Post: #101

Narrowing everything down to Black and White is a retarded level of conversation. According to some people white skin has magical powers and having more melanin makes you dumber.

The fact is that the advancement of western civilisation was driven by the Greeks, then the Romans, then the western European countries post 1400s.

Most Eastern European "white" countries have contributed jack shit the last few hundred years (apart from hot women). It wasn't just "White" people, more certain kinds of white people that led the way in scientific progress. Do you think the world would end up advanced as it it is today if the most powerful countries in Europe over the last 300 years were the Romanians or Hungarians? A lot of Eastern Europeans still believed vampires and werewolves back then.

Btw Moors are not black. I've been to Morocco and the local Berbers and Arabs there are not black.

There was never a black Roman emperor but there was an African one and he wasn't black - Septimius Severus 145 - 211 AD

Quote:Born on 11 April 145 at Leptis Magna (in present-day Libya) as the son of Publius Septimius Geta and Fulvia Pia,Septimius Severus came from a wealthy and distinguished family of equestrian rank. He had Italian Roman ancestry on his mother's side and descended from Punic - and perhaps also Berber - forebears on his father's side.

Doesn't look very black to me.

Post: #102

(10-22-2017 05:19 PM)Agastya Wrote:  I think most people's beef with it is the idea that blacks are naturally stupider and less capable of building civilization that whites. It's an argument that may hold true in a massively broad sense over billions of individuals, but it also has serious flaws because it ignores a lot of things. Environmental factors are a big reason why Africa didn't develop civilizations on quite the level of India, Europe, East Asia, or the Middle East. And a general lack of study/ignorance explains why the legitimate civilizations that Africa did have just aren't well known in the west.

The average Joe doesn't know shit about ancient Ethiopia or the Mali empire, which were, at the time, some of the richest and most powerful civilizations on earth. They also don't know that some Egyptian pharoahs were black (Kushite dynasty) or the black Kushite kingdom in Sudan built pyramids and fought the Assyrians and Romans. They also don't recognize the fact that many of the Islamic Moors who conquered Spain in Europe's Dark Ages were black -- these people built marvels like the Alhambra and the city of Granada. People just see the current state of Africa and imagine that it was always some war-torn shithole, which is historically incorrect.

I think it's legitimate to call this guy out because he's repeating a stereotype that is A) factually wrong and B) an attack on the heritage of billions of people.

Oh, absolutely. I definitely think they're right to call him out.

But I don't think it's legitimate to make irrelevant complaints like "why does everyone just pick on blacks all the time - what about [insert random race]" when he was badmouthing blacks because he was referring to a very specific issue.

Why would he attack other races when he's talking about a black/white issue?

That doesn't even make sense. It's like saying - well, if you're going to make offensive comments about this race (regarding a very specific race-related issue), we need a laundry list of all the other races you have offensive opinions about too and your comments about them. Like I said, he may very well have a problem with other races too, but that's not the topic of his discussion, so he didn't address it in that particular letter.

And to be honest, I do think other races, including the white race, get "picked on" all the time. Everyone is racist and in general most cultures are out there badmouthing each other all the time - just dig around and you can find the dirt being said about any race if that's what you're looking for. Just each for their own specific reasons and stereotypes, but again, beside the point.

The only reason people are having that reaction is because they're hearing the media say "here's a negative attack on black people," rather than "here's Faber's negative opinion about black people regarding the issue about Civil War statues."

I agree with you that it's very legitimate to get offended by and address his remarks. It was a pretty hostile way to make his case. But the manner in which some people are framing their reactions to it doesn't seem helpful either. If he's wrong, call that out rather than saying "why is everyone attacking black culture all the time."

Personally, I love to read the intelligent retorts from posters who know more about black history than I do and come out with guns blazing to say why Faber's assertion is wrong. What I don't find helpful is a discussion that brings any other race that's can be attacked into it just for the sake of making everyone feel better.

It seems emotional and irrelevant - emotions are understandable when someone attacks your entire race but would be more constructive if directed better.

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #103

^^ Agreed with WalterBlack. The thing a lot of people miss is that the western conception of race doesn't apply to large parts of the world. Indians, Persians, Arabs, Central Asians, North Africans, Southern Europeans, and Latinos all exhibit a massive range of phenotypes and have genetic influences from every corner of the planet.

The Spanish and Portuguese are probably genetically closer to the Moroccans and Algerians than they are to Russians. Similarly, plenty of Indian Punjabis are closer to Persians and Arabs than they are to South Indians. There are massive sections of the world that are heavily genetically mixed, which makes sense given their central location relative to other parts of the world.

All this shit about "a black emperor destroying Rome" is just pseudo science horse shit, and we all know it.

Regarding the Moors, I'm not sure how far south you travelled in Morocco. The Moorish dynasties that conquered Spain and built the Alhambra actually didn't come from places like Marrakesh or Fes in northern Morocco. They came from southern Morocco near the Sahara. I've been there and many of the people there clearly have sub-Saharan ancestry. The rulers of these dynasties probably had that phenotype and many of the soldiers in their armies were undoubtedly black.

I'm not black, but I'm offended by how bad this guy's argument is. Not only is he making a factually incorrect attack on African history, but he's also comparing the destruction of Buddha statues by radical Islamists with Confederate statues being torn down. I don't even agree with taking down the statues, but I still think it's a huge false equivalence to equate the two. Instead of using his money and influence to actually better the world he blew his load in an autismal rant that completely ignores history and feeds the altright tard elements of the internet.

Post: #104

Elagabalus was described by Gibbon as black if I'm recalling correctly. He was a transgendered man who "married" another dude, and he's usually described as the emperor who destroyed Rome.

You all know that white and black is used as an identifier of two broad racial/geographic groups, and that it's not about skin color.

North Africa only attained any significance at all, only after Arab/Roman influence, and the culture was nothing compared to that of Europe, China, Japan, or Maya.

WalterBlack, North Asians had advanced civilizations, and have higher IQ's then western/northern Europeans. East Europeans contributed less, but still a fair amount to science, technology, and literature. The periodic table, the helicopter, first man in space, the ball-point pen, vitamin C, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, holography, etc, were all from Eastern Europe. In fact, the inventive Hungarians are in 16th place for Nobel Prizes. If you take EE on its own, they invented and discovered more than all blacks combined in world history, and the same could be said for Latino's, Japanese, and Jews.

Post: #105

Laska, how could Elagabalus be black when his bust and coinage clearly show him to be "white"? And no, he certainly was not trans. He was a dude who came to power at an age too early for his own and Rome's good. Its no different from that carefree and spoilt Thai dude who was literally born to be king and who presently is. Its human nature that if we come into power and wealth too quick, we'll fuck up. Race has jack shit to do with it.

Post: #106

And whats that about the inferiority of African culture to every other culture at that time? What makes a culture superior? Can you prove that those metrics were largely absent from African culture? Economic and scientific prosperity is determined by 1. Rule of law. 2. Free markets. 3. Presence of positive economic incentives.

Post: #107

(10-23-2017 11:50 AM)El Padrone Wrote:  Laska, how could Elagabalus be black when his bust and coinage clearly show him to be "white"? And no, he certainly was not trans. He was a dude who came to power at an age too early for his own and Rome's good. Its no different from that carefree and spoilt Thai dude who was literally born to be king and who presently is. Its human nature that if we come into power and wealth too quick, we'll fuck up. Race has jack shit to do with it.

He "affected to copy the dress and manners of the female sex." So he was probably trans. I used his governance as an example. If race has nothing to do with government, then name me two somewhat well-governed black countries. Of Asia, Singapore and Hong Kong are both extremely well governed. In Europe, there's Switzerland and Luxembourg. Name me a black African country with one tenth the GDP per capita of the United States.

Race and human nature, for one reason or another, are tied. How many Asians do you know that act like black people, or vice-versa?

Post: #108

(10-23-2017 12:13 PM)El Padrone Wrote:  And whats that about the inferiority of African culture to every other culture at that time? What makes a culture superior? Can you prove that those metrics were largely absent from African culture? Economic and scientific prosperity is determined by 1. Rule of law. 2. Free markets. 3. Presence of positive economic incentives.

I've never heard of an African Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Plato, or Mozart, and with all the leftists in academia, if such people existed, I would've heard about it.

As for economics, you're short of all the major factors, for example, there's the proximity of good trading partners (Mexico is better off because it borders America). Mises Human Action is a good book to read. Don't bother with Keynes General Theory, it didn't seem so bad to me, but there wasn't much substance in all of that intentionally obscure technical language.

Post: #109

(10-23-2017 11:25 AM)Laska Wrote:  Elagabalus was described by Gibbon as black if I'm recalling correctly. He was a transgendered man who "married" another dude, and he's usually described as the emperor who destroyed Rome.

Elagabalus was Syrian and just a sexual deviant in general. He definitely was not the only factor in Rome's demise, he probably wasn't even a big one. Vastly more degenerate emperors like Nero caused significantly worse damage and the empire still continued on.

What really killed the Roman empire was its breakup into the western and eastern halves, and the reliance of the west on barbarian Germanic levies. Many of these levies rebelled against the Romans and wreaked huge devastation in western Europe. The Goths, Vandals, Saxons, and Franks were all of Germanic or Scandinavian origin. These were the distant ancestors of the modern Germans, British, and French, and would have likely been considered white in today's society.

So, if we want to look at history from the alt right tard point of view, the Roman empire was actually completely ruined by white people. And not just any white people, but the forebears of places like Germany and France -- the countries from which most white Americans derive significant origin.

The states formed by the Goths and Vandals were also extremely weak and left Europe open to Muslim invasion. The Moors occupied the Iberian peninsula for almost five hundred years after easily destroying the Visigoths who ruled it. This process was accelerated by the Byzantine empire's conquest of North Africa and Italy -- its conflicts with the Vandals and Lombards who ruled these places left both regions depopulated and weak. Basically, internal fighting between indigenous Europeans plunged it into a dark age, destroyed the glories of Classical Rome, and left large parts of Europe open to Islamic raiding.

(10-23-2017 11:25 AM)Laska Wrote:  North Africa only attained any significance at all, only after Arab/Roman influence, and the culture was nothing compared to that of Europe, China, Japan, or Maya.

Yeah, like ancient Egypt. That wasn't significant at all.

Or the Carthaginians.

Or the ancient Numidians.

North Africa was actually one of the world's biggest centers of learning in the medieval age. A lot of monumental gates and towers were built by the Almohad dynasty in Morocco. Moroccans occupied Spain for centuries and built wonders like the Alhambra. The Qairouan University in Fes, Morocco is the oldest university in the world.

(10-23-2017 11:25 AM)Laska Wrote:  WalterBlack, North Asians had advanced civilizations, and have higher IQ's then western/northern Europeans. East Europeans contributed less, but still a fair amount to science, technology, and literature. The periodic table, the helicopter, first man in space, the ball-point pen, vitamin C, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, holography, etc, were all from Eastern Europe. In fact, the inventive Hungarians are in 16th place for Nobel Prizes. If you take EE on its own, they invented and discovered more than all blacks combined in world history, and the same could be said for Latino's, Japanese, and Jews.

Are you saying that Eastern Europeans invented more than Latinos, Japanese, and Jews? I'm a little confused by this argument.

Post: #110

^^Your sophistry has much of YouTube in it. Ancient Egypt was geographically in North Africa, but was not a black country, and you knew what I meant. Same thing with Carthage. The Numidians were Berber, of Mediterranean extraction, where did you think the name came from? Did you read any books where that King was featured? Like the one written by Plutarch, which speaks of the Numidians? Bulfinch also talked about the Numidians,that was a pretty good book too, though not nearly as good as Parallel Lives.

I'm saying that EE's, Latinos, Japanese, and Jews, each invented and discovered more than Blacks.

Post: #111

(10-23-2017 01:33 PM)Laska Wrote:  ^^Your sophistry has much of YouTube in it. Ancient Egypt was geographically in North Africa, but was not a black country, and you knew what I meant. Same thing with Carthage. The Numidians were Berber, of Mediterranean extraction, where did you think the name came from? Did you read any books where that King was featured? Like the one written by Plutarch, which speaks of the Numidians? Bulfinch also talked about the Numidians,that was a pretty good book too, though not nearly as good as Parallel Lives.

I'm saying that EE's, Latinos, Japanese, and Jews, each invented and discovered more than Blacks.

You do realize that "Latinos" aren't a race or specific ethnic group, right? The label "Latino" can also apply to blacks. I've always found it to be extremely nonsensical to refer to Latinos or Hispanics in any race discussions. The label itself really tells you nothing of substance.

Post: #112

(10-23-2017 01:33 PM)Laska Wrote:  ^^Your sophistry has much of YouTube in it. Ancient Egypt was geographically in North Africa, but was not a black country, and you knew what I meant. Same thing with Carthage. The Numidians were Berber, of Mediterranean extraction, where did you think the name came from? Did you read any books where that King was featured? Like the one written by Plutarch, which speaks of the Numidians? Bulfinch also talked about the Numidians,that was a pretty good book too, though not nearly as good as Parallel Lives.

I'm saying that EE's, Latinos, Japanese, and Jews, each invented and discovered more than Blacks.

I actually didn't know what you mean -- since you straight up said that North Africa owed its entire culture to Arab and Roman influence.

By the way, this is what the ancient Egyptians looked like:



Dark brown-skinned people at the very least with probably a decent amount of black African admixture. The ancient Egyptians had close ties with the Nubians and Ethiopians. They colonized Nubia around 1600 B.C and then were conquered by the black Kushite kingdom around 800 B.C.

The Kushites, for what it's worth, would undoubtedly be considered black today. They built things like this:



and this:

[


And conducted international trade in iron metalwork with India, China, and Rome.

By the way, "Berber" isn't a race. There are Berbers in the north of Morocco and Algeria who look like this:



and millions of Berbers from the Sahara who look like this:



Who very clearly had some black ancestry. Many of the later Moroccan dynasties came from areas where most people look like the guy above. It's not out of the realm of possibility that many of the Numidians also looked like this -- and even if they didn't, the Numidians were far from the apex of North African civilization.

Again, I won't disagree that, on a larger scale, sub-Saharan Africans have accomplished relatively less than other civilizations; but I will disagree that they produced absolutely nothing of value and that none of their civilizations were of their own creation.

The ancient Egyptians may not have been black in the modern sense, but they were very dark skinned Africans whose civilization came from indigenous roots. The same idea applies for the Ethiopians and the Nubians, though these two groups would absolutely be considered black in the modern day.

Post: #113

(10-20-2017 10:29 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 02:08 PM)Johnnyvee Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 01:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I think part of what people forget about this incident is that Faber was just putting in a throwaway comment in a much larger newsletter.

Most of his letters for the past 20 years or so have had lots of diversions, interesting discussions on history, art, and philosophy. For him to talk about the problems of the Black race as a whole is not anything out of the ordinary for him, he was just doing his usual thing of talking about one subject while having digressions about another subject.

I don't think his intentions were to stoke a race war. I think in his mind, he was merely stating the obvious about the whole take on racism in America thing. The fact things blew up like this probably came as a major surprise to him.

As for the Black race, the question no one asks is why Blacks are so far behind other races in terms of work output and achievement. Is it, as most White Nationalists claim, because Blacks were later to "evolve" from the apes as other races of humans did or that something halted Black evolution as Blacks and Whites separated 500K years ago, or, was it because some great tragedy befell the Blacks in Africa which seriously stunted their growth and development? Some kind of major natural disaster, or perhaps there was an advanced African civilization that destroyed itself so much they went back to the hunter-gatherer age?

We really have no idea. The problem with racists is that they assume automatic and eternal inferiority of the Black race, but they are just guessing. I'm not convinced with regular evolutionary explanations and I strongly suspect there is much more to the story that we are unaware of. Our knowledge of the past is just pathetic, and I don't trust it at all.

I think it`s fruitless to try an explain race differences in general, and the difference between blacks and Caucasians in particular by attributing any "lesser development" to a mistake or unfortunate event, whether natural or man-made, in the history of blacks.(or any other race.)

Remember that evolution/nature only cares about survival. Most African countries have a much higher fertility rate than European countries, and so they are the real winners the race for survival.
It`s not given that high IQ is the best environmental adaptation.
In fact it seems to be detrimental to survival in the present environment.

Climate and diet seems a likely explanation to IQ differences though.
Colder climate environments equals more planning ahead necessary, and also a high energy (cooked) meat/fat rich diet, as opposed to a more plant based diet possible at warmer longitudes. This again equals the possibility of a bigger brain. (Expensive tissue hypothesis)
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=s...7000100023

Birth rates don't matter. Death rates are what matter. Once Whites decline to the point that they become tribal and stop the gibs for Blacks, the Black death rates will easily exceed the birth rates they've had over the 20th century.

Natural selection is based on death rates, not birth rates. Controlling death is 1000x more powerful than controlling birth. It's why ultimately men rule over women. Women bring life into the world, but men bring death into the world. Thus they have the final say.

I agree with the first part. But what you`re talking about is extremely dramatic. For whites to go back to hunter-gatherer type tribalism we really have to be pushed to the brink. Probably all of western civilization would be destroyed before you reach the "hard-core" of people willing to do what is necessary to survive. But I actually believe that can be a potential scenario. When I said that blacks are the real winners in the race for survival I meant currently.
It`s hard to argue against that. They are in fact growing while we are shrinking. And for the moment it`s getting worse.

Also countries like India are growing fast.
Indias current growth rate is 2 percent=app. 26m more Indians
in one generation.(25y)
To put that into context, Estonia has a population of app. 1.3m and a fertility rate of app. 1.5. So in the next
25 years India will grow with equivalent of 20 Estonia`s.
And Estonia is shrinking!

I would say that natural selection is based on survival, so both death and birth rates matter.
And I also (and this was my main point) think you have to accept the possibility that high average intelligence
and what it brings can be detrimental to survival in the long run. Think about the profound changes brought about by technology like birth control, smartphones, comfortable office buildings that allow women to work etc.
All of these things will have to disappear before anything changes in my opinion.

Post: #114

(10-23-2017 01:20 PM)Agastya Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 11:25 AM)Laska Wrote:  Elagabalus was described by Gibbon as black if I'm recalling correctly. He was a transgendered man who "married" another dude, and he's usually described as the emperor who destroyed Rome.

Elagabalus was Syrian and just a sexual deviant in general. He definitely was not the only factor in Rome's demise, he probably wasn't even a big one. Vastly more degenerate emperors like Nero caused significantly worse damage and the empire still continued on.

What really killed the Roman empire was its breakup into the western and eastern halves, and the reliance of the west on barbarian Germanic levies. Many of these levies rebelled against the Romans and wreaked huge devastation in western Europe. The Goths, Vandals, Saxons, and Franks were all of Germanic or Scandinavian origin. These were the distant ancestors of the modern Germans, British, and French, and would have likely been considered white in today's society.

So, if we want to look at history from the alt right tard point of view, the Roman empire was actually completely ruined by white people. And not just any white people, but the forebears of places like Germany and France -- the countries from which most white Americans derive significant origin.

The states formed by the Goths and Vandals were also extremely weak and left Europe open to Muslim invasion. The Moors occupied the Iberian peninsula for almost five hundred years after easily destroying the Visigoths who ruled it. This process was accelerated by the Byzantine empire's conquest of North Africa and Italy -- its conflicts with the Vandals and Lombards who ruled these places left both regions depopulated and weak. Basically, internal fighting between indigenous Europeans plunged it into a dark age, destroyed the glories of Classical Rome, and left large parts of Europe open to Islamic raiding.

(10-23-2017 11:25 AM)Laska Wrote:  North Africa only attained any significance at all, only after Arab/Roman influence, and the culture was nothing compared to that of Europe, China, Japan, or Maya.

Yeah, like ancient Egypt. That wasn't significant at all.

Or the Carthaginians.

Or the ancient Numidians.

North Africa was actually one of the world's biggest centers of learning in the medieval age. A lot of monumental gates and towers were built by the Almohad dynasty in Morocco. Moroccans occupied Spain for centuries and built wonders like the Alhambra. The Qairouan University in Fes, Morocco is the oldest university in the world.

(10-23-2017 11:25 AM)Laska Wrote:  WalterBlack, North Asians had advanced civilizations, and have higher IQ's then western/northern Europeans. East Europeans contributed less, but still a fair amount to science, technology, and literature. The periodic table, the helicopter, first man in space, the ball-point pen, vitamin C, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, holography, etc, were all from Eastern Europe. In fact, the inventive Hungarians are in 16th place for Nobel Prizes. If you take EE on its own, they invented and discovered more than all blacks combined in world history, and the same could be said for Latino's, Japanese, and Jews.

Are you saying that Eastern Europeans invented more than Latinos, Japanese, and Jews? I'm a little confused by this argument.

For what it's worth I sense you have an ideological axe to grind. Nobody in their right mind would argue that Africans never achieved success here and there.

It's the relativity of that success that we can't dispute. Or are you going to keep listing off the thing here and the thing there in disagreement?

And why do you need to invoke "alt-right tards"? Nobody brought this into the discussion before you.

You know well that nobody here has taken an African Studies class or read into/watched African history in the way you have. So nobody can really argue with you.

Regardless, before the conversation devolves any further, we can remember that Faber's comments were as much about narrative than historical fact.

But you read the whole newsletter so you could understand the context in which his views were expressed, right?

There was nothing "autismal" about his comments.

Surely it's people like you and I who are the autists, posting anonymously on this forum.

Not a self-made multi-millionaire living the life that members here could only dream about.

And it's ironically got to be an autist who can't see as legitimate Faber's comparison of the liberal totalitarians tearing down statues to the islamic totalitarians doing the same.

It's like you're zoomed too much into the minutiae and you're missing the larger picture.

All in all I think it's great that Faber's comments spurred this discussion. I definitely know more now than I did a few days ago.

Post: #115

What constitutes achievement? There IS a primitivist anti-civ movement that looks at civilization as a negative rather than a positive. If you take that viewpoint, then cultures that remained more rustic are more virtuous. At the same time, some of these cultures practice barbarity that is so often glossed over in SJW talking points, like human sacrifice in ancient Aztec/Mayan society.

The one thing these discussions demonstrate is how damn tribal human behavior really is. Sure, we descended from the trees, built cities, and now stare into screens all day, but our brains are designed to split off into tribes. It's just now it tends to be more ideological than physical.

Post: #116

Agyasta, Egypt was multicultural, particularly in the latter stages.

In the beginning it was almost certainly white European:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...opean.html

In fact, there was 0% sub-saharan DNA in that mummy and he had more in common with a modern day scandinavian than a modern day egyptian.

Original berbers were European and were replaced by arabs.

Post: #117

Not sure why guys are going nuts over this stuff. A lot of this race stuff is cyclical. Who was powerful yesterday is often not the same group as yesterday and so on and so forth.

I mean, even as Westerners, it's hard to appreciate how "young" a lot of our concepts are. I'm from a nation that's like 200 years old. That's nothing in the face of world history.

Post: #118

(10-23-2017 10:40 PM)fenetre Wrote:  For what it's worth I sense you have an ideological axe to grind. Nobody in their right mind would argue that Africans never achieved success here and there.

That's exactly what Laska, the guy I was arguing with, was saying -- that Mali and Ethiopia were built by outsiders (patently false), that Elagabalus was black (horse shit), and that him being black was what destroyed the Roman empire (an even larger pile of horse shit).

I have an axe to grind with people who talk out of their asses about things they know nothing about.

I care about the truth, not ideology. The arguments this guy was making were incorrect and deserved to be called out.

Now if someone was saying that a group like Australian Aboriginals never created civilization, I wouldn't even be posting here -- because they didn't, in fact, create any civilization worth discussing. There are many groups of people that didn't build legitimate civilizations -- tribal people in Papua New Guinea, Amazonian Native Americans, the inhabitants of places like the Congo. But to say that "black people never really accomplished anything" is just factually not true.

It's a historical myth that deserves to be laid to rest.

(10-23-2017 10:40 PM)fenetre Wrote:  It's the relativity of that success that we can't dispute. Or are you going to keep listing off the thing here and the thing there in disagreement?

Well, there are differences in relativity...

There's the view that while sub-Saharan kingdoms never achieved the technological level of India, East Asia, the Middle East, or Europe, they were still respectable civilizations in their own right...

Or there's the view that black Africans just accomplished a token few things and never really amounted to anything on the historical scale...

For what it's worth, I think it's good for the self esteem of black people to know that many of them did come from actual civilizations, instead of coming from some howling wilderness...and that was the crux of my argument. A healthy respect for your own culture and history is necessary for a person's well being.

(10-23-2017 10:40 PM)fenetre Wrote:  And it's ironically got to be an autist who can't see as legitimate Faber's comparison of the liberal totalitarians tearing down statues to the islamic totalitarians doing the same.

This stood out to me as being a false equivalence more than anything.

The Confederate statues, slavery, and racism are part of our history. They should be acknowledged and preserved so we know what this country was built on. Again, the truth should be valued more than anything. I do think that the Confederate statues stand for values that we would currently find distasteful, but I think we need to understand that those values were integral to the founding of America.

The Buddha statues stand for a religion that largely espouses peace, tolerance, and mental health. It represents part of an ongoing Islamic attack on Hindu/Buddhist civilization.

The destruction of the Buddhas and the tearing down of Confederate statues are fundamentally different in my opinion. Liberal attacks on the statues remind me of Communists destroying artifacts of Chinese or Russian history -- things that may have stood for exploitative/oppressive class structures, but were still important pieces of history and identity.

The destruction of the Buddha reminds me of a 1400 year assault on Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and Christianity by Islam. The Taliban are worse than a bunch of spoiled liberal white kids who took their Ethnic Studies classes too seriously. I think comparing the two is stupid and shows a lack of perspective.

Post: #119

(10-24-2017 10:46 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Agyasta, Egypt was multicultural, particularly in the latter stages.

In the beginning it was almost certainly white European:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...opean.html

In fact, there was 0% sub-saharan DNA in that mummy and he had more in common with a modern day scandinavian than a modern day egyptian.

Original berbers were European and were replaced by arabs.

I think it's suspicious that people claim Egyptians were white, when they themselves depicted themselves as being anything but:



This image depicts four people. The guys on the left and second from the right I think are Levantine people from Syria -- makes sense how they are lighter skinned, and look like people from modern-day Syria and Lebanon.

Second from the left is obviously a black African from modern-day Sudan or Ethiopia.

Right most is an Egyptian. Relative to the others, he is a dark brown color, and clearly not white in the modern sense. He might certainly be Caucasian (in the way that Indians and Iranians have Caucasian features), but it's fallacious to claim that he has much in common with modern-day white people.

Most images of the Egyptians look exactly like that guy -- even the pharoahs from earlier dynasties.

Here's Ramesses the 2nd attacking some Nubians back in 1700 B.C:



You can do a google search yourself, no Egyptian murals or art depict themselves as being white.

Unless, of course, really light-skinned Syrians are present -- which makes it obvious that if Egyptians could depict other ethnicities accurately, they did so for themselves as well.

The blond mummy pictures are also from the Ptolemaid dynasty of Egypt -- they were descended from one of Alexander the Great's generals. Obviously plenty of them looked like white Europeans.

Realistically, the Egyptians were brown people who probably looked more or less the same as they do today.

And even if the Berbers were white (which I doubt you could prove), the really successful dynasties in North Africa were built by Arabs and Saharan Berbers.

Overall, the suggestion that "whites" or even non-blacks were responsible for all civilization in Africa (or in other parts of the world) is an idea that should be laid to rest.

As Fortis said, different groups are powerful at different times. Europeans were at their peak recently, but to claim that they were behind every successful civilization is disingenuous.

If it was, and if more members of the New Right/Alt right/alt lite/whatever the fuck educated themselves a little bit more on history, I guarantee you these movements would be even more successful. Plenty of minorities and whites that would otherwise agree with these movements get turned off by nonsense like this.

Post: #120

(10-24-2017 12:41 PM)Agastya Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 10:40 PM)fenetre Wrote:  For what it's worth I sense you have an ideological axe to grind. Nobody in their right mind would argue that Africans never achieved success here and there.

That's exactly what Laska, the guy I was arguing with, was saying -- that Mali and Ethiopia were built by outsiders (patently false), that Elagabalus was black (horse shit), and that him being black was what destroyed the Roman empire (an even larger pile of horse shit).

I have an axe to grind with people who talk out of their asses about things they know nothing about.

I care about the truth, not ideology. The arguments this guy was making were incorrect and deserved to be called out.

I got the information from a tiny slice of a vast six volume set of the most notable history book in human history (by Gibbon). It does in fact note that he is African (the fact that I took that as black turned out to be a false conclusion), and it also notes that he is generally considered the nail in the coffin of Rome, and that without him, Rome would've been functional and intact for a longer period of time. The only reason you now know about that emperor is because you used GOOGLE. I used a six volume set where I misread one factoid. Most of what I talked about I read about in BOOKS. If I'm talking out of my rear, what are you talking out of? Because of the sheer amount I read, I don't always recall things properly. That's how books work. You just "called out" me out for my ignorance, yet I've read over a thousand books (and I read slowly). What's your reading history like?

Edit: I didn't say that they didn't do any civilization building, but that the civilizations were either non-black, or came after outside influence. Modern technology in Africa came from outsiders, not from within. This is a more dramatic demonstration of this phenomenon.

Post: #121

Yes, Egypt was multi-ethnic and mixed population of proto-semittes, europeans and black africans. The founders though were most likely proto-Greek minoans.

https://www.nature.com/news/mummy-dna-un...ry-1.22069

Quote:Both types of genomic material showed that ancient Egyptians shared little DNA with modern sub-Saharan Africans. Instead, their closest relatives were people living during the Neolithic and Bronze ages in an area known as the Levant. Strikingly, the mummies were more closely related to ancient Europeans and Anatolians than to modern Egyptians.

I'll try to simplify this a bit.

When they say "Neolithic farmers in the Levant and Anatolia", they are talking about what used to be called the "Mediterranean race", the original Southern European race. The people of the Minoan culture on Crete:

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-civilizati...ience.html

Quote:An analysis of ancient DNA has revealed that Ancient Minoans and Mycenaens were genetically similar with both peoples descending from early Neolithic farmers.
They likely migrated from Anatolia to Greece and Crete thousands of years prior to the Bronze Age. Modern Greeks, in turn, are largely descendants of the Mycenaeans, the study found.

Judging from that skin color depicted, would we conclude the Minoans were brown?

Or is it artistic?



Here's another color:



Those were the original Egyptians most likely, their culture also overlaps.

What would they look like today?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4922144/

Quote:Instead, our mixing analysis shows that each Aegean Neolithic genome closely corresponds to modern Mediterraneans (>68% contributions from southern Europe) and in particular to Sardinians (>25%)

This actress is a Sardinian, Giorgia Palmas, look at her tanned (relevant to our interests):

Post: #122

^^Yes NomadBrah, that's why the root of Numidian is Numa: it's a Greek name.

By the way, Agastya. Both I and perhaps Marc Faber got some historical details wrong about something that's a side topic to us. That doesn't make us "alt-tards, autistic, ignorant," or any other insult you throw out. It's right to call someone out on their character, but not about historical facts, especially when we're going off the cuff.

Post: #123

Here's a famous berber, King Masinissa (about 200bc):

Post: #124

(10-24-2017 02:21 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Why, yes - as a matter of fact, I would. Thanks for asking.

Post: #125

(10-24-2017 02:06 PM)Laska Wrote:  I got the information from a tiny slice of a vast six volume set of the most notable history book in human history (by Gibbon). It does in fact note that he is African (the fact that I took that as black turned out to be a false conclusion), and it also notes that he is generally considered the nail in the coffin of Rome, and that without him, Rome would've been functional and intact for a longer period of time. The only reason you now know about that emperor is because you used GOOGLE. I used a six volume set where I misread one factoid. Most of what I talked about I read about in BOOKS. If I'm talking out of my rear, what are you talking out of? Because of the sheer amount I read, I don't always recall things properly. That's how books work. You just "called out" me out for my ignorance, yet I've read over a thousand books (and I read slowly). What's your reading history like?

Edit: I didn't say that they didn't do any civilization building, but that the civilizations were either non-black, or came after outside influence. Modern technology in Africa came from outsiders, not from within. This is a more dramatic demonstration of this phenomenon.

Dude, it's fine to be wrong about some things.

But you're using your poor knowledge of history to deny the accomplishments of entire civilizations...

And then you get ass hurt when you get called out on this.

I'm "talking out of" actually living in North Africa for several months. And, unlike you, reading quite extensively about African history.

I might disagree with what nomadbrah is saying, but at least he isn't taking this emotional of a stance towards the argument...and he's actually posting links and sources instead of repeating nonsense theories that were discredited decades ago.

You said that African civilizations came after only after outside evidence. This is bad logic because, if you think about it, every civilization was birthed through the influence of another:

British, French, German, and Spanish civilizations were all the indirect result of Roman colonization -- had the Romans never invaded these areas, these civilizations would never have existed.

The Romans themselves would never have existed were it not for the influence of the Greeks.

The Khmers in Cambodia would never have existed without the influence of Hindu civilization in India.

No world civilization would have existed without the Sumerians, ancient Chinese, and ancient Indians discovering irrigation, the wheel, and other such basic inventions -- and then spreading them across the Old World.

The influence of one civilization on another does not make that other civilization necessarily inferior or worthless.

On the topic of what black Africans discovered themselves:



These rock cut churches in Ethiopia were pioneered by the native people.

Same with West African architecture -- one hundred percent designed by the natives.



Along with sculpture like this in Nigeria:



Along with the hundreds of thousands of manuscripts in Timbuktu -- some of the mathematical theorems discovered there in the 16th century are being taught at the university level in the west.

I will freely admit that this record is not quite as impressive as that of Europe, Asia or the Middle East -- but these are nonetheless respectable achievements and credit should be given to black Africans for producing them.

Saying that "outsiders" were responsible for these accomplishments just comes off as being wildly uninformed (at best) and being too butthurt and emotionally driven to admit that black people can do anything properly (at worst).

If anyone wants more info or examples they are free to PM me.