Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
And what topic are we referring to in particular?
Breh intellectually destroys Joe Rogan
- Thread starter UpAndComing
- Start date
And what topic are we referring to in particular?
UpAndComing
Veteran
So you have no idea of the topic the black dude in the video is talking about, yet you decided to comment on it
Amazing
sh!t is wild..Internet nikkas looking to Hotep Jesus for guidance now?
its not about choosing sides.. dude honestly had no idea wtf he was talking about..ok this thread is going to become a childish mess now where ppl feel the need to “choose sides” on some all or nothing shyt instead of try to discuss individual points bcuz they’re too lazy to listen to the information
hey OP you tried...and RIP to john henrik clarke and ivan van sertima (he wasn’t shouted out) but these are both men I was lucky to hear/see speak on a couple occasions growing up
dude didnt even get the author right of "They Came Before Columbus".. if you watch the entire podcast(which im sure no one actually did
).. he says he gets most of his info from random people on the internet.. he hasnt really researched anything he's speaking on.. just "using common sense"..also.. he wasnt the one who brought up finding African artifacts in the states. it was Rogans White co-host that put them both on to that..
basically.. this dudes the typical smart-dummy thecoli.com would clown into oblivion if he actually posted here..
null
...
null
...
Got Joe Rogan's CAC racism about to explode
Breh also talks about ancient Egyptian artifacts in Ohio
Uncovering ancient Ohio: Artifacts found under local developments
Finally John Henrik Clarke, Phil Valentine, and Bobby Hemmitt got a shout out
Breh was 1/3rd facts, 1/3rd conjecture, 1/3rd nonsense.
UpAndComing
Veteran
null
...
It's a long video so I will only break down a part of it starting at the start.. Give me a few mins
I would do the entire video but people in these parts love to argue about nothing so I'm not going to make that sort of effort.
null
...
1. deep south. epi-genetics
facts.
established no one is doing anything to fix it.
must be careful about the inferences taken from this.
2. start off with “the white man is out to get you” == defeatist. first that is not true. just as the gringo is taught that the chinaman is out to get him. also the fact that we established “1.” means that it is something of a fact that the power brokers are out to get the group.
in short facts don’t make “defeatism”
3. sub-conscious mind believes you beginnings are as a slave.
no one believes that. everyone on earth knows that most (not all) “black” people came/come from africa. most people accept that all people originated in africa.
simple deduction means that as the black man was first he could not have started out as a slave for anyone else.
“beginnings” is a misrepresentation.
4. need to teach black history
correct.
5. kings.
joe rogan correctly pushed back. kings are a minority.
6. need to break the link between slavery and who you are.
correct.
7. psychological damage of notions of slavery
correct.
8. Hannibal and rome
fact.
again need to be careful about inferences.
do we know that he was black for a fact?
9. we were natives
unsubstantiated.
4:41 fallacy “mot and bailey” of “do you think this whole land was empty”.
melanin does not mean black.
we need ROUGH facts and figures.
what percentages.
how many?
10. caribbean
took slaves? what does that have to do with being black?
11. we had already come here.
ok. agreed.
how many?
what about native indians?
DNA shows they split first and crossed into the americas first.
12. 5:40 why don’t we know.
waffle repeating what he said before about needing to improve education.
13. 6:09 those natives are us
conflation when there was even by his logic more than one group.
conflation on a conjecture i might add but ok.
14. 7:22 majority were natives
“not economically sound” reasoning is a nonsense argument.
the traders in slaves were selling to the rich landowners and less rich would be slavers.
the fact that the british had to kill and police TA slavery to keep their advantage is a matter of record.
his question is like asking would you import or grow.
well it depends on who you are?
1/2 the people dying is just the solution to an equation. 1/2 dying does not mean it was not profitable.
clearly domesticated slaves would be MORE expensive than new arrivals (ceteris parabus) and that is your market right there.
I should add not one fact to support his argument - hence conjecture.
15. history
history is written by the victors does not mean that any statement should be accepted.
16, 10:04 removing our ability.
appeal to emotion. so what?
17. 10:15 didn’t know anything about boats.
no brew. not boats.
long distance navigation and boat construction (most likely).
“anything” loose language and hyperbolic appeal to emotion.
no one is saying that not travelling to the americas means there were zero boats in africa.
18. 10:13 emotive argument.
just present some facts.
“holy white man”
19. olmecs.
have a care what is assumed from this given that all native peoples were originally black.
with the possible exception of remote parts of northern europe and asia (neanderthals).
20. 12:45
not sure what he is saying here.
black plague happened way after the romans understood bathing.
he is jumping backwards and forwards through time and is not making a clear point.
21. superior / food
lack of resources is not just a question of superiority.
it is a question of access as well.
by his argument white people feeding africa today means ….
22. the black death missed a lot of russia,
stopping it did not “save the white race”
23. 16:07 “common sense” reasoning.
wut?
“no one runs a business like that”
wut?
it’s an economy with many competing factions.
why do some people use US beef and some use mexican beef today?
because it is not one person making the decision for one business.
facts.
established no one is doing anything to fix it.
must be careful about the inferences taken from this.
2. start off with “the white man is out to get you” == defeatist. first that is not true. just as the gringo is taught that the chinaman is out to get him. also the fact that we established “1.” means that it is something of a fact that the power brokers are out to get the group.
in short facts don’t make “defeatism”
3. sub-conscious mind believes you beginnings are as a slave.
no one believes that. everyone on earth knows that most (not all) “black” people came/come from africa. most people accept that all people originated in africa.
simple deduction means that as the black man was first he could not have started out as a slave for anyone else.
“beginnings” is a misrepresentation.
4. need to teach black history
correct.
5. kings.
joe rogan correctly pushed back. kings are a minority.
6. need to break the link between slavery and who you are.
correct.
7. psychological damage of notions of slavery
correct.
8. Hannibal and rome
fact.
again need to be careful about inferences.
do we know that he was black for a fact?
9. we were natives
unsubstantiated.
4:41 fallacy “mot and bailey” of “do you think this whole land was empty”.
melanin does not mean black.
we need ROUGH facts and figures.
what percentages.
how many?
10. caribbean
took slaves? what does that have to do with being black?
11. we had already come here.
ok. agreed.
how many?
what about native indians?
DNA shows they split first and crossed into the americas first.
12. 5:40 why don’t we know.
waffle repeating what he said before about needing to improve education.
13. 6:09 those natives are us
conflation when there was even by his logic more than one group.
conflation on a conjecture i might add but ok.
14. 7:22 majority were natives
“not economically sound” reasoning is a nonsense argument.
the traders in slaves were selling to the rich landowners and less rich would be slavers.
the fact that the british had to kill and police TA slavery to keep their advantage is a matter of record.
his question is like asking would you import or grow.
well it depends on who you are?
1/2 the people dying is just the solution to an equation. 1/2 dying does not mean it was not profitable.
clearly domesticated slaves would be MORE expensive than new arrivals (ceteris parabus) and that is your market right there.
I should add not one fact to support his argument - hence conjecture.
15. history
history is written by the victors does not mean that any statement should be accepted.
16, 10:04 removing our ability.
appeal to emotion. so what?
17. 10:15 didn’t know anything about boats.
no brew. not boats.
long distance navigation and boat construction (most likely).
“anything” loose language and hyperbolic appeal to emotion.
no one is saying that not travelling to the americas means there were zero boats in africa.
18. 10:13 emotive argument.
just present some facts.
“holy white man”
19. olmecs.
have a care what is assumed from this given that all native peoples were originally black.
with the possible exception of remote parts of northern europe and asia (neanderthals).
20. 12:45
not sure what he is saying here.
black plague happened way after the romans understood bathing.
he is jumping backwards and forwards through time and is not making a clear point.
21. superior / food
lack of resources is not just a question of superiority.
it is a question of access as well.
by his argument white people feeding africa today means ….
22. the black death missed a lot of russia,
stopping it did not “save the white race”
23. 16:07 “common sense” reasoning.
wut?
“no one runs a business like that”
wut?
it’s an economy with many competing factions.
why do some people use US beef and some use mexican beef today?
because it is not one person making the decision for one business.
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,031
- Reputation
- 8,069
- Daps
- 120,241
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Houston911 said:
No, you don't.
It's bullshyt.
Africans did NOT get to America before Europeans.
Native Americans were already here and their ancestry is Southeast Asian, not African.
That goes for Melanesians, Polynesians, etc.
It's bullshyt.
Africans did NOT get to America before Europeans.
Native Americans were already here and their ancestry is Southeast Asian, not African.
That goes for Melanesians, Polynesians, etc.
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,031
- Reputation
- 8,069
- Daps
- 120,241
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
BlackMoney said:
Columbus didn't write that at all. There is only ONE primary source for that quote you posted......Bartolomé de Las Casas' Histories of the Indies from the late 19th Century.
Bart was quoted by a dude named Leo Weiner who thought that Bart's work was Columbus' journal so included the words in his three-volume work Africa and the Discovery of America in 1921. The story is actually a conflation of two different stories that Bart collected into ONE narrative.
Weiner was a linguist and translated Bart's work from the OG Italian into Spanish, but he translated an archaic Spanish term incorrectly. That's why you have people from the 'southeast'. The term used was 'sudoeste' which in archaic Spanish means 'southWEST'. The other issue with using this quote is that the term gente negra 'black people' didn't mean 'Black' people back in Columbus' day. It only referred to the darkness of the peoples' skin in-comparison to Europeans'.
They said the same thing about Chinese people.
If you don't believe what I'm saying, then, by all means, try and find the primary source for the quote and it will lead you back to Bartolomé de Las Casas, NOT Columbus.
Bart was quoted by a dude named Leo Weiner who thought that Bart's work was Columbus' journal so included the words in his three-volume work Africa and the Discovery of America in 1921. The story is actually a conflation of two different stories that Bart collected into ONE narrative.
Weiner was a linguist and translated Bart's work from the OG Italian into Spanish, but he translated an archaic Spanish term incorrectly. That's why you have people from the 'southeast'. The term used was 'sudoeste' which in archaic Spanish means 'southWEST'. The other issue with using this quote is that the term gente negra 'black people' didn't mean 'Black' people back in Columbus' day. It only referred to the darkness of the peoples' skin in-comparison to Europeans'.
They said the same thing about Chinese people.
If you don't believe what I'm saying, then, by all means, try and find the primary source for the quote and it will lead you back to Bartolomé de Las Casas, NOT Columbus.
Last edited:
zerorequiem
All Star
Rogan loves having those "types" on his show. Hotep hasn't really done shyt except run his mouth on Twitter. He a younger Isaiah Washington.
its not about choosing sides.. dude honestly had no idea wtf he was talking about..
dude didnt even get the author right of "They Came Before Columbus".. if you watch the entire podcast(which im sure no one actually did
also.. he wasnt the one who brought up finding African artifacts in the states. it was Rogans White co-host that put them both on to that..
basically.. this dudes the typical smart-dummy thecoli.com would clown into oblivion if he actually posted here..
“it’s not about choosing sides” then goes on to explain why he chose a side...I did in fact watch the entire podcast as I stated I would objectively listen to him even tho I didn’t agree w/ an early point he made and some other points subsequently but even a broken clock is right 2x out the day (ironically somebody else in here said this in another thread unfortunately he’s not too versed on this topic to realize it applies here as well to “hotep jesus”)
one point that dude brought up that I (and others) agreed w/ led to further conversation in which I stated the correct author of the book you mentioned (that I also read many years ago)...it would be an even better conversation if some of you got over this guy and tried to focus on the finer points instead of choosing sides...me agreeing w/ that one point does not equate to me championing dude or seeking his guidance lol...I know nothing about him...but the one point he mentioned that was of note actually led to a healthy discussion among some of us
Last edited:
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,031
- Reputation
- 8,069
- Daps
- 120,241
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
This refutes all of Ivan Van Sertima's claims in They Came Before Columbus......
https://indigenouscaribbean.ning.co...rtima-by-bernard-ortiz-de-montellano-in-co-op
https://indigenouscaribbean.ning.co...rtima-by-bernard-ortiz-de-montellano-in-co-op
Referring to that book for evidence of African ifluence in the Americas is historically invalid.
I will be fair and read the article objectively and look into its points before I conclude it “historically” invalidates the book...hopefully you did the same
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,031
- Reputation
- 8,069
- Daps
- 120,241
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
surf said:
I was objective when I read IVS's book back in high school in the 80's.
He's not a reliable source of information and peer review shows his lapses in judgement and procedure in-full.
He's not a reliable source of information and peer review shows his lapses in judgement and procedure in-full.