But Egyptians arn't negro.
Yeah they are. Egyptians are and were very black. Movies from the 20th century that put make up on European people is not what actual Egyptians looked like. They had black curly hair and black skin.
I have been addressing the black race, the negro race which is African. Carthaginians were not negro.
Yeah they were.. black skin, curly black hair etc. Carthage was located in modern day Tunisia. A majority black country..
Blacks often do this. Because some people in Africa have excelled, who are not black, blacks attribute their accomplishments as their own.
You are doing exactly what every ignorant racist I have ever talked to does. You are completely ignorant of the histories of the countries,, empires, and the very continent you are talking about. You are using outdated terms from the 19th century that were used to justify the horrors of European and American slavery and treatment. The same logic used to claim most of Europe was not White. If you were not English or Scandinavian, you were not considered white.
Concerning the Zulus, they are but a tribe in Africa. The greatest contribution to South Africa was the the white race. They built a civilization which of course has now been given back to the negro's. Thus watch it now deteriorate. Blacks took over a civilization they could never have built. And for some reason everyone thinks they can maintain it.
Yep, you don't know anything about this either. The Zulu nation spanned most of southern Africa ( Not South Africa, southern) South Africa is a faction of the former empire. What you are explaining is the colonization that happened when England was running its empire where the former civilizations were raided and destroyed, then the people subjugated for generations being enslaved and denied human rights. You literally have no grasp of the history of African continent.
Basically most of what you are saying is false or at the least completely ignorant.
Europe and Russia were populated by white people.
Not according to the English who invented the idea of the White race. You are literally using terms and concepts that were invented by the British/English Empire to justify its conquests of Africa, Asia, and the America's. Once genetics was discovered it was found that most of the concepts on race from the English royal society were completely wrong.
That goes all the way back to the descendants of Noah. Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Shem is semetic. Japheth is the northern people, whites. Ham is Africa. See (
Gen. 10), known as the table of nations. Shem is blessed. Japheth partakes of Shems blessings. Ham receives no blessing and a curse upon his descendants. (
Gen. 9:20-29). Thus you have Christ coming out of Shem. And you have God Christianizing Europe. (
Acts 16:6-10)
Yep, more British Royal society nonsense. Jesus was Semetic, and until the English empire Jesus was portrayed as being very Mediterranean in complexion and physical appearance. The area Jesus was born would not be white by any European standard at the time. Most of Rome would not be considered white. Heck the Roman's considered the northern European peoples ( The Norman's (modern day England,) and the Gals (Modern day Austria,Germany, and most of Eastern Europe)) to being barbaric uneducated races. You literally have no grasp on the history you are talking about.
The white race, or any other race is not a concept. It is real with real distinctions.
Invented by the English Royal society to justify the enslavement and subjugation of non English people during the height of the English Empire.
Concerning the palms of black people being white, that is interesting. You give a scientific answer but the question goes back to why? Just like I have seen it explained on one of the 'ancestory' shows, that there is no 100% negro. When they give the DNA results blacks will always have some 'white' in them. That doesn't make them white. Just shows something happened.
The real reason is because skin tone is determined by melanin. There is no white gene or genes. Skin-color is determined by several genes that activate to produce melanin. When "black" and white people have children the several genes that dictate melanin production become more diverse and the less a strong melanin representation is in generation the lighter the skin tone will become. Most Northern Europeans have genetic mutations that turn off the various genes that dictate melanin because people in climates where the sun is obscured for months of the year don't tend to have issues with skin cancer. However, "white" people that get heavier tans or elongated sun exposer tend to contract skin cancer pretty easily.
I have already explained that blacks in Africa benefit from the advances of civilization. That doesn't mean they contributed to them. And, as I already said, blacks can excel in a civilization not controlled by blacks. But they take on the character of that civilization which is Christian and white. Once blacks gain control and start to run that civilization, then it reverts back to tribal mentality. Thus later you can buy a house for the price of a coke, because who wants to live there. No one.
What you stating here is not backed up by any real evidence. Yes, the English and Portuguese imported and brought resources to PARTS of Africa where infrastructure was not easily constructed and the cultures that formed in those areas of Africa were due to the lack of stable farm land. One of the biggest benefits of the Mediterranean and European booms in society was due to fertile farm land. Nomadic people don't have the same luxury to build societies. The English were able to import resources to the Northern African Continent and Europe to supplement the societies that now rely on mining precious metals for their economic structure.
A lot of what you are talking about did not come about due to skin tone or any specific genetic factor. Its literally because you are literally lumping together multiple cultures, empires, and civilizations under an umbrella term "white" and ignoring the fact that many of these "white" people spent millennia trading with Asian, Northern African, and Middle Eastern nations, and spread ideas and concepts through trade routes that were established before Christianity. There were civilizations with education, metal working, science, technology, agriculture, etc. before the Roman Empire.
A lot of the people you want to refer to as "Negro" were nomadic people due to the lack of stable farm land. Its very hard to have stable technological societies when people had to move over large swaths of territories and had to war with neighboring peoples for resources.
You want to say white people are represented because they exist. For that matter, black people are represented because they exist. So big deal.
Its literally like you are refusing to grasp what I'm trying to explain. Its not because "white" people exist, its because the population of "white people" is higher and have stable roots in Industry, education, and government. Something the Black, Asian, and native population doesn't have.
The point is the NAACP is racist. It is for the advancement of the black people.
An organization that was created back when black people were considered inferior than white people and did not have equality under the law. It still exists because as you demonstrating there is a lot of ignorance about basic humanity.
The NAAWP is racist. It is for the advancement of the white people. Which one is accepted as good in this country?
The NAAWP would be a rascist organization since "white" people were not a subjugated group in the US that needs to organize to dispel hundreds of years of misinformation and a legal representative organization to represent a minority status rights.
Which one is viewed as evil in this country.
So far a lot of what you have stated is outdated propaganda that was invented by an empire to justify its atrocities and adapted by people in the US to further justify slavery and the subjugation of minorities.
