you far right people and you far left people sound sooo much alike. for stupid racist bastards like "FBI Agent" to say the world has been controlled by Jews is almost as laughable as the far left's claims of the few "capitalists" who control the world. every significant far left and far right revolution that has occured has left the people who fought for it with a tyranny, for it takes a strong leader good at brainwashing people to succeed with preposterous ideas.

to the far right: you are mostly bitter racists (many in the closet racists) who cant come to grips with the scientific fact that there is only one real race, the human race. there are NO significant differences between the races. to say hitler supported freedom and shit like that is total garbage. hitler ruled with an evil iron fist. what to do: befreind a few minorities, let go of your grudges. the south LOST, get over it, and hitler LOST, get over it, and timothy mcveigh was DELUDED, get over it. if you still hold your views after that then get a log cabin somewhere by yourself and rant to your dog, he will listen.

to the far left: give it up on the paranoia! i respect you guys more than the far right, your hearts are in the right place, but geez i have heard you guys say the most ridiculous shit, like the president caused 9/11. enlighten yourself and get involved in some politics, be an intern for a candidate or something, and if after that you still hold your view, well, more power to you, but dont try a violent revolution, write a book or something.

quote:

---

you are mostly bitter racists (many in the closet racists) who cant come to grips with the scientific fact that there is only one real race, the human race. there are NO significant differences between the races.

---

oooh.. racist *yawn*. It is actually a scientific fact that there are different races, and that there are significant differences, especially in general IQ and health matters. I'm sure the black person who gets sickle cell anemia feels real comforted by your scientific "fact" that whites should be getting this disease too since racial differences "don't exist" (lie).

Now, if you are at all aware of the concept of evolution, should should find it hard to believe that different groups of people who had to survive in vastly different climates and environments all evolved in the same way, with the same strengths and weaknesses.

Using the "everyone is the same" concept, we'd have to believe that Nordic people who had to live in cold winters (thus had to be innovative to develop agriculture and animal domestication so they could have food surplus to survive those winters without starving, and the technology that goes along) evolved the same as people who survived just by foraging in the jungle all year 'round and chasing after meat (which meant that West Africans who were faster and more fit passed their genes along more than a slow weakling. Result? West Africans today just about always win sprinting contests in international competitions with ease, no matter how much caucasians train).

There has never been an IQ test designed in which all races have the same average scores. Even an immigrant Chinese tends to gain a higher score than Western-born blacks on those so-called "culturally biased" tests.

Funny enough, the people who claim the most that "all races are the same", contradict themselves in the next breath when they say "Diversity is our strength" if some evil "racist" doesn't like immigrants pouring into his country. Too bad both statements are completely untrue.

u fuckin idiot! sickle cell anemia and other diseases like that are evolutionary blibs on the radar screen! the reason it exists is actually a plus. those who are heterozygous for the gene are malaria resistant. number two, nobody "runs after" meat, all humans are to slow! africans hunt in ambush and use the bow and arrow. maybe the faster ones just escaped the slave trade run by bigots like you. and about that intelligence myth: all modern neurosurgeons will tell you that there is no difference betweena black and white brain! in the twenties and thirties lies were spread about brains of other races to justify the way they were treated. and also, in tests done with homeschooled students, all racial gaps in children were eliminated! much less is expected of a person of african descent living here, due to people like you, at a very young age blacks are taught that they will not do well. the effects of racism are so strong that black mothers will not nourish intellectual developement of their babys as much as white mothers. is this the "races" fault? no, it is the racist cultures's fault. the chinese person coming here is unaware of all that racial dogma, so he just takes the test uninhibited. i am a white man married to a black woman, so i have very close people on either side, and, from personal experience, i can tell you, there is no difference AT ALL. have you ever even had a black friend?

Could you please start your sentences with capitals? Thanks.

Ok, no problem, are there other rules of grammar I should follow as well?

Are all races the same? No. Of course not. Each race has had a different cultural background, and have evolved separately, like different breeds of dog.

There's nothing racist about claiming that races contain different traits. Using scientific facts about evolution in attempt to prove that one race is superior to another is what I despise.

Also, racial differences are just as cultural if they are phyiscal. If a black person is raised with a white, middle class family, his test scores will probably be similar to that of white middle class kids. If a white person is raised in the ghetto, and gooes to a shity delabidated public school, his scores will be closer to that of his black counterparts.

IQ tests are not completely natural. They are affected by upbringing. If their are natural differences between races, they aren't significant enough for one race to deserve less rights then another.

quote:

---

u fuckin idiot!

---

At least I can spell "you".

quote:

---

sickle cell anemia and other diseases like that are evolutionary blibs on the radar screen! the reason it exists is actually a plus. those who are heterozygous for the gene are malaria resistant.

---

If there is only one race, how come some people (who just happen to have a different color of skin) get it and some people don't?

quote:

---

number two, nobody "runs after" meat, all humans are to slow! africans hunt in ambush and use the bow and arrow.

---

Speed is needed to hunt. After you shoot the arrow or throw the spear, you have to chase after the wounded animal. Speed is also needed to flee.

Here is an article on the subject of African athletes.

quote:

---

and about that intelligence myth: all modern neurosurgeons will tell you that there is no difference betweena black and white brain! in the twenties and thirties lies were spread about brains of other races to justify the way they were treated. and also, in tests done with homeschooled students, all racial gaps in children were eliminated!

---

Even on the general curves, there is a percentage of blacks who score even or above whites. Considering that a huge portion of IQ is inherited, it's not a huge leap of faith to conclude that black children taught at home with intelligent black parents do well. I doubt you'll get the same results if black parents with an IQ of around 70 tried to teach their kids algebra.

quote:

---

much less is expected of a person of african descent living here, due to people like you, at a very young age blacks are taught that they will not do well. the effects of racism are so strong that black mothers will not nourish intellectual developement of their babys as much as white mothers. is this the "races" fault? no, it is the racist cultures's fault. the chinese person coming here is unaware of all that racial dogma, so he just takes the test uninhibited.

---

This is so ridiculous that I don't have much to say about it. I'll just smile and nod.

quote:

---

have you ever even had a black friend?

---

Yup. If you were familier with the concept of "averages", you would know that average never applies to all. There will be very smart black people. These people tend to advance in society as well as everyone else.

We aren't all completely different, but we aren't all completely the same, either. These genetic differences should be studied.

The liberal and black community really need to give up on this "blame the white man because I smoke crack" thing. If a white man fails at something, it's because he's not cut out for it or needs to try harder. If a black man fails at something, it's because of the horrible and omnipresent "racism" keeping him down. If a white man does a bunch of crime, he's a bad apple and needs to be locked up. If a black man does a crime, people try to blame "poverty", the "racist culture", "racist cops" for arresting him, and "racist judges and juries" for putting him in jail. If an entire group of people can't take any personal responsibility, it's no wonder many don't get far in life. Sorry, the "white man" is not forcing everyone to drop out of school to smoke crack and join a gang, or to scoff at education because it's a "white boy" thing.

The "white man" isn't doing anything, but the predominantly white government isn't doing much to better their conditions.

If you're being raised in the ghetto by a single mother, you're more likely to join a gang if you're black OR white then you are if you live in Beverly Hills. The only reason people consider it a race thing is because there's so much of a higher percentage of poor blacks.

NIGGER LOVER!!!

I had to do it. :\

quote:

---

If you're being raised in the ghetto by a single mother, you're more likely to join a gang if you're black OR white then you are if you live in Beverly Hills.

---

Why do so many black men "fuck and run"? It's the responsibility of black men to take care of their children, instead of black men leaving black mothers alone, thus forcing black women to rely on the government.

Not being able to handle the pressure of being a father exists in the lower class. The only reason it happens more with blacks is because more blacks are lower class.

Are you honestly telling me that blacks "fuck and run" because they're black, and African American brains are mostly capable of developing the morals it requires not to do such a thing, while good white men stay with the mothers?

No, it's only because more blacks are put into that situation then whites.

The majority of wealthy corperate CEO's are white. The CEO of Philip Morris isn't a better person then a black deadbeat dad, so how come all the CEOs are white?

quote:

---

Not being able to handle the pressure of being a father exists in the lower class. The only reason it happens more with blacks is because more blacks are lower class.
Are you honestly telling me that blacks "fuck and run" because they're black, and African American brains are mostly capable of developing the morals it requires not to do such a thing, while good white men stay with the mothers?

---

Most guys who leave their pregnant girlfriends aren't doing it because they are "stressing from poverty". They're doing it because of lack of ability to take responsibility and not wanting to actually grow up. They want to fuck multiple girls without a care in the world, then go off and party with their friends. The biggest disservice liberals give these kind of people is by providing a convenient scapegoat to blame (white racism) instead of insisting they change personal habits.

It has nothing to do with racism. White people do it to.

If it was really about not wanting to grow up, then how can it almost never happens in the middle class. The figures are so much higher among poor blacks and whites, that it obviously has something to do with the domestic conditions surrounding the crime. Either that, or "poor people are so lazy they can't handle having a kid, and it's their fault they're poor because they're also too lazy to get a job."

Many people cannot hold a job or a family, and/or have drug/alcohol problems. This will keep them in a cycle of poverty more than others who make better choices and end up in the middle class eventually.

This is not an absolute. Obviously certain scenarios such as families who had stable jobs but got downsized are not the same case (and this is why I have the most sympathy for this group and reject the notion that everyone chooses to be poor).

In a society, there will always be people who just can't get it together, through no one's fault but their own.

Reverse the figures. A minority of people on welfare are lazy and indulgent and take advantage of benefits to slack off. The majority of poor people are stuck in lower class conditions, and have no way out because the higher ups control their directions, and only offer promotions if they need to.

Also, people that are raised without any sort of an education, go to a shitty public school that offers no academic benefits, and simply don't have enough money to go to college aren't even remotely at fault. Poor people work their fucking asses off, I know that first hand. Don't even start to claim that most poor people are lazy, that kind of argument discredits any justification right wing capitalist views might have.

I'm veering off topic. What does this have to do with race? You still haven't told me if you believe that so many dead beat dads are black because it's an African American racial trait, which was subtley implied - or if you acknowledge that such a crime is entirely unrelated to race.

[This message has been edited by UnclNastyFingerz (edited 09-18-2002).]

Are you honestly telling me that blacks "fuck and run" because they're black, and African American brains are mostly capable of developing the morals it requires not to do such a thing, while good white men stay with the mothers?

>>>Not really, only the ones who weren't capable of handleing the consequences of their actions. Poor and wealthy, black and white men run out all the time. When all they had to do was think with the head on their shoulders and not on their dick. I can also tell you on foreign deployments, blacks tended to cheat more on their girlfriends/wives then whites did. From what I saw<<<


>>>No, it's only because more blacks are put into that situation then whites<<<

While I don't doubt that many blacks are living in poverty, I seriously doubt they can't afford the $1.00 or less condom, and there are free clinics in the cities.
And for fuck's sake, I'd be perfectly willing to give them one for free, just to keep another welfare baby from entering the world, and my hard-earned income getting taken away from me just to support some un-wanted child with just $1.00 or less worth of prevention.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
...only offer promotions if they need to.

---

As opposed to those businesses that offer sympathy promotions? lol, can't we all just take turns being the CEO?

No, the point is that they need to stop blaming all their failures on "the white man" and look at the cultural problems in their own community. Trust me, I've gone back and forth on this issue with other leftists and most of them will try to say that black people do crime or stay poor because "white privilege" and not enough federal funding is keeping them down. I disagree. Black non-liberals disagree. What good is all the education funding in the world if young black men are convinced that "whitey" is always going to keep him down, and that reading fine literature and doing schoolwork instead of playing sports and partying is for "pussies and geeks"? Since when does someone need "academic benefits" to get straight A's? Community college is not horribly expensive, especially if you save your money instead of spending it on drugs/booze/expensive clothing.

I do think certain people have genetic traits. Someone with an IQ of 75 isn't going to Yale unless their last name is Bush. I don't know why so many black children are born to single mothers out of wedlock, but I think we can safely say that kids being born to one teenage mother and fathers not supporting them is a cause of poverty. Why do so many black men not support their kids? I don't know if it's cultural or genetic, but I'm open to all interpretations besides "the white man made him do it".

How bout replace white and black with rich and poor. That makes it much more logical. The majority of deadbeat dads are poor. A higher percentage of black people are poor then white people. Do the math. One could only blame the white man if you trace the whole thing back to the Triangle Trade Route. For now, we'll just say our culture screws over poor people.

I support TheMouse 100%.

This whole genetic thing comes from the primitiveness of the civilization before the conquest by the british and french. It all comes down to this:
In africa, the females and their babies need food/resources. These food providers don't have to be smart, they just need to be good at hunting. That's why the females will choose the hunter instead of the "brain". The hunter is able to pass his genes through the many intercourses he has while the "brain" will get much less intercourses and may not pass his genes at all.

In the advanced Europe and Asia, the females need males who can provide food and other resources too. It is not needed for every male to hunt in europe and asia, because these resources are available through trade and other methods. Because of this, the females will choose the smart ones, or the confident ones. The strong dumb type is not the #1 on their list

How does our entire culture "screw over poor people" if many poor people willingly take drugs, drink, not care about education and have children while young and not married or in a stable partnership?

When entire communities of stable families are unemployed all the sudden because of downsizing to China, they are screwed over and not at fault. When someone willingly wastes their money and time on alcohol and drugs, they are screwing themselves over. When someone refuses to get take education seriously and wants to play games and act like a tough rebel all the time, they are screwing themselves over. When someone has a kid at the age of 15 and the dad is out partying and screwing other girls, they are screwing the kid over.

What a load of crap. Whitey this, blackie that, total crap and nothing but crap.

When I was growing up, my father was a "deadbeat dad," never around when he was out of jail, or if he was he only was there to sit around and suck beer. From what I saw, he was no different than his father, a borderline wino.

Beatings were handed out like allowance, and there was no way you could ever do a damn thing right, no matter how many times you tried.

The reason I am not like that is because I 'chose' not to be. Anybody that runs with a gang, sells crack, fucks a woman till she's pregnant then runs, or does any of the other things you've mentioned here is a piece of shit because he chooses to be, not because of whitey, or society, or the racist "G", or the Easter Bunny, or any of the other very shitty excuses I've seen here.

People are crap because they want to be, its easier, less work, the hours are better, and you never have to worry about someone saying "you could do better."

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnny doe:
are there other rules of grammar I should follow as well?

---

Yes...all of them please...including spelling.

Nox

Mouse, do not even try the learning curve argument. After The Bell Curve was published, that idea was thoroughly refuted. I could come up with numerous hypothetical theories on why the black "race" is smarter than the white one, but that is not science, that is speculation. Same as with the white one. If there are black (with no white in them) geniuses who are as smart as white ones (there are), wouldn't the logical conclusion be that maybe the disparity in averages that exist in intelligence tests are the result of negative environment, not genes? Also, other "races" have evolved in the same environment (eskimos) but I see none of your evolution hypothesises holding with them, if they are to be applied. And most of the rest of your argument attacks black culture, but I do not see the correllation of a culture with the actual race of the individual. And as for African females going for the strong dumb type, that is ridiculous. Girls no matter what the race like a good athelete with a good body.

And another point, white people are hardly civilized! White people throughout history have been savages. Look how we lied to the Indians and raped the African continent! If it were not for smallpox, the Indian tribes would have used the Seminoles techniques and kicked the U.S. govt's ass.

You racists seem to believe that the white race is the only innovative one! HA! Read up on black history and find the many many important inventions blacks have made.

quote:

---

Originally posted by malaria:
NIGGER LOVER!!!

I had to do it. :\

---

If you ever, ever said that shit to my face I would slam your bitch ass.

quote:

---

Also, other "races" have evolved in the same environment (eskimos) but I see none of your evolution hypothesises holding with them, if they are to be applied.

---

Eskimos were not in the same environment.

quote:

---

And another point, white people are hardly civilized! White people throughout history have been savages. Look how we lied to the Indians and raped the African continent!

---

Go live in Africa for a few years, then tell me that whites are not more civilized than Africans. You'll be begging to come back to a country where people's body parts aren't chopped up with a machete to sell to some "voodoo doctor".

I actually tend to agree with Global Dominator on the issue of individual choice. Culture can shape you if you let it, but it is your responsibility to rise above. I encourage everyone on this site including racists, not to pre-judge anyone by race. no matter what your perceptions of race, when you meet somebody, forget all that shit and get to know the person. If you like or don't like the person, keep those likes or dislikes to that person, do not spread it to the "race" of that individual. I think that as Mouse and bigots like him meet and befriend black people, their flimsy hypothesises will be washed away by reality. I know mine were.

Eskimos did live in the mostly the same environment as the Nords. But your main thing on the environment was the cold. Actually, my close freind lived in the Sudan for one year and plans to move there to help the sick. Very nice people, she says. (with the exception of a minority rebel faction)

More on the Sudan--its a shame that the white marauders raped the environment.

Oh, and whites were not always so big and bad as you say. Egypt, Persia, etc., these brown civilisations kicked cracker ass.

I've spent alot of time in Africa, and I've lived in black ghettos. I've never once experienced anwhere near as much hostility as I had when I first moved to where I live now - an upper middle class white suburban neighborhood. Nobody's ever been as rude as white investment bankers, and nobody's been as fucking heartless as the retired executives on my block. Actually, I've dealt with much more kindness living in Redhook, Brooklyn then I've ever even seen from a white person.

Europeans are the most barbaric, trecherous, disgusting people in this history of civilization. They've burned and flogged people alive, tortured people without motive, and slaughtered millions of families in the name of expantion. The African tribes I've dealt with were naive to modern logic and thought, but still much easier to deal with as people. If I had to chose between Beverly Hills and the jungles of Tanzania, I'd chose Tanzania any day.

Mouse, I still don't understand how anyone could possibly say poor people are poor by choice. That would mean 95% of the population of most African countries are lazy, while 100% of Swedes are hardworking, dedicated people. According to capitalist logic, the Great Depression was the fault of the people. Apparently, the 20s brought hard working American industrialists, but followed with a nationwide epidemic of lazyness in the 30s. At the beginning of the second world war, everyone got off their asses and started working. Logical, huh?

Poor people willingly drink and do drugs? Let me tell you something, y grandfather spent his entire life working nowhere dead end jobs, and he's one of the most hardworking men I've met. The closest thing he saw to success was a job as an assembly line worker at IBMs factory. He never had any drug or alcohal problems, and he never displayed any qualities as a worker but honesty. The only reason he didn't finish college is because WWII stripped him from it, and he retunred without a cent to spare. Most other poor people I've met have had similar cases, and I know first hand that it's none of their faults. Even if it is for any reason, what about their kids? What a child born to poverty. If they drink alcohal, it automatically makes them expendable, but even if they don't - they probably won't get anywhere. Where's the American dream if you need it?

Also, their are many reasons people resort to drugs and alcahal. Peer pressure, despairity, stress, just to name a few. If it had nothing to do with someone's domestic conditions, then how come it exists so much more in poor communities?

I would like to add to Uncle's statement. I too have lived in black ghettoes, and white neighborhoods, and not only were black people more freindly, and open-minded they were more *gasp* INTELLEGENT! A few bad frustrated teenagers give black neighborhoods a bad rep.
My very educated black wife has to work twice as hard as a lesser qualified white girl to get the same job. I did not believe it untill i saw it, but blacks ARE being held down in many places.
So take your racist theories and shove them up your ass, mouse, just because something makes sense doesn't mean it's true.

Uncle: If you love the jungles so much, get the fuck out of here. What is the point slagging our culture and even race so much? Sure, there are problems, as there are with every culture, but your statements about wanting to live in Tanzania over Beverly Hills are so ludicrous it's not even funny, like your posts normally are.

Johnny again: If Eskimos evolved in the same environment, they wouldn't be Eskimos. They would be Nordiques, so don't start that shit. What the hell kind of statement is 'Girls no matter what the race like a good athlete with a good body?' That is completely untrue, just check out how many NON-athletic guys there are. You'd be much safer to say 'Girls no matter what the race like a good wallet with a guy attached,' even though it would still be untrue.

"If it were not for smallpox, the Indian tribes would have used the Seminoles techniques and kicked the US govt's ass."
Wow. I have never heard something so stupid. You realize that NOT ALL INDIANS ARE SEMINOLES, don't you?
And you're right, we are uncivilized because we were providing for our expansion and happened to massacre Indians and make Africans our slaves, whereas the Africans themselves were still throwing sticks and rocks at each other. Hmm..

I think you mean supremacists are the ones who think whites are the only innovative ones. I respect each civilization in it's own right, but I will never apologize or give your wife more rights just because of what whites have done in the past.

Oh yeah, that was a joke, you know. But I wouldn't be suprised if you headed for someone's brown eye for a little slammin'.

Malaria, at least Mouse made incorrect logical sense sometimes. You do not. I think not only do you need to read more carefully, but you also need to go back to sucking cock.

A shortened responce for slow people:

1) the environment is not exactly the same, but mouse was basing his position on broad aspects like the cold. The cold is the same.

2)I do not know where you grew up (in a box?), but what I said about girls of any race is true.

3) duh-duh, i said the seminoles guerilla tactics (ahead of their time, by the way)

4) throwing sticks, throwing rocks, throwing bullets, its all the same barbarism.

5) I didn't say anything about more rights, equal rights would be nice though.

6) meet some black people and get to know them.

quote:

---

Mouse, I still don't understand how anyone could possibly say poor people are poor by choice.

---

Uncl, I did not say that. I said that many people are poor because they make life choices that result in poverty, such as dropping out of school, getting pregnant early, substance abuse, etc. I also said that many people are poor because of no fault of their own, such as actual downsizings and depressions.

By the way, my husband's family had everything stolen from them by Communists in Romania when he was four years old. They came here as refugees with almost nothing. Now, him, his father, and grandma are comfortably middle class. They weren't permanently kept in some poor underclass because they had nothing and had everything stolen by Communists. They didn't get any "reparations" either.

quote:

---

1) the environment is not exactly the same, but mouse was basing his position on broad aspects like the cold. The cold is the same.

---

This is not true. You are simplifying my position. Presence of snow is not the only thing that affects the evolution of a culture. There is climate differences, yes, and differences of terrain, differences of proximity to other groups of people, differences in plant/animal species available, differences in resources available, etc. A group of people that had to survive in condition (A) will end up quite genetically different than a group of people that had to survive in condition (B).

quote:

---

2)I do not know where you grew up (in a box?), but what I said about girls of any race is true.

---

I personally couldn't give a flying fuck about how athletic a dude is. I actually avoided those guys in high school. I like brains and humor.

quote:

---

4) throwing sticks, throwing rocks, throwing bullets, its all the same barbarism.

---

Europeans were doing a bit more than throwing bullets, but this is proof of the sad state of education that the only thing white people know of their history is that "whites ran around shooting and enslaving all the noble people of color".

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 09-19-2002).]

>>>Europeans are the most barbaric, trecherous, disgusting people in this history of civilization. They've burned and flogged people alive, tortured people without motive, and slaughtered millions of families in the name of expantion<<<

Hate to tell you this, but Arab Countries stone people to death, flog them, among other things. Wiping your ass with your hand is common, and In Africa, Inter-Tribal Slaughter is common. This does not make them any better then us, while it also does not make us better then them. Japan, Taiwan, and Korea went from pretty bad conditions to Global Trade Rivals very quickly. Africa could have done the exact same, had it not been for dictators who raped and looted their own people worse then the whites ever did.

>>>Nobody's ever been as rude as white investment bankers, and nobody's been as fucking heartless as the retired executives on my block<<<

That's your opinion. Here, no one is as rude as the filipinos working state jobs, taking four hour lunch breaks, and calling you racial derogatory names, And no one has been as heartless as the Filipino, Japanese, Chinese, and Hawaiian politicans who it seems, every night on the news, are under investigation for fraud, theft, and more.

quote:

---

but you also need to go back to sucking cock.

---

Appetizing. I'll be sure to think about it!

quote:

---

1) the environment is not exactly the same, but mouse was basing his position on broad aspects like the cold. The cold is the same.

---

No, the cold is not the same. By our definition, they certainly are cold, but I am sure the Eskimos thought the Nordiques were being pussies about saying what is cold.

quote:

---

2)I do not know where you grew up (in a box?), but what I said about girls of any race is true.

---

Maybe being superficial is something you like in a girl, but I certainly don't. And neither does most of the population. Grow up and open your eyes.

quote:

---

3) duh-duh, i said the seminoles guerilla tactics (ahead of their time, by the way)

---

Yes, and if you're not a Seminole, you're not going to know their war tactics. I thought this was pretty goddamn obvious.

quote:

---

4) throwing sticks, throwing rocks, throwing bullets, its all the same barbarism.

---

"Throwing" bullets? I think putting someone out of their misery with a quick shot to the head is much less barbaric than, say, slitting their throat and waiting for them to die. Or piercing their lung with a stick-with-a-rock (aka "spear").

quote:

---

5) I didn't say anything about more rights, equal rights would be nice though.

---

She already gets equal rights. The rights she thinks she doesn't have are there. I know more white white-haters than I do black white-haters, and I lived in Georgia for years. What I mean is, you are more likely to find white people that are willing to bow down just because you are black than anything. I am 19, my hair is past my shoulders, and I live in a towne of about 2000. I'll bet you I get discriminated against a hell of a lot more than your wife does.

quote:

---

6) meet some black people and get to know them.

---

I have had black friends, I never said I didn't like people of other races.

You come to the board and act high and mighty but have no facts or even relevance to half of the shit you say. Maybe you should sit back and watch people for awhile. If you haven't noticed, I usually never post things like this, but you especially get on my nerves.

Edit: Typo.

[This message has been edited by malaria (edited 09-19-2002).]

strangely enough i have a WHITE friend that has sickle-cell anemia. its merely more common in blacks. as for blacks having a lower IQ what statistics do you have that they do? do those statistics acount for economic class, poor people always score less on an IQ test. yes, a large amount of blacks are poor. could that be because they started from a lower(read: bottom) position in capitalist society. yes there is massive strife in africa. mostly because of the introduction of foreign political structures and political borders. look at amap of africa, notice all the straight lines? now look at a map of europe, wheres the straight lines? that and the massive influx of modern weapons and military training and the backlash to western ideals explains mosst of the problems in africa, and most post colonial countries. try naming a country that was a colony that is doing well now. not counting city-states like singapore or hong-kong.

>>>>Not being able to handle the pressure of being a father exists in the lower class.<<<<

Its difficult for any man to understand and appreciate the fact that his lineage is being passed on with his name as his testimony, and he is now responsible for all time with what is done with it.

>>>>>The only reason it happens more with blacks is because more blacks are lower class.<<<<<

No. Blacks in Africa, as all the nigger-lovers have probably pointed out, favored a survival strategy that shoots its load early then dies in its early 20s, as with sicke cell anemia.

In Africa, living very long or in a stable environment didnt happen, and so there was no evolutionary reward for remaining in stable fmaily units.

As a matter of fact, in an environemnt where life-spans are short and the people are aggressive, a 'fuck-and-run' reproductive strategy is rewarded by evolution. There is no time to develop the finer points of stable family loyalty, so making 43 Jamaals with 30 different women is an Ok way to reproduce.

In other countries, where family structure is much more prevailant and paternity has infinitely more value, conditions shaped people to be more monogamous, and more connected to their nuclear families. A cold winter would kill your kid right fast, and there wasnt much a mother burdened with a nursing baby could do about getting food once the roots, nuts, and fruits were killed in the first frost, so a father was necessary to go find meat and bring it home.

>>>>>Are you honestly telling me that blacks "fuck and run" because they're black, and African American brains are mostly capable of developing the morals it requires not to do such a thing, while good white men stay with the mothers?<<<<<

Im telling you the children of black men in africa could survive without much effort on the part of their fathers, because food was rarely a reach away for mom and her kids. Roaming around to spread genes was then an effective -biological- program that answered to man's desire to further his genes.
Europeans' desire to further their genes basically forced fathers to concentrate on quality, not quantity, because they could knock up as many woman as they wanted to; if they didnt stick around during the winter to feed them, all of their effort was for naught and their children would wither and die. Therefore, to answer THEIR desire to further their genes, their biological programming is more conducive to family units as Western Civilization reflects.

>>>>No, it's only because more blacks are put into that situation then whites.<<<<<

Nope. There have been a thousand generations of poor white people, in far worse and degrading conditions than blacks, and their basic nuclear family structure has remained relatively unchanged since civilization records it. White poor people have, since a very, very long time ago, tended to remain with their family and not fall to any 'pressure' of being a poor dad.
Both of my grandfathers were piss poor and they were loyal husbands. Their fathers raised a total of over a dozen kids in the Depression, and they stuck around.

>>>> so how come all the CEOs are white?<<<<

Obviously, because theyre jealous of the black man's naturally bigger penis, and try and compensate by shackling him to a steady diet of Kool-Aid, KFC, and ho's with fat booties and big ol' titties.

>>>>>try naming a country that was a colony that is doing well now.<<<<

France, Britain, America, Canada, Israel, China, Ireland, Australia...

lol ah-ha

Mouse, I do find some problems with the hunter gather vs farmer herdman theory, first is that agriculture only evolved in the last 10000 years and untill 6-8 of those thousand it was mearly selevtive gathering, even then it took thousands of years after that before these practices reached east asia and Europe. Which on an evolutionary timetable is fairly paultry. moreover large areas of subsaharan africa have possesed hearding and farming before the arrival of European powers.

>>>>Mouse, I do find some problems with the hunter gather vs farmer herdman theory, first is that agriculture only evolved in the last 10000 years<<<<

That keeps getting pushed back. The existence of walled cities 12,000 years ago, and then further back, megalithic architecture and buildings aligned with astronomical precision change the timeline, for example.

There have been many advanced, civilized and powerful nations throuout the world that were not white and developed agriculture and technology, and had huge metropolises, such as the Mayans, Incas, Chinese, Egyptians, Persians, Ethiopia, Meroe, and Ghana. A few sub-Saharan Nubian empires traded with countries as far away as Greece. The quick rise to dominance of "white" civilization is mostly the result of two men who happened to be white: Descartes and Sir Francis Bacon, who brought us the scientific method, the most powerful weapon ever invented. But the Western white empire is still young, and it will fall, like the Africans and Native American empires before them.

>>>>There have been many advanced, civilized and powerful nations throuout the world that were not white and developed agriculture and technology,<<<<

Not many. One can be debated. Thats all I can think of. And even then its not much of a case.

>>>> such as the Mayans, Incas<<<<

Ever hear of Queztalcoatl? Bearded blue-eyed god from the East who gave the Mayans civilization? The Incans told the Spaniards their civilization was ancient in their time, and they just inherited it from gods from the east with "pale skin" and "auburn hair".

>>>>Chinese<<<<

6'2 Celtic mummies in Western china forcing scientists to revise their ideas about origins of chinese civilizations and interactions between East and west.

>>>>>Egyptians<<<<

Gay. Pharaohs had red and blonde hair. And Ramses looks like my girlfriends grandmother, who is Mayflower English and German. Egyptian sculpture clearly depicts white people.

>>>>Persians<<<<

Mediterranean people are pretty white. Nordic people with brown hair do not go into the Brown column.

>>>> Ethiopia<<<<

That was to Egypt as Guam is to America.

>>>>Meroe<<<<

Same

>>>>and Ghana<<<<<

Some Arabs who didnt wanna bother making the trip home did that. That doesnt count, cause Arabs are Caucasian too.

>>>>A few sub-Saharan Nubian empires traded with countries as far away as Greece.<<<<

Egyptians in Nubia did that. Nubians themselves were just slaves in the mines that sweat and bled to give the Egyptians gold and minerals. Their contributions are no differnt than mules.

>>>>> The quick rise to dominance of "white" civilization is mostly the result of two men who happened to be white: Descartes and Sir Francis Bacon<<<<

Im pretty sure they would not have existed if not for 3000 years prior of white men making their countries worth living in.

>>>> like the Africans and Native American empires before them.<<<<

An Empire in Africa or America does not mean the people who built it are African or Native American.

My point is that the scientific method was just as new to the white race as to any other race, individuals thought of it, it was not the product of culture, for they (Bacon and Descartes) were both initially rejected. It took much time before their ideas were fully accepted.

And too dispel any non-white empire on the basis of a few tall tales is rididculous. Just because "colored" Empires have had contact with whites does not mean shit. And to say North African Arabs are "pretty white" is shit too. According to racists like you didnt they have to adopt to a different climate than whites? Just because they look a little similar doesnt mean shit.
And, by the way, in much of Egypt's history there was many different races, some emporers were definately not white.

A good book for you is "Black Spark, White Fire" by Richard Pope, on how BLACK African explorers probably civilizied Europe, including Greece.

If you buy that theory, you've been reading too much of that "afrocentric" pseudo-history.

Richard Pope is not an Afrocentrist. He is a white Eurocentrist, fyi.

>>>A good book for you is "Black Spark, White Fire" by Richard Pope, on how BLACK African explorers probably civilizied Europe, including Greece.<<<<<

Hahahahaha, I read some of that at Barnes and Noble, oh my god what a crock of shit. In the chapter I read, he concluded that, because Greek had a lot of fundamental similarities to sixth century Coptic Egyptian, it must have sprang from it, and is thus a Black language. I guess he ignored the fact that both languages had been evolving through commercial and political contact with each other for, oh,...2000 years by that time.

LoL, thanks for the tip.

Not only did you marry black, but you took their fake history, too.

quote:

---

There have been periods of time longer then the span of European colonialism where most of the world, including Europe, lacked civilization (200 to 1500 A.D).

---

I'm sorry, but this is a rather worthless point. Everyone started out primitive, but some people advanced. This would be like an evolutionist saying that all lifeforms are the same and equal because we all started out from amoebas or whatnot.

quote:

---

There have also been times where African and South American civilizations have dominated the world, while Europeans were scalping each other and killing their own reletives.

---

When was this?

lol, i can't believe some of your posts.

Marriage seems to suit you.

And too dispel any non-white empire on the basis of a few tall tales is rididculous. Just because "colored" Empires have had contact with whites does not mean shit. And to say North African Arabs are "pretty white" is shit too. According to racists like you didnt they have to adopt to a different climate than whites? Just because they look a little similar doesnt mean shit.


What's your point White Chocolate? White South Africans and Zimbabweans may be African, but their still white, even though they can claim African-American Ancestry on their SAT's.

Richard Pope is not an Afrocentrist. He is a white Eurocentrist, fyi

White Chocolate. Just like you. Whazzup brutha?


Look thats a rather simplistic way of putting the arguement for that theory, and there is a lot of evidence for a lot of what he says. I refuse to defend every single argument in that book even though i could with most of them, but it is a waste of time, for a bigot's heart is not concerned with the truth, or any evidences that shatter your worldview.

Roman columns have been found off the Florida Coast, Friends of mine diving off of Virginia found a Phoenican Vase. Ireland was civilized by tribes originating from what is now known as Spain. Just because African artifacts have been found in Europe doesn't mean automatically that Africans civilized Europe. Phonecians, Carthagenians, And Romans traded with each, plundered each other, and brought African artifacts all over Europe.

quote:

---

lol, i can't believe some of your posts.

---

What's wrong with my posts!!??!

quote:

---

Marriage seems to suit you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
What's wrong with my posts!!??!

---

lol, a lot less than there used to be.

Nubia, Ethopia, Ascenti, and a portion of Egypt. The Egyptians were influenced by Nubians, and alot of them were decendents. At times, Nubian Pharoahs goverened Egypt, and a good argument can be made that their civilization was based on negroid foundations. The Nubians were thriving throughout the building of the Pyramids.

As for South America - Aztec, Inca, and Maya.

All these civilizations thrived for centuries. Their downfall came with the rise of European civilization. It would be completely rediculous to say that Africans remained primitive while Europeans expanded. Ethiopian emperors boasted lineage from Soloman, and built some of the most advanced cities of their time.

quote:

---

I think the reason that each of you racists are the way you are is either

a)because of some bad experience in you life with a black person

---

I've had bad experiences with white people too, who cares?

quote:

---

or b) you were raised that way, maybe both.

---

No.

quote:

---

I do not see how anyone, when confronted with all the inventions blacks have made in the U.S. alone (Study black history by a non-rascist for once), can say with a straight face that black are less innovative or less intelligent. People have said, "i have had black freinds"....well, what about now? have you told your black freinds (if any) these high and lofty ideas of yours?

---

"In the U.S. alone," yeah, because we are the ones educating them to be able to invent things. Where are all the strictly African inventions?

quote:

---

Anyway my point is that racism is based on emotions, not facts, which is why as society has advanced it now laughs at such primitive judgemental behavior/pseudoscience.

---

Your definition of racism is different than mine. I don't think other races are inferior, just different. Why is that so hard for people to understand? People like you laugh at it because you don't understand it. You can have all the Africans you want, Joe had a good term for you: White chocolate.

You aren't willing to accept that Africans and Europeans are different, maybe because you feel guilty for marrying one of them, who knows. The thing is, I accept that whites have been barbarians, too, at one point. You are so full of Africans that you are actually trying to make them the same as Europeans. Psssst.. Your wife isn't around, she doesn't need you to stick up for her race. I hope you don't have any children with her.

I'm also curious to where the blacks came from for the Seminoles. Links, please.

I'm not a racist but...exterminating the hostile non-White savage races is not beyond the pale, if it means they are prevented from destroying the White race.

Oh please. I hate when people backpeddle and pussyfoot around things and say, "I just like Adolf Hitler and am fond of the idea of racial states, and prescribe to the racial doctrine of history, Im no racist." Yes you are. When you can say that and not feel guilty or look over your shoulder youre a free man.

>>>>>Nubia, Ethopia, Ascenti, and a portion of Egypt. The Egyptians were influenced by Nubians<<<<

Thats right. Once they were powerful enough, they invaded and enslaved them, calling the negro inhabitants childish subhuman cowards.

>>>>and alot of them were decendents.<<<<

I doubt it, but if it happened it would have been the lowest thug elements within the army mating with captured women and having very low-ranking, insignificant children.

>>>>>At times, Nubian Pharoahs goverened Egypt, and a good argument can be made that their civilization was based on negroid foundations.<<<<<

Id like to hear it. Because all the physical anthropological evidence in mummies in sculpture Ive seen points to white people.


>>>>As for South America - Aztec, Inca, and Maya.

All these civilizations thrived for centuries. Their downfall came with the rise of European civilization.<<<<<

No, the Aztecs and Inca fell because of that. All the other ones went their natural courses.
You are forgetting, however, that all of those civilizations traced their creation and development back to white, bearded gods from the East. A mayan word for "good" and "white" was Wodin, kinda cool, huh.

>>>>It would be completely rediculous to say that Africans remained primitive while Europeans expanded.<<<<

No it wouldnt. Thats what happened.

>>>>>Ethiopian emperors boasted lineage from Soloman,<<<<<

Who was white.

You seem to be confused by geography. Civilization in Africa does not equal African. White guys got around. They are the race of explorers and conquerors. When people explore and conquer, they tend to pop up in all kinds of places. Even right down river from their own civilizations in distant Ethiopia.

Most portraits and scultures of Pharoahs showed dark skin. You're missing the key point, which was that the Nubians created a civilization which thrived long before the Pharoahs started to rule. Before the Pyramids, Nubia had already developed advanced cities, record keeping, and languages.

What about the Ascenti? Like the Egyptians, they thrived before ever seeing white skin. They were in central Africa, and had the darkest skin you'd see. Their civilization was as advanced as it got on the time - and it fell naturally, not because of invasion.

The Ethiopians made contact with whites. So? Are you saying they couldn't have functioned without that contact? They certainly did okay at the start. The Phoenicians made contact with blacks. Big deal.

And you've yet to refute my points about South American civilizations. Just because they collapsed doesn't mean they weren't civilizations.

If Europeans were exanding while Africans were primitive, how come the Africans had prosperous cities before the Europeans?

>>>>Most portraits and scultures of Pharoahs showed dark skin.<<<<

A lot of white people have dark skin. They also have leaner, thinner heads, strong and pronounced cheek bones, thinner lips and a pronounced jaw, and rectangular eye orbitals- consistent with Mediterraneans.

>>>>>You're missing the key point, which was that the Nubians created a civilization which thrived long before the Pharoahs started to rule. Before the Pyramids, Nubia had already developed advanced cities, record keeping, and languages.<<<<

And I told you, things like the Great Pyramid and the Sphinx are probably 10,000 years old, so its unlikely. Also, anthropologists still dont even know where Egytpians came from.
What ancient cities? Do you have a link or something?

>>>>>What about the Ascenti? Like the Egyptians, they thrived before ever seeing white skin. They were in central Africa, and had the darkest skin you'd see. Their civilization was as advanced as it got on the time - and it fell naturally, not because of invasion.<<<<

Some more info? Id like to add, however, that coins from as far away as China have been found in Zimbabwe, and that only means there was some civilization that travelled all over the place. There must have been things worth trading in Africa, so it is not inconcievable that people went down there and built a city to gather things worth trading.

It is more likely than negroes doing anything like that. Id change my mind if I saw any evidence, but you just dont find any blacks doing anything anywhere, and if the ancients had the capacity to travel from Africa to China and back, youd thinks this noble race of African kings might have done something outside of their county.

>>>>The Ethiopians made contact with whites. So?<<<<<

No. You said their Emperors traced their lineage to Solomon (probably bullshit, sounds like Rastas tracing Selassie to god), but even if it was true, Solomon was White, so that doesnt say anything about Ethiopia being a black thing.

>>>> The Phoenicians made contact with blacks. Big deal.<<<<<

Right. Not vice versa. Blacks exist now as they did back then, as commodities.

>>>>And you've yet to refute my points about South American civilizations.<<<<

Yes I did. I said all of those civilizations traced their invention and maintenance to white gods from the East with beards. There are carvings of men in America with undeniably european features, along with other anomolies, like the fact that Queztalcoatl wore a phyllactery.

>>>>Just because they collapsed doesn't mean they weren't civilizations.<<<<

No. You said they all collapsed because of the coming of Europeans. I said only two did, Aztecs and Incans. The others were already dead for hundreds or thousands of years.

Egyptian sculptures for the most part showed no signs that the Pharoahs were white. The limited Anthropological evidence pails in comparrison to the art which portrayed Africans. The jaws were north African - they stuck out but weren't clearly defined. The noses and lips were clearly negroid. There's also evidence that Pharoahs were Nubian, and it's a well known fact that Nubia came before Egypt. Ask any anthropologist. Actually, read Time Life's "Man Myth and Magic" Africa vollume. It explains and sited all the evidence of Nubia's pre-Egyptian prosperity.

As for your claim that the Aschenti made contact with the whites - show me any evidence of this, and I'll give your points some credit. A reliable link, or the name of a book - anything. The foreign coins were by no means dated back tot he original civilization. Trade with China probably occured durring the middle ages, in the midst of tribal conflict. Even if it was older, how does that mean the civilization wouldn't be able to function without the Chinese? Oh no, trade. Trade is so horrible. Tell me one civilization that succeeded without any sort of trade.

Your point about the Aztecs and Incas is not only debatable, but rediculous. The Aztec were not white, get over it. Link me to any serious biologist that believes the Aztecs were white.

If you wanna have white pride, and consider your race superior, go for it - but don't claim Africans and Sout Americans have never had a civilization, because they've had advanced civilizations before and durring ours.

He isn't saying Aztecs were white.

He implied it by saying they worshipped white gods and that their relics contained elements of white culture. The Atecs were white, the Aztecs were influenced by whites, it's the same dogmatic racialist bullshit. I can respect someone's racist beliefs as long as they don't try to put their own twist on history.

In the interest of pure history the egyptian pharoes were not Black, I can say that with surity because Nubians were prized as attendant slaves because of their dark skin. It was like a Rols Royce, If you were important you had a nubian slave or two.

Also The quetzoqouatal myth Does seem to point to a contact with a european civilization. you have white skined bearded men in vessels with white wings come from across the sea. whats really weird though is a peice of statuary in the high andian plateau, It explicitly depicts a bearded man holding a leather bound book complete with buckle.

I'm not Using history to justify racism mind you. Personally I find the civilizations of china and japan To have been greater than those of Europe untill industrial revolution, And in fact the greatness of the European nations was more dependant on China than Chinas greatness was dependant on european civilization.

The Nubians turned primarily into slaves afte Egypt invaded Nubia. Way after. The original Pharoahs were black, as shown by sculptures and other visual reworkings.

Whether or not the Egypitians were white, they based their civilization on Nubian foundations. Nubia was around before Egypt.

The Aztec thing was just a coincidence. There's no actual evidence of contact with whites. Geographical evidence completely isolated the Aztecs up until the age of Exploration, when the Spanish entered the picture. Quezacotl's features were probably attributed to Spanish missionaries, there's nothing neccesarily Greek or Roman about them. The Aztecs thrived long before anyone else found them.

>>>>Egyptian sculptures for the most part showed no signs that the Pharoahs were white.<<<<<

Are you looking at the same scultpures I am?

>>>>>The limited Anthropological evidence pails in comparrison to the art which portrayed Africans.<<<<<

You are lying again. The only time Ive seen Africans in their art was carrying baggage trains behind the Egyptian armies or the Pharaoh. That wold make them slaves.

>>>>The jaws were north African -<<<<<

You really dont know what youre talking about. North Africa in the time of the anciets was populated by pockets of Mediterranean and Nordic people that had been there since Europe was an uninhabitable glacier.

>>>> The noses and lips were clearly negroid.<<<<<

Again, thats a lie. Ive only seen Pharaohs with high and straighter nose bridges. Africans dont even really have a nose bridge.

>>>>>It explains and sited all the evidence of Nubia's pre-Egyptian prosperity.<<<<

Im not denying Nubia might have been a happening place. You still have forgotten to read, however, the fact that being in Africa does not make something a black accomplishment. When Arab slavers went down river into the jungles and ended up teaching people the Koran and building schools, the towns they built were not Black.

>>>>As for your claim that the Aschenti made contact with the whites - show me any evidence of this, and I'll give your points some credit. A reliable link, or the name of a book - anything. The foreign coins were by no means dated back tot he original civilization.<<<<<

I didnt say it was the Ascenti, I said it was something in Africa. My National Geographic Mysteries of the Ancient World coffee table book shows pictures of African civilizations and says a bit about them, and everytime links it to Egyptian or Carthaginian merchants setting up shop there to look for ivory. The towns, also, look like shit and are more evidence of a people that had the capacity to live in permanent dwellings, not build civilizations.

>>>> Even if it was older, how does that mean the civilization wouldn't be able to function without the Chinese? Oh no, trade. Trade is so horrible.<<<<<

No. My point was obviously that if the Chinese could get there, either directly, or only by proxy through coinage, then white people from anywhere else could too, thus destroying your claim that the people of central africa couldnt have been influenced by whites, because they never made contact with anyone.

>>>>Tell me one civilization that succeeded without any sort of trade.<<<<

Exactly. Who would your glorious African kings trade with if they were a civilized island surrounded by the jungle and stone-age tribes?

>>>>Your point about the Aztecs and Incas is not only debatable, but rediculous. The Aztec were not white, get over it. Link me to any serious biologist that believes the Aztecs were white.<<<<

I didnt say the Aztecs were White, I said that Aztec civilization was created, well, in the ruins of the Mayan one, which was created by a white civilizing minority. Aztecs were Apaches.

Regarding the relative ease of ancient sea travel, and subsequent probability of discovering America:

"The voyage of Columbus could mount only 88 men on three vessels, two of which were only 50 feet in length. This voyage, more modern, is dwarfed by some ventures of Pharaohs of the Ramesside Dynasty 3000 years ago, which sent expeditions of 10,000 miners across the Indian Ocean. (Fell 110) Julius Caesar, in Book III of The Gallic Wars spends a great deal of time praising the Celtic navy, which mounted against his triremes 220 larger, stronger, more seaworthy ships that could outride storms or opposing winds on the Ocean without sustaining damage.(Fell 112) The ships and navigational skills of the ancients was far superior to the men and craft of Renaissance Europe."

(More coming)

Regarding the presence of the Incan aforementioned men with pale skin and auburn hair:


Celtic monuments aligned precisely with constellations and heavenly bodies, called dolmens, dot Iberia and the British Aisles, and have been found across New England. Dolmens in New York, Massachusetts, and Vermont closely resemble those found in Ireland and Portugal. The common astronomical alignment in both European and American dolmens suggests a shared culture. Nearly all dolmens on both sides of the Atlantic face East, with a deviation from true East that relates to the solar cycle. The axes of the monuments in America and Europe always point either east to the point of the sunrise on the vernal and autumnal equinoxes, or to the sunrise point of the summer solstice. (Fell 135)
On both sides of the Atlantic, the monuments have Ogam dedications to Bel, the Celtic sun god. The dedications sometimes include Bel�s name in Phoenician script. (Fell 137) Massive lentil stones sit atop the ruins of a temple in Connecticut which bear a dedication to Bel in Ogam, and include Punic Iberian writing and a Mediterranean symbol for the equinox. In South Royalton, Vermont, a subterranean temple thought to be a colonial root cellar was unearthed on a small farm. In Ogam script and a Phoenician monogram reads �Pay heed to Bel, his eye is the sun.� (Fell 137-139)

Regarding the mesoAmerican legends of white people founding civilization-

The arrival of Old World peoples, planned or not, to the Western Hemisphere would leave an obvious impression on aboriginal populations. As expected, the native populations of Mexico and South America share mythology that deals with the arrival of more advanced people, or Gods, from the East. Incans laughed at the Conquistadors when they suggested the Incans built their great cities, and said their architecture and complex road system was �ancient in the time of the Incas� but was the work of �white, auburn-haired men.� This bringer of culture, whom they called Thunupa, �appeared�in ancient times, coming from the North with 5 disciples. A white man of august presence, blue eyed and bearded, he was sober, puritanical, and preached against drunkenness, polygamy, and war.� (Hapgood, 67) This people allegedly responsible for Incan civilization are likely to share an affiliation with other civilizing influences in MesoAmerica. All civilizations of Central and South America, as a matter of fact, share a legend of a tall, bearded man bringing civilization. Though his name changed everywhere he went, as it was apparent �he� was a family or race of men (the god in the stories is nearly always with assistants and attendants), when translated, it always means �plumed� or �feathered serpent.� (Hapgood, 103) To some he was Thunupa, to others, Viracocha, a master scientist and magician who wielded terrible weapons and arrived to set the world to right. (Hapgood 47) According to his legend, he was �a white man of large stature and authoritative demeanor.� This man had such great power that he could change the hills into valleys.� (Hapgood 49) The Mayan version of Virococha is Quetzalcoatl, who arrived in Tihuanaco �in a time of darkness� bringing civilization. Quetzalcoatl was said to have sailed from the East and is credited with the cultivation of astronomy and mathematics. (Hapgood 48) Like Thunupa, Queztalcoatl taught the people self-control and advocated restraint and discipline

The truth behind this shared myth is evident in the physical evidence the civilizations left in monuments. A stone statue of Quetzalcoatls depicts a man similar to Anglo-Saxons, with a pointed beard.(Von Wuthenau 58) In countless examples of Meso-American pottery, sculpture, and monuments, men with Caucasian features are depicted. Identifiably Semitic, Roman, and Nordic faces stare at us from Central American pottery.(Castro 22) In an Olmec temple bas-relief, a man with strong Mediterranean features is shown wearing a phylactery head and arm band.

Fell, Barry. AmericaBC: Ancient Settlers in the New World. New York:
Pocket Books, 1976.

Gordon, Cyrus. Riddles in History. New York: Crown publishers, 1974.

Hapgood, Graham. Fingerprints of the Gods. New York: Random House Inc,
1995.

Van Wuthenau, Alexander. Unexpected Faces in Ancient America. New York:
Crown Publishers, 1975.

Uncl, regarding Egypt, look at the statues on this page.. they really do not look like Negroes.

http://www.geocities.com/racial_myths/blackmyth.html

SPirit, all you're showing me is evidence that white people traded with the Aztecs and the Ascentis. White civilizations traded with blacks. It doesn't mean anything. You've yet to show me any evidence that African and South American civilizations were dependent on whites.

According to your logic, because civilizations engaged in trade with white civilizations, they couldn've functioned without the influence of whites. The Phoenicians made contact with blacks the same way Aztecs made contact with the Spanish. That doesn't mean the African civilizatiosn I mentioned weren't real civilizations, or whatever degree are your claims.

Mouse, your link and others have shown white faces. As I've said, seveal of the Pharoah's and nobles were white, especially after the invasion of Nubia. That doesn't change the fact that the Nubian civilizations were present before the first Pharoahs, and that several of the earliest Pharoahs were Nubian.

>>>>SPirit, all you're showing me is evidence that white people traded with the Aztecs and the Ascentis.<<<<<

Did you read what I said?

>>>>>White civilizations traded with blacks. It doesn't mean anything. You've yet to show me any evidence that African and South American civilizations were dependent on whites.<<<<<

Did you read what I posted?

>>>>According to your logic, because civilizations engaged in trade with white civilizations, they couldn've functioned without the influence of whites. The Phoenicians made contact with blacks the same way Aztecs made contact with the Spanish.<<<<<

No, the Spanish made contacts with Aztecs, not vice versa, and Phoenicians did not 'make contact' with blacks- they circumnavigated Africa, saw stone-age aborigines walking around eating each other but decorated with something cool, ivory, and built little towns to get more of it.

>>>> That doesn't mean the African civilizatiosn I mentioned weren't real civilizations, or whatever degree are your claims.<<<<<

Do you have any links about the glorious African kingdoms only you seem to know about?

>>>>>Mouse, your link and others have shown white faces. As I've said, seveal of the Pharoah's and nobles were white, especially after the invasion of Nubia. That doesn't change the fact that the Nubian civilizations were present before the first Pharoahs, and that several of the earliest Pharoahs were Nubian.<<<<

It doesnt change it, because the facts you are presenting are a mixture of lies, speculation, and half-truths, and the truth doesnt really ever seem to change your opinion.

I read everything you posted, and some of your points are decent - it still doesn't show that the civilizations couldn't have existed without white intervention.

I told you, read Time Life's Man Myth and Magic" African volume. It explains everything about African civilizations, which according to you weren't real civilizations. The types on contacts proven by your links didn't incidcate much more then trade. You've also yet prove that the Nubians werne't around before the Egyptians.

Introduction
The great chiefdoms, states, and empires of Africa were some of the last great civilizations of antiquity to come to the attention of the Western world. Before the fifteenth century, when the coasts of Africa fell increasingly within the European trading sphere, the states of the African interior were known in Europe only through frail rumors received at one remove from the Arabic world. By the time Europeans finally achieved the interior vastness of the continent in the nineteenth century, many of its great polities had been reduced by internal dissension or had withered away leaving only their ruins. Oral traditions also remained, but for many years they went unheard or uncredited by the ear of the colonizer. Since the last few decades of the colonial era, much has been reconstructed about the vanished African past, through the use of oral traditions, a few textual sources (mostly in Arabic), historical linguistics, and most of all by archaeological research.

Virtually every new program of field research provides alterations to the status quo of African prehistory. However, outside of southeastern Africa, interdisciplinary studies incorporating oral histories, linguistics, and comparative ethnography are still very rare. Thus, it must be remembered that any synthesis in this rapidly changing field is imminently liable to augmentation. Despite this, it is possible to highlight the salient features of our current knowledge of the first African states.

In their distribution, the ancient complex societies of Africa cluster around the great water bodies of the continent. The Niger and Nile river basins have both figured prominently in the rise of African states, as have the Congo River and the shores of the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. It will be observed in the earliest state formations of Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa that two factors played central roles: livestock wealth and interregional trade, with the latter eclipsing the former in importance over time. Although much was made in first postcolonial African histories of the role of external trade in the formation of African states, archaeological research has indicated that extensive internal, rather than external, trade webs formed the principal impetus for the formation of African complex societies.

Africa and Egypt
Much has been written in recent years about the connections of Egypt and the African interior. Whether concerning Egypt in Africa or Africa in Egypt, the fountainhead of this new literature was the work of the late Cheikh Anta Diop. Embraced by the public, and uncomfortably ignored by professional scholars, Diop's radical tenets posited that all original early Holocene (c. 10,000-4000 B.C.E.) inhabitants of North Africa were black, and that they alone were responsible for the predynastic culture of Egypt, and for all of the early dynasties. During the Old Kingdom it was thought that small-scale Caucasoid incursions from the Levant lightened the skin tone of the original Egyptians, with subsequent "invasions" from Persia, Greece, and Rome further transforming the physical characteristics of the Egyptians. Needless to say, this in-mixing of foreigners was thought to be linked to the decline of Egypt, with the best of Egyptian ideas being responsible for the grandeur of Greece and subsequent European civilization. This is not the place to enter into a point-by-point debate on Diop's claims, and those of his numerous intellectual descendants. At their best they do much to redress the anti-African bias inherent in early Egyptology; at their worst they recreate in reverse the oblique racism inherent in the hyperdiffusionistic school of Grafton Elliot-Smith in the 1930s. Modern consensus sees Egypt, from its beginnings, as a multiracial civilization, with African cultural aspects particularly coming from Egypt's Nubian corridor to Africa.

The great civilization of Egypt developed between Mediterranean and African spheres of influence out of a long tradition of incipient stratified social systems, already boasting well-organized agro-pastoral economies, ceremonial architecture, and sailing craft (the predynastic, 5500-3100 B.C.E). Between 3100 and 331 B.C.E, Egyptian dynasties would profoundly influence socioeconomic developments in northeast Africa and southwest Asia, and forever alter the landscape of Egypt with some of the most impressive monuments known to humanity. Throughout this time Egypt's Nubian neighbors possessed their own unique cultural institutions and political structures. These southern polities sometimes cooperated and sometimes contested the power of their northern neighbor.

Kerma, potentially the first Nubian state, prospered between the third and fourth cataracts of the Nile from roughly 2500 to 1500 B.C.E. During Kerma's earliest development, its cultural influences were undoubtedly from the African Sahel, manifested in round-hut dwellings and ceremonial structures, as well as distinctive burial practices and circular tumuli featuring livestock sacrifices. Over time, however, the cultural proximity of Egypt becomes increasingly visible in linear-walled, fired mud-brick architecture; more elaborate burial practices; and prestige goods imported from the lower Nile (Middle to Final Kerma, c. 2050-1500 B.C.E). Kerma's economy appears to have been based upon external trade in ivory, diorite, and gold to the north, with its subsistence base founded upon pastoralism and an as yet unverified grain component. From 1550 B.C.E onward, Egypt began a period of violent conflict with Kerma, which culminated in the fall and burning of Kerma sometime around 1500 B.C.E

After the collapse of Kerma, following a period of Egyptian domination, other Nubian states would arise in the same region. The most notable of these were Napata (c. 860-270 B.C.E) and Meroe (c. 270 B.C.E-350 c.e.). Napata formed around a reemergent upper Nubian elite, with a heartland situated south of Kerma, during a time of dissension in Egypt. Its first rulers were buried in a monumental cemetery at Kurru, with later rulers being inhumed near Napata. With Egypt fragmented into approximately 11 competing polities in the early first millennium B.C.E, Napata was able to push its influence northward, ruling Egypt as a pharaonic Dynasty from 750 to 660 B.C.E Egypt then reunited under an indigenous Dynasty, and Napata's sphere of influence contracted to its original center.

From the declining Napatan state, Meroe arose and endured for more than 500 years (c. 270 B.C.E-350c.e.). Its center was the royal court at Meroe, although it was eventually to stretch as a mercantile empire into lower Nubia and the frontiers of Ptolemaic Egypt. William Adams, the first great synthesist of Nubian archaeology, wrote that both Ptolemaic Egypt and Meroe were "provincial expressions of a world civilization." In other words, they were both cultural outposts of Hellenistic Greece. Even the most fervent Africanists would be hard-pressed to argue against this sentiment. From Classic Kerma onward there is a progressive cultural trend in Nubia of looking away from Africa, and toward the Mediterranean world.

However, Meroe did retain some of its own gods, most notably the lion-headed Apedemack. Meroe also developed its own hieroglyphic-derived script, which unfortunately is as yet untranslatable. Meroe is also famed for its massive iron production, the first large-scale industry of its kind in the Nile Valley. But the technology of this industry is essentially Roman, rather than Sub-Saharan. Indeed, although Sub-Saharan animals, both as living circus animals or as animal products, continued to flow through Nubia, the region had by this time become more of a cul-de-sac and less of a corridor, seeking its luxuries and ideals from the Greco-Roman world.


Cattle as Capital: Early Complex Societies of the Sahara and Sahel
By the third millennium B.C.E, a broad swath of cultures economically dominated by pastoralism stretched across the African Sahel, from modern Sudan to Mauritania. At that time the Sahara was much moister than it is today, being carpeted with grasslands and crisscrossed by seasonally filled waterways and ponds. Its vast expanse was also populated with linguistically and culturally diverse groups that had both pastoral and hunter-gatherer ways of life. The small stone and earthen tumuli and monuments left in the wake of the early pastoral cultures attest to a degree of social ranking in the former probably based around the accumulation of livestock and widely traded polished stone objects (beads, arm rings, axes, etc.). The origins of these mobile complex societies extend almost to the beginnings of cattle-keeping in Africa, whose origins may be as early as 7000 B.C.E in the northeastern corner of the continent.

From a relatively early date, they were constructing small stone monuments of a communal nature, including a circle of standing stones (built between 5000 and 4000 B.C.E, near Nabta Playa, Egypt), and small tumuli for cattle "sacrifices" or lineage bulls (c. 5000 B.C.E, Niger and Chad). Soon, however, monuments of a more individualistic nature would appear across the central Sahara. Stone tumuli, alignments, and burial complexes, singling out the elites of these societies for special treatment, are well documented from 4000 B.C.E until the virtual abandonment of the gradually desiccating region during the first millennium B.C.E . In two places, environmental and external social factors crystallized these mobile societies into more sedentary and complex polities, such as those known from Kerma and Dhar Tichitt.

Around 1500 B.C.E, far in the west of the continent, the first substantial masonry structures in Africa outside the Nile Valley were being built. Along the escarpments of Dhar Tichitt and Dhar Oualata, in modern Mauritania, a pristine chiefdom developed in a deteriorating environment where arable land and pasturage were at a premium. Remote sensing has revealed a four-tier settlement hierarchy, with the largest regional centers exceeding 90 hectares (220 acres) in area. The evolution of Tichitt-Oualata society remains unclear, with competing hypotheses of long-term local development, rapid evolution, or immigration from elsewhere being obscured by thin stratigraphy at deflated settlement sites.

By the mid second millennium B.C.E, however, it is clear that pastoral peoples living in this zone had started to become more sedentary, building dry-stone masonry structures and cultivating millet. From this time onward, the presence of large stone-walled corral areas and numerous granary foundations points to the importance of mixed farming, with definite evidence present for domestic millet, cattle, sheep, and goats. Inorganic wealth resided in the same objects valued by contemporary Sahelian pastoral cultures: carnelian and amazonite beads, polished stone bracelets, and a plethora of ax types, from large functional varieties to miniature tokens. Unfortunately, none of this region's many tumuli have yet been excavated. It would appear that the collapse of Tichitt-Oualata between 800 and 500 B.C.E was brought about both by continually shrinking local ponds and grasslands, as well as increasing harassment from Berber interlopers from farther north.

The Empires of Ghana and Mali
During the first millennium B.C.E the advent of metallurgy added further impetus to the growth of complex societies south of the Sahara. Indeed, gold would play a key role in international trade between West Africa and the Mediterranean world throughout the late first and early second millennia c.e. At a more regional level, iron and copper figured as crucial sources for both practical and prestige objects. Coupled with ivory and the slave trade , the control of metallurgical commodities supplanted mere subsistence as the power basis of African elites from the beginning of the first millennium c.e.

By the time Arab geographers began to write of West Africa in the eighth century c.e., the empire of Ghana described as a "land of gold" was already in existence. The origins of Ghana, and even its precise extent, remain unclear. But we do know that it was situated within the modern states of Mauritania and Mali. It should be noted that he modern state of Ghana was named after the empire because of possible historical connections, even though geographically there is no relation.

It was not until the tenth and eleventh centuries C.E. that travelers and compilers of travelers' tales began to assemble a more complete written record of Ghana an empire reaching the end of its existence by that time. Most notable among them were Ibn Hawkal, a late-tenth-century traveler; and the great geographical synthesist al-Bakri, whose masterwork was completed in 1068 C.E. Only eight years after this, the Almoravid Berbers completed their invasion of Ghana and captured its current capital (Koumbi Saleh). It would appear that this act laid waste to the power structure of the state and marked its effective dissolution.

In their writings, Ibn Hawkal and al-Bakri paint a picture of a powerful and wealthy state able to "put 200,000 warriors in the field, more than 40,000 of them being armed with bow and arrow." The king, it was said, controlled the traffic of all gold out of his kingdom to the north, and the flow of salt from the Sahara to the south.

The ruins of Ghana's last capital, Kumbi Saleh, lie in southeastern Mauritania; yet the most substantive settlement clusters known from the first millennium C.E. rest within the bounds of the middle Niger in the neighboring Republic of Mali. Earlier scholarly thought placed Ghana as a puppet state founded by Arab traders, but recent research has emphasized the indigenous development of regional trade webs by the Soninke people, long before the Arab conquest of North Africa (c. 750 C.E.).

There is thus an unknown Ghana, the Ghana that existed before the first written accounts. There is a tantalizing reference in the Tarikh as-Sudan, a compilation of oral traditions written in Timbuctu about 1650 C.E. It states that there were 21 kings of Ghana before the beginning of the Muslim era (622 C.E.) and 21 kings after that. If we accept this as anything more than an exercise in symmetry, then it would seem to place the origins of Ghana sometime before 300 C.E.

Archaeologically, if we move the center of gravity southward toward the inland Niger Delta, much evidence exists to support this claim. The substantial settlements that have been excavated along the middle Niger were all in existence by this time. At some sites, such as Tongo Maar� Diabal, permanent mud architecture is present from 250 C.E. Certainly the high point of middle Niger civilization in terms of maximum settlement growth would date to the period between 400 and 800 C.E., well before the textually recorded Ghana. Was this the early Ghana eluded to in the Tarikh as-Sudan? On current evidence, it would appear likely. It is expected that future work will confirm the view that the heart of the empire of Ghana, like that of the Mandinka empire of Mali, lay not in its trade entrep�ts in the Sahara, but closer to the resource centers of the middle Niger.
The inland Niger Delta's best-excavated sequence is that of Djenn�-Djeno (250 B.C.E to 1400 C.E.), a 33-hectare (82-acre) mud-brick settlement mound. From its foundation, the inhabitants of the site fished, cultivated rice and sorghum, and had domestic livestock. Trade with adjoining regions brought in commodities such as copper, iron, and sandstone. By 450 C.E., local craft specialization, the building of a monumental city wall, and a regional site hierarchy centered on Djenn�-Djeno point to an urban status for the site. It must be stressed, however, that Djenn�-Djeno is only one of more than a dozen settlements of comparable size now known from the middle Niger, and if one were to consider smaller settlement mounds only one of thousands. The occupation of such sites continued through the time of Ghana's Islamic successor states, the empire of Mali (1250-1600 C.E.) and the empire of Songhai (1375-1600 C.E.).

With the conquest of Ghana by the Islamic Almoravid movement, and the subsequent rapid disintegration of this movement, there came a brief period of small feudal states in this region of West Africa. These successor kingdoms included those of Soso, in the north of ancient Ghana; and Kangaba, located in the modern Mali/Guinea frontier zone. Kangaba had developed out of a grouping of local Mandinka chiefdoms and stateless societies, probably as a response to slave raiding during the time of the late empire of Ghana.

In the early thirteenth century, animistic Soso, under the rule of Sumanguru Kante, began to expand. It raided the territories of the Mandinka and blocked their way to commerce in the north. Around 1240 C.E., Sundiata Keita, or Mari-Diata, the young ruler of Kangaba, defeated the army of Sumanguru, conquered the north, and gained total control of the West African gold trade routes. With this conquest, Keita founded the empire later known as Mali. Mali was to become the first great Muslim empire of West Africa, eventually controlling much of modern Senegal, Mauritania, Guinea, and Mali. By 1312, Mali's greatest ruler, Mansa Musa, took the throne. He ruled for 25 years, making an elaborate pilgrimage to Mecca in 1324 C.E., during which the gold he lavished on Cairo was to have the effect of ruining the local gold standard. During his reign several monumental mosques were constructed within the territory of modern Mali. However, Mali did not last as long as Ghana, enduring as an empire for less than 200 years. Its short life may have been due to the instability created by its rapid expansion through conquest and its consequent ethnic diversity and potential for internal dissension.

Unfortunately, archaeologically we know very little about Mali. Excavations at its putative capital of Niani (in modern Guinea) showed substantial occupations dating to before and after the time of Mali, but very little during its epoch. It is likely that Mali had many capitals, with the capital moving with each new successor to the throne. Much archaeology remains to be done in the Mali/Guinea border region, both to understand better the origins of the Sundiata's power base, and to locate the later centers of Malian rule.

Igbo-Ukwu, Ife, and Benin: Grandeur in the West African Forest
The first complex societies of the West African forest probably took root sometime in the first millennium C.E. Limited excavations have only begun to hint at the political organization of these societies during the late first millennium C.E., but their richness and artistic expertise have been well demonstrated at the site of Igbo-Ukwu (Nigeria), dated to about 900 C.E. From this site, a regal burial and a storehouse of regalia have been excavated, both holding superb brass castings made by the "lost wax" method, and thousands of glass trade beads. The presence of such wealth hints at a well-organized system of trade, craft specialists, and a wealthy elite; but we know little of settlements in the region until the emergence of the state of Ife around 1100 C.E.

The tropical West African state of Ife does not benefit from the weight of textual records available for its contemporaries in the savanna and Sahel. However a good deal of effort has been put into its archaeology, which is a compensating factor. Initial archaeological inquiries at Ife began as long ago as 1910, when the German anthropologist Leo Frobenius visited a shrine at the living holy city of Ife, and there acquired a series of naturalistic bronze and terracotta busts for �6 and some alcohol. He was later apprehended by the colonial authorities and the bronzes returned, but seven terracottas found their way into European museums. As a result there was much speculation as to who could have created this magnificent lifelike sculpture. Frobenius, on stylistic grounds, asserted that ancient Ife was a lost Greek colony founded around 1300 B.C.E and abandoned by 800 B.C.E We now know that this is not even remotely true. The ancient art of Ife was entirely African in its origin, and dated instead to the earlier part of the second millennium C.E. The Yoruba city of Ife is itself an object of wonder. It is surrounded by high earthworks arranged in rings around the town, with the outer ring being 11.6 km (7.2 mi) in circumference. The date of these earthworks is not yet precisely known, but it is assumed that at least some of them correspond with the apogee of Ife as a political center.

Archaeological work at Ife and other sites in its vicinity has been driven primarily by accidental discoveries during building activities, as much of its ancient expanse remains covered with habitations, businesses, and public buildings. Excavations have generated a series of radiocarbon dates that allow the reconstruction of a rudimentary cultural sequence. Finds from between 500 and 950 C.E. are mainly of poor grave pits concentrated near the center of the town. However, for the period dating from 950 to 1300 C.E., there are rich graves, numerous ritual structures, and a distribution of finds throughout, and even beyond, the vast area enclosed by the earthworks. Most of the terracotta portrait busts have been thermoluminescence dated to c. 1200-1300 C.E. In some sculptures, personages are depicted richly adorned in ceremonial regalia. Shrines featuring such depictions may point to a form of divine kingship that is known to have existed historically in the region.

Perched at the edge of Nigeria's tropical forest, Ife is thought to have come to prominence by the control of local products (ivory, gold, pepper, cola nuts, and slaves) in the external trade to Niger River civilizations. By 1300 C.E. its walled capital was at the peak of its wealth, with many shrines featuring elaborate potsherd pavements and sculptures scattered throughout the city. To support this large elite and artisanal population, Ife's subsistence base appears to have been yams, oil-palm products, and small livestock. Surrounding Ife there was likely to have been a continuous hinterland of farmsteads. Around 1500 C.E., the city of Ife declined, and the region's center of power shifted to Benin, without any appreciable break in cultural tradition, despite the fact that Benin City was founded by a different ethnic group (Edo instead of Yoruba).

The rise of Benin and its eclipse of Ife (fifteenth century C.E.) corresponds to the beginning of contacts with the Portuguese and a shift to coastal rather than riverine trade. The first of the great kings of Benin was Oba Euware (1440 C.E.). He is said in oral traditions to have captured 201 towns and made them render regular tribute to him. He is also said to have been the builder of the walls and ditches of Benin, as well as external road networks. From the time of Oba Euware on, there were further innovations in bronze (or more properly brass) casting, with the advent of brass plaques showing the exploits of kings, and with brass pendant plaques being worn by local rulers and functionaries as badges of rank. The walls of Benin are even more spectacular than those of Ife, earning a spot in the Guinness Book of World Records as the world's largest earthwork. Benin City continued to flourish until the advent of the colonial era, when a British punitive expedition sacked the capital in 1897.

Pre-Aksumite and Aksumite Civilization in Ethiopia
Like Meroe, which was more linked to Egypt than Africa, we find in Aksum another outwardly looking state, wedded to the trading sphere of the Red Sea and southern Arabia rather than the African interior. Although there has been some debate concerning the cultural origins of Aksum, it is most likely that there was in fact an undifferentiated Ethiopian/South Arabian cultural sphere from the late first millennium B.C.E into the first millennium C.E. Unfortunately the epoch most likely to shed important light on this matter, the pre-Aksumite period (500 B.C.E-100 C.E.), has barely been studied. Indeed, little has been well documented save several religious and funerary shrines bearing South Arabian inscriptions. The best preserved of these are known from the site of Yeha, where there is a pre-Aksumite temple dedicated to the South Arabian moon god Alouqah. In addition, it can be noted that the distribution of pre-Aksumite material culture more or less equates to that of later Aksum: the northern Ethiopian/Eritrean highlands. Thus, Aksum has been viewed as the successor to this earlier complex society. The last few centuries of the pre-Aksumite period are sometimes referred to as the Intermediate Period. During this time inscriptions in South Arabian script decline, being replaced by a local script based upon the Ge'ez language.

Classic Aksumite civilization prospered between 100 and 600 C.E. The first textual mentions of Aksum may be found in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, an Alexandrian Greek trading guide published in the late first century C.E. The guide makes reference to a metropolis called "Axomite." There is also a mention in Ptolemy's Geography that would lead us to expect a city and a king's palace at Aksum in the mid-second century C.E. Archaeologically, during this early Aksumite period, the first stellae are known to have been installed in the funerary park of the city of Aksum. Textual records from South Arabian temples indicate that by the third century C.E., Aksumite armies were fighting with success in southern Arabia, allied with local rulers, and being led in person by the Aksumite king Gadarat. By 270 C.E. Aksum was minting its own coinage, marked with a distinctive disk and crescent symbol and the head of the ruler (in the first case, King Endybis). Between 200 and 330 C.E., Aksum's greatest monuments were erected. These include the underground chambered tombs of Nefas Mawcha and the Tomb of the Brick Arches, as well as the great stellae of Aksum (the largest being 30 m, or 98 ft, in height, and weighing 517 tons). These stellae were carved from single blocks of stone, with low-relief sculpture on their surfaces representing multistoried structures with doors, windows, and beams. By this time we know that Aksum was supplying African luxury goods (particularly ivory and animal skins) to the Red Sea trade, receiving in return precious metals, glass, cloth, wine, and spices.

Aksum's most celebrated king, Ezana, came to power around 330 C.E. During his reign Aksum was sovereign over Ethiopia as well as parts of Yemen and Sudan. Ezana converted to Christianity in 333 C.E. There followed a trend toward simpler burial traditions, and the replacement of the disk and crescent with the cross on Aksumite coinage.

From C.E. 600 onward, Aksum began to decline. Aksum ceased to be the state's capital in 619 C.E. At this time the kingdom also lost its one seaport of Adulis, as a result of internal dissension. One of the world's first Christian states, Aksum's successors were to retain their religion in the wake of the Islamic expansion of the late first millennium C.E.

The Swahili Coast and the East African Interior
Along the East African littoral, during the first millennium C.E., coastal trade was to play an important role in the elaboration of local social hierarchies, just as trans-Saharan trade was doing in the west. Likewise, for many years the Swahili civilization a chain of semiautonomous city-states dotting the East African coast was thought to be the direct result of Arabian colonization. Its cities were viewed as the very edge of the Islamic world wealthy trading posts perched on the edge of a foreboding interior from which trade goods would "appear" in exchange for cloth and beads. However, the past few decades of research have exposed the indigenous African roots of the Swahili culture and their eventual synergy with incoming Arabian/Islamic culture.

Although the guide written in the late first century C.E., Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, cites the presence of a trading city (Rhapta) along the coast of Kenya or Tanzania, little substantial archaeological evidence exists for East African trading societies until the ninth century. However, there is some encouraging recent evidence from the site of Unjuja Ukuu (situated at the southern tip of the island of Zanzibar, Tanzania). There, local ceramics have been found in stratigraphy with fragments of Egypto-Roman pottery, with the whole assemblage radiocarbon dated to 400-550 C.E. This at least attests to coastal trade with Roman Egypt by that time, and hints that Rhapta may not be a myth.

By 800 C.E., Swahili trading cities dotted the East African coast, fusing Islamic religion and architecture with indigenous sociopolitical organization and commercial acumen. Trading settlements, of which 170 are known, eventually extended from southern Somalia to Mozambique. From these towns the Indian Ocean acted as a trade corridor to the Far East, with lateen and square-rigged dhows stocking the menageries of Chinese emperors, and carrying silks and porcelain to Swahili merchants and their sultans. At an incipient level, it is now apparent that Swahili civilization arose out of coastal agro-pastoral societies, whose gradual mastery of the sea lanes made them ideal intermediaries with foreign mariners. At the well-studied site of Shanga (Tanzania), mud and thatch indigenous architecture in the eighth and ninth centuries gives way to a local mutation of Islamic mortar and stone buildings in the tenth century; with evidence for long-distance trade being present throughout the site's sequence.

J. Phillips, "Punt and Axum: Egypt and the Horn of Africa", JAH 38, 3 (1997), 423-457 (excerpt)
S. Munro-Hay, "Legend, Literature and Archaeological Discovery", in Aksum: An African Civilization of Late Antiquity, (Edinburgh, 1991)

T. Tamrat, "Church and State in Ethiopia, The Early Centuries", in African Zion: The Sacred Art of Ethiopia, (New Haven, 1993)

Kibre Negest, selections

Nile Valley: Nubia and Egypt
Originating in the east African regions of our common human ancestry and flowing northward to the Mediterranean Sea is the longest river in the world, and the great mother of Africa�s grandest civilization, the River Nile. Ancient Egyptians have pinpointed their own ancestral origins to the Mount Rwenzori range in the east African cradle, otherwise known as the Mountains of the Moon. Some accounts state that Egyptian civilization came out of �Ethiopia,� which as a term was used to designate the land south of Egypt (the Upper Nile Valley), or was alternatively used to refer to the entire African continent. Chronologically therefore Egypt�s southern neighbor Nubia, which had its own distinct civilization, was her Nile Valley predecessor.

Although the ancient Egyptians referred to Nubia as Kash (later Kush), the name Nubia seems to have originated from their word for gold (Nub) because Nubia was a land of gold at the time. Ta-Seti or Land of the Bow, was also an ancient Egyptian reference to Nubia in recognition of the formidable skills of Nubian archers whom they encountered militarily. (Nubia�s relationship with ancient Egypt included periods where each became colonial rulers over the other.) Early Nubians (3900-2900 B.C.) were both pastoralists and agriculturists who traded with the north and the south. Pottery and jewelry were amongst the highly refined crafts that Nubians produced which would be buried alongside tools and weapons inside the tombs of the dead.
Nubia produced a number of notable leaders, one of whom was King Kashta, father of Piankhi who was conqueror of Egypt and founder of Egypt�s 25th dynasty. Piankhi detailed his conquest of Egypt on the �Victory Stela� which was discovered in 1862 in the remains of the Temple of Amun at the former Nubian capital of Napata. Meroe became Nubia�s later capital city in 195 B.C.. Piankhi was noted for his religion, intelligence, and preference for treaties over warfare. Shabaka was another notable Nubian king who, when writing the �Shabaka Text� intended to preserve �a work of the ancestors.� Alternatively known as �The Memphite Theology,� and based upon the generative power of God�s thought and speech, the �Shabaka Text� is the earliest record of creation in existence.


Nubians exercised a traditionally African institution of sacred leadership in which Kings and Queens would be designated as Sons and Daughters of God (Ra, in this case). The Queen Mother held the Meroitic title of Ktke (or �Candace� in English), and the King�s daughter would enjoy the office of High Priestess of Amun. Both were the two most powerful female positions in the Nubian government. [OLMEC CIVILIZATION REF: ASANTE 15-16]
Ancient Egypt was known indigenously as Kemet (Land of the Blacks) and Ta-Meri (the Beloved Land). Ancient Egyptians were primarily agriculturists who, with the practice of irrigation and animal husbandry, transformed the Nile Valley into a vibrant food-producing economy by 5000 B.C.. Their settled lifestyle allowed them to develop skills in many crafts and professions including glass making, pottery, metallurgy, weaving, woodworking, leather work, and masonry. In this latter craft, ancient Egyptian practitioners excelled in their architectural feats, as the pyramids testify to this day. The first pyramid was built at Saqqara by Imhotep who, apart from being King Djoser�s master architect during the culturally-vibrant period of the Old Kingdom (c. 2686-2182 B.C..), was also his chief physician and prime minister, a teacher, philosopher, priest, and astronomer. Equated by the Greeks with their god of healing, Imhotep is regarded by many as the father of medicine.


Ancient Egyptian history is chronologically divided up into Pre-historic... Pre-dynastic... and Dynastic periods, the latter of which begins in c.3100 B.C.. with the unification of Upper (south) and Lower (north) Egypt due to a successful northern conquest led by King Narmer. Although it is not clear whether he is a separate Egyptian leader, King Menes is regarded as the founder of Egypt�s First Dynasty. It was during this Early Dynastic Period that the highly sophisticated traditions of art and learning that were to become the hallmark of Pharaonic civilization were established. The oldest texts in history emerged from later Egyptian dynasties which, along with later works paint a powerful portrait of ancient Egyptian moral and ethical standards. Central to the ancient Egyptian ethos is the concept of Ma�at which collectively embraces and upholds the values of truth, harmony, reciprocity, justice, and order.
Various Egyptian papyri reveal additional contributions made by this ancient civilization to the fields of geometry, algebra, medicine, physics, chemistry, surgery, and astronomy. �Papyrus� is the Greek word for the plant material on which ancient Egyptians did much of their writing, and is the origin for the word paper. Employing three systems (hieroglyphic; hieratic; and demotic scripts), ancient Egyptians also contributed the technique and art of writing, some of which is in evidence on pyramid walls. Creative literature such as poems, plays, and narratives also exist from ancient Egypt, as well as the oldest religious and ethical texts which include the �Pyramid Texts� and the �Declarations of Virtues.� Greek philosophy as well as many of the basic tenets of the major world religions were pre-configured in ancient Egyptian civilization. In their own writings early Greek philosophers acknowledge the debt that they owe to the Egyptian knowledge systems in which they were educated.

All the information I posted and much more is cited here.

Adamo, David Tuesday. "PLACE OF AFRICA AND AFRICANS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS ENVIRONMENT." PhD. Thesis, Baylor University, 1986.

Adams, William Yewdale. NUBIA, CORRIDOR TO AFRICA. Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 1977.

AFRICA IN ANTIQUITY: THE ARTS OF ANCIENT NUBIA AND THE SUDAN. Brooklyn, N.Y. : Brooklyn Museum, 1978.

Agatucci, Cora. "ANCIENT AFRICA & AFRICAN EMPIRES TIMELINE." The New Crisis, Jan/Feb 2000, pp.40A-40H.
Great ancient African civilizations, in their day, were just as splendid and glorious as any on the face of the earth. An ancient Africa and African empires timeline is presented.

Allen, Troy Duane. "ANCIENT EGYPTIAN KINSHIP: AN AFROCENTRIC CASE STUDY." PhD. Thesis, Temple University, 1998.
http://www.takingitglobal.org/express/article.html?cid=68
http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/sertima.html
http://archaeology.monterey.edu/Powerpoints/AncientAfrica/ANCIENTAfrica_files/frame.htm

Mine was from my own paper. If you have question about it you can ask me and I can elaborate. That is all stupid shit and theres too much to sift through to find anything worth reading...


Especially since the very first paragraph kills any scholarly validity it might contain. Behold:


>>>>>>Much has been written in recent years about the connections of Egypt and the African interior. Whether concerning Egypt in Africa or Africa in Egypt, the fountainhead of this new literature was the work of the late Cheikh Anta Diop.<<<<<

Right. He is the reason all this new literature has begun. Did you get this from the site that publishes his books?

>>>>>Embraced by the public<<<<<

Right.

>>>>> and uncomfortably ignored by professional scholars, Diop's radical tenets posited that all original early Holocene (c. 10,000-4000 B.C.E.) inhabitants of North Africa were black<<<<<

Thats funny because anthropology says otherwise. North Africa was far from black until much later actually.

>>>>and that they alone were responsible for the predynastic culture of Egypt, and for all of the early dynasties. During the Old Kingdom it was thought that small-scale Caucasoid incursions from the Levant lightened the skin tone of the original Egyptians, with subsequent "invasions" from Persia, Greece, and Rome further transforming the physical characteristics of the Egyptians. Needless to say, this in-mixing of foreigners was thought to be linked to the decline of Egypt, with the best of Egyptian ideas being responsible for the grandeur of Greece and subsequent European civilization.<<<<<

Then why are Egyptian golden-age statues and mummies white? Rameses was the man, and he looks Mediterranean or Anglo-Saxon.

>>>>>This is not the place to enter into a point-by-point debate on Diop's claims<<<<<

Of course. Because they cannot be justified or made legitimate, so we will just take his word for it, assume what he said was true, and take it from there.

>>>>>and those of his numerous intellectual descendants.<<<<<<

LoL.

>>>> Modern consensus sees Egypt, from its beginnings, as a multiracial civilization, with African cultural aspects particularly coming from Egypt's Nubian corridor to Africa.<<<<

By way of a slave trade, because Nubians were foreigners that were enslaved.

Just about everything after the beginning of your first post is about kingdoms that arose in the Roman Era, which means Africa had absorbed SO many other people and ideas, that nothing it did in those areas could be remotely considered black.

Try clicking on the links I posted, or check out the books I cited. Anthropologists verify the paragraph's points - how bout you link me to some sort of geological evidence of your claims?

Look at an Egyptian statue. All youve done so far is say, "That may be true, but THIS guy says even though they look white, thats just because (insert useless argument). Anthropologists did not verify shit about anything this man has said.

And dont you think the entire opening of the thing you posted immediately takes away its credibility? It says hes revolutionized Egyptpology, has won popular support, lol, and then goes on to make outrageous points backed up by facts that "arent worth going into here."

He took his information from doctors and anthropologists. Look at the cites I've posted, you can find much more credible information - I suppose I'd ask for more credibility then a certification as an Egyptologist by some university, so you get the benefit of the doubt there. That's why I posted more links.

Tell how many people with your views have more credentials? Adolf Hitler? lol.

Will you just look at an Egyptian statue? That would end this argument.

The first link begins thus:

"The Ancient Black Secret!

It is time to spread the truth through man-made technology, the Internet. Luckily, you can read my article about the real deal on the contributions of ancient Africans to civilization. Yes, it may be hard to believe that Africans played an important role to human and science civilization but almost everything you see, touch, hear and feel can be traced to the motherland. Besides the fact that everyone�s DNA can be traced to an ancient black woman in the motherland, the earliest inventions have been created there too. Thus, human origins point to Africa as the birthplace of humanity!"

LoL, Ill check the second one in a second.

Second link is just a summary of several books written by some scheister who sells shit to gullible idiots like Uncl.

The third link is a useless slide show with information in the form of captions. The only text on the site accompanies pictures or maps. For "Kush", one of the kingdoms Uncl keeps praising, the site only offers this:

>>>Highly advanced, ancient black civilization. Capital � Kerma. Rich in gold & precious stones. Egyptians conquered in 1500 BC. 1730 BC, Kush conquered Egypt, establishing black Pharaohs of Kush. Built many pyramids.<<<<

Oh. Thanks for the info.

LoL, the second link has a link in it to deal with Criticism of the author. The link just leads to an order form for her various books.

Dude, this is supposed to convince us?

The summaries I posted all have credible sources. I'm still waiting for a credible source for your argument. Actually, ever since I came to totse, you've never provided a credible source for any of your arguments. If you're going to insult the the sources I linked you to, provide someone with better credentials who argues in your favor.

I've seen Egyptian statues. And paintings. Claiming the Pharoahs were all white would be like claiming Jimmy Hendrix was white, because that's the skin tone of most paintings and scultures. I've also seen exagerated nigger lips and defined jaws you'd never see in a white man.

>>>>The summaries I posted all have credible sources.<<<<<

No they dont.

>>>>>I'm still waiting for a credible source for your argument.<<<<<

My argument is just that you dont know what you are talking about. When you wanted to get specific, as was the case with the idea of Europeans visiting the Americas, I gave you excerpts of a paper I wrote with a bibliography.

>>>>If you're going to insult the the sources I linked you to, provide someone with better credentials who argues in your favor.<<<<<

My argument is, look at Egyptian statues, they are white. Your argument is unfathomably stupid and wrong, and is based on websites that are even sadder.

>>>>I've seen Egyptian statues. And paintings.<<<<<

Apparently not.

>>>>>Claiming the Pharoahs were all white would be like claiming Jimmy Hendrix was white, because that's the skin tone of most paintings and scultures.<<<<<

No its not. What are you talking about?

>>>>I've also seen exagerated nigger lips and defined jaws you'd never see in a white man.<<<<<

On Jimmie Hendrix?

No, on statues of Pharoahs. Look at those lips. They're so black the statues would start salvating at the site of friend chicken. In wall paintings I've sene, the faces were pitch black, and the lips were clearly defined.

You havne't shown me any sources. Even if my sources have no credibility, it's better then no sources at all. Can it be that no credibly person would perscribe to your outragious beliefs, because logic isn't on your side if you're talking from neptune.

According to your logic, African civilizations made contact with the Chinese, and therefore they werne't real civilizations. The Spanish made contact with the Aztecs, so the Aztec civilization wasn't really a civilization.

>>>>No, on statues of Pharoahs. Look at those lips.<<<<

I dont know what youre talking about. Are you looking at a contemporary rendering of a real sculpture?

>>>> In wall paintings I've sene, the faces were pitch black<<<<<

Sometimes they are dark blue or red too. So what?

>>>>You havne't shown me any sources.<<<<

www.google.com Look up Egyptian art.

>>>>Even if my sources have no credibility, it's better then no sources at all.<<<<<

No its not, because my claims are nowhere near outrageous.

>>>> Can it be that no credibly person would perscribe to your outragious beliefs<<<<

By no one you must mean everyone but you and Black muslims.

>>>>According to your logic, African civilizations made contact with the Chinese, and therefore they werne't real civilizations.<<<<

... *blinks* There is only two ways to have reached that imbecilic conclusions. Either thats what you got from my arguments, which is a sorry testimony to some flaw in your comprehension of English, or you are purposely drawing THe most homosexual and innane conclusions to try and bolster your ridiculous arguments.

>>>> The Spanish made contact with the Aztecs, so the Aztec civilization wasn't really a civilization.<<<<<

No. Did you read ANYTHING?

What else are you trying to prove then? The idea that those civilizations had white influence? Were based on white cultural foundations? Saying all that after saying blacks remained primitive while whites were expanding obviously means you're denouncing the independence and cultural antiquity of African civilizations. First you claim that they didn't have civilizations, and when I point out that they did, you go off on a tangent claiming something along the lines of they wouldn't have existed without white influence.

I want some sort of evidence of your points. Not your interpretation of a few statues - real anthropological evidence that the egyptians were white. Also show me any logic rebuttle to my claim that the Nubians were around before the Egyptians. Anything. I've yet to here it.

You can't base your logic on how you want things to be. The Olmec were thriving while most whites were having tribal warfare and killing each other for food. Are you now going to claim that a civilization had white influence while most of Europe was a breeding ground for tribes? Unless you're referring to the Roman Empire durring the time when both existed.

Are you saying everyone but me and black muslims believes that the Roman Empire influenced the Aztecs? Or the Ancient Greeks? Any anthropologist in the world would say neither had any awareness of the other's existence. Plus, the Aztecs went on through the dark ages, which by your logic would make Romans inferior.

>>>>>What else are you trying to prove then? The idea that those civilizations had white influence?<<<<<

Foundations, not influence. If a civilization says it came from white gods from the east with beards, that means white guys built their goddamn civilization, doesnt it?

>>>>>Saying all that after saying blacks remained primitive while whites were expanding obviously means you're denouncing the independence and cultural antiquity of African civilizations.<<<<<

Correct. Black africans did not build civilizations. They may have been a minor to moderate part of one, but only after others built them.

>>>>>>First you claim that they didn't have civilizations, and when I point out that they did<<<<<<

No you havent. you have pointed out that on the soil of Africa, some kingdoms and cities have existed. You have not said why I should believe it was Black.


>>>>>I want some sort of evidence of your points. Not your interpretation of a few statues <<<<<

Not a few, all of them. And how a people depict themselves is a good way to see what they looked like, especially when their religion inspires them to recreate their features accurately in the interest of immortality. The features they painstakingly recreate are white.

>>>>. Also show me any logic rebuttle to my claim that the Nubians were around before the Egyptians. Anything. I've yet to here it.<<<<

The only thing youve offered to this effect was from that website where some afrocentric lunatic is trying to sell books, and some cheap slide show with captions with information they could have made up. All other evidence shows that Egyptians felt nothing but contempt for Nubians and saw it fit to destroy and enslave them.

Pharaohs were not Nubian, your only evidence for that comes from bullshit websites. I dont have any Egytpology textbooks around, and Im not going on Yahoo to find everyones opinion that will disprove yours, but you can do that easily yourself. Youre the one making the controversial, outrageous claim, the burden of proof is on you. A website by a guy who probably listens to David Ickes radio broadcasts is not sufficient proof.

>>>>> The Olmec were thriving while most whites were having tribal warfare and killing each other for food.<<<<<

Hello! God from the East, beard, white man with blue eyes, made them build permanent dwellings and stop their polygamy and idleness, hello.

>>>>>>Are you now going to claim that a civilization had white influence while most of Europe was a breeding ground for tribes?<<<<<

The evidence is overwhelming. And the Olmec are a tribe, what the fuck does Tribalism have to do with anything. The Latins were a tribe.

>>>>Are you saying everyone but me and black muslims believes that the Roman Empire influenced the Aztecs?<<<<

After hearing the evidence, probably.

>>>>>> Any anthropologist in the world would say neither had any awareness of the other's existence.<<<<<

The Aztecs were aware of their white gods who lived across the Eastern Ocean, dipshit. Remember the whole, the Conquistadors are Queztalcoatl returning thing?

>>>>> Plus, the Aztecs went on through the dark ages, which by your logic would make Romans inferior.<<<<<

What the fuck are you talking about?

Traditional Aztec, Myan, and Olmec relics date WAY back before the Spanish came. You don't know that? Hundreds of years before Cortez set foot in South America, Aztecs cities thrived. You have yet to give me a reason to believe that's wrong.

You've also failed to reply to my claim that Nubia was around before Egypt. You seem to obviously be avoiding this point. Your point about Zimbabwe is also meaningless - you attempt to say that Chinese coins in Zimbabwe mean that blacks didn't create the civilization, when all it really shows is that they traded with the Chinese.

I'm not the one with broken logic.

Francisco Pizzaro was in South America and destroyed the civilization of the people of the Inca.

Hernando Cortez landed in Mexico and destroyed the Aztec civilization of Montezuma.

Nox

[This message has been edited by Nox (edited 09-22-2002).]

My bad, Cortez landed in Mexico.

I suppose it's irrelevent since Montezuma was a "white god."

Quetzalcoatl was the "white god".

0 for 2.

Nox

If Quezacoatl was white, wouldn't Montezuma be too? The sun god would obviously be the most powerful, and if Spirit was right and the Aztec civilization was based on white foundations, their entire religion would be white.

I think you make half-assed assumptions just to drag this argument out longer. Give it up already.

>>>>>Traditional Aztec, Myan, and Olmec relics date WAY back before the Spanish came. You don't know that?<<<<<

What are you talking about? Where did I even imply otherwise?

>>>>Hundreds of years before Cortez set foot in South America, Aztecs cities thrived. You have yet to give me a reason to believe that's wrong.<<<<<

I know. Because its right. That doesnt mean injuns did it.

>>>>You've also failed to reply to my claim that Nubia was around before Egypt.<<<<

No I havent. I told you, that claim seems to contradict everything everyone else here has said, and the only point youve offered to counter it was made by some woman selling weirdo books.

>>>>> Your point about Zimbabwe is also meaningless - you attempt to say that Chinese coins in Zimbabwe mean that blacks didn't create the civilization, when all it really shows is that they traded with the Chinese.<<<<

No, my point was, three examples ago, and still is, that if things from China can reach Africa, so can people, and therefore, the presence of a city in Africa does not mean blacks built it.

You are still using as evidence of black civilization the presence of civilization in Africa.

Okay, there's no physical proof that blacks built those civilizations. There's also no physical proof that the Aztecs were natives, but there's no logical argument that they weren't.

People could have reached any civilization. No civilization was ever completely isolated. I'm waiting for actual evidence that blacks didn't make the African civilizations, and that natives didn't make the Aztec, Inca, Myan, and Olmec civilizations. The fact that other people at some point reached the civilizations doesn't mean they weren't created by their inhabitants.

Technically, I am sure they did build it... as slaves.

>>>>Okay, there's no physical proof that blacks built those civilizations.<<<<

Thank you. But there is plenty of proof that people other than Blacks were all over Africa, so, probability isnt even in favor of blacks building a thing.

>>>>There's also no physical proof that the Aztecs were natives<<<<<

Aztecs were Apaches, I said that. There is plenty of evidence- genetic studies, looking at descendants, sculpture, etc, but my point from the beginning was that the Aztecs credited white bearded gods from across the Eastern Ocean for their civilization's creation, so they were at best care-takers.


>>>> No civilization was ever completely isolated. I'm waiting for actual evidence that blacks didn't make the African civilizations<<<<<

Carthaginian colonies in Wales, and Celtic settlements in New England. People other than blacks had the proven means to infiltrate Africa and build settlements- They had the motivation, Africa has a lot of gold and exotic stuff worth a lot in a market in Sidon- and they have history on their side. History shows that Carthaginians, Egyptians, and Celts had the capacity and fortitude to create and maintain civilization. This ability and motivation has never been displayed by Africans.

>>>>and that natives didn't make the Aztec, Inca, Myan, and Olmec civilizations.<<<<

They didnt. Cant you read? The buildings were "ancient in the time of the Inca" and were built by white men with auburn hair, remember?

>>>>>The fact that other people at some point reached the civilizations doesn't mean they weren't created by their inhabitants.<<<<<

The fact that, when asked, the people you speak of credited white people they, by your logic should never have known existed, does.

Your argument has too many holse to be taken seriously. Initial Olmec art dates back way before any whites new of South America's existence. I'm talking B.C - way before Leaf Ericson landed in Newfoundland, which was the first ever European discovery of the Americas. If you're saying that South American civilizations from before the birth of christ, then I'm sure I'm not the only one that doesn't take you seriously. The Aztecs paid tribute to white gods AFTER the arrival of the Conquistadors. They were still around almost a thousand years before that.

In a nuthshell, your argument about Africa is that since white people were able to get their, white people created the civilization. African art, written language, culture, and religion had absolutely nothing to do with it. There were absolutely NO relics of European culture in Zimbabwe. If their were, show me - I'm curious. Coins don't count, all they mean is trade.

This is a good thread... when actual information is being added to it.

Here's my 2 cents:

I read an account of a 2nd dynasty Pharoah, who put down a Nubian uprising, so it's unlikely that they were early period Pharoahs as was stated.

And, while evidence of outside cultural influence, doesn't prove that the outsiders introduced civilization; the lack of African exploration and travel, does seem to indicate a lower level of intelligence or ambition - qualities needed of civilization builders.

Also, I've always been fascinated that the Aztec mythology predicted the civilization's demise. Anyone know how this got in there? or if any others are like it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by user X:
Also, I've always been fascinated that the Aztec mythology predicted the civilization's demise. Anyone know how this got in there? or if any others are like it?

---

I think you would enjoy the story of Quetzalcoatl...it watered my eyes...even to the point of predicting Q's return in a vessel with "white sails"...however, Cortez was not Q.

Nox

I think the Quezacoatl myth was altere after the Spanish invasion. Either that or it was a serious coincidence. Regardless, Montezuma, the sun god, and the other aspects of Aztec religion and civilization obviously had no white influence. Most of the influence came from the Olmec, which was the original South American/Latin American society.

How do you pronounce Quetzacoatl?

We were both wrong:

It is spelled Quetzalcoatl.

Here's a shot at pronunciation:

Kate sal co a tal. The a in tal is not emphasized to make a tl combination sound.

Nox

>>>Your argument has too many holse to be taken seriously. Initial Olmec art dates back way before any whites new of South America's existence.<<<<

Obviously not. Did you read any of the evidence I posted a few days ago? Celtic monoliths in New England, Punic script on the Amazon River, Mayan carvings of Gods wearing the same Phylacteries biblical Jews wore, Celtic Ogam inscriptions all over both Americas east coast, etc, etc, etc.

>>>> I'm talking B.C - way before Leaf Ericson landed in Newfoundland, which was the first ever European discovery of the Americas.<<<<<

Obviously not. Even Eskimo's made it to Scandinavia (frozen, dead, and by accident, but it was possible even for men in animal skin kayaks)

>>>>>If you're saying that South American civilizations from before the birth of christ, then I'm sure I'm not the only one that doesn't take you seriously.<<<<<

"ANCIENT IN THE TIME OF THE INCA" What more do I have to say? Fuck. Before you say another word go back and ready very carefully the information I posted a few days ago. You keep screaming for more more more info without even reading what I post. Fuck you man, youre such an aggravating blindfolded shill.

>>>>>The Aztecs paid tribute to white gods AFTER the arrival of the Conquistadors.<<<<

So they made up the fact that Cortes was a White god from the East after he landed?

>>>>In a nuthshell, your argument about Africa is that since white people were able to get their, white people created the civilization.<<<<<

No. My argument is that since Africans never explored and except for your claims, did anything, if its proven people other than africans were in africa, its more likely the civilizations belonged to them. There is no evidence of blacks outside of Africa, so the logical conclusion is others came to them.

>>>>There were absolutely NO relics of European culture in Zimbabwe. If their were, show me<<<<<

You want me to take you to Zimbabwe? Africa isnt my area of expertise, I dont exactly have archaeological digs of Zimbabwe here at my disposal. Again,the burden of proof is on you, since youre the one alleging something no one but you seems to believe. Besides, I have posted pages of evidence concerning whites in South, Central, and North America in the late Bronze age, and it is quite apparent you havent even bothered to read them, so until that is remedied, will die before I post a single sentence from an outside source for you.

The burdon of proof isn't on me, because my statements are generally accepted in the world. I've been to Zimbabwe, and heavily researched their civilization. Since it's widely accepted in society that the civilization was black, you'd need to do some serious convincing that it had white foundations.

Same with the Aztecs. Cliaming whites reached South America before the Olmec civilization definately requires proof, or at least some evidence.

Neither of the civilizations I mentioned have any relics of white culture. They have common vestiges of native culture - like a religion, a language, a system of laws, ect. None of which were adapting any sort of white trend. You see, if your argument has no evidence, it's your responsability to give me a reason that you're right. Saying foreign coins were found isn't good enough. Neither has talking about statues that dated to at least a thousand years after a civilization was formed. There is no logical reason that those civilizations had white foundations.

>>>>The burdon of proof isn't on me, because my statements are generally accepted in the world.<<<<

Apparently not. No one here believes you.

>>>>I've been to Zimbabwe, and heavily researched their civilization.<<<<

Apparently not, because the only evidence you can offer is from afrocentric people who probably listen to David Ickes.

>>>> Since it's widely accepted in society that the civilization was black<<<<

No its not. Again, my National Geographic book links it to Egyptians looking for ivory and leopard skins inland.

>>>>Same with the Aztecs. Cliaming whites reached South America before the Olmec civilization definately requires proof, or at least some evidence.<<<<<

You son of a bitch, do not post another fuckin letter until you painstakingly read every last fuckin syllable I posted about that.

>>>>Neither of the civilizations I mentioned have any relics of white culture. <<<<

Carvings of white men in central America. Knowledge of white bearded people across the Eastern Ocean. Carvings of other men with beards- Injuns dont get facial hair. Carvings of men with phylacteries. Monuments built by Celts. Inscriptions carved by Celts. Inscriptions left by Egyptians. Langauge consistent with prolonged contact with Egyptian and Celtic in both the mississippi valley and New England.

>>>>Neither has talking about statues that dated to at least a thousand years after a civilization was formed.<<<<

The statues date before whites went there, duh.

>>>> There is no logical reason that those civilizations had white foundations. <<<<

There are plenty, as I outlined in prior replies. They had motivation- they had complex markets and economies that did well selling exotic wares. They explored. Theirs were the sea-faring crafts that made travel and trade possible. They have history on their side. They are the people in whose footsteps civilizations follow.

Yes, you've proven to be that white people have made contact with black civilizations. Congradulations.

Nobody believes me? Nobody is activly participating in this argument accept us. Nobody else has stated their complete opinion on the issue. Granted, the majority probably agree with you, but Totse is mostly right wing, so you're closer to home.

I'm sure that if we held this argument on a radical Marxist message board, I'd have more support. That has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about society - society recognizes the civilization of Zimbabwe as black. It recognizes the Aztec civilization as native American. If you chose to oppose society, it's your burdon of proof.

I have trouble understanding why why blacks would go out of their way to build a city, trade with chinese and then abandon it, only to let savages use it as shelter years later.

Why did they revert back to a previous level of living?

Spirits right, its more of a case of why would it be a black civilisation rather than why isn't it a white one.

Are you recommending a specific book Nox?

>>>>Nobody believes me?<<<<

Nope.

>>>>Nobody is activly participating in this argument accept us.<<<<

Alan, UserX, Nox, and Malaria have all offered their opinions and said they dont believe you in one way or another.

>>>>but Totse is mostly right wing, so you're closer to home.<<<<

What does that have to do with the truth of a civilizing influence?

>>>>>I'm sure that if we held this argument on a radical Marxist message board, I'd have more support.<<<<<

And on a Black Panthers board. but since Im "closer to home" and defending popular opinion here, the burden of proof would be on you.

>>>> That has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about society - society recognizes the civilization of Zimbabwe as black.<<<<

Society doesnt recognize it as anything- it is a very small minority of people that even know Zimbabwe has seen metal-working before the 20th century.

>>>>It recognizes the Aztec civilization as native American.<<<<

Half of it recognized Al Gore as a good potential president. What society recognizes is irrelevant when discussing science and history.

>>>>If you chose to oppose society, it's your burdon of proof.<<<<<

Im not taking my views to society, they are here on Totse only. And even then, society would be more inclined to believe me, since National Geographic and 4000 years of recorded history rightly view blacks as never having created civilization.

quote:

---

Originally posted by user X:
Are you recommending a specific book Nox?

---

I don't get the question. If you are talking about Michners "The Source", yes. The thing about that book, even though it's fiction, the historical scenario fits everything I've ever read about the different historical epochs he created story's about.

Nox

Nubian civilization didn't reach it's hight until after Egypts decline, when it invaded Egypt. And this comes from what I've learned in our overly liberal public education system.

I've been to Zimbabwe, and heavily researched their civilization.
I highly doubt you actually did that. How old are you again? 17? When were you there? How many teenagers or younger would spend their time "heavily researching" an ancient civilization? Especially when there are a million other things to do. Maybe you've been there, but I highly doubt you did any researching.

Nobody is activly participating in this argument accept us. Nobody else has stated their complete opinion on the issue. Granted, the majority probably agree with you, but Totse is mostly right wing, so you're closer to home.
I really don't think this has anything to do with political stance, more like evidence mixed with common sense.

Show me a national geographicarticle that says blacks have never been civilized. Do so and I will admit defear.

User, the black civilizations fell. Just the way the Roman Empire fell. After the Roman Empire fell, it's land became a ground for tribal warfare. Does this make whites uncivilized? I'm saying there's just as much logical evidence of black civilizations as their were white civilizations - culture, religion, written language, and cities. There's no more proof African cities weren't black then there is Roman cities weren't white. Your perverted definition of logic has no afect on reality. Show me some sort of proof that whites founded any of those civilizations - I can't prove that they didn't; for it's impossable to prove a negative, which you're asking me to do.

Thats probably because the claim that African languages are complex is bullshit, for that very reason. If they were such complicated and creative thinkers, why did they not build explore their own continent or leave their mark on the world?

>>>>Sorry, i cant leave this alone! lol Tell any real anthropologist that every single Sub-Saharan or North American civilizations were created by whites<<<<

Ok. But even then, the argument was not that African civilizations were white achievemants, just that they were not black.

>>>>Shit, with some of the flimsy shallow evidence I have seen here supporting close-minded bigots like Spirit<<<<

Yeah, legends, physical anthropology, architecture, and artifacts are such bullshit when trying to prove a point.

>>>>> I come up with a proposal on his and malaria's and the mouse's logical level: The European civilizations were all founded by North Americans because washed up totem poles and spears found in Europe coupled with European legends of monsters from the Atlantic prove that the Native Americans came and laid the smackdown on whites.<<<<

I dont see how that compares to the Injuns themselves repeatedly crediting a white bearded god from across the Eastern ocean with the introduction of mathematics, writing, astronomy, engineering, and agriculture. Especially when their carvings show guys with beards or use symbols and dress consistent with contemporary civilizations across the Atlantic.

>>>a lot of black people do not speak ebonics. But white skater slang sounds just as dumb to me as hip-hop slang, if not then like, dumber, dude.

Most of those skater kids are influenced by the 'hip-hop' slang. I am not saying all whites are the same, there are some that are just as bad and worse.

>>>And I dont know why people say English is hard. Every language Ive been exposed to besides English has all kindsa different forms for most verbs, some have more than one form for nouns with conditional endings. English doesnt. That sounds pretty fuckin simple to me.

I don't think it is hard just because it's what I have been raised on. Most people outside of English speaking countries have a certain amount of trouble with it, since it is a mix of so many different influences.

>>>Not true according to the linguistics folks. Those folks list Mandarin Chinese as the hardest (because of the tonal nature of the language) with the Slavic languages coming in second (because of the multitude of sounds required to pronounce the words).

I didn't say it was the hardest, just echoing what people from other countries have told me. Slavic languages are death to learn, I've tried learning Czech before.

>>>For an area with vastly complex languages, they sure haven't applied that creativity to other areas have they?

Like Spirit said, it's most likely a bullshit claim. He's reaching for anything to sway his "argument."

What I find most humourous about this guy is that he failed with his black civilizations, so now he is trying with linguistics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnny doe:
Shit, with some of the flimsy shallow evidence I have seen here supporting close-minded bigots like Spirit, I come up with a proposal on his and malaria's and the mouse's logical level......

---

I haven't seen ANY evidence provided from you to back any of your claims up. If indeed as you say, that every anthropologist would laugh in your face, there must be hundreds of bits of evidence they will use to back up the claim.

But thats because the whites didn't build them. Duh, you've been told that more than enough times. So why still harp on about it.

All i require is ONE bit of evidence supporting any of your claims and i'll be happy. But i've got the strangest feeling that you can't provide any.

One bit of evidence! MOTHERfucker! There is no reason to think Blacks did not start any Sub-Saharan civilizations! all the artwork of the rulers shows Black faces, Black languages were used, shit, I dont see anything not Black about them. Oh, Nox, many african languages use tonal like you say Mandarin does, it is really hard to speak. The same word in a Kenyan language my friend speaks can mean man, dog, or toilet depending on the tone of voice.

Not one bit of evidence??? Look, buddy, flip back a few pages, a lot of my evidence was convieniently ignored, read on your own about the Black African civilization i mentioned with the alphabetic language, spent a few hours and read up on the kingdom of Kush, take the time and look at everything.
Try reading some material not filtered through racist minds on Black civilization, pull up a few articles from National Geographic or other mainstream publications where real anthropologists research is shown to support your claims, not some links to some pathetic racist website on someones home computer. Show me material to support you that does not use broad meaningless (in anthropology) terms such as "black" and "white", but more specific terms on places of origin.
Read a few books that do not take your point of view. Read "Black Indians" (although not an especially technical book, it is well referenced to the technical literature for easy verification). Included in that book it shows how escaped black slaves quickly built their own city based on a blending of African tribal farming and irrigation with Indian styles of leadership. It fended of "white" invasions for many years. Smaller versions of such events took place frequently in the U.S. south. That is also the book that shows how the Seminole Nation earlier discussed was mostly black.

Malaria, so some white kids are worse huh? Well bright idea, maybe that shows that race really does not matter now, does it??? Look, to attack culture is one thing, that is perfectly legit, but to link race and culture is unscientific and ignorant.

Oh just a thought, there was an article published in my newspaper the other day about how people with racial stereotypes have lower IQ's than people who do not. hmmmm, maybe racists are the only real "lower race".

>>>>One bit of evidence! MOTHERfucker! There is no reason to think Blacks did not start any Sub-Saharan civilizations!<<<<

They are black. Blacks live in mud and dont even build permanent dwellings.

>>>>all the artwork of the rulers shows Black faces<<<<

The medieval kingdoms you cite now were pretty black, Im not arguing against that. I am talking about ancient civilizations, that would have arisen purely from black ingenuity. If a Portugese merchant ship lands near Madagascar and the blacks build a village to trade ivory with them, that isnt much of a civilization, and did not arise independently.

>>>> Oh, Nox, many african languages use tonal like you say Mandarin does, it is really hard to speak. The same word in a Kenyan language my friend speaks can mean man, dog, or toilet depending on the tone of voice.<<<<<

Thats pretty stupid.

>>>>>Not one bit of evidence??? Look, buddy, flip back a few pages, a lot of my evidence was convieniently ignored, read on your own about the Black African civilization i mentioned with the alphabetic language, spent a few hours and read up on the kingdom of Kush<<<<

Thats all too late to call it to the product of black ingenuity. There were hundreds of thousands of nonblacks visiting the region in search of wealth and opportunity before the civilizations arose.

>>>>Try reading some material not filtered through racist minds on Black civilization,<<<<

I agree. That is why you can discount any garbage Uncl suggested, or really anything by people who think Egypt was black in general.

>>>>> pull up a few articles from National Geographic or other mainstream publications where real anthropologists research is shown to support your claims, not some links to some pathetic racist website on someones home computer.<<<<<

No one offered a link except Uncl, who did exactly what you just said.

>>>>> Show me material to support you that does not use broad meaningless (in anthropology) terms such as "black" and "white"<<<<<

Black is a valid anthropoligical term, its quicker and more accepted than saying Negro.

>>>> but more specific terms on places of origin.<<<<<

Thats where they getcha, ya know. Even the News does that. If something in Africa was done by a white guy and they just said it was found in Sofala, people would assume it was black. Thats why "broad meaningless (in anthropology) terms such as 'black"'and white" are necessary.

>>>>read a few books that do not take your point of view. Read "Black Indians" (although not an especially technical book, it is well referenced to the technical literature for easy verification). Included in that book it shows how escaped black slaves quickly built their own city based on a blending of African tribal farming and irrigation with Indian styles of leadership.<<<<<

Neither culture included or made the necessary logistical preparations for city-building or maintenance.

>>>>> It fended of "white" invasions for many years.<<<<

How come theyre not just- white? Why the flaming little "s?

>>>> Smaller versions of such events took place frequently in the U.S. south. That is also the book that shows how the Seminole Nation earlier discussed was mostly black.<<<


Theres also a book about how the Reptilians, ancient enemies of the kindred of Lyre, waged an intergalactic war with human ancestors, destroying the planet Maldek and creating the asteroid belt, stripping the atmosphere of an inhabited Mars, and implanting it on Earth, which eventually became a refuge planet for Lyrean martian people and reptilians, who to this day use the moon as an orbitting space station in hopes of one day conquering their primordial foe.

>>>Oh just a thought, there was an article published in my newspaper the other day about how people with racial stereotypes have lower IQ's than people who do not.<<<<


LoL. If you think that can ever be determined, you are a mindfucked prole.

The Kingdom of Kush was ancient, and was Black. It is mentioned in the Bible's Old Testament, and other ancient manuscripts. The figurine artifacts are black. But even if what you conceded was just the case, what makes a civilization not of black ingenuity because it arises in a trade situation (which i dont even think was the case, at least not in all of them)? I am sure Arabs or Portugese did not sit down and explain, this is how we talk with an alphabet, this is how we build cities, etc. Contact does not equate influence.

Well the literature I mentioned is widely distributed, and well known and reputable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
>>>Oh just a thought, there was an article published in my newspaper the other day about how people with racial stereotypes have lower IQ's than people who do not.<<<<


LoL. If you think that can ever be determined, you are a mindfucked prole.

---

Hmm. well I guess the same can be said about the earlier racial IQ argument. Keep working hard at Wawa.

>>>>The Kingdom of Kush was ancient, and was Black.<<<<<

Isnt that the one from the 1300s or so? Maybe the 500s?

>>>>> It is mentioned in the Bible's Old Testament <<<<<

So are people who live to be 900.

>>>>> The figurine artifacts are black. But even if what you conceded was just the case, what makes a civilization not of black ingenuity because it arises in a trade situation (which i dont even think was the case, at least not in all of them)? I am sure Arabs or Portugese did not sit down and explain, this is how we talk with an alphabet, this is how we build cities, etc. Contact does not equate influence.<<<<

Yes it does. What makes you so sure the Portugese or Arabs did not educate them even a little in the arts of civilization? Do you think stone-age tribalism is better for business than educated and domesticated peopel with an imposed religion?


>>>>Well the literature I mentioned is widely distributed, and well known and reputable.<<<<

You just mentioned the Bible.


>>>>Hmm. well I guess the same can be said about the earlier racial IQ argument.<<<

No it cant. A relatively representative and average of any given race can easily be selected on appearance alone. It is impossible to determine who is racist without serious knowledge of a person, and the tests are therefore biased if even really taken at all.

>>>> Keep working hard at Wawa. <<<<

Is that supposed to be insulting or something?

So far, anti-racists on this site who claim to speak for workers and the downtrodden have tried to make fun of me for:

allegedly having a black and white, small TV.

allegedly having a small, cramped, run-down house.

allegedly only eating cheap food

and not for working at a job where I dont wear a suit and tie and make millions.


You kids are fuckin stupid.

You are so close minded it is laughable! You keep your arguments in hypothetical world, and when literature is cited, you dismiss it without a look as not worth shit. Whether or not the Bible twists meaning of religious significance is one thing but it is a fact the the old testament refers to an old, ancient time and discusses Kush along with ancient Egypt and other ancient empires, I am sure the author had no ulterior motive to make sure blacks had their props. But Besides the Bible, their are plenty of historical artifacts and references to it. Oh, and they did not use mud to build their cities, by the way. And even if they did, we still use bricks to this day.

No, if the Africans were that backward they had to be taught everything, then they would have been conquered and looted for the goods right away, they would not have been allowed to grow into large empires.

Well, buddy, you said you worked at wawa, and maybe if your I.Q. was a little more along that of my black wife, you would not have to, you would be able to make thing a little easier for you and your family, if you have one. But I am not being the insulting one here, people who use names like nigger lover and white chocolate are.

Oh and what you said about racial intellegence just now is also false, but my words are empty to you, when I return a while later I will point you with a summary to the book by the world's leading anthropologist that disclaims that myth.

My anthropology teacher said theres no difference between races, then proceeded to show us racially different skulls. Have you ever seen a black man's skull?

>>>>You are so close minded it is laughable! You keep your arguments in hypothetical world<<<<<

No I dont. My argument is that trading huts encircled by a wall are built after Portugese or Arabs came a'down river looking for stuff worth taking, that is not a credit to a race's ingenuity, nor is it testimony to their ability to create civilizations.

>>>> and when literature is cited, you dismiss it without a look as not worth shit.<<<<

Mostly because the literature you cite is bullshit, but also because I genuinely dont believe it says what you say it says. I can tell you the Bible says this or that to, youre not going to go and read it, so youd have to take my word for it.

>>>> Whether or not the Bible twists meaning of religious significance is one thing but it is a fact the the old testament refers to an old, ancient time and discusses Kush along with ancient Egypt and other ancient empires, I am sure the author had no ulterior motive to make sure blacks had their props.<<<<

Any empire around Egypt is more likely just an appendage of the Egyptian empire, and illustrated the primacy of Egyptian civilization more than the ingenuity of blacks.

>>>>No, if the Africans were that backward they had to be taught everything, then they would have been conquered and looted for the goods right away, they would not have been allowed to grow into large empires.<<<<

Not when the country is a hostile mix of burning sands and jungle that rusts armor in a few days, crawling with foreign predators and diseases.


>>>>Well, buddy, you said you worked at wawa<<<<

Yep. I dont see how it would be different if I said I worked at IBM.

>>>>and maybe if your I.Q. was a little more along that of my black wife<<<<

It probably is. Theres no IQ test for any job. I cant even get a minimum wage job in my town without knowing people.

>>>> you would not have to, you would be able to make thing a little easier for you and your family, if you have one.<<<<<

Im a 21 year old college student ass-wipe.

>>>> But I am not being the insulting one here<<<<<

Thats my point. You tried though, it was just a laughable effort that only showed your own hypocrisy and idiocy. -"Oh yeah, well you work at Wawa, HM!"

Spirit and I went through this exact same argument. He's already made his points, don't drive him into repetition, move onto something else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnny doe:
Malaria, so some white kids are worse huh? Well bright idea, maybe that shows that race really does not matter now, does it??? Look, to attack culture is one thing, that is perfectly legit, but to link race and culture is unscientific and ignorant.

---

There are always a few that are worse than the rest. The average still remains the same.

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnny doe:
One bit of evidence! MOTHERfucker! There is no reason to think Blacks did not start any Sub-Saharan civilizations! all the artwork of the rulers shows Black faces, Black languages were used, shit, I dont see anything not Black about them. Oh, Nox, many african languages use tonal like you say Mandarin does, it is really hard to speak. The same word in a Kenyan language my friend speaks can mean man, dog, or toilet depending on the tone of voice.

---

and i'm asking you to show me one. A link to evidence, a picture maybe, whatever, as long as its not more 'theres no reason to think...' bullshit.

By the way, whats Wawa?



[This message has been edited by preying mantis (edited 10-02-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnny doe:
Oh, Nox, many african languages use tonal like you say Mandarin does, it is really hard to speak. The same word in a Kenyan language my friend speaks can mean man, dog, or toilet depending on the tone of voice.

---

No disagreement here, I'm merely stating what linguists have said. Maybe those African languages were not considered because there isn't a pressing international need for translators with abilities in those particular languages.

For what it's worth.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnny doe:
Oh, and they did not use mud to build their cities, by the way. And even if they did, we still use bricks to this day.

---

Now we play the semantics game. When you look at the African civilizations below the Sahara, you find that they evolved similarly to "Western Civilizations", along the rivers. When you build any kind of building it must have a firm foundation. The land along an aluvial plane is not conducive to stone structures that last. Egypt has an aluvial plain next to the Nile, but the stone structure are built on bedrock away from the river. Here's a small point: The oldest Egyptian pyramid (excluding the Great Pyramid- a topic of extended debate) was build of sun-dried mud brick.

So the fact that the African civilizations along the Mali and Congo Rivers used extensive mud brick is a rather moot point.

Nox

Nox