Why do white people love identifying with Aryans? [Archive]

jcs

11-13-2005, 04:37 PM

Why do white people love identifying with Aryans? its very funny considering the fact that before colonialism and the discovery that Sanskrit was related to European languages, no Europeans called themselves "Aryans". Another example of white people trying to connect themselves to people they have nothing to do with. Delusion.
Well, Europeans obviously have some connection with Indians, otherwise there would be no relation between languages, cultures, and (pre-Christian) religions.
Otherwise, I sort of agree with you. It's funny to see a German nationalist and German chauvenist, for example, using the word 'Aryan,' a non-German word, to describe German people.

Charles_Rigaud

11-13-2005, 04:43 PM

Well, Europeans obviously have some connection with Indians, otherwise there would be no relation between languages, cultures, and (pre-Christian) religions.
Otherwise, I sort of agree with you. It's funny to see a German nationalist and German chauvenist, for example, using the word 'Aryan,' a non-German word, to describe German people.

The linguistic connection is the only real connection between Europeans and Indians and its not even a very close one. Indus valley people were civilized and had a thriving civilization before anything in Europe. Linguistic affinity does equate to relationships between peoples, the Hausa speak Afro-Asaitic languages and Israelis speak Afro-Asaitic languages, they share membership in a language family but aren't even close to being related to each other.

1-800

11-13-2005, 04:48 PM

jcs

11-13-2005, 05:18 PM

The linguistic connection is the only real connection between Europeans and Indians and its not even a very close one. Indus valley people were civilized and had a thriving civilization before anything in Europe. Linguistic affinity does equate to relationships between peoples, the Hausa speak Afro-Asaitic languages and Israelis speak Afro-Asaitic languages, they share membership in a language family but aren't even close to being related to each other.
You need to do some more research on Indo-European studies, especially in religious matters.
An example: Tyr (Norse), Tiw (German, whose rune is Tiwaz), Zeus (Greek), Deus (Latin), Diva (Indian)--all these names/titles share a linguistic origin, and all are the names/titles of sky-father-type gods.

Outside of religion, you also have cultural similarities. For example, all IE cultures exhalt war. See the Illiad, Norse myths on Valhalla (amongst other things), the Bhagavad-Gita (and anything relating to the Kshatriya in general), and Islamic Greater and Lesser Jihad (a concept borrowed from the Iranian religion of Zoroaster (also borrowed from Old Testament ideas, but the Jews first borrowed it from Zoroastrians for their hodge-podge religion) that was embraced most noticably during the Crusades). War wasn't just practiced or viewed favorably or as a duty; it was conceived of as a spiritual deed.

Now, I assume you're unfamiliar with the 'genetics' of language? By this, I mean that similar languages often have similar origins. In the case of Indo-European languages, it has been demonstrated that there was some Proto-Indo-European people whose language spread throughout Indo-European lands (see JP Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans and other such studies). This means that all Indo-European speakers can trace their language to a common origin. Now, if language can spread thusly, so too can culture and religion--and so too can genes. Interesting that all Indo-European populations are Caucasoids; even more interesting that the nobility in all IE populations exhibited xanthochroic traits...

Charles_Rigaud

11-13-2005, 05:23 PM

Israeli is a nationality.

Ok, Hebrew and hausa belong to the greater Afro-Asiatic family, but culturally the two groups are not closely related.

Charles_Rigaud

11-13-2005, 05:29 PM

You need to do some more research on Indo-European studies, especially in religious matters.
An example: Tyr (Norse), Tiw (German, whose rune is Tiwaz), Zeus (Greek), Deus (Latin), Diva (Indian)--all these names/titles share a linguistic origin, and all are the names/titles of sky-father-type gods.

You can find similar parallels in African religions to these "gods", but there is no proof that all of these religions were spread or descended from one proto-IndoEuropean people

Outside of religion, you also have cultural similarities. For example, all IE cultures exhalt war. See the Illiad, Norse myths on Valhalla (amongst other things), the Bhagavad-Gita (and anything relating to the Kshatriya in general), and Islamic Greater and Lesser Jihad (a concept borrowed from the Iranian religion of Zoroaster (also borrowed from Old Testament ideas, but the Jews first borrowed it from Zoroastrians for their hodge-podge religion) that was embraced most noticably during the Crusades). War wasn't just practiced or viewed favorably or as a duty; it was conceived of as a spiritual deed.

This is a weak line of argument because war has been in every culture and people, but..........

Now, if language can spread thusly, so too can culture and religion--and so too can genes. Interesting that all Indo-European populations are Caucasoids; even more interesting that the nobility in all IE populations exhibited xanthochroic traits...

All of those that speak Indo-European languages are neither culturally nor racially the same as well as not genetically the same.

jcs

11-13-2005, 05:49 PM

You can find similar parallels in African religions to these "gods", but there is no proof that all of these religions were spread or descended from one proto-IndoEuropean people
Actually, there is proof. I cite a few sources. And no african religions are as similar with any IE religion as all IE religions are to one another, both in the roles these divine figures play and in the linguistic similarities between the names of gods.

This is a weak line of argument because war has been in every culture and people, but..........
As mentioned, the role of war was unique in IE cultures. Can you read?

All of those that speak Indo-European languages are neither culturally nor racially the same as well as not genetically the same.
They are culturally the same, and there is a lot of evidence for this (again, I mention a few sources to look into; there are many, many more).
Also, you might want to look into anthropology, because from India to the western parts of Europe, people are Caucasoids, and the linguistically and culturally Indo-European peoples do differ from the non-IE Caucasoids. Compare, for example, Persian and Arabian or Semitic (...though Arabs are quite semitic themselves) populations. Cavalli-Sforza's works, despite the obvious smokescreen, show interesting similarities and point to a common origin for IE peoples, too.

jcs

11-13-2005, 05:53 PM

This may be of interest:
http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no3/jvd-europeans.html

Could a mod perhaps split the Indo-European discussion from the rest of the thread?

Hakluyt

11-13-2005, 06:09 PM

split -

Charles_Rigaud

11-13-2005, 07:49 PM

Actually, there is proof. I cite a few sources. And no african religions are as similar with any IE religion as all IE religions are to one another, both in the roles these divine figures play and in the linguistic similarities between the names of gods.

As mentioned, the role of war was unique in IE cultures. Can you read?

They are culturally the same, and there is a lot of evidence for this (again, I mention a few sources to look into; there are many, many more).
Also, you might want to look into anthropology, because from India to the western parts of Europe, people are Caucasoids, and the linguistically and culturally Indo-European peoples do differ from the non-IE Caucasoids. Compare, for example, Persian and Arabian or Semitic (...though Arabs are quite semitic themselves) populations. Cavalli-Sforza's works, despite the obvious smokescreen, show interesting similarities and point to a common origin for IE peoples, too.

No such thing as culturally IE, thats a smokescreen in itself. Not all Indians are Caucasoids and there was no "Aryan" invasion.

jcs

11-13-2005, 08:00 PM

No such thing as culturally IE
Yes there is, you idiot. I've cited some sources; do some research.

Not all Indians are Caucasoids and there was no "Aryan" invasion.
Southern India is home to Oceanic Negroid (Austrailoid) peoples, and many Indians are a mix of Caucasoid and Oceanic Negroid types (we call them 'Dravidians'). Aside from the south, India is largely caucasoid (with a degree of miscegenated blood). The Caucasoids fall into two (three if you count hybrids) groups: the group which preceded the IE invasions (or 'migrations,' there was a foreign population that arrived regardless--and most respectable scholars believe in the invasion theory), the creators of Harrapan culture, the 'Dravidians'; and the Indo-Europeans. I'm, of course, refering to the Aryan (Indo-European) Indians when I use the word 'Indian' in a discussion about Indo-Europeans.

Jonathan

11-14-2005, 07:56 AM

Why do white people love identifying with Aryans?
That's a bit of a generalisation.

Jonathan

11-14-2005, 07:59 AM

The Retard

11-14-2005, 11:57 PM

OVERWATCH

11-15-2005, 12:25 AM

The linguistic connection is the only real connection between Europeans and Indians and its not even a very close one. Indus valley people were civilized and had a thriving civilization before anything in Europe. .

The pre-Aryan subcontinentals did extensively practise irrigation and agriculture prior to the Aryan invasion, but otherwise there wasn't anything extraordinary about them.

Fade the Butcher

11-15-2005, 02:57 AM

jcs

11-15-2005, 02:59 AM

In other news . . .

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives...patriotism.php

"Recent DNA studies of the ancient Hindu caste system has confirmed that upper castes are more genetically related to Europeans than are lower castes who are genetically more related to other south Asians. Although outlawed in 1960, the caste system continues to be the main feature of Indian society, with powerful political repercussions."
I was google-ing everything I could think of trying to re-find that article. It's all a bunch of white supremacist lies, though. :rolleyes:

The Retard

11-15-2005, 08:49 PM

I thought this guy claimed to be an anthropologist?

Uberberserker

11-19-2005, 09:26 AM

Why do white people love to play Rock N Roll? its very funny considering the fact that pentatonic scale, the backbone of blues & rock music, was developed in Eastern Asia..

Yeah but Guitars are from Spain.

I won't go into a massive diatribe about how Blues is actually from Celtic Folk music or that Gospel is from Scotish Hebraides... Basicly anything of any Value in the World was Created by Whites (many were also Pagan Overmen much like myself. )

Charles_Rigaud

11-19-2005, 11:36 AM

Yeah but Guitars are from Spain.

I won't go into a massive diatribe about how Blues is actually from Celtic Folk music or that Gospel is from Scotish Hebraides... Basicly anything of any Value in the World was Created by Whites (many were also Pagan Overmen much like myself. )

Nonsense, blues and gospel are black creations. Take your white supremacy and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Charles_Rigaud

11-19-2005, 11:44 AM

Why do white people love to play Rock N Roll? its very funny considering the fact that pentatonic scale, the backbone of blues & rock music, was developed in Eastern Asia. Another of example of whites trying to connect themselves with people they have nothing to do with.

My friend, blues and rock music were *NOT* created in Eastern Asia. There are *NO* East Asian blues singers and rock and roll is yet another African-American musical tradition that has been hijacked by other races without proper due being given to its black creators. Maybe one instrument was created in Eastern Asia, just like the banjo was created by black people.

The Retard

11-19-2005, 04:45 PM

My friend, blues and rock music were *NOT* created in Eastern Asia. There are *NO* East Asian blues singers and rock and roll is yet another African-American musical tradition that has been hijacked by other races without proper due being given to its black creators. Maybe one instrument was created in Eastern Asia, just like the banjo was created by black people.

Did I say blues and rock were Eastern Asian inventions? I said the scales were invented by Eastern Asians. The banjo was around during the Egyptians, and there is no proof it was ever invented by blacks.

The Retard

11-19-2005, 04:53 PM

Yeah but Guitars are from Spain.

I won't go into a massive diatribe about how Blues is actually from Celtic Folk music or that Gospel is from Scotish Hebraides... Basicly anything of any Value in the World was Created by Whites (many were also Pagan Overmen much like myself. )

I had always thought the guitar was brought into Spain by the Moors. I don't deny European folk influences in American music, but I'm sure Charles_Rigaud will because he's the opposite of you. :D

Keystone

11-19-2005, 06:11 PM

Why do white people love identifying with Aryans?
99% of us don't.

Sorry about the brevity. Unavoidable.

Charles_Rigaud

11-19-2005, 07:22 PM

Did I say blues and rock were Eastern Asian inventions? I said the scales were invented by Eastern Asians. The banjo was around during the Egyptians, and there is no proof it was ever invented by blacks.

The banjo was invented by black people and brought over to the New World:

"Universally acknowledged to be a descendent of instruments brought to America by African slaves, the banjo was primarily associated with that culture until approximately 1840. It was at this point in history that minstrelsy took the nation by storm, with white musicians dressing up in blackface and often oversized clothes, caricaturing black life and music. Minstrel shows usually had a banjo player (in addition to fiddle, tambourine and bones), whose approach to the instrument was usually to strum the strings with the nails of the right hand using a sharp downward motion, creating a somewhat wild, violent sound. This style of banjo playing was referred to as stroke style; and was similar to how slaves are believed to have been playing at the time."

http://www.classicbanjo.com/history.html

"The early origins of the instrument, now known as the banjo, are obscure. That its precursors came from Africa to America, probably by the West Indies, is by now well established. Yet, the multitude of African peoples, languages, and music make it very difficult to associate the banjo with any specific African protoype. From various historical references, however, it can be deduced that the banjar, or bangie, or banjer, or banza, or banjo was played in early 17th century America by Africans in slavery who constructed their instruments from gourds, wood, and tanned skins, using hemp or gut for strings. This prototype was eventually to lead to the evolution of the modern banjo in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Until 1800 the banjo remained essentially a black instrument, although at times there was considerable interaction between whites and blacks in enjoying music and dance—whites usually participating as observers. What brought the instrument to the attention of the nation, however, was a grotesque representation of black culture by white performers in minstrel shows."

http://www.standingstones.com/banjo.html

Ancient Egyptians were black people, at least in the south, Upper Egypt so saying it was in Egypt doesn't disqualify it from being invented by black people.

Keystone

11-19-2005, 07:36 PM

Until 1800 the banjo remained essentially a black instrument, although at times there was considerable interaction between whites and blacks in enjoying music and dance—whites usually participating as observers.
Great.

I'll just drive my banjo down to the grocery store. I thank goodness for my banjo every winter for heating my home. Every time I take a pee and flush my banjo, I marvel.

I'm starting to warm up to the Aryan thing now, which was the original subject of the thread.
Ancient Egyptians were black people, at least in the south, Upper Egypt so saying it was in Egypt doesn't disqualify it from being invented by black people.
Och.

Charles_Rigaud

11-19-2005, 07:41 PM

Great.

I'll just drive my banjo down to the grocery store. I thank goodness for my banjo every winter for heating my home. Every time I take a pee and flush my banjo, I marvel.

I'm starting to warm up to the Aryan thing now, which was the original subject of the thread.

Och.

No need to "och" about ancient Egyptians, I have the proof from peer-reviewed anthropological papers as well as from personal e-mail correspondence with anthropologists. Don't set yourself up for a strawman.

Charles_Rigaud

11-19-2005, 07:44 PM

The pre-Aryan subcontinentals did extensively practise irrigation and agriculture prior to the Aryan invasion, but otherwise there wasn't anything extraordinary about them.

Incorrect, those people had a full-fledged civilization in every aspect that preceded anything in Europe.

The Retard

11-19-2005, 07:48 PM

hi Charles,

The early origins of the instrument, now known as the banjo, are obscure.

Meaning there is no proof who made this insturment, for all we know it was imported from the Middle East as almost all string insturments were. Perhaps say Africans perfected it sound? Now that is something I can agree on.

Ancient Egyptians were black people, at least in the south, Upper Egypt so saying it was in Egypt doesn't disqualify it from being invented by black people.

Afrocentric bullshit, next you'll tell me how Beethoven was a black man?

Charles_Rigaud

11-19-2005, 07:49 PM

In other news . . .

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/11/genes_contribute_to_patriotism.php

"Recent DNA studies of the ancient Hindu caste system has confirmed that upper castes are more genetically related to Europeans than are lower castes who are genetically more related to other south Asians. Although outlawed in 1960, the caste system continues to be the main feature of Indian society, with powerful political repercussions."

This is how crackpots from Amren and other racialist sites misinterpret data from peer-reviewed studies. West Eurasian ancestry is found both in Upper and Lower castes in India but more so in the Upper castes, but what these crackpots don't say is that the West Eurasian lineages found in India are older and have much more deeper branches than those found in Europe. Why don't people ever read the full text of these "Recent DNA studies" instead of misleadingly taking out selected quotes?

Charles_Rigaud

11-19-2005, 07:53 PM

hi Charles,

Meaning there is no proof who made this insturment, for all we know it was imported from the Middle East as almost all string insturments were. Perhaps say Africans perfected it sound? Now that is something I can agree on.

It wasn't imported from the Middle east, stop throwing garbage scenarios out there, it is well established that it came to America from Africa, *END OF STORY*.

Afrocentric bullshit, next you'll tell me how Beethoven was a black man?

Apparently you're very hard of hearing, do you know what peer-review is? It isn't Afrocentric bs to say that Upper egyptians were black and I've converesed with anthropologists who actually wrote some studies on this subject, so please quit with the ad-hominem "Afrocentric BS" comments.

Charles_Rigaud

11-19-2005, 07:59 PM

The Retard

11-19-2005, 08:01 PM

It wasn't imported from the Middle east, stop throwing garbage scenarios out there, it is well established that it came to America from Africa, *END OF STORY*.

Northern Africa had tons of (different)people crossing through her borders. There is no substantial proof that black people invented the banjo, and I doubt anyone could ever prove that it was.

Apparently you're very hard of hearing, do you know what peer-review is? It isn't Afrocentric bs to say that Upper egyptians were black and I've converesed with anthropologists who actually wrote some studies on this subject, so please quit with the ad-hominem "Afrocentric BS" comments.

Your evidence is all hearsay. It remains Afrocentric BS.

Charles_Rigaud

11-19-2005, 08:07 PM

Northern Africa had tons of (different)people crossing through her borders. There is no substantial proof that black people invented the banjo, and I doubt anyone could ever prove that it was.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? I just posted tons of links that blacks indeed invented the banjo, its just that cannot trace it to any one prototype thats the ancestor of all banjos. Who came into North Africa has nothing to do with anything here, thats a red herring

Your evidence is all hearsay. It remains Afrocentric BS.

You have yet to see the peer-reviewed evidence I have in store. As your namesake suggests you are what you are.

Keystone

11-19-2005, 08:28 PM

No need to "och" about ancient Egyptians, I have the proof from peer-reviewed anthropological papers as well as from personal e-mail correspondence with anthropologists. Don't set yourself up for a strawman.
There were black, white and brown folk pictured on walls and some busts of "black" looking aristocrats. This proves the ancestors of today's American Negros and black Africans built Egyptian civilization? Maybe, maybe not.

Any road, you should be worried about the alarming nose-dive blacks have taken since then. The would-be rulers of Egypt act like savages for the most part here in America.

Charles_Rigaud

11-19-2005, 08:41 PM

There were black, white and brown folk pictured on walls and some busts of "black" looking aristocrats. This proves the ancestors of today's American Negros and black Africans built Egyptian civilization? Maybe, maybe not.

Any road, you should be worried about the alarming nose-dive blacks have taken since then. The would-be rulers of Egypt act like savages for the most part here in America.

This post is non-sequitir. my point is that ancient Egyptians, most notably Upper Egyptians, were black people. The rest of your post is utter nonsense and babbling.

Keystone

11-19-2005, 08:58 PM

This post is non-sequitir. my point is that ancient Egyptians, most notably Upper Egyptians, were black people. The rest of your post is utter nonsense and babbling.
Charlie, your post is so far from your original point of the thread that you miss the reason why some white folk identify with "Aryan".

Practically no one gives two shits about blacks supposedly posing for portraits 3000 years ago. The question is, why have they regressed so far as to be a bane to civilized society, especially in the US?

Charles_Rigaud

11-19-2005, 09:01 PM

Charlie, your post is so far from your original point of the thread that you miss the reason why some white folk identify with "Aryan".

Practically no one gives two shits about blacks supposedly posing for portraits 3000 years ago. The question is, why have they regressed so far as to be a bane to civilized society, especially in the US?

Black people haven't regressed. Spare me the white nationalist, Eurocentric mantra for viewing civilization.

Keystone

11-19-2005, 09:24 PM

Black people haven't regressed. Spare me the white nationalist, Eurocentric mantra for viewing civilization.
I'm not a white nationalist.

If blacks created Egyptian culture, they sure have regressed. Why are they utterly hopeless when not supervised? Where are the remnants of the sub-saharan black empires? Where are the ruins of their Roman roads, their Greek ampitheaters, their Gothic cathedrals? We can connect all these to non-Negroid peoples easily, without a doubt.

It's totally possible for black folk to assimilate into Western culture, if they wish. In the end it's not about color, it's about common sense. There have been many "black" people who have joined civilization.

The Retard

11-20-2005, 01:01 AM

"EARLY STAGES
Banjos belong to a family of instruments that is very old. Drums with strings stretched over them can be traced throughout the Far East, the Middle East and Africa, almost from the beginning. They can be played like the banjo, bowed, or plucked like a harp, depending on their development. These instruments were spread, in "modern" times, to Europe through the Arab conquest of Spain, and the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans. The banjo, as we can begin to recognize it, was made by African slaves, based on instruments that were indigenous to their parts of Africa. These early "banjos" were spread to the colonies of those countries engaged in the slave trade. Scholars have found that many of these instruments have names that are related to the modern word "banjo", such as "banjar", "banjil", "banza", "bangoe", "bangie", "banshaw"

http://www.trussel.com/bti/banjhist.htm

I have a question concerning the African origins of the banjo. My question - if the historian sole purpose is to trace back the banjo to one particular insturment, how do you suppose the African people got the idea for the insturment? The region where this insturment was found happened to be a highly multicultural one. Is it not possible they worked off an existing insturment? an existing idea? The historians always seem to miss that question. The link provided does make any attempt to support their data. The banjo was an amalgamation of various insturments from various cultures. Further scientific proof is needed for me to budge from my position on this issue. For one, I read a few articles on the subject, and even the most recent historians have not come to a conclusion on the issue. That alone makes me hesitant to take some random link as fact. In my opinion, the origin of the banjo is completely ambiguous.

The banjo, as we can begin to recognize it, was made by African slaves, based on instruments that were indigenous to their parts of Africa.

What a misleading quote. Do we recognize the banjo without frets? James Ashborn actually equipped the banjo with frets. Again, it goes back to my amalgamation of cultures.

Uberberserker

11-20-2005, 05:20 AM

Black people haven't regressed.

They have always been so crime prone?

The Color of Crime (http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/10/the_color_of_cr_1.php)

(I think you posted you dislike Amren so of course I will utilize it as a Source!)

How did Rufus manage to build those flying pyramids in-between camel theft, drawing graffiti in the sand and wildings in the Nile??

OVERWATCH

11-20-2005, 06:10 AM

Charles_Rigaud

11-20-2005, 07:06 AM

I'm not a white nationalist.

If blacks created Egyptian culture, they sure have regressed. Why are they utterly hopeless when not supervised? Where are the remnants of the sub-saharan black empires? Where are the ruins of their Roman roads, their Greek ampitheaters, their Gothic cathedrals? We can connect all these to non-Negroid peoples easily, without a doubt.

It's totally possible for black folk to assimilate into Western culture, if they wish. In the end it's not about color, it's about common sense. There have been many "black" people who have joined civilization.

Once again black people have not regressed and there are plenty of ruins throughout that attest to their achievements and they are *NOT* connected easily to non-Negroid peoples, please lose the "non-Africans are responsible for anything good found in Africa" paradigm as most of that nonsense has been refuted and discredited. Don't fuse white nationalist dogma into your posts, they make you lose all credibility, try posting something peer-reviewed.

Charles_Rigaud

11-20-2005, 07:11 AM

I have a question concerning the African origins of the banjo. My question - if the historian sole purpose is to trace back the banjo to one particular insturment, how do you suppose the African people got the idea for the insturment? The region where this insturment was found happened to be a highly multicultural one. Is it not possible they worked off an existing insturment? an existing idea? The historians always seem to miss that question. The link provided does make any attempt to support their data. The banjo was an amalgamation of various insturments from various cultures. Further scientific proof is needed for me to budge from my position on this issue. For one, I read a few articles on the subject, and even the most recent historians have not come to a conclusion on the issue. That alone makes me hesitant to take some random link as fact. In my opinion, the origin of the banjo is completely ambiguous.

If you wish to remain in denial thats your problem, one thing is certain, Africans brought the banjo to America and the instrument continues to be made in Africa by Africans and you have presented *ZERO* to suggest that it was imported to Africans by non-Africans. Circular arguments and trolling is not my thing so if you wish to stay in denial then so be it, but I know what the evidence states. Since you have read very little about its history who are you to attempt to shed doubt on what was written? I can post tons of links on this matter and they will still say the same, that the banjo was and is an African instrument brought to America by Africans.

Charles_Rigaud

11-20-2005, 07:14 AM

They have always been so crime prone?

The Color of Crime (http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/10/the_color_of_cr_1.php)

(I think you posted you dislike Amren so of course I will utilize it as a Source!)

How did Rufus manage to build those flying pyramids in-between camel theft, drawing graffiti in the sand and wildings in the Nile??

Your people have always been violence prone and a bunch of heathen warmongers, just take one look at Europe's history of wars and genocide and imperialism. 73% crime committed by blacks is nonviolent crime and whites have nearly the same percentage of nonviolent crime so who is really more prone to violence than who? Keep posting white nationalist, biased information from crackpots like amren, it doesn't help your position at all.

Charles_Rigaud

11-20-2005, 07:18 AM

Q. Why do 'black'* people love identifying with ancient Egyptians?

A. So that they may bask in the borrowed glory of a people they had little or no relation to, and have only learned of by way of the literature brought to them by others. Otherwise, they would continue to exist in total, complete ignorance, much like their modern day,ultra-superstitious, backward west african cousins, and know naught of any Egypt, black, ancient, or otherwise.

*'black'=americans of primarily west african descent

This is an ad-hominem and red herring post. Nothing changes the fact that the ancient Egyptians, most notably the Upper Egyptians were black people. Nobody was claiming them. By the same token, people of Northwest European descent like white Americans, Germans and British have no right calling themselves Aryans and claiming anything in Greece. But I'm not going to buy into Eurocentric thinking and argue over who has the right to lay claim to anything because none of use was born nor lived when any of these peoples in antiquity were craeting civilizations, but i will add that the white man every since colonialism has been masturbating himself to countless Eurocentric orgasms but claiming other peoples civilizations.

Vindex

11-20-2005, 11:25 AM

Keystone

11-20-2005, 11:38 AM

Charles_Rigaud

11-20-2005, 01:11 PM

Niggers are just worthless, they are even so pathetic they need jews and white liberals to create a history for them. And wiggers to come online pretending to be shines and debate the merits of there non-history and attempt to bring them a notch above worthless niggers.

Translation:

I have no evidence to refute anything Charles Rigaud has said so now I will resort to insults, white nationalist garbage that nobody takes serious and trolling. I am incapable of an objective, clean debate with a black man who's obviously more learned than me so now I will flame bait him.

Petr

11-20-2005, 01:50 PM

I also think Rigaud is just pretending to be Black. He's overdoing it.

Petr

Charles_Rigaud

11-20-2005, 02:26 PM

I also think Rigaud is just pretending to be Black. He's overdoing it.

Petr

Sorry, but I am black, no pretending here, from the Deep South in Mississippi.

OVERWATCH

11-20-2005, 03:42 PM

This is an ad-hominem and red herring post..

False, I didn't insult you personally, so don't whine 'ad hominem'. Instead, I insulted the tendency for some people to steal the accomplishments of others.

Nor is it a red herring, because it is the other side of the (mis) identification coin.

Nothing changes the fact that the ancient Egyptians, most notably the Upper Egyptians were black people.

That is false, they were a mixed people with very little relation to west africans.

=Charles_RigaudNobody was claiming them. By the same token, people of Northwest European descent like white Americans, Germans and British have no right calling themselves Aryans

True, they shouldn't call themselves 'Aryans' because true Aryans haven't existed for thousands of years.

and claiming anything in Greece.

Unlike the nonexistent connection between west Africa and ancient Egypt, Greek culture has greatly influenced the development of civilisation in the rest of Europe; furthermore, the peoples of Europe have much more in common biologically than the peoples of Africa.

But I'm not going to buy into Eurocentric thinking and argue over who has the right to lay claim to anything because none of use was born nor lived when any of these peoples in antiquity were craeting civilizations,

Then why claim that ancient Egypt was 'black', which is as biologically useless and abstract a term as 'white'?

but i will add that the white man every since colonialism has been masturbating himself to countless Eurocentric orgasms but claiming other peoples civilizations.

It's just as stupid to claim 'ancient Egypt was white' as 'ancient Egypt was black'.

Charles_Rigaud

11-20-2005, 06:26 PM

That is false, they were a mixed people with very little relation to west africans.

False, Upper Egyptians were black people more so akin to East Africans who are also black people. In the predynastic Upper egypt was populated by Saharans who are also the ancestors of West Africans, during the drying up of the Sahara. At any rate, not being close to West Africans doesn't make one non-black. West Africans are *NOT* a proxy for "true black" since there is no such thing as a true black.

True, they shouldn't call themselves 'Aryans' because true Aryans haven't existed for thousands of years.

They have no relationship to Aryans, but hey, now I'm falling into the Eurocentric paradigm of "who has the right to claim what" again. Thats immaterial.

Unlike the nonexistent connection between west Africa and ancient Egypt,

Again this is immaterial because to be black one does *NOT* have to be west African and no one has stated ancient egyptians were the same as West Africans so thats a strawman.

Then why claim that ancient Egypt was 'black', which is as biologically useless and abstract a term as 'white'?

I never "claimed" anything, I simply stated ancient Egyptians, most notably UPPER EGYPTIANS, were black people. Stating Upper egyptians were black is not claiming them as the same as west Africans, this is another strawman.

It's just as stupid to claim 'ancient Egypt was white' as 'ancient Egypt was black'.

Ancient Egyptians, especially the Upper Egyptians were more akin to East Africans who are black, so they are black people. Its not stupid. a greater case can be made for a black and or non-white Egyptian than for a white one.

jcs

11-20-2005, 06:39 PM

the ancient Egyptians, most notably the Upper Egyptians were black people
proof?

(blah blah blah)

OVERWATCH

11-20-2005, 07:14 PM

False, Upper Egyptians were black people more so akin to East Africans who are also black people. In the predynastic Upper egypt was populated by Saharans who are also the ancestors of West Africans, during the drying up of the Sahara. At any rate, not being close to West Africans doesn't make one non-black. West Africans are *NOT* a proxy for "true black" since there is no such thing as a true black.
[...]
Again this is immaterial because to be black one does *NOT* have to be west African and no one has stated ancient egyptians were the same as West Africans so thats a strawman.
[...]
I never "claimed" anything, I simply stated ancient Egyptians, most notably UPPER EGYPTIANS, were black people. Stating Upper egyptians were black is not claiming them as the same as west Africans, this is another strawman.
[...]
Ancient Egyptians, especially the Upper Egyptians were more akin to East Africans who are black, so they are black people. Its not stupid. a greater case can be made for a black and or non-white Egyptian than for a white one.

What does it matter if they are "black"? That doesn't show any relationship on it's own.Neither 'equatorial' nor 'black' is a valid taxon nor is it of any social value except in the rhetoric of afrocentrists and black nationalists, which latches onto one of the most easily mutable characteristics, pigmentation, in attempt to create some global 'black' or 'equatorial' social construct.

The use of one single, arbitrarily determined, highly mutable characteristic, to determine 'race' or supposed 'relationship', especially one which changes as quickly as skin colour, is worth next to nothing.

East Africans are a mixed people, partly caucasoid and and partly negroid, unlike west Africans which are virtually 'pure' negroid.

Dr. No

11-20-2005, 07:24 PM

Apparently you're very hard of hearing, do you know what peer-review is? It isn't Afrocentric bs to say that Upper egyptians were black and I've converesed with anthropologists who actually wrote some studies on this subject, so please quit with the ad-hominem "Afrocentric BS" comments.

Three general observations:

1. Peer-review has its problems.
2. Not all anthropologists agree.
3. I'd be suspicious of anything on which all the experts agree.

Charles_Rigaud

11-20-2005, 07:33 PM

What does it matter if they are "black"? That doesn't show any relationship on it's own.Neither 'equatorial' nor 'black' is a valid taxon nor is it of any social value except in the rhetoric of afrocentrists and black nationalists, which latches onto one of the most easily mutable characteristics, pigmentation, in attempt to create some global 'black' or 'equatorial' social construct.

The use of one single, arbitrarily determined, highly mutable characteristic, to determine 'race' or supposed 'relationship', especially one which changes as quickly as skin colour, is worth next to nothing.

East Africans are a mixed people, partly caucasoid and and partly negroid, unlike west Africans which are virtually 'pure' negroid.

East Africans with the exception of the Amhara in Ethiopia are not mixed, matter of fact they are no more mixed than west Africans, who are *NOT* virtually pure anything. The east African phenotype[Somalis, Oromos, Maasai] is an Elongated one, thus they are called Elongated Africans, and their features do not represent a fusion of Caucasoids and Negroids, thats outdated anthropology.

Charles_Rigaud

11-20-2005, 07:41 PM

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48 (1990)

"Badari (8) occupies a position closest to the Teita, Gaboon, Nubian, and Nagada series by centroid values and territorial maps. The Nagada and
Kerma series are so similar that they are barely distinguishable in the territorial
maps; they subsume the first dynasty series from Abydos."

Uberberserker

11-21-2005, 09:29 AM

Your people have always been violence prone and a bunch of heathen warmongers, just take one look at Europe's history of wars and genocide and imperialism.

Heathen Warmonger?

Thanks for the compliment!

Excerpt from Vargsmal by Varg Vikernes:

I feel cheated when I'm born in a time of peace, when the world all the time tries to create a universal peace. I have no lust to live in peace, it
fights against my nature, and I have lust to fight and die in war, to kill and to be killed on the battlefield! This is something I dream of, and I
know that there are many other men and boys who think like me, so I am not alone about these dreams.

Many talk about that they shall let there be a New World war. They don't look at understanding humanity's requirements. I should have given whatever to be able to die in battle since I was little I have thought that it's better to live five minutes in war than a whole lifetime without! Something that makes me shimmer is the hope of war, the hope that I once shall die in war! When the cold war was over, there was something that extinguished in me, the hope of war got a dramatic crack.

For each day that passes I lose a little of that hope, a day without war, a day without real meaning. A day without battle is a day without life. To
live in battle is to live; to live in peace is to degenerate!

Our parents have destroyed all the possibilities for us to die as men; we are restrained by them and their coward system as cowards in the bed (the
deathbed).

The suicide statistics have never been higher than they are now, and it rises steadily, in war there are so to speak none that commit suicide, for
the war gives life a meaning for all! It is the hope of the morning, which makes life worth living, as life goes on. The day there is war, all will
hope about fighting for peace, then life will have a meaning for all! When there is not any likelihood of war it's difficult to hope, and equally
difficult to live.

Charles_Rigaud

11-26-2005, 01:19 PM

Heathen Warmonger?

Thanks for the compliment!

Tapdancing again I see.

Banat

11-27-2005, 05:28 PM

Your people have always been violence prone and a bunch of heathen warmongers, just take one look at Europe's history of wars and genocide and imperialism.

Pointless generalization. And what were the "blacks" of Africa doing at the same time? Been even more violent towards each other, committing even more dreadful genocides, even eating people :eek:. And what have they been doing ever since they organized into states and nations?

East Africans with the exception of the Amhara in Ethiopia are not mixed, matter of fact they are no more mixed than west Africans, who are *NOT* virtually pure anything. The east African phenotype[Somalis, Oromos, Maasai] is an Elongated one, thus they are called Elongated Africans, and their features do not represent a fusion of Caucasoids and Negroids, thats outdated anthropology.

It is also interesting how Ethiopians and Somalis reject their connection with other Africans, whom they consider 'black'. Especially the Somali, who consider themselves as kins to Arabs. One also mustn't forget the public reaction in Somalia after "Black Hawk Down" was released, pointed to the choice of the actors who played them, and who didn't have the physical appearance of Somalis.

Charles_Rigaud

11-27-2005, 07:14 PM

Pointless generalization. And what were the "blacks" of Africa doing at the same time? Been even more violent towards each other, committing even more dreadful genocides, even eating people :eek:. And what have they been doing ever since they organized into states and nations?

The point isn't about what black Africans were doing when EUropeans were killing each other, the point is that history contradicts the notion that Europeans are somehow less prone to violence than Africans.

It is also interesting how Ethiopians and Somalis reject their connection with other Africans, whom they consider 'black'. Especially the Somali, who consider themselves as kins to Arabs.

LOL, what nonsense, Somalis and Ethiopians do *NOT* consider themselves as more akin to Arabs, this is a blatant lie. I post in another forum where there are tons of Somalis and they would laugh if they heard this, the same for Ethiopians and they do consider themselves black. Other Africans don't consider themselves akin anyone else except their respected *ETHNIC* groups, ie, Fulanis identify as Fulanis, Hausas as Hausas, Yorubas as Yorubas, Somalis identify as Somalis and clans, you know nothing about Africans, lol. None of that changes the fact that East Africans with the exception of the Amhara, are not heavily mixed.

One also mustn't forget the public reaction in Somalia after "Black Hawk Down" was released, pointed to the choice of the actors who played them, and who didn't have the physical appearance of Somalis.

I agree with the Somalis on this, I wouldn't want a Yoruba or Ethiopian to portray a Somali if I was Somali, so this point is inconsequential to the discussion.