Cac admits Africans were in America centuries before Columbus

[Kitsune]

So you use racist European classifications from the 1800s, unscientific bullshyt made up with no evidence and before they even knew what genetics was, just because it "sounds good" to you?




I keep asking you to provide ANY receipts that your bullshyt is true and you can't. The genetics prove you wrong, the archeology proves you wrong, the cultural history proves you wrong, but you won't even defend yourself, seems like you're just committed to being wrong.

answer the question above

 

[Professor Emeritus]

answer the question above

Because that phenotype is in their genetics. How is that even a question? Obviously its there.

Now can you answer any of the questions I asked you or provide ANY receipts for your claims?

 

[Kitsune]

Because that phenotype is in their genetics. How is that even a question? Obviously its there.

Now can you answer any of the questions I asked you or provide ANY receipts for your claims?

I asked why is it possible not is it there, again..what is the pheotype a result of?

 

[MIKE SPLEAN]

A white man said it, so now ni66as will accept it

LMFAO

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I asked why is it possible not is it there, again..what is the pheotype a result of?

It's possible because they have the genes for that particular phenotype. You're not using any logic or evidence at all breh, you just want to engage in some weird circular argument. Are you trying to claim that appearance is specific to Africans and only Africans can have it or....what exactly? And what evidence do you have for that other than "because kitsune says so"?

I've asked you half-a-dozen times to provide ANY evidence for your baseless theory and you keep deflecting. I've asked you multiple times for ANY reason that you use made-up racist classifications from the 1800s and your only excuse was that it "sounds good" to you.

 

[Kitsune]

It's possible because they have the genes for that particular phenotype. You're not using any logic or evidence at all breh, you just want to engage in some weird circular argument. Are you trying to claim that appearance is specific to Africans and only Africans can have it or....what exactly? And what evidence do you have for that other than "because kitsune says so"?

I've asked you half-a-dozen times to provide ANY evidence for your baseless theory and you keep deflecting.

i noticed you dont have deductive reasoning, you just follow circular rhetoric . Youve failed to answer the question again, I asked what is this phenotype the result of, you answered with because its there, thats not a sufficient answer, not quite an answer at all.


Ill make it simpler, what race would you guess these people are?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

i noticed you dont have deductive reasoning, you just follow circular rhetoric .

That's one of the most projecting claims I've seen. Your entire argument has been "I feel it must be true therefore it's true". I've asked you dozens of times to provide any receipts for your rhetoric and you continue to provide NOTHING.

I've dropped numerous detailed scientific studies and proofs from archeology and cultural history that back up the obvious and you've ignored every one.

Youve failed to answer the question again, I asked what is this phenotype the result of, you answered with because its there, thats not a sufficient answer, not quite an answer at all.

There is no meaningful answer to your question, your question is nonsensical. The genes to produce those traits are in their DNA. Obviously. Is your argument going to be, "No, Kitsune thinks only Black people can have those traits therefore only Black people can have those traits because Kitsune said so"?

Because it really looks like that's the argument you're trying to build.

Ill make it simpler, what race would you guess these people are?

They're obviously Filipinos but Filipino isn't a "race".

The racial categories you name were made up by racist white colonists in the 16th century in order to create a "ranking" of humanity that put white-skinned people on the top and dark-skinned people on the bottom. They have no scientific basis at all. If you want to know how to classify them genetically and scientifically and therefore see what their heritage was, then read the papers.

Human ancestry correlates with language and reveals that race is not an objective genomic classifier | Scientific Reports

Discerning the Origins of the Negritos, First Sundaland People: Deep Divergence and Archaic Admixture

https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cg...om/&httpsredir=1&article=2057&context=humbiol

 

[Kitsune]

That's one of the most projecting claims I've seen. Your entire argument has been "I feel it must be true therefore it's true". I've asked you dozens of times to provide any receipts for your rhetoric and you continue to provide NOTHING.

I've dropped numerous detailed scientific studies and proofs from archeology and cultural history that back up the obvious and you've ignored every one.




There is no meaningful answer to your question, your question is nonsensical. The genes to produce those traits are in their DNA. Obviously. Is your argument going to be, "No, Kitsune thinks only Black people can have those traits therefore only Black people can have those traits because Kitsune said so"?

Because it really looks like that's the argument you're trying to build.







They're obviously Filipinos but Filipino isn't a "race".

The racial categories you name were made up by racist white colonists in the 16th century in order to create a "ranking" of humanity that put white-skinned people on the top and dark-skinned people on the bottom. They have no scientific basis at all. If you want to know how to classify them genetically and scientifically and therefore see what their heritage was, then read the papers.

Human ancestry correlates with language and reveals that race is not an objective genomic classifier | Scientific Reports

Discerning the Origins of the Negritos, First Sundaland People: Deep Divergence and Archaic Admixture

https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cg...om/&httpsredir=1&article=2057&context=humbiol

filipino isnt a race, its a nationality, so how would you describe the race of these people?

 

[GrindtooFilthy]

Yes, I've been studying this in my free time but I always seem to just go in circles. Do you only study it through a historical and scientific lens? Does the concepts of the Abrahamic religions distort the facts and should not be considered?
I'm asking because the concept that we (homo sapiens) originated in Africa (Ethiopia) is scientifically based. Taking this idea at face value, how do you explain the concept that the first Jewish Kingdom was established in Ethiopia in 325 AD, over 2000 years after the creation of Judaism in Israel? Also Ge'ez is scientifically older than Hebrew so how the hell does this all makes sense?

you mention hebrew but the jesus and nem spoke aramaic hebrew was their liturgical language, when we refer to semitic languages we need to look at the whole language family e.g. hebrew, arabic, ahmaric, aramaic, somali, ge'ez, tigre, oromo, afar eg

its going to be a complex series of spider webs no doubt but most people at that time were polyglots using other languages as lingua franca along with having their own liturgical language

 

[Professor Emeritus]

filipino isnt a race, its a nationality, so how would you describe the race of these people?

Since you can't read, I'll repeat myself. Race as you list it is made-up shyt invented by racist white colonists that has no scientific basis at all.

If you want to know how to classify them genetically and scientifically and therefore see what their heritage was, then read the papers.

Human ancestry correlates with language and reveals that race is not an objective genomic classifier | Scientific Reports

Discerning the Origins of the Negritos, First Sundaland People: Deep Divergence and Archaic Admixture

https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cg...om/&httpsredir=1&article=2057&context=humbiol

 

[Kitsune]

Since you can't read, I'll repeat myself. Race as you list it is made-up shyt invented by racist white colonists that has no scientific basis at all.

If you want to know how to classify them genetically and scientifically and therefore see what their heritage was, then read the papers.

Human ancestry correlates with language and reveals that race is not an objective genomic classifier | Scientific Reports

Discerning the Origins of the Negritos, First Sundaland People: Deep Divergence and Archaic Admixture

https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cg...om/&httpsredir=1&article=2057&context=humbiol

leave the egaleterian bullshyt behind, dont try to dismiss race to sidestep the discussion, now in your own words what race are these people? Its a simple answer for a simple question

 

[Professor Emeritus]

leave the egaleterian bullshyt behind, dont try to dismiss race to sidestep the discussion, now in your own words what race are these people? Its a simple answer for a simple question

So you're telling me that you'll ignore my answer unless I deny reality and accept racist colonialist bullshyt?

You're such a fukking tool for them, you're literally just repeating 16th-century racist bullshyt about "mongoloids" and yelling "But what do they look like???" over and over again.

If you have literally no argument or evidence other than, "My white masters told me we're all either negros or mongoloids so those are the only options I understand" then that's on you, not me. Stay ignorant.

 

[Kitsune]

So you're telling me that you'll ignore my answer unless I deny reality and accept racist colonialist bullshyt?

You're such a fukking tool for them, you're literally just repeating 16th-century racist bullshyt about "mongoloids" and yelling "But what do they look like???" over and over again.

If you have literally no argument or evidence other than, "My white masters told me we're all either negros or mongoloids so those are the only options I understand" then that's on you, not me. Stay ignorant.

your avoiding the question becuase you are well aware of the implications; red herrings and empty conjecture. The three race classification aptly considers every possible genotype, anything aside of such just happens to be a mixture of the above. Youre dismissive attitude just reveals how you continously argue from a lack of understanding. With that in mind, how would you answer the question

 

[Aceofspades404]

you mention hebrew but the jesus and nem spoke aramaic hebrew was their liturgical language, when we refer to semitic languages we need to look at the whole language family e.g. hebrew, arabic, ahmaric, aramaic, somali, ge'ez, tigre, oromo, afar eg

its going to be a complex series of spider webs no doubt but most people at that time were polyglots using other languages as lingua franca along with having their own liturgical language

yea, sounds like a headache

 

[Renzo]

That’s cool and all, but that’s just pisses me off even more. So, since the beginning of got damn time we have taken L after L after L after L. Why the fukk did our people just bow down to any and everybody? (I’m not big on history at all so I’m sure they didn’t literally “bow down” and there is more to it)

It was more than bowing down. They were divided and conquered. Columbus initial thought upon seeing these Africans and all that gold was he could enslave them within weeks as written in his journals not knowing the Africans would’ve gave them as much gold as they wanted. But Africans were extremely welcoming people not seeing these white peoples as a threat. Once engrained within the community they( white colonizers) would then go between tribes starting rumors and conflicts until the two tribes wiped each other out and then they would come in and take the resources be it human and otherwise.