Will we ever close the gap between white and blacks???

[Mr. H.]

I am white
and you are black

why should you think
I would give a whack

come together
right now

over my dead body.

 

[RosieS]

Get over it RosieS. The only thing you seem able to communicate is that you've had some sort of politically correct indoctrination that you were dumb enough to follow. I suppose you consider education in highly-charged pc subject as valid, but I would liken it to Quran studies in a madras school. I spent a considerable amount of time in universities as an undergrad and graduate and the most asinine, self-righteous and ignorant pipsqueaks I'd ever run across were normally young women studying things exactly like urban education. With any insight, I expect you would already realize that much.

You are clearly attempting to argue above the station your background warrants. Case in point, a link to an article you posted which claims not only that the original native Americans were black, but that West Africa traded with Central America over 1000 years ago and was the impetus for the Olmec civilization. Do you actually have any idea how ditzy one must be to give credence to something so idiotic, much less to link it? Yet you appear to be offended by derision.

Check this out, Matthew:

RaceandHistory.com - BLACK CIVILIZATIONS OF ANCIENT AMERICA

Regards from Rosie

Thanks for posting the link about the Olmecs yet again. Because for the umpteenth time, evidence pre-empts anything you bring to the table; which is, in fact, nothing. That's why those in the College of Liberal Farts have difficultly staying gainfully employed.

Now would you care to repost my Nat Geo Black Pharaohs link and discuss that, too? I'm the content provider - which is what educators do.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Meathead]

Your way over your head and out of your league here Rosie. I'd known about the Nubian pharaohs even before I went to Aswan and Abu Simbel. The Nubian conquerers were invriably absorbed into Egypt, quite like the Mongols became Chinese instead of the other way around, as it is with dominant cultures. Everybody knows that there is Nubian admixture in Egypt and there was long before the Nubians invaded. There is also Greek, Hyskos, Persian and others as Egypt conquered and was conquered, but that does not make the Egyptians of of yore black as you would have it. I have no idea of what you're trying to prove, except perhaps that you're not a total ditz after linking an absolutely bonkers Afrocentric site.

Btw, you might be interested in this:

Washitaw Nation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Given your educational background and analytical skills, this must sound very plausible to you as well.

 

[RosieS]

Your way over your head and out of your league here Rosie. I'd known about the Nubian pharaohs even before I went to Aswan and Abu Simbel. The Nubian conquerers were invriably absorbed into Egypt, quite like the Mongols became Chinese instead of the other way around, as it is with dominant cultures. Everybody knows that there is Nubian admixture in Egypt and there was long before the Nubians invaded. There is also Greek, Hyskos, Persian and others as Egypt conquered and was conquered, but that does not make the Egyptians of of yore black as you would have it. I have no idea of what you're trying to prove, except perhaps that you're not a total ditz after linking an absolutely bonkers Afrocentric site.

Btw, you might be interested in this:

Washitaw Nation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Given your educational background and analytical skills, this must sound very plausible to you as well.

"Absorbed into the culture". Do you even understand what you write? The Nubian and Egyptian cultures are similar but distinct. The Nubian conquerers ruled over a renaissance of Egyptian culture and integrated themselves into the Egyptian people. They bred with them. Egyptians are part black. They are mixed race....yes, with Greeks and Hittites and others....but they are undeniably of black African descent as well.

Egyptians are part black.....get it yet??!

Your silly Wiki citation has nothing to do with anything of import.

You still don't understand that a refutation does not exist of "because Meathead sez so... nyuk, nyuk,nyuk."

As outrageous as you find my sources you would think you could find a legitimate counter-argument somewhere...but no.

So what my sources cite stands. Too bad for you.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Meathead]

Your way over your head and out of your league here Rosie. I'd known about the Nubian pharaohs even before I went to Aswan and Abu Simbel. The Nubian conquerers were invriably absorbed into Egypt, quite like the Mongols became Chinese instead of the other way around, as it is with dominant cultures. Everybody knows that there is Nubian admixture in Egypt and there was long before the Nubians invaded. There is also Greek, Hyskos, Persian and others as Egypt conquered and was conquered, but that does not make the Egyptians of of yore black as you would have it. I have no idea of what you're trying to prove, except perhaps that you're not a total ditz after linking an absolutely bonkers Afrocentric site.

Btw, you might be interested in this:

Washitaw Nation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Given your educational background and analytical skills, this must sound very plausible to you as well.

"Absorbed into the culture". Do you even understand what you write? The Nubian and Egyptian cultures are similar but distinct. The Nubian conquerers ruled over a renaissance of Egyptian culture and integrated themselves into the Egyptian people. They bred with them. Egyptians are part black. They are mixed race....yes, with Greeks and Hittites and others....but they are undeniably of black African descent as well.

Egyptians are part black.....get it yet??!

Your silly Wiki citation has nothing to do with anything of import.

You still don't understand that a refutation does not exist of "because Meathead sez so... nyuk, nyuk,nyuk."

As outrageous as you find my sources you would think you could find a legitimate counter-argument somewhere...but no.

So what my sources cite stands. Too bad for you.

Regards from Rosie

Do you seriously think I would waste my time in countering the argument that the original inhabitants of the Americas were negroid and/or that West Africa traded with Central American cultures centuries before Columbus?! Are you serious?! An educator, btw, would not use materials like that to "educate" anyone, much less children.

From your link:

DESCENDANTS OF PRECOLUMBIAN BLACKS IN THE U.S., CARIBBEAN, CENTRAL AMERICA AND SOUTH AMERICA AND THE FIGHT FOR THE RETURN OF THEIR STOLEN OCCUPIED LANDS

IN THE MIDST OF THE REPARATIONS DEBATE THE ISSUE OF RETURNING THE LANDS OF THESE BLACKS WHO ANCESTORS WERE HERE IN THE U.S. AND AMERICAS BEFORE COLUMBUS HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE WITH ONE BLACK NATION OF THE LOUISIANA TERRITORIES


The experience of the Washitaw Nation (or Ouchita Nation) of the Southern United States is another piece of solid evidence for the fact of pre-Columbian African presence and settlement in the Americas and specifically in the United States. According to an article carried in the magazine, 'The Freedom Press Newsletter, (Spring, 1996), reprinted from Earthways, The Newsleter of the Sojourner Truth Farm School (August, 1995), the Washitaw were
(and still are) a nation of Africans who existed in the Southern U.S. and Mississippi Valley region long before the 16th century Europeans arrived and even before there were "Native Americans" on the lands the Washitaw once occupied and still occupy today.

According to the article, "the Washitaw Nation "governed three million acres of land in Louisiana,
Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Mississippi. They were ship builders (similar to the Garifuna of the Caribbean, who are also of pre-Columbian West Afrucan Mandinka Muslim origins (according to Harold Lawrence in 'African Presence in Early America,edt. by Ivan Van Sertima).

 

[RosieS]

Yeah, and so? You do not refute Ouachita or Taino or Awawak ancestral lands claims by misspelling their name and citing a nonsense Wiki article. The restoration claims of these indigenous peoples stand and fall on their own merits without refutation, yet again, from you.

You like Wiki? Here is pre-Columbian African contact cited! Whoda thunk it? Wow!

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards from Rosie

 

[Meathead]

Yeah, and so? You do not refute Ouachita or Taino or Awawak ancestral lands claims by misspelling their name and citing a nonsense Wiki article. The restoration claims of these indigenous peoples stand and fall on their own merits without refutation, yet again, from you.

You like Wiki? Here is pre-Columbian African contact cited! Whoda thunk it? Wow!

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards from Rosie

Yeah there Rosie, it is cited under(read lunatic) fringe theories. It is the stuff of people with urban education backgrounds it seems and other charlatans.

Specifically the Olmec alternative origin speculation:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmec_alternative_origin_speculations

Olmec alternative origin speculations are explanations that have been suggested for the formation of Olmec civilization which contradict generally accepted scholarly consensus. These origin theories typically involve contact with Old World societies. Although these speculations have become somewhat well-known within popular culture, particularly the idea of an African connection to the Olmec, they are not considered credible by the vast majority of Mesoamerican researchers.

I have no idea why any idiot would accept or link such crap, or why any idiot would call on others to refute it. This crap should be spread only to an extremely ignorant and preferably African-American audience. You would have less chance of coming off as a total fool.

You really are bonkers, aren't you?

 

[Unkotare]

Yeah there Rosie, it is cited under(read lunatic) fringe theories. It is the stuff of people with urban education backgrounds it seems and other charlatans.

.................


But someone with a degree in International Relations is not a "charlatan"?

 

[Unkotare]

Get over it RosieS. The only thing you seem able to communicate is that you've had some sort of politically correct indoctrination that you were dumb enough to follow. I suppose you consider education in highly-charged pc subject as valid, but I would liken it to Quran studies in a madras school. I spent a considerable amount of time in universities as an undergrad and graduate and the most asinine, self-righteous and ignorant pipsqueaks I'd ever run across were normally young women studying things exactly like urban education. With any insight, I expect you would already realize that much.

You are clearly attempting to argue above the station your background warrants.

I can only imagine how many drugs you had to do to come to this strange attitude of yours. You post as if a Master's Degree in International Relations (with a focus on Europe) is some meat-and-potatoes hardcore, practical, hammerin' nails type of background. Clear your head and realize there is not much below your station, champ.

 

[Meathead]

Yeah there Rosie, it is cited under(read lunatic) fringe theories. It is the stuff of people with urban education backgrounds it seems and other charlatans.

.................


But someone with a degree in International Relations is not a "charlatan"?

I've met some who were a little lackluster in the field, but none I would call a charlatan. As a rule, the subject does not lend itself to flights of fancy nor ding-bat speculation.

 

[Unkotare]

Yeah there Rosie, it is cited under(read lunatic) fringe theories. It is the stuff of people with urban education backgrounds it seems and other charlatans.

.................


But someone with a degree in International Relations is not a "charlatan"?

I've met some who were a little lackluster in the field, but none I would call a charlatan. As a rule, the subject does not lend itself to flights of fancy nor ding-bat speculation.

Oh yeah, because it's such a hard-core practical subject. What universe do you live in where these strange attitudes of yours make any sense?

 

[Meathead]

Get over it RosieS. The only thing you seem able to communicate is that you've had some sort of politically correct indoctrination that you were dumb enough to follow. I suppose you consider education in highly-charged pc subject as valid, but I would liken it to Quran studies in a madras school. I spent a considerable amount of time in universities as an undergrad and graduate and the most asinine, self-righteous and ignorant pipsqueaks I'd ever run across were normally young women studying things exactly like urban education. With any insight, I expect you would already realize that much.

You are clearly attempting to argue above the station your background warrants.

I can only imagine how many drugs you had to do to come to this strange attitude of yours. You post as if a Master's Degree in International Relations (with a focus on Europe) is some meat-and-potatoes hardcore, practical, hammerin' nails type of background. Clear your head and realize there is not much below your station, champ.

There is certainly enough below my station to accommodate ding bats like you and Rosie.

 

[RosieS]

Yeah, and so? You do not refute Ouachita or Taino or Awawak ancestral lands claims by misspelling their name and citing a nonsense Wiki article. The restoration claims of these indigenous peoples stand and fall on their own merits without refutation, yet again, from you.

You like Wiki? Here is pre-Columbian African contact cited! Whoda thunk it? Wow!

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards from Rosie

Yeah there Rosie, it is cited under(read lunatic) fringe theories. It is the stuff of people with urban education backgrounds it seems and other charlatans.

Specifically the Olmec alternative origin speculation:


Olmec alternative origin speculations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Olmec alternative origin speculations are explanations that have been suggested for the formation of Olmec civilization which contradict generally accepted scholarly consensus. These origin theories typically involve contact with Old World societies. Although these speculations have become somewhat well-known within popular culture, particularly the idea of an African connection to the Olmec, they are not considered credible by the vast majority of Mesoamerican researchers.

I have no idea why any idiot would accept or link such crap, or why any idiot would call on others to refute it. This crap should be spread only to an extremely ignorant and preferably African-American audience. You would have less chance of coming off as a total fool.


Ok listen, dickhead. You still do not have a single citation to refute African origination of Olmec culture. Having a dickhead like you call it lunatic or being a charlatan does not make it so.

What makes you a dickhead is that everyone can see it is only you saying so....except you.

You really are exceedingly dense, aren't you.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Unkotare]

Get over it RosieS. The only thing you seem able to communicate is that you've had some sort of politically correct indoctrination that you were dumb enough to follow. I suppose you consider education in highly-charged pc subject as valid, but I would liken it to Quran studies in a madras school. I spent a considerable amount of time in universities as an undergrad and graduate and the most asinine, self-righteous and ignorant pipsqueaks I'd ever run across were normally young women studying things exactly like urban education. With any insight, I expect you would already realize that much.

You are clearly attempting to argue above the station your background warrants.

I can only imagine how many drugs you had to do to come to this strange attitude of yours. You post as if a Master's Degree in International Relations (with a focus on Europe) is some meat-and-potatoes hardcore, practical, hammerin' nails type of background. Clear your head and realize there is not much below your station, champ.

There is certainly enough below my station to accommodate ding bats like you and Rosie.

Guess again, IR.

 

[Meathead]

Yeah, and so? You do not refute Ouachita or Taino or Awawak ancestral lands claims by misspelling their name and citing a nonsense Wiki article. The restoration claims of these indigenous peoples stand and fall on their own merits without refutation, yet again, from you.

You like Wiki? Here is pre-Columbian African contact cited! Whoda thunk it? Wow!

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards from Rosie

Yeah there Rosie, it is cited under(read lunatic) fringe theories. It is the stuff of people with urban education backgrounds it seems and other charlatans.

Specifically the Olmec alternative origin speculation:


Olmec alternative origin speculations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Olmec alternative origin speculations are explanations that have been suggested for the formation of Olmec civilization which contradict generally accepted scholarly consensus. These origin theories typically involve contact with Old World societies. Although these speculations have become somewhat well-known within popular culture, particularly the idea of an African connection to the Olmec, they are not considered credible by the vast majority of Mesoamerican researchers.

I have no idea why any idiot would accept or link such crap, or why any idiot would call on others to refute it. This crap should be spread only to an extremely ignorant and preferably African-American audience. You would have less chance of coming off as a total fool.


Ok listen, dickhead. You still do not have a single citation to refute African origination of Olmec culture. Having a dickhead like you call it lunatic or being a charlatan does not make it so.

What makes you a dickhead is that everyone can see it is only you saying so....except you.

You really are exceedingly dense, aren't you.

Regards from Rosie

You still did not answer my direct question as to you're being bonkers. Obviously, asking me to prove that the Olmecs were not negroid is an ample response I suppose.

Now, this thread has reached a point of exceeding silliness. I don't think I should engage those with obvious limitations in a I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I exchange. If you have something constructive to argue, then please do so. However, spare me the idiotic flights of fantasy.

I really don't know how I get myself into these exchanges those whose intelligence rivals that of houseplants.

 

[Meathead]

I can only imagine how many drugs you had to do to come to this strange attitude of yours. You post as if a Master's Degree in International Relations (with a focus on Europe) is some meat-and-potatoes hardcore, practical, hammerin' nails type of background. Clear your head and realize there is not much below your station, champ.

There is certainly enough below my station to accommodate ding bats like you and Rosie.

Guess again, IR.

That was certainly not a guess anymore than it was vanity.

 

[Unkotare]

I really don't know how I get myself into these exchanges those whose intelligence rivals that of houseplants.

Feeling overwhelmed and intimidated again, Meatball?

 

[RosieS]

I really don't know how I get myself into these exchanges those whose intelligence rivals that of houseplants.

Feeling overwhelmed and intimidated again, Meatball?

And citation-less, no less. Africans in the Americas before slavery!! Heaven forfend - except he can't find a thing saying it ain't so.

Meat for brains has no standing for discussing intellect.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Meathead]

Here Rosie, I've found something equally credible first suggested by Carl Sagan no less. Please disprove the existence of the balloon-like creatures on Jupiter for me and show me how it's done.

life on Jupiter

 

[Unkotare]

I am white
and you are black

why should you think
I would give a whack

come together
right now

over my dead body.