Hidden Colors 3: The Rules of Racism (Official Thread)

[Captain Crunch]

Tariq is always blessing us. We need to support this. I am buying 3 copies just like I bought last time. 1 for work for the desk, 1 for home, and 1 for the car.

I bought HC 1 & 2, I will likely buy HC3.

 

[Tommy Knocks]

how insightful.

to add to what you wrote......

This is what science/DNA tells us. We are all the same. The concept of race that people with black phenotypes are fundamentally different from people with white phenotypes is false. We all descended from the same common ancestors who lived in Africa 150,000 years ago. The fact we look different is the result of adaptation to different environments, random mutation, and sexual selection. We don't look different because one is better or smarter than the other. The reason the Jarawa look black is not because they are fundamentally different than their Asian cousins. Its because they had no need to change their African phenotype while the other mainland humans had their phenotype change.

I'm done.

this is why some people in some areas still look 'black' but they are in fact, not black, or actually I should use the term 'african'.

 

[Blackking]

yo.........















honestly, I have some problems with Tariq Nasheed. not the same problems that these cac and haters have though, so I just wont state them on here...


But I will say that some of the posters on here I've seen support Michael Moore -- hate on TN when Michael Moore co-signs dude.

 

[Deluuxe]

Everybody on the planet is a "variation" of the original man.

Why can't black take note the the African Presence in history? Look how you people are getting BUTTHURT... asking at what time the line is drawn where a people are recognized as a group... thats not the focus here WE ARE SIMPLY SPEAKING ON THE AFRICAN PRESENCE. Nobody is claiming Indians of today as black... Tariq has a Live Ustream show every Sunday where he ENCOURAGES people to challenge him on what they see on Hidden Colors to debunk him. Why don't any of u simply show up and debate the man himself? Or go on his Facebook page and post your "debunking", but I bet you won't.

 

[Tommy Knocks]

 

[GetInTheTruck]

I'm glad that there is a female that had joined the conversation....


Anyway, http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/change

Human's were black before they left Africa. After thousands of years of living in different climates and eating different foods - their skin complexions became variations of brown and they started to look physically different. The genetic paths of skin change and physical characteristics followed a few different paths in Asia and Europe.

For nearly 2 Million years everyone on Earth was a dark skinned African. Our ignorance used to makes us believe that soon after leaving Africa humans started to change because of V D absorption. We now know that that isn't true. Human's did not start to change 40k years ago for 2 reasons - 1) it doesn't happen over night - it happen because of sex and entire populations don't change that quickly... especially when we were all black africans 2) Researchers show that it could have been as recently as 6000 years ago that we were prompted to make skin color and other physical changes - and that was mainly due to diet and how we produced food.

It takes at least 100+ generations (not a made up fact) for populations to even make the changes we are talking about when mating amongst themselves.

Natural section is the reason we maintained dark skin and 'African' features. The SC what would make the changes - and the stratum corneum has had the greatest change right after we became 'homo sapiens' and modern humans ---- supposedly due to loss of hair (idk if the loss of hair is the reason, but that's what they say). Natural selection favors mutations that protect the protective functions of the skin. NTM, all the reproductive issues that arise when a species gets away from it's original form. Natural selection protects against that. Plus there are links between melatonin and reproduction - scientist say that, but i guess we only think that the Afrocentric people are the only ones that make that claim. Plus, regardless of where you live on Earth, lighter skin is a recessive trait ..... more than likely will balance out in the next 1k years.

in ancient times there were groups on our planet that have completely different cultures and development than their African ancestors. That doesn't mean that the link between them and the people who settled their lands is null and void. To say that is to make some shyt up about how populations completely changed withing 2K years and that's just not possible. The equivalent is Africans in America. The person who's people came here in the 1700's more than likely isn't gonna randomly look like a African in 2100. But I'm sure you will be able to call that person African American. This is the same as in Antiquity except for they were EVEN less mixed and disconnected. There is a reason why in some of these asian lands, ancient historians confuse them with Africans. Only a lil over 6K years ago did we make these changes...... but due to the way people look today - people use modern examples to DE-africanize ancient groups and cultures.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19439728
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratum_corneum

Well that's all we are really trying to say. It doesn't serve your argument to keep on repeating what is already accepted - that human origins are in Africa.

What we are disputing is the claim that peoples from an already existing African civilization(s) colonized other parts of the world and that these other civilizations are actually African in character. There is no proof at all to support those ideas.

and if I were around here in the 1700's cacs would probably consider me black too. So what, that doesn't make me an African. That's why when you clowns post quotes from Herodotus and others taking about skin color to prove your points you sound stupid.

 

[Tommy Knocks]

Why can't black take note the the African Presence in history? Look how you people are getting BUTTHURT... asking at what time the line is drawn where a people are recognized as a group... thats not the focus here WE ARE SIMPLY SPEAKING ON THE AFRICAN PRESENCE. .

Because its stupid, its like saying the whole world is african.

 

[Blackking]

Well that's all we are really trying to say. It doesn't serve your argument to keep on repeating what is already accepted - that human origins are in Africa.

What we are disputing is the claim that peoples from an already existing African civilization(s) colonized other parts of the world and that these other civilizations are actually African in character. There is no proof at all to support those ideas.

and if I were around here in the 1700's cacs would probably consider me black too. So what, that doesn't make me an African. That's why when you clowns post quotes from Herodotus and others taking about skin color to prove your points you sound stupid.

They wouldn't consider you black in the 1700's..... That's around the time that cacs gave u guys these misguided ideas so...


But if you were from your family in 2000 bc, for sure they would call you black. And no one couldn't argue with that because of the way you would look... the mixed and traditional culture you would have.

Also, you and the rest don't believe that Ancient Africa even had civilizations before Egypt, so i don't even know y we are on here debating the rest of this.

 

[Tommy Knocks]

and if I were around here in the 1700's cacs would probably consider me black too. So what, that doesn't make me an African. That's why when you clowns post quotes from Herodotus and others taking about skin color to prove your points you sound stupid.

 

[Tommy Knocks]

They wouldn't consider you black in the 1700's..... That's around the time that cacs gave u guys these misguided ideas so...


But if you were from your family in 2000 bc, for sure they would call you black. And no one couldn't argue with that because of the way you would look... the mixed and traditional culture you would have.

Also, you and the rest don't believe that Ancient Africa even had civilizations before Egypt, so i don't even know y we are on here debating the rest of this.

he said african......

and I for damn sure, not believe, but know ancient africa had civilization. which is exactly why they wouldnt have mistaken him as african. you can make that point, then try to correct him lol. there was an ancient africa so people would have known of it. as far as greece. which they did.

 

[Blackking]

Because its stupid, its like saying the whole world is african.

saying that ancient groups were african... and backing that with evidence it's the same as saying the whole modern world is African.

pick a fallacy.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

DNA knowledgifies to what? Denying Negro Authority. They do NOT want YOU to OVERSTAND that the Dutch were originally BLACK.

Hidden Colors is forcing white people to go on the net, pretend to be black, and post stuff like this. Hidden colors is making white people crazy while at the same time empowering blacks.

 

[Blackking]

he said african......

well, whats the definition.. of that. I assume we're speaking decent considering the term African didn't exist during the time when there weren't superficial borders and no people who weren't african. someone could call me American, I guess I'm not AFrican.

IF I am call African, then my post is still correct for the time frame I mentioned.

 

[Tommy Knocks]

saying that ancient groups were african... and backing that with evidence it's the same as saying the whole modern world is African.

pick a fallacy.

all ancient groups were african at one point. see how backwards the point is? how far back do we start realizing they are no longer african? from what I saw, they werent even going into the BC era, in HC, so Im not even sure why we're arguing waaaaay back over 5,000 yrs ago.

but regardless, at one point do we stop calling indians, africans? the entire globe had the migrants from africa. I fail to see whats special about this and how it applies to someone of african descent today.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Why can't black take note the the African Presence in history? Look how you people are getting BUTTHURT... asking at what time the line is drawn where a people are recognized as a group... thats not the focus here WE ARE SIMPLY SPEAKING ON THE AFRICAN PRESENCE. Nobody is claiming Indians of today as black... Tariq has a Live Ustream show every Sunday where he ENCOURAGES people to challenge him on what they see on Hidden Colors to debunk him. Why don't any of u simply show up and debate the man himself? Or go on his Facebook page and post your "debunking", but I bet you won't.

You haven't proven that there was any African presence in the Americas, Asia, or wherever else. Stone sculptures with full lips and broad noses that resemble the local population isn't proof, sorry.

and yeah, lots of people who push these bum ass theories try to divide India into North/South;Aryan/Dravidian, and try to claim that Dravidians are really just an African variation with straight hair. It sounds stupid because it is stupid. I read some Afrocentric quiz online years back where one of the questions was "which country has the largest African population in the world," the answer was India...I guess that was supposed to be a trick question

that's the idea though, stretch the definition of black as much as possible to claim as much as possible...black-wash history to combat the white-washing of history....heard it all before.