Is this true that the Buddha was black?

[Blackking]

But if you wanted to go there...... @The Real

While there are no readily detectable genealogical connections, Dravidian shares strong areal features with the Indo-Aryan languages. Dravidian languages show extensive lexical (vocabulary) borrowing, but only a few traits of structural (either phonological or grammatical) borrowing, from Indo-Aryan, whereas Indo-Aryan shows more structural features than lexical borrowings from the Dravidian languages

 

[Blackking]

The point is that you're speculating and reaching to try and extend Black history into areas it cannot be clearly established to belong, and that there's no reason to do that. There is no good reason to assume that the Dravidians were Black.

You are assuming my points.. I didn't say there weren't multiple influences on the culture there. But There isn't a modern scholar or anthropologist that assumes that Dravidians weren't black. The link is clear, but even if it's not-- for centuries that early inhabitants of the region were from Africa..

 

[The Real]

You are assuming my points.. I didn't say there weren't multiple influences on the culture there. But There isn't a modern scholar or anthropologist that assumes that Dravidians weren't black. The link is clear, but even if it's not-- for centuries that early inhabitants of the region were from Africa..

Most modern scholars and anthropologists don't assume the Dravidians were Black. There's no way around that unless you extend the definition of Black needlessly. Obviously there were both "Negrito" and Australasian "Black" people on the Indian subcontinent in prehistoric times, but your reach is to associate them with the much later Dravidian civilizations.

Note this point:

"Because of admixture between Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Australoid racial groups, one cannot speak of a biologically separate "Dravidian race" distinct from non-Dravidians on the Indian subcontinent. In a 2009 study of 132 individuals, 560,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 25 different Indian groups were analysed, providing strong evidence in support of the notion that modern Indians (both Indo-Aryan and Dravidian groups) are a hybrid population descending from two post-Neolithic, genetically divergent populations referred to as the 'Ancestral North Indians' and the 'Ancestral South Indians'. According to the study, Andamanese are an ASI-related group without ANI ancestry, showing that the peopling of the islands must have occurred before ANI-ASI gene flow on the mainland.[22] ANI-ASI admixture happened some 1,200–3,500 years ago, which roughly coincides with the Indo-Aryan conquest of the Indian subcontinent.[23]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_peoples

Notice, in particular, that the people you associate closest with the Dravidians, the Black "Negritos" and Australasians, actually have a large degree of genetic difference from the Ancestral South Indian (Dravidian) genetic lineage. That is my biggest complaint here. You are identifying groups of people who are not actually closely related.

 

[Blackking]

Most modern scholars and anthropologists don't assume the Dravidians were Black. There's no way around that unless you extend the definition of Black needlessly. Obviously there were both "Negrito" and Australasian "Black" people on the Indian subcontinent in prehistoric times, but your reach is to associate them with the much later Dravidian civilizations.

Note this point:

"Because of admixture between Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Australoid racial groups, one cannot speak of a biologically separate "Dravidian race" distinct from non-Dravidians on the Indian subcontinent. In a 2009 study of 132 individuals, 560,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 25 different Indian groups were analysed, providing strong evidence in support of the notion that modern Indians (both Indo-Aryan and Dravidian groups) are a hybrid population descending from two post-Neolithic, genetically divergent populations referred to as the 'Ancestral North Indians' and the 'Ancestral South Indians'. According to the study, Andamanese are an ASI-related group without ANI ancestry, showing that the peopling of the islands must have occurred before ANI-ASI gene flow on the mainland.[22] ANI-ASI admixture happened some 1,200–3,500 years ago, which roughly coincides with the Indo-Aryan conquest of the Indian subcontinent.[23]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_peoples

Notice, in particular, that the people you associate closest with the Dravidians, the Black "Negritos" and Australasians, actually have a large degree of genetic difference from the Ancestral South Indian (Dravidian) genetic lineage. That is my biggest complaint here. You are identifying groups of people who are not actually closely related.

First off, all of the people in India are related, especially in ancient india.
The Indian has always been genetically closely linked to the African and even with all the mixing most of them still are today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus
Herodotus - His accounts of India are among the oldest records of Indian civilization by an outsider. He states that "There are two great Ethiopian nations, one in Sind (India) and the other in Egypt". I hope you at least know that they referred to everyone black as Ethiopian. He talks a lot about black africans..... some people claim that he never actually even made it to the Nile river, but we know for sure he was in India.

Not to mention, if you acknowledge that there were both "Negrito" and Australasian "Black" people on the Indian subcontinent in prehistoric times then you acknowledge that India was a black nation for much of it's history. just because most of us in the US don't look anything like West Africans doesn't mean that that's not were our ancestral lineage is- same with other locations on earth.

negritos and australoids were the people of the subcontinent.. so even if the Dravidians weren't black (which most of them were) We would probably still consider those mixed people black today. Based on your logic I'm not even black. You're not black (which I'm starting to wonder) neither are the Aborigines in Australia. Nelson Mandela isn't black. Malcolm X wasn't black either, I suppose.

Classical anthropologists, such as Carleton S. c00n (ironic last name) in his 1939 work The Races of Europe, argued that Ethiopia in Northeast Africa and India in South Asia represented the outermost peripheries of the Caucasoid race. - You can either go with this theory. Or a theory that makes more sense.

We need to remember that not all Africans look alike and when cultures had african influence, it wasn't always dark skinned africans.

 

[The Real]

First off, all of the people in India are related, especially in ancient india.
The Indian has always been genetically closely linked to the African and even with all the mixing most of them still are today.

That isn't really true, breh. Check the genetics yourself. This is a completely non-political, non-partisan research project on the genetics of South Asia: http://www.harappadna.org/

"Linguistic and genetic studies have demonstrated that almost all groups in South Asia today descend from a mixture of two highly divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners and Europeans, and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not related to any populations outside the Indian subcontinent. ANI and ASI have been estimated to have diverged from a common ancestor as much as 60,000 years ago, but the date of the ANI-ASI mixture is unknown. Here we analyze data from about 60 South Asian groups to estimate that major ANI-ASI mixture occurred 1,200-4,000 years ago."

And remember, that was a genetic study. We're talking about DNA, not speculation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus
Herodotus - His accounts of India are among the oldest records of Indian civilization by an outsider. He states that "There are two great Ethiopian nations, one in Sind (India) and the other in Egypt". I hope you at least know that they referred to everyone black as Ethiopian. He talks a lot about black africans..... some people claim that he never actually even made it to the Nile river, but we know for sure he was in India.

Herodotus never said that. I can't find a single quote that's even similar to this in his writings. The only place I do see them are in these Black supremacist history books that make similar speculative claims.

The only comparison Herodotus makes between Indians and Ethiopians is when he says that the Indian skin tone is similar to the Ethiopians. He never calls them Ethiopians.

I also see no evidence that he was ever in India.

Not to mention, if you acknowledge that there were both "Negrito" and Australasian "Black" people on the Indian subcontinent in prehistoric times then you acknowledge that India was a black nation for much of it's history. just because most of us in the US don't look anything like West Africans doesn't mean that that's not were our ancestral lineage is- same with other locations on earth.

negritos and australoids were the people of the subcontinent.. so even if the Dravidians weren't black (which most of them were) We would probably still consider those mixed people black today. Based on your logic I'm not even black. You're not black (which I'm starting to wonder) neither are the Aborigines in Australia. Nelson Mandela isn't black. Malcolm X wasn't black either, I suppose.

I don't think the Negritos and Australasians had a nation of any kind. Their migrations to India far precede human civilization, so you can't really call India a "Black nation," though you can say that most of the earliest inhabitants were "Black."

And like I said in the last post, the Negritos and Australasian genetics show that they aren't closely related to the Ancestral South Indian (Dravidian) lineage. There is only a little overlap between the two. So sure, you could say that there was a little mixture in which some of them may have been part of the Dravidian civilization, but they aren't the same, and that doesn't make those civilizations Black, since that mixture was minimal. That's very different from Malcolm X or what have you, but again, I think you're conflating social and phenotypical/ancestral definitions of Blackness.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

just a minor correction, KMD arent 5% they are ansaars

KMD were yorkies

edit: Majestyx beat me to it

Hmm...I don't know about much about Nuwaubian teachings other than Malachi Z. York was a serial pedophile cult leader who lived in a compound that looked like Apocalypse's base of operations. I know they mix black nationalist and black supremacist ideologies with a bunch of crazy space shyt that don't even make no sense.

They must borrow extensively from the Nation of Gods and Earths though because KMD are talking straight 5%er stuff on the Mr. Hood album. And they called themselves and Brand Nubian the god squad.

It's funny because now MF Doom's fanbase consists of mostly white hipsters and nerds.

 

[blackzeus]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here at all. Buddha was born into a ruling family- that's high caste. He was a prince. That's well-documented, and there are no credible accounts to the contrary. As for the other stuff that you call "random shyt," everything I said is easily found, as they are the dominant scholarly opinions on the subject, backed up by decades of research and archaeological evidence. I haven't made up any theories yet. Your explanation, on the other hand, seems purely speculative to me.

You mean Gautama, not Buddha. He may have become a Buddha, but he is not THE BUDDHA, which is where I think a lot of the confusion is coming from. Basically, nikkaz is trying to figure out if THE BUDDHA was black, and you got CACS claiming dreadlocks/curly hair, wide noses, and full lips on original Buddha statues don't mean anything, while nikkaz is like

 

[daze23]

And they called themselves and Brand Nubian the god squad.

yep, also from the beginning of Nitty Gritty

"the 5% and the Ansaars together, that is something totally new..."

It's funny because now MF Doom's fanbase consists of mostly white hipsters and nerds.

they made their first appearance on a 3rd Bass record

the yorkster was a musician as well

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrXqMyuzUD8[/ame]

 

[Hip-Hop-Bulls]

Again, Ethiopia is a greek word which means 'burnt face'. In other words it was another way to say black.

black people should not be defined by anybody else but self. It doesn't matter what kind of degree or higher positions these people have. The white supremacy system only exists because blacks are divided with different cultures and labels such as nationality and then religion. There are many different types of black people throughout the world as mentioned, our history didn't start in 1555. And if you're one who acknowledges that the egyptians are black, then you can't possibly say the mayans, aztecs, Incas, people of India, Minoans, Japanese, Chinese and all the other 'colored' people weren't black unless of course you agree with the white people who are reducing black history by the sec and by black people's history I'm talking about all people of color's history, not just "African Americans".

Now EA Wallis Budge mentioned Herodotus calling India, Ethiopia in 'history of Ethiopia'. As you see below, he wasn't an "afrocentric". He had no reason to make it up.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

yep, also from the beginning of Nitty Gritty

"the 5% and the Ansaars together, that is something totally new..."



they made their first appearance on a 3rd Bass record

the yorkster was a musician as well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrXqMyuzUD8

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7HfCczZCho&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HARNjR0ykc&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUPG2OFljc&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtb5Tusbx3Y&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]

 

[daze23]

I'm not a York apologist

I just think he's an interesting character

 

[88m3]

black women are so naive


I think I was in Atlanta when that all blew up

a bunch of crazy shyt happened at the jail he was in too

 

[88m3]

I'm not a York apologist

I just think he's an interesting character

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I'm not a York apologist

I just think he's an interesting character

Who said you were?

 

[daze23]

Who said you were?

I'm probably getting ahead of myself. you had already mentioned the pedophilia stuff