Haile Selassie/Menelik II : "We are caucasian"

[2Quik4UHoes]

I'm not seeing how that is different than taking people from multiple tribes, cross breeding their strongest, mixing it with Cac and AmerIndian blood?

Fair point.

I guess the only difference then would be how recent it was and with whom they mixed with. In fact, they actually relate quite a lots since AAs don't know the exact tribes they claim and Horners are much the same aside from the ties they do know. I don't know what I'm mixed with I only know the tribes my parents came from. The info is difficult to find in the same way it would be for yall.

like quebec somalis of the horn...b-b-b-ut they speak french

lol, fukk that shyt.

I can safely say none of us ever truly fukked with the Euros thats why we ain't adopt their languages.

 

[Blackking]

lol, I got cards to pull my wariya. Hell, yall even enslaved Habeshas yall nikkaz was quick to lick Arab nuts. nikkaz let yall have Islam an yall tried to throw nikkaz in chains for yall dirty ass masters.

Yall no different than Sudanese people to me, some extra confused Ethiopians in denial.

Some bold statements right here..lol.

 

[godkiller]

I'm not seeing how that is different than taking people from multiple tribes, cross breeding their strongest, mixing it with Cac and AmerIndian blood?



Such as?


And no DNA tribe definitely shows Italy, Spain, etc having significant Arab blood and a tiny amount of Sub-Saharan ancestry.

No, the tribe link says Spain/Italy general has 0.0% Sub Saharan African ancestry average and that Southern regions in general also have 0.0% Sub Saharan Afrian ancestry.That's wrong per academic journal articles on the subject. This is what happens when someone reads some random page on the internet that confirms their biases without looking deeper into it. The tribe link gives no author names; no N subject used; no deep explanation of methodology. And this is all before contradicting peer reviewed academic literature on several populations. You need to explain the contradiction or else concede this article is unreliable.

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

Some bold statements right here..lol.

lol, just some neighborly ribbing. I ain't gon really go there...

 

[Poitier]

No, the tribe link says Spain/Italy general has 0.0% Sub Saharan African ancestry average and that Southern regions in general also have 0.0% Sub Saharan Afrian ancestry.That's wrong per academic journal articles on the subject. This is what happens when someone reads some random page on the internet that confirms their biases without looking deeper into it. The tribe link gives no author names; no N subject used; no deep explanation of methodology. And this is all before contradicting peer reviewed academic literature.

The methodology is on their home page you dunce

 

[Kritic]

what i like with these innanets is seeing niccas trying to defend themselves in the corner...

i knew 2quik was gonna come out just like blackking defending muslims..


no other ppl but white ppl are guilty of doing dirt

and when they do it's white ppl's fault

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

what i like with these innanets is seeing niccas trying to defend themselves in the corner...

i knew 2quik was gonna come out just like blackking defending muslims..


no other ppl but white ppl are guilty of doing dirt

and when they do it's white ppl's fault

lol, that shyt like the Bat signal I'ma almost always answer since nikkaz like to think we white or sumn.

 

[godkiller]

The methodology is on their home page you dunce

1.They say they use SNPs but don't go into any details in how they're interpreting SNPs. There is no methodology discussion which real journal articles typically have to flesh out the questions surrounding method (which can render a study inaccurate).

2. Furthermore there are no names so nobody takes the blame for wrong information. There's no N subject number so nobody knows how many, if any, subjects were used. That's a red flag since studies typically list the N subject to add validity. Studies that don't add N number usually don't have enough N or don't use N.

3. I didn't check them all but some of your assertions contradict more studies with peer review, author names, methodology discussion and N subject number. That's a huge red flag.

4. Your link shows consistent trend to overestimate white ancestry and underestimate black ancestry with no explanation why. Arab and African ancestry are different in study so there is no way to mix them up. Why do your link's Southern Europe assertions contradict peer reviewed studies? The answer is either 1) because your values your link gives are wrong or 2) they are being dishonest.

 

[Swagnificent]

well his tribe (the Habesha) are a mixed race so he isn't completely wrong

the pure East Africans are 100% black though

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

well his tribe (the Habesha) are a mixed race so he isn't completely wrong

the pure East Africans are 100% black though

We ain't whites my nikka, the lightest we can get is redbone.

 

[Swagnificent]

We ain't whites my nikka, the lightest we can get is redbone.

I agree. I'm just saying its no different than Halle Berry saying she's caucasian. Obviously she black but it ain't like she's 100% wrong.

 

[Piff Huxtable]

that's why i fukk with Mengistu putting an end to this c00nery

 

[Kritic]

lol, that shyt like the Bat signal I'ma almost always answer since nikkaz like to think we white or sumn.

edit: nvm

 

[thekingsmen]

well his tribe (the Habesha) are a mixed race so he isn't completely wrong

the pure East Africans are 100% black though

What the hell does that mean?

 

[thekingsmen]

Haile Selassie I never said it and there is no quotes or evidence of him even saying so. Menelik 2 on the other hand maybe but you have to question the source.