Hebrew Israelite videos

[Blackking]

Actually, they don't.

If you'd like to debate that, we can.

I'm going to let the other Bible people debate you because you wouldn't really have a response to migration patterns, quotes from ancient historians, genetics, and other facts. You actually believe there were non-black people in India before 1500 BC.

 

[Czar]

all of the brothers were originally black...because there father was. Quote me a scripture in the bible that states what these folks looked like...each of them?
and tell me how they all came out from one womb yet 3 different races... The bible does not state this in any shape or form. This is all Eurocentric crap that they used to justify slavery.

We know for a fact that the Greeks, Romans, Spanish, Medes/Persians, Celtic tribes, Russians... virtually all of Europe came up outta Japheth.

All of Africa, along with the Canaanites, came up outta Ham.

All the Hebrews and Arabs came up outta Shem.


Now show me how it is physically possible to create man from dust, carry two of each animal on a ark (including insects), wrestle with angels, have an actual conversation with a burning bush, literally make fire come down from heaven without the use of modern technology, be carried away on a chariot of fire, part an entire sea, etc.

Matter fact, prove to me how a perfect man could be born of a virgin? Even artifical insemination requires a man's semen. Then show me how his ressurection and ascension into heaven was humanly possible.

Lol see how your silly logic backfires on itself?

You limit the Most High to human reasoning. That is your biggest flaw.

According to you, he can do everything else. Create life, the universe, etc. But soon as it comes to ethnicity: "Ehhhhh, I dunno. Seems too hard for him"

Lol

 

[Czar]

I'm going to let the other Bible people debate you because you wouldn't really have a response to migration patterns, quotes from ancient historians, genetics, and other facts. You actually believe there were non-black people in India before 1500 BC.

Btw, I've been hitting you with facts concerning migration patterns, quotes from ancient historians, genetics/DNA tests, along with a plethora of other things in this very thread.

When it suits your interest, you agree. When it doesn't, you deny it.

But like I said, anytime you're ready, we can debate.

Cause you seem to be under the impression that I'm somehow ignorant to all the things you just mentioned.

 

[Czar]

This is all Eurocentric crap that they used to justify slavery.

More like you're using a fool's reasoning to deny the Most High's incredible power.

Then again, you don't really believe in god now do you?

 

[GetInTheTruck]

you're incorrect. The people who created what you consider the first civilizations in those areas were still Africa or what you would call black

No basis for any of this whatsoever.

I'm saying they were not caucasian and very few are what u would consider dark skinned asians

So what were they? Negroes? Wheres the evidence? The blackest of black Dravidian Indians are farther away from Africans than the cacest of cac.

I say African as a term not a location. Just like I'm of African decent.... those people were as well. I have my own identity and culture that barely has anything to do with Africa.... so I guess I'm not black either.

But we can easily link you back to Africa because that's Where your immediate ancestors come from.

Genetic links have been made between Australian aborigines and certain Indian populations. Neither have been linked to Africans.

And I've never posted Olmec head or anything u may use to marginalize the points. that's a different topic that I don't really know about, but with this topic, you made the statement " don't steal MY history if you don't like white people stealing yours... ahhhahahh!" That shyts funny to me because it wasn't until the 1700's that people were confused about this subject - and it was white historians that created the confusion. 100% of ancient historians made references to dark, black, Ethiopian, or black or black when describing these people. You only want to buy into that Eurocentric idea about shyt because you wouldn't dare want to trace your cultural roots back to a people who looked black of African decent - even if they were in 'asia'.

I know what I am breh. I don't think you know who you are. There is nothing eurocentric about claiming to be Indian when thats where my ancestors are from. Please.

 

[Czar]

Also, entire populations don't change over night... especially back then in a world with very few people who weren't dark.

I didn't touch on this early, but thought I'd tackle it to prove a point.

With the exception of rome and east asia, Alexander the Great conquered and hellenized just about everything in sight... and it only took him 14 years.

in 60 years the Muslims were able to successfully change the ethnic, cultural and linguistic makeup of North Africa. They literally took Spain in the same year they invaded and controlled it for about 700 years. Spain wasn't the only European nation to get that work. Kosovo & Albania are still predominantly muslim til this day. We won't even mention what the Moors did to the sicilians.

In short, you're wrong.

 

[Blackking]

I didn't touch on this early, but thought I'd tackle it to prove a point.

With the exception of rome and east asia, Alexander the Great conquered and hellenized just about everything in sight... and it only took him in 14 years.

in 60 years the Muslims were able to successfully change the ethnic, cultural and linguistic makeup of North Africa. They literally took Spain in the same year they invaded and controlled it for about 700 years. Spain wasn't the only European nation to get that work. Kosovo & Albania are still predominantly muslim til this day. We won't even mention what the Moors did to the sicilians.

In short, you're wrong.

So I guess I'm an arab since I became a Muslim?

I guess language, religion and ethnicity = racial makeup? I must be English American and not African American. I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

 

[Blackking]

No basis for any of this whatsoever.



So what were they? Negroes? Wheres the evidence? The blackest of black Dravidian Indians are farther away from Africans than the cacest of cac.




But we can easily link you back to Africa because that's Where your immediate ancestors come from.

Genetic links have been made between Australian aborigines and certain Indian populations. Neither have been linked to Africans.



I know what I am breh. I don't think you know who you are. There is nothing eurocentric about claiming to be Indian when thats where my ancestors are from. Please.

Nothing Euro-centric about claiming to be Indian... but to subscribe the Euro-centric ideas about the sub-continent isn't the right thing to do. There isn't 1 point you've made that can be traced further than 1500-1800 ideas about the area. Not 1.

You said Australian aborigines have no link to Africa, then said that darvinan indians are further removed from African than Europeans, then said that the first civilizations in Asia weren't founded by Africans - so basically I'm done.

 

[Czar]

So I guess I'm an arab since I became a Muslim?

I guess language, religion and ethnicity = racial makeup? I must be English American and not African American. I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

If you're in the NOI, you're about as muslim as me.

But yeah.... I guess we're ignoring places like Libya, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt now?

Guess someone didn't bother to study history... cause those places sure do have a ton of muslim arabs.

 

[Czar]

Nothing Euro-centric about claiming to be Indian... but to subscribe the Euro-centric ideas about the sub-continent isn't the right thing to do. There isn't 1 point you've made that can be traced further than 1500-1800 ideas about the area. Not 1.

You said Australian aborigines have no link to Africa, then said that darvinan indians are further removed from African than Europeans, then said that the first civilizations in Asia weren't founded by Africans - so basically I'm done.

While I don't agree with dude concerning the Dravidians (I believe they are the descendants of the Elamites who intermixed with the cushytes) I find it ironic how you're not even indian yourself and are arguing with HIM about his own people?

You got courage, I'll give you that.

So you accuse others of being Eurocentric, while subscribing to an extreme Afrocentric point of view?

In short, you Insult one fallacy while becoming a slave to another.

Brilliant logic lol.

 

[Blackking]

While I don't agree with dude concerning the Dravidians (I believe they are the descendants of the Elamites who intermixed with the cushytes) I find it ironic how you're not even indian yourself and are arguing with HIM about his own people?

You got courage, I'll give you that.

So you accuse others of being Eurocentric, while subscribing to an extreme Afrocentric point of view?

In short, you Insult one fallacy while becoming a slave to another.

Brilliant logic lol.

Thanks.

And most of the links explaining the points to him, in the past have been by people who aren't blacks.... he just assumed they were black cuz my name on here is blackking... not Afrocentric, I don't even consider India when I think of my own history.

 

[Blackking]

If you're in the NOI, you're about as muslim as me.

But yeah.... I guess we're ignoring places like Libya, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt now?

Guess someone didn't bother to study history... cause those places sure do have a ton of muslim arabs.

I'm not NOI, and

that's my point... you can't equate all the superficial things to paint the picture of a non-black area.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Nothing Euro-centric about claiming to be Indian... but to subscribe the Euro-centric ideas about the sub-continent isn't the right thing to do. There isn't 1 point you've made that can be traced further than 1500-1800 ideas about the area. Not 1.

You said Australian aborigines have no link to Africa, then said that darvinan indians are further removed from African than Europeans, then said that the first civilizations in Asia weren't founded by Africans - so basically I'm done.

Lol...you're over here propagating the aryan invasion theory, which is a prime example of eurocentricism while accusing me of having euro-centric views

The people who built the Indus valley civilization were already living there for thousands of years prior, they weren't recent migrants from anywhere in Africa. You can believe otherwise, doesn't make it true.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Thanks.

And most of the links explaining the points to him, in the past have been by people who aren't blacks.... he just assumed they were black cuz my name on here is blackking... not Afrocentric, I don't even consider India when I think of my own history.

You don't want to embrace the title of afrocentric because you don't want the responsibility of defending their half-ass theories with actual facts as opposed to shoddy research. That doesn't stop you from promoting them though. Lol, you think you slick but you're really not.

 

[Blackking]

Lol...you're over here propagating the aryan invasion theory, which is a prime example of eurocentricism while accusing me of having euro-centric views

The people who built the Indus valley civilization were already living there for thousands of years prior, they weren't recent migrants from anywhere in Africa. You can believe otherwise, doesn't make it true.

I said in another thread the Aryan invasion theory wasn't true and even linked an article for it... go back n look.

And I'm not attacking u, so y attack me. I'm just pointing out that what ur thinking wasn't invented until around the 1600's. It's just what it is. Nearly 100% of ancient historians, especially greek ones considered Indians black people. Herodotus thought those people and Ethiopians were one n the same just like everyone else. We know that they aren't exactly the same, but we also know the the Indians today, especially the lighter ones do not come close to looking like 4000-1500 BC India. It just isn't possible. So all i was saying is that if u bumped into on of those "civilization creators" today u wouldn't be saying "ur not black."

Is what ur saying.....australians from india who still look black, have no connection to Africa?? Your saying ancient people in Harappan society were asian and didn't look black.... and there was even a think called asian back then??


I think that you think that Indians back then were Indians were a Caucasian -Mongol hybrid or something. I'm not going to debate with u on that. you can think what you want. Either-way, I don't think I understand ur position.


And I don't want the title of Afrocentric, not because I think it's a bad thing - I'm glad there are afrocentrics that bring certain things to light.... without them Everyone would b confused on a number of things. There are legitimate things that have been proven. I'm not on that because I'm more problack concerned w urban issues n shyt.... I can't really get down w the connect to AFrica shyt because that's not were I'm at in life, and not were I think black America should be. But I would rather listen to their bias than to praise unsupported assumptions of eurocentrist.

You don't want to embrace the title of afrocentric because you don't want the responsibility of defending their half-ass theories with actual facts as opposed to shoddy research. That doesn't stop you from promoting them though. Lol, you think you slick but you're really not.