Culture, Race & Economy
Enjoy, Join or Start the Conversation
Anthropologists Claim Ancient Semites Were Black (Negro) People
By Tazarah
August 11, 2020 in Culture, Race & Economy
Pioneer1
LocationMichigan
if race exists, can you tell me why there is no genetic test for race?
I'll wait....
You don't have to wait TOO long...lol...because there ARE genetic tests for race, and anthropologists use them frequently.
Chinese History: The White Tribes of Ancient China - Owlcation - Education
Pioneer1 42 posts
Troy 36 posts
Chevdove 20 posts
Tazarah 7 posts
Chevdove
@Pioneer1 No. I was too busy with being a new mother. I've never been a serious TV addict, so there are probably more popular shows that I did not see especially during the 90s. BTW, I've
Sorry buddy, the relationship has nothing to do with the roots of the words. Any relationship between "Negro" and "Necro" is purely of your own making. That is like saying (in my Oswald Ba
Tazarah
Henry Field (December 15, 1902 – January 4, 1986) was an American anthropologist and archaeologist. On page 154 of his book "Fieldmuseum of Natural History" (1939), Field states:"Physical anthropologi
@Pioneer1 moving forward I'm not going to read any more of the articles that you link to. The reason is that every single time I invest in reading your articles one of two things happen; either the article actually refutes the point you're making, or it doesn't support it at all.
Now this article does not support a genetic test for race. Perhaps I missed it. If so, would you be kind enough to copy and paste the paragraph that shows proof of a test to determine one's race.
On 2/17/2021 at 1:11 AM, Troy said:
On 2/2/2021 at 2:34 PM, Chevdove said:
Governments that are functional cannot simply ignore classification.
Sure they can. It was done for the majority of time that governments have existed.
@Troy I don't understand you. I don't understand what you mean in that governments have existed without classification of humans based on a scientific process, albeit, the terminologies that have been used may be relative though, but can you explain more what you mean?
@Chevdove , @Pioneer1 if race exists, can you tell me why there is no genetic test for race?
you know that I don't like to use the term 'race' but this is the term used in these modern times even on federally approved applications in just about every regard!
You have to check whether you are categorized (ie classified) as Black/Afro-American, White/European-American, Hispanic, etc.
These terms are relative to our government but may differ in other countries and governments across the world.
@Troy The genetic basis for how human beings are classified is varied but it is a reality due to how human beings have interacted over the course of thousands of years.
On 2/1/2021 at 11:53 PM, Troy said:
The title of the post, "Anthropologists Claim Ancient Semites Were Black (Negro) People." In my circle, that is common knowledge and I have not challenged the premise of this thread.
@Troy This thread actually addresses a topic and contention between @Pioneer1 and me, from what I remember, anyway, about Egyptians vs Moses, the Hebrews, at the time of the Biblical Exodus. So you may regard the ancient Semites as being Black Negro people as I do believe too, but there are many others like Pioneer1 who have other beliefs.
On 2/6/2021 at 8:47 AM, Pioneer1 said:
The REALITY of race isn't a social construct, it's a concrete reality that can easily be seen and examined most of the time. The only social construct is the CLASSIFICATIONS that are often erroneous and change from time to time.
@Pioneer1 I agree somewhat. But I still believe that the word 'race' is very problematic and is based on these modern times and the deliberate confusion it was meant to bring about.
In other words...........
The fact that millions of people have dark brown skin with kinky hair and millions of others have yellow skin with straight black hair is a CONCRETE REALITY.
The differences between those two are NOT simply "social constructs" made up by society!
Well, part of the confusion here is that today, we are conditioned to view the two people you posted based on color as being primary, but Color should never be viewed in terms of any type of 'social construct'. Color should never be primary factor at all. There is a lot of science and genetics behind why Colorism is so wrong.
The differences between their races are as REAL as the differences between one being a man and the other being a woman.
No. Not at all. @Pioneer1 You don't think that there are certain type of Asian people like the girl you posted, but with African traits? I've seen Asian people that actually have nappy hair. And then, the man you posted has nappy hair, but then what about Black people in Australia? Some of them express very straight hair but have 'thick' traits just like the man you posted. Color is not a primary factor in determining how we as humans should be classified. This modern world has debauched everything in their social constructs of today. They have actually caused awful divisions within cultures based on this type of Colorism.
The term 'Race' is problematic, however, if scientist do not confront the government then, confusion will continue. These terms used in the past such as 'EGYPTIAN', 'NUBIAN', 'SHEM', need to be interpreted correctly in order to understand the past and how people today connect to the past. For example, the term 'SHEM' is actually not the same as 'SEMITIC' but there are scholarly resources that can bridge the gap and explain how these terms relate to each other! The ancient descendants of the Biblical Shem can be connected to the SEMITIC people of later times and can be understood with adequate resources.
The ancient EGYPTIANS are not the same today as they were in the past and there are so many other terms that can be interpreted correctly to understand how the Original Egyptians (ie ancient Egyptians) existed in the past, interacted with other kinds of people (ie KINDREDS), reproduced and formed other kinds of Egyptian cultures, etc.
There are many different kinds (ie. KINDREDS) of ancient Egyptians and then, there are also distinct kinds of ORIGINAL Egyptians! Both of these terms, 'ancient' and 'original' can defined distinct kinds of 'early Egyptian people' and early Egyptian cultures and these topics are all based on a solid understanding of the science of GENETICS. The original Egyptians are scientifically defined to have an origin from ONE MALE INDIVIDUAL of African origin. And the word 'African' today has a scientific definition (Original African) which includes an individual with WOOLY HAIR-TYPE, Black/Dark skin complexion, etc.
Did you read the paragraphs in the MIDDLE of the article that said:
"Eventually in 1993, they were allowed back with a team of geneticists from Italy. And this is when they began to study them properly. They used the most up to date technology of the time to confirm the date of the mummies. They now believe that they are about 4,000 years old, and the youngest about 2,000. There are probably many more to be found, possibly in the same region of China, but it is also possible they could have settled anywhere in China, as long as the conditions were suitable to live in.
These people were from the Bronze age, they were Caucasian, and it is possible that they interacted with the indigenous people at that time. The local people probably taught them their traditions, and the Caucasians most likely introduced them to their way of life as well."
You asked "why there were no genetic tests for race" and I just showed you where geneticists actually CONFIRMED the race of some ancient mummies over 4000 years old and called them Caucasian!
I agree somewhat. But I still believe that the word 'race' is very problematic and is based on these modern times and the deliberate confusion it was meant to bring about.
Race is only a problem if you are confused as to it's proper definition.
Most people confuse race with ethnicity with nationality.
It's their CONFUSION that's problematic, not the word "race" itself.
I take a milder stance.
Color should be a factor in determining race, it just shouldn't be the ONLY factor.
And then, the man you posted has nappy hair, but then what about Black people in Australia?
You're calling them both "Black" but Africans and Australians Aboriginees are not of the same race.
YOU are now confusing race with "color"....lol.
How is your father doing, btw...
13 hours ago, Chevdove said:
I don't understand you. I don't understand what you mean
OK, think of it this way; when did governments start tracking people by race?
43 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:
I just showed you where geneticists actually CONFIRMED the race of some ancient mummies over 4000 years old and called them Caucasian!
NOOO! You inferring things that were not written. Do you actually know what the genetics referenced in the article did?
Again, THERE IS NO GENETIC TEST FOR RACE, other than the one that determines you are human a member of the human race.
Try reading this: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/ for some additional insight.
RACIAL CLASSIFICATION is a social construct, so ofcourse you won't be able to run tests to tell if a person from 4000 years ago called themselves "Black" or "White" or "Asian" anymore than you can test the genes to determine if a person is Catholic or Hindu.
What can be seen in the gene code are the likely PHENOTYPES of the subjects being tested such as their skin color, hair texture, eye color, ect....and from THAT you can make presumptions about what race they would be classified as.
If you run tests on a mummy and find out it's eyes were green, hair was red, the bones were weak and brittle....you will determine that the person is probably a Caucasian.
2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:
...anymore than you can test the genes to determine if a person is Catholic or Hindu.
Brilliant, I will used that one.
You did not read (or comprehend) the article I shared. If you had, you would not have made that statement. But even if we were to pursue the flawed statement Malcolm X had read hair was he "probably a Caucasian" too?
Have you ever taken a DNA test, like the ones offered by Ancestry and the like. Have you ever wondered why, with all the information they provide, they never say anything about anyone's race?
You did not read (or comprehend) the article I shared. If you had, you would not have made that statement.
I read it.
It actually does more to support MY position than it does to support yours, lol.
For example, it says:
Research indicates that the concept of "five races" does, to an extent, describe the way human populations are distributed among the continents—but the lines between races are much more blurred than ancestry testing companies would have us believe
Stating that the line BETWEEN THE RACES are much more blurred clearly implies multiple races.
Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call "races" have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races
Variation within the RACES...again, implies that there are multiple race.
Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other
And again, the author clearly states there are mutliple races by saying their is much ambiguity BETWEEN THE RACES.
She doesn't deny the existence of multiple races, she merely defines those races DIFFERENTLY than I have.
But she still supports the idea that there are multiple races, however we may define them.
The only statement in this article that even comes close to supporting your position is:
In the biological and social sciences, the consensus is clear: race is a social construct, not a biological attribute.
It didn't say race didn't exist, nor did it say that there was ONLY ONE race. It merely said that race was a social construct.
And even this only supports PART of your position but not the meat of it.
But even if we were to pursue the flawed statement Malcolm X had read hair was he "probably a Caucasian" too?
Did Malcolm X have green eyes and brittle bones?
Those were the other two factors along with red hair that I said may suggest a person was Caucasian.
You're cherry picking parts of the statement to make it SOUND ridiculous rather than trying to understand it in context.
I haven't taken one and don't plan to.
I'm not going to send my DNA off to people I don't know.
On 2/20/2021 at 3:07 PM, Pioneer1 said:
Here again, Pioneer, you have quoted a sentence that refutes your belief about race, but you have somehow managed to contort it to mean something completely contradictory. You really can't see it can you?
Do you have any idea, for example, why the word race is bounded by quotes?
@Delano here is evidence that "reading" requires active mental engagement.
7 hours ago, Troy said:
@Delano here is evidence that "reading" requires active mental engagement
Sometimes you are lucky to get passive mental engagement.
Here again, Pioneer, you have quoted a sentence that refuses your belief about race, but you have somehow managed to contort it to mean something completely contradictory. You really can't see it can you?
I should ask YOU the same question, lol.
My belief is that there are MULTIPLE RACES and the fact that the article you provided confirms this by constantly refering to "races"....in or out of quotes....and regardless as to how race is defined....supports that belief.
Do YOU sir, have any idea why it's bound by quotes SOME times but not at others?
The author of this article seems to have an issue more with HOW race is defined rather than it's very existence.
She says clearly that race is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT....therefor it exists.
If something is CONSTRUCTED then it has to exist.
She also clearly mentions RACES in the plural....multiple constructs.
.....but they DO exist.
Constructs are ways of understanding the world.
The construct of race should be abandoned because it is destructive and equality and fairness should be applied.
No, not at all. People make up stuff all the time. That does not mean what they make up exists. If you simply thought about it for a few minutes, rather than digging in you heals, you could easily think of many examples.
People make up stuff all the time. That does not mean what they make up exists.
She...like you...said that race IS a social construct.
The word "is" declares that something EXISTS because it "is".
For example...
You IS wrong. Meaning, your erroneous position on this subject DOES exists, lol.
With all due respect, that statement REEKS of fanciful naivety.
I'd hang it up on the wall right next to: "We should all hold hands and live as one; as we sing Kumbaya together".
"We should all hold hands and live as one; as we sing Kumbaya
yeah, why not?
Racism is bad business.
Ask any Prostitute being a racist is bad for business.
White people were safe going to Harlem to buy drugs. I think one of the Kennedy's overdosed in Harlem in the 70's
This book helps explain why racism is bad for everyone.
You're asking the wrong person.
You should be asking the racists and Caucasian Dominists (White Supremacist) who hate and oppress people of color around the planet.
THEY are the ones who need to hear what you and Del are saying, not other AfroAmericans.
That's the point of my response to Del.
Exactly who was he talking to, me or other Black people????
I KNOW anti-Black racism should be abolished....why is he preaching to the choir?
It's not me or any other AfroAmerican who actively oppresses people of other races so WE aren't the ones you should request a meeting with to sit down and figure out why we can't "all get along".
It being bad for "everyone" can be argued.
White Supremacists see racism is very profitable for themselves...regardless as to it's devastating effects on others.
"Racism is bad for business?????
Speak for yourself!"
Ever heard of Slavery?
It was fueled by racism...and it thrived for HUNDREDS of years.
Ever heard of the Prison Industrial Complex?
It's largely fueled by racism....it's thriving.
On 2/27/2021 at 7:58 AM, Pioneer1 said:
@Pioneer1 YOU were the one who asked the question.
Did you ever watch the film Judas and the Black Messiah? If So you would see that the protagonist Fred Hampton was murdered by the FBI primarily because he was a leader who recognized that poor whites, Hispanics, black people all were fighting the same injustices. You also recognized the MLK and Malcolm X were killed for the same reasons recognizing the fact that Hatred of white people is Simply because they are white makes no sense and the we are all victims I need to work together to fight the injustices that are crippling us all.
Slavery and The prison industrial complex are fueled by greed. Slavery pre-dated The concept of racism. In fact I'm sure most slaves who ever lived were white. The whole system of feudalism was founded on slavery it's not taught that way but that's what it was.
Nope...haven't seen it yet but I intend to soon because too many people are telling me how good it is.
A drive-in is a good idea but I don't have one in my area, I gotta look for one.
Malcolm X didn't talk of uniting with Caucasians.
He specifically and wisely said THEY CAN HELP....BUT THEY CAN'T JOIN.
In other words...if you want to give money or help by teaching your own fellow Caucasians to stop being so racist then that help is welcomed.
But he didn't invite them to pal around marching and organizing together.
MLK did want to join with them initially....but started changing his mind right before his assassination.
This argument that "poor Whites" have the same gripes against injustice as AfroAmericans of EVERY economic is just wishful thinking day dream.
Most poor Whites don't want to unite with poor AfroAmericans or Latinos or have ANYTHING to do with them...which is why they'd rather live out in the woods or in trailer parks instead of in the projects or ghetto where the other poor people live.
This "alliance" with poor Whites is a FANTASY that a lot of our people have and it's caused by their unconditional LOVE for Caucasians and their desire to be friends and lovers with Caucasians.
When you LOVE somebody you make all kinds of excuses to hang around them and associate with them even if they don't want to be around you....except to harm you.
If you look at all of those red necks who stormed the Capitol a couple months ago most of them were poor and most of them didn't even have health care....but they weren't angry about the same things most AfroAmericans and Latinos were angry about. Most of them were adamant racists who wouldn't unite with AfroAmericans REGARDLESS of income levels!!!
They don't care about income....they were there to support TRUMP and be his foot soldiers.
Notice they didn't riot over getting only $600 instead of $2000!
They weren't angry over THAT....lol.
But Trump losing??? They were ready to tear up!
That shows you money DOESN'T MATTER to them as much as being Caucasian and staying in control.
The sooner AfroAmericans realize that most Caucasians OF ANY ECONOMIC STATUS don't really want to treat them as equals or live in harmony with them....the better off we'll be collectively because we'll stop wasting time seeking their approval and friendship and start trying harder to work with eachother.
Sure he did, don't fixate on the young Malcolm regurgitate the white devil stuff from the NOI. Think about what he was saying upon his return from his Haji, wehn he was speaking for himself Then you understand why he was killed.
Exactly -- which is why he was killed. Same with Fred.
Sure, racism is real, but is dying along with the ignoramuses who believe and practice it. If you can't see it getting better in this country as far as racism is concerned, there is nothing I can tell you to change your mind.
What is getting worse is wealth inequality. Again, this is fueled by greed and the way our system of capitalism works. Greed, and the winner take all mentality, is rewarded. This has always been counter productive and I'd argue against human nature. Racism is a byproduct, not the source.
But I agree @Pioneer1, the sooner we stop seeking the approval of, and financially supporting, our enemies the better off we we all be in the long term. As long as we, ourselves, are motivated by greed and self interest, the longer our people will suffer.
People like Malcolm, Martin, and Fred exist today, but they but they will never emerge as leaders because we simply do not have the platforms for them -- because we don't support them. They "serve" at the whim of our enemies. They can instantly be de-platformed -- not unlike the useful idiot "45" once his usefulness was exhausted.
The proxies for our so-called "leaders" are trying to attract followers on Twitter.
When was they last time a Black person posed a real threat to doing something really substantive for Black folks? This is why I knew Obama would never be assassinated. Kamala has nothing to worry about either -- even when she takes over for Biden.
He was killed for many different reasons, some known and some unknown.
However I'm not confusing the Malcolm of the NOI with the Malik Shabazz after his last Hajj. I know he had a change in philosophy and social outlook.
However the question is did he believe in making an alliance with Caucasians or trying to unite with them in some way after that change...and the answer is emphatically NO.
He made it clear that they could HELP his organizations...not JOIN them.
No, no, no....you're conflating the two.
MLK was killed for different reasons like Malik...some known and some unknown.
But Dr. King was killed AFTER he started re-assessing his integrationist approach...not before or while he entertained it.
As long as Dr. King was preaching this "we're all brothers and sisters and let's all live together" philosophy...he was fine.
It's when he started worrying about integrating his people into a "burning house" and began questioning whether or not AfroAmericans should mix in with Caucasians is when he was assasinated!
I'm one individual so my observations are limited.
So perhaps thing ARE getting better, but not in the places I've observed.
What evidence do you have that race relations are getting "better" in this nation?
And before you answer, make sure not to confuse things getting better for YOU with things getting better in general.
1. Wealth inequality isn't NECESSARILY a bad thing.
It depends on WHY the wealth is unequally distributed.
2. I wouldn't say racism is a "byproduct" of wealth inequality.
I would say there are 2 separate issues that often overlap eachother like alcoholism and spousal abuse.
Perhaps the question you should be asking is...after Fred Hampton....when was the last time a Black person actually TRIED to?
The idea of a "Talented Tenth" and that entire mentality may hold an answer to your question.
This society is good for rewarding AfroAmerican INDIVIDUALS even when it oppresses AfroAmericans as a community.
While the racists who control this society may not help AfroAmericans collectively, they are great at rewarding a handful of HAND-PICKED AfroAmericans who do their bidding.
A lot of smart and talented AfroAmericans today aren't concerned with what is good for the community collectively but only concerned with their own INDIVIDUAL success...so unlike Dr. King or Brother Malik Shabazz or Brother Hampton..they aren't even trying to do something of substance for Black folks as a whole.
You tell me. Would you like to go back to 1821, or 1921?
. Wealth inequality isn't NECESSARILY a bad thing.
That is an interesting statement I can't think of a scenario in the United States in which the historic levels of wealth any quality can be justify or construed into being something good.
I guess you have to think more deeply about the subject.
Martin, Malcolm, and Fred all worked within grassroots organizations. I seriously doubt they would've had any impact in 2021 in an era where we consume news and information from the likes of Twitter.
Today we let our social media feeds tell us what to think and how to feel. That is not hyperbolic; this is today's reality. This has divided even more and exacerbated our differences.
There are People doing real work in their communities however it is increasingly difficult to gain a meaningful following. These people don't have time to post bullshit on Instagram. Even if they did who's the say that the little white boys who run the social media platforms will allow their messages to be seen. Someone like Fred Hampton would be working in relative obscurity today.
Not sure about 1821, but 1921....why not?
AfroAmericans collectively were doing MUCH BETTER in 1921 than they were 99 years later in 2020.
We had our own land, could build our own houses, and had our own businesses and hospitals. Our families were also more intact and there was less confusion among us.
You're thinking in broad NATIONAL terms, while I'm speaking in INDIVIDUAL terms.
I have more wealth than most of the homeless people I pass by on the street.
I don't have a drinking problem nor do I use drugs and I save my money and spend it wisely.
The wealth inequality that exists between me and MANY homeless people can be explained by my more responsible spending and social habits, not some sort of injustice
Would you prefer someone take half of YOUR wealth and give it to a homeless drug addict in order to eliminate "inequality" between you two?
This has divided even more and exacerbated our differences.
If you mean it's divided the AfroAmerican community even more...I agree.
But if you mean it's divided Caucasians and AfroAmericans even more..I disagree, because Caucasians were never aligned with you to begin with even if they ACTED more like they were. Perhaps social media just EXPOSED the already existing divisions, but it didn't exacerbate it. Caucasians are no further away from desiring to get along with you than they were before the advent of social media...lol.
There are People doing real work in their communities however it is increasingly difficult to gain a meaningful following. These people don't have time to post bullshit on Instagram.
I know you're right because I'm one.
Or atleast I was one before the Pandemic of 2020 shut much of the society down. I didn't rely on social media to do my work in the community, I did it the old fashioned way by hitting the shelters and street corners.
On 3/3/2021 at 10:46 AM, Pioneer1 said:
You are "not sure" about 1821, are you kidding me?! You'll do anything not to consider point.
So you were telling me you would rather live in 1921 the United States? A country that just got out of World War I, about to enter the depression, where polio and shit like that was rampant. we just got out of the flu pandemic. Negroes were getting lynched every other week. A time that pre-dated all technology when most lives were short and hard. 1921 was the year of the Tulsa Race Massacre. There were people still alive who bore the scars of massa's whip...
... and you wanna go back?
Again, we can't have a serious conversation if you won't be serious. So again, is there any doubt in your mind that 2021, despite all its problems, is a better time for a Black person to be living in the United States that 1821?
I wasn't around back then to observe the environment so that I could make an educated comparison.
Were you?
So you were telling me you would rather live in 1921 the United States?
Again, I wasn't around back then to observe it and make a proper comparison.
You talk about Negroes getting lynched every other week, but did you think about the Negroes getting SHOT ever other HOUR around this nation not only by racist Caucasians but by eachother in 2020?
And that's been going on since the late 80s.
It's hard to believe Black people were getting murdered more in 1921 or even 1821 than in 2020.
Obviously not, but I read about it?
So you are telling me, with a straight face, that you know so little about what life was like in America, for a Black man, in 1821 that you cannot decide which period you would like to live in? Seriously?!
Are you familiar with the term intellectual dishonesty?
No, I wasn't familiar with it until you just posted it.
So simply READING about something qualifies you to make snap judgements as to whether or not you'd like to spend the rest of your life there?
Lol....hey man, I got some brochures I wanna mail you if you're in the mood to buy some property!
I'm not sure why it's so hard for you to understand the importance of making an EDUCATED decision.
It's not as if 2020 was SOOOOO phenomenally better than 100 or even 200 years ago.
Did homicides stop in 2020?
Did diseases stop in 2020?
Was there no more poverty in 2020?
Were there not MILLIONS of Black people locked behind bars in 2020?
OK let me know when you comb through the data and decide if you rather live here in 1821 or 2021.
Mere "data" between those two time periods shouldn't be enough for one to base an INTELLIGENT decision on.
You'd have to have some experience living in both societies at the time or atleast observe both times extensively to get an accurate assessment of both in order to make that decision.
Why are you focused on "1821" all of a sudden?
At first you offered TWO choices...1821 and 1921.
Then you started drilling on 1821.
Honestly I thought you might simply admit that You would prefer to live in 2021 than 1821, for all the obvious reasons. But you are unwilling to concede any point. If you're going to be intellectually dishonest there is no point in even debating. Right?
I mean if you won't acknowledge the obvious, you go to all kind of Machinations to change the meaning of words. We can't have a intelligent conversation, can we?
I mean you won't admit that you prefer to live in 2021 but you can't give a reason for it other than to say you don't have enough information. I gave you a laundry list of reasons why life was worse in 1921 and you tell me you can't make an intelligent decision...
Try this: give me a decision based upon all the information you have — as imperfect as it is. People make decisions in this fashion all the time; indeed, most decisions are made this way.
Chose 2021 or 1821.
give me a decision based upon all the information you have — as imperfect as it is.
Ok, based on the information I have RIGHT NOW....I've chosen.
But before I give you my choice, I asked earlier can you explain to me why you've decided to remove the "1921" option to focus on 1821?
You started off with giving me 3 options:
But then took 1921 away for some reason.
I'm curious as to why.
Dude I did not take the option away?!
Pick any of the three years that you would like to live in.
I chose 2021 and the choice is easy based upon all the available information I have consumed.
I choose *2021 with an asterisk next to it....lol.
LOL! Man, an unqualified reversal of your statement would be too much huh?
Pray tell, what is the darn asterisk for? You know damn is someone could you butt back to 1921 or 1821 you would be fighting like hell.
Do you think you would last more than 5 minutes in 1921? No TV, no Internet, no protection from STD's, no legal alcohol, no rights that white man was required to respect.
No TV, no Internet, no protection from STD's, no legal alcohol, no rights that white man was required to respect.
But atleast I'd have Black Wallstreet and THESE brothers to do business with, up until June of that year.
Where's our Black Wallstreet today?
When was the last time you saw a half dozen wealthy Black men together in one place at one time?
On 2/18/2021 at 4:51 PM, Troy said:
Again, the word 'Race' is problematic, so I do not know how to respond to your question in a technical sense.
No way @Troy I read the article that you referenced and it speaks to what I have mentioned "groups" of people based on a scientific basis. The word you use "Race" is not the correct term. That word, I agree is based on today's modern world social constructs. However, ancient people were categorized in ancient civilizations based on "ancestry" and etc.
On 2/28/2021 at 11:32 PM, Troy said:
In fact I'm sure most slaves who ever lived were white. T
@Pioneer1 Good points.
On 3/6/2021 at 10:47 AM, Troy said:
With the COVID Deaths, prison systems being heavily populated by Black people, the George Floyd types of murders going on, etc., I believe that it is impossible to equate both time periods. Today, Black people are being oppressed severely.
The oppression in those days were...in my opinion....more simple and straight forward, which means it was less confusing.
Sometimes you have to look at the RESULTS, not necessarily the method.
In other words, if MORE AfroAmerican men are dying in 2020 from Black-on-Black homicide than in 1820 from lynching...that still means thing were WORSE in 2020 than in 1820 for AfroAmerican men despite the methods used.
6 hours ago, Chevdove said:
With the COVID Deaths, prison systems being heavily populated by Black people, the George Floyd types of murders going on, etc., I believe that it is impossible to equate both time periods.
@Chevdove Pioneer Has already admitted he would rather be living right now than in 1821. So I ask you given everything that you have written and no would you rather live in 1821 or today?
Don't forget the asterisk!
So what is it then @Pioneer1?! Can you give an unqualified response to a simple question? Would you rather be living in, as Black man in America in 1821 or 1921? Choose!
I'm sure @Chevdove is capable of giving an honest response.
Are you saying MY response wasn't honest?
I almost forgot...you called me "intellectually dishonest" ((shakes head))
Well this choice is a little easier....although I still don't have all of the facts I need for a truly educated decision between those two times.
I'd say 1921.
Based on the information I have, I believe I'd have more liberty and success in that era.
Ever hear of the Tulsa Race Massacre?
The Tulsa Massacre...as terrible as it was....was done to ONE COMMUNITY among thousands of other thriving AfroAmericans communities that existed in America in 1921.
Where as back in 1821 almost ALL AfroAmericans were enslaved and enduring brutal oppression in one form or another. There may have been people getting killed equal to the Tulsa Massacre every week back in 1821 for all we know because they were treated as subhuman property.
Sorry, there was a typo in my question which explains your misunderstanding. originally I asked you if you would rather live in 2021 or in either 1821 or 1921.
At the end of the day you have admitted that you would rather live in 2021 than and either 1821 or 1921 — And for good reason! That is the only point I'm making.
On 3/13/2021 at 10:31 AM, Pioneer1 said:
if MORE AfroAmerican men are dying in 2020 from Black-on-Black homicide than in 1820 from lynching...that still means thing were WORSE in 2020 than in 1820 for AfroAmerican men despite the methods used.
Yeah!--That is painful--a painful reality in some sense, especially because we are still under a White dominant system! And, even though this may seem off topic, but this can be viewed from a much wider standpoint as well--even about what the news portrays in Africa as well. The Colonial Empire, imo, has a bearing on some of the conflicts over there too--TRADE RELATIONS, unfair trade, etc.
Pioneer Has already admitted he would rather be living right now than in 1821. So I ask you given everything that you have written and no would you rather live in 1821 or today?
@Troy Right away, when I think about 1821, I think about 1807 being the year that Chattel Slavery was outlawed in UK and America... my ancestor was brought over here in the 1840s via British Slave Ship. Then, I jump to now, and my mind immediately contemplates the many 'very young' Black males railroaded into a prison cell where they are raped by other men--no chance to choose to be males or homosexuals--I think about Black men being systematically effeminized and the reality that we, as AFrican American DOS existed in a Matriarchal system where the Queen of Europe has been the head of our government for hundreds and hundreds of years... I think about how the priesthood has been loathed for so long and now, we Black women run the show, and assist in this effeminization of the Black males because, some of us don't want to see our sons hurt and some of us 'have other reasons'...
So for me, well, I don't feel that I should have to be the one go be sacrificed or martyred that was already done and because the Civil Rights Movement achieved that already, but nevertheless, @Troy when I think about that question, My third and next thought(s) and question(s) in return would be, 'Is this living!?' What about choosing death as an option? Give me liberty or give me death. I would rather not live in 1821 nor 2021. I am not happy to exist in this humanity at all.
You will never see an apex animal like male lions having sex with another male lion, not even in captivity and humans are suppose to be higher!? The effeminization of Black African males is pre-meditated. That is what I think about going on now, in 2021. It is deliberate.
Oh yes. lol.
I am not happy to exist in this humanity at all.
il really sorry to read that.
However for the purposes of my thought experiment death is not a choice.
Who is doing the premeditation in this case?The effeminization of Black African males is pre-meditated.
Who is doing the premeditation in this case?
On 4/2/2021 at 7:40 AM, Troy said:
Definitely a concerted movement that goes back thousands of years. White Supremacist would be the origin of this movement however, this does not mean only beings who are White, though. This hatred against the priesthood goes way back in time.
l really sorry to read that.
Oh but @Troy this issue is not about being depressed though, it is about one's position on a reality and the reality is child exploitation in order to set up a government. If humans would recognize this evil movement, then we would be better today. Death does not have be a choice in this type of question, however, it is an alienable 'human' right. No one should allow children to be harmed and the reason why I am interpreting this 'survey' of either 1821, 1921 or 2021, is because I believe this issue is the key. This American government set up on the enslavement of children and black male children were specifically targeted. That is why today, the prison systems and the homosexual law goes hand-in-hand.