population bottlenecks.
So that's why African nations are the world leaders in....

Ask the white nations that depend upon Africa for their wealth that question.
No one is dependant on Africa. Cellphones are nice, but we dont need them.

Really?

Africa feeds Europe

"Africa feeds Europe", strange headline and unlikely that you have ever seen or heard it. But the reality is that 40 per cent of the food leaving Africa ends up on European tables.



'Europe sucked wealth from Africa, in debt to continent'



Are Africans coming to Britain to claim the wealth stolen in their native countries?



HOW THE BRITISH STOLE ZIMBABWE



Your punk ass won't watch these because you lack the manhood to face the fact that whites are nothing unless they steal.
 
I get that the feeling that white people believe that they were white prior to leaving Africa or that they somehow became genetically better after leaving Africa. Both theories make zero sense as the first homo sapiens were Black people as we know them today, the gene for light skin is only 8k years old, and the people in europe have terrible genetics due to inbreeding and population bottlenecks.
So that's why African nations are the world leaders in....

Pretty much everything that whites know they were taught by African civilizations. Why do you ask?

The Italians, Greeks and Jews were "Africans"....lol

You grow up learning white revisionist history. That's all part of the system of white supremacy.
 
I get that the feeling that white people believe that they were white prior to leaving Africa or that they somehow became genetically better after leaving Africa. Both theories make zero sense as the first homo sapiens were Black people as we know them today, the gene for light skin is only 8k years old, and the people in europe have terrible genetics due to inbreeding and population bottlenecks.
So that's why African nations are the world leaders in....

Ask the white nations that depend upon Africa for their wealth that question.
No one is dependant on Africa. Cellphones are nice, but we dont need them.

Really?

Africa feeds Europe

"Africa feeds Europe", strange headline and unlikely that you have ever seen or heard it. But the reality is that 40 per cent of the food leaving Africa ends up on European tables.



'Europe sucked wealth from Africa, in debt to continent'



Are Africans coming to Britain to claim the wealth stolen in their native countries?



HOW THE BRITISH STOLE ZIMBABWE



Your punk ass won't watch these because you lack the manhood to face the fact that whites are nothing unless they steal.

More like "Europe helps out Africa by buying from them instead of another place".
 
I get that the feeling that white people believe that they were white prior to leaving Africa or that they somehow became genetically better after leaving Africa.
Here goes the milkweed once again assigning COLORS to everything! Is nothing more than skin deep to you?

Both theories make zero sense as the first homo sapiens were Black people as we know them today, the gene for light skin is only 8k years old, and the people in europe have terrible genetics due to inbreeding and population bottlenecks.
Funny, I just watched a cutting edge PBS program on this the other night on Neanderthal Man and he goes back about 300,000 years and was light skinned. Homo Neanderthalenis goes back far earlier than Homo Sapiens. So much your your latest quack claim about an 8,000 year old skin gene, son, anyone's skin will become lighter as production of melanin goes down in response to decreasing need for defense against the Sun.

Stop crying about a concept whites created. You reap what you sow sucker. Whites based everything on color so you don't get to cry when color is used on you.
 
I get that the feeling that white people believe that they were white prior to leaving Africa or that they somehow became genetically better after leaving Africa. Both theories make zero sense as the first homo sapiens were Black people as we know them today, the gene for light skin is only 8k years old, and the people in europe have terrible genetics due to inbreeding and population bottlenecks.
So that's why African nations are the world leaders in....

Ask the white nations that depend upon Africa for their wealth that question.
No one is dependant on Africa. Cellphones are nice, but we dont need them.

Really?

Africa feeds Europe

"Africa feeds Europe", strange headline and unlikely that you have ever seen or heard it. But the reality is that 40 per cent of the food leaving Africa ends up on European tables.



'Europe sucked wealth from Africa, in debt to continent'



Are Africans coming to Britain to claim the wealth stolen in their native countries?



HOW THE BRITISH STOLE ZIMBABWE



Your punk ass won't watch these because you lack the manhood to face the fact that whites are nothing unless they steal.

More like "Europe helps out Africa by buying from them instead of another place".


Nope. They because no other place has the wealth of resources Africa does. Just man up and face the truth white man. If all the nations of Africa cut you off, you die.
 

Forum List

Back
Top