World History And Anthropology: Response to Reader Criticism part 3 The Ancient Greeks were black, world history and anthropology ~~~~

Monday, 10 February 2014

Response to Reader Criticism part 3

Originally Posted by bosinsie View Post
Somehow in all this "scholarship" (which consists mostly of cherry picking and copy and pasting from revisionist websites), you fail to mention the about 2,000 year arab slave trade.
All the best qualified investigators agree that the evidence already obtained shows conclusively the Cusheeite or Ethiopian origin of Chaldea
Cherry picking?

Many of the modern blacks in the arab world are descendants of slaves. It would be as if a 1,000 years from now, people pointing to my black descendants and saying it was proof that black people are native to N. America, when in fact they like I were descendants of the slaves brought here by europeans.
Most of the modern non-blacks in the arab world are descendants of slaves. Maybe you were brought by europeans that is why you have such a slavish mentality, I was not. Maybe Dr. Ivan Van sertima is right and they came before Colombus. In fact virtually all white Europeans have slave ancestors because between the romans, slavs, greeks, russians and germanics and serfs in antiquity 1/3-1/2 of the europeans were slaves at any given point. The first black man in Canada was Mathieu da costa and he came before the white people, he was used as a translator by the "founding father of quebec" pierre de monts and samuel de champlain. You ignore the most rudimentary of evidence. If black people only came as slaves how where they fluent in Mik'maq and several native languages before the whites even ARRIVED in Quebec?

And I guess I was right, you think they chinese were black So one painting of from the Mongol Empire showing a couple of people who appear to be black, is proof that all chinese were black and brought civilization to china, despite all other evidence. Do you know anything about Kublai Khan and Ghenghis Khan? About how far the mongol invasions spread? Those people may be represented as african, and may have even been under their rule, but it does not mean they were ethnically chinese or that all chinese people were black. Royal art like political art is propaganda. Often times it was used to convey a message and not a literal depiction of what actually happened. The artist probably never saw a black person in his life. More than likely, it was designed to represent the far reaches of foreign lands touched by the empire.
The Chinese say the ancient chiene were african blacks who arrived 35,000 year before present. It is you who has problem with FACTS and EVIDENCE. I never claimed all the mongols were black, just look at the picture, is black the majority? No but they are significant and present. And Mongols are not Chinese. I already demonstrated the proof of black ancient chinese, you then in turn respond by making strawmen. Do you know what a strawman is, you should open a straw factory? Respond to the point. You cannot change my points to something I didn't say then "refute" the facts you invented and then claim it is proof I am wrong.

Where did I say all chinese were black?
What proof do you have that the artist never saw black people or was not black?
What PROOF do you have to support that these black mongolian men were not men. The description I saw in the museum in Taipei where I saw it said it represented the leaders of the different tribes in Mongolia, not places colonized or invaded or foreign lands, not foreigners but MOngols. After all where are the white mongols in this picture of foreign lands, did mongols not conquer half the white nations?
-See this is the problem with eurocentrism, it ignores facts and creates its own. If you find a white skin yellow headed mummy its proof of white chinese. But when you have peer reviewed dna studies from a dozen chinese showing africans came to china and a picture supporting it, well its just the way they are depicted, they weren't really black. 

-Your assumptions show a clear racial bias, they all stem from the bias blacks were not there. This is not objective but reflects racial prejudice. The question a reasonably unbiased person should ask is who was there and when, and what evidence supports it. We should not assume black were or were not there.

I swear these revisionists have no limits. Ok, well the europeans, arabs, chinese, american indians (I know you think they are black), africans (well that goes without saying) are all black. What about eskimos? Are they black too? Why not claim their culture while you're at it.
Yes you are a revisionist and you do have no limits.

I don't know if the ANCIENT eskimos are black, because unlike you I do not have racial biases clouding my view. I would say there is a possibility, I have not looked deep enough into it to have an INFORMED opinion. You argue from a place of emotion. I argue from a place of fact. You don't feel that black people could be in europe, or arabia, or china or the americas before alboids, turkoids, and mongoloids. Why? You haven't presented evidence because you have NONE. What you have is a black inferiority complex. Blacks in your mind are inferior to the other races. They could be in europe first because too much good things come from there, same for arabia. Couldn't have arrived to Americas first because it would show africans arrived before europeans. The media has no problem saying the chinese came before colombus on very scant evidence. It is clear you have an anti black agenda and your on a crusade, and everyone knows crusaders can't be converted because they are perverted.

You tell me are these white/mongol indians

I want to know how deluded you truly are?

No comments :

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.