observe
Banned
It's educational...this shouldn't be in the race track ..it's best thread ever in the higher learning..which is known for weak threads
Is this true that the Buddha was black?
- Thread starter observe
- Start date
It's educational...this shouldn't be in the race track ..it's best thread ever in the higher learning..which is known for weak threads
GetInTheTruck
Member
Ask questions without answering questions brehs
Do you ever get tired of getting your ass kicked around this forum ???
Lack reading comprehension...and ask questions brehs
The ppl in northern India haven't changed appearance for thousands of years brehs
Have a passport and go to India twice a year and act as if you re the end all of all Indian information brehs
I'm asking you to educate me now, feel free to correct me if I'm off base with the premise for these inquiries.
- The Buddha was a black north Indian who lived 2500 years ago.
- The north Indians today only look the way they do because of mass mixing.
Can I ask you to tell me who exactly those black north Indians mixed with over the past 2000 years to achieve the appearance they have today? Can you provide me with the dates and time periods for when this mass mixing was taking place? It must have beeb really significant if the black people there were completely bred out. Thanks.
You lack reading comprehension..that is the first step in education...you cannot be educated without that...
All the info you need ..is in this thread try reading back again SLOWLY..
Thousands of years but only the ppl in north India haven't changed
If I took you seriously.. I'd go on my computer and ether you AGAIN...
BUT you've already been washed ...like I said LOTTY post are still in here read them slowly
GetInTheTruck
Member
You lack reading comprehension..that is the first step in education...you cannot be educated without that...
All the info you need ..is in this thread try reading back again SLOWLY..
Thousands of years but only the ppl in north India haven't changed
If I took you seriously.. I'd go on my computer and ether you AGAIN...
BUT you've already been washed ...like I said LOTTY post are still in here read them slowly
Well since you can't seem to answer my questions can you reference me to the post numbers where they are addressed? Maybe I missed them.
GetInTheTruck
Member
http://www.timemaps.com/history/south-asia-500bc
Here's a timeline of Indian history, I purposely linked to the time period of the Buddha as a starting point.
@lotty @5star Can you point me to the events in the time period post 6th century BC that led to black North Indians to transform into the North Indians of today?
Here's a timeline of Indian history, I purposely linked to the time period of the Buddha as a starting point.
@lotty @5star Can you point me to the events in the time period post 6th century BC that led to black North Indians to transform into the North Indians of today?
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
this is slightly off topic but is there even hard evidence of Buddha existing besides stretch armstrong? when did practicing Buddhism become common place?
GetInTheTruck
Member
I honestly couldn't say. I'm sure you can make an argument either way but I think it's most likely he did.
I'm so tired of you but, I had to use your evidence against you again!
This is the fact you keep ignoring, and that is, the people of the land changed due to mixing, and climate. You can't start at around the time the Buddha was born while ignoring what came before him. Here is a quote from your link dealing with the time of 1500 B.C.
"The past thousand years have seen the Indus Valley civilization flourish, until about 1800 BC. It then began to decline. The history of these centuries is obscure, but this decline has been linked by modern scholars to environmental factors, such as change in climate patterns or an overuse of land and water resources; migration by Indo-European tribes from central Asia may also have been another factor. In any event, by about 1700 BC the large cities of the Indus valley had disappeared altogether.
At about the same time, newcomers to India made their appearance, Indo-European speaking, semi-nomadic pastoralists from central Asia. They have brought with them the domestic horse and two-wheeled chariots, and have begun spreading out over the great plains of northern India. These “Aryans” are already starting to compose an oral poetry consisting of hymns, spells, rituals, dialogues and proverbs, which in later times will form the Vedas, the ancient foundation literature of Hindu civilization. These reflect a world under the rule of warrior aristocrats."
Now, since we know the Aryans or people from Central Asia(more lighter skinned or white people) came in and mixed with some of the people of northern India, over time these people would have changed in looks BUT, not all because Indians still mixed with each other in great numbers. This would have allowed their original looks, being closer in age to the earliest modern man, to not change too much. Then you add in the fact that most people don't stay having sex with only those of their group, hence why at least 20% of children born are not from the father that is told to be the father(Just watch Maury, And Arnold Scwharzeneger fukking his maid for evidence
) you can see why a large amount of those in Northern India won't look like those of today. They look the way they do now because they had close to 4,000 years to culminate their looks, but even then you will have a few who have a more "original" look being that it's India, so the environment allows some of those genes to be expressed, and because some women cheat on their mates with the help. In India it would be easy as hell to say the husband is the father because there isn't a vast difference between all of them like say a white master, and a black slave, which birthed mixed children who clearly wasn't totally white.Again, you are ignoring all of this, and have this idea that the people look now, as they did then, when this can't be possible if mixing was rampant, with only a thousand years of so called seclusion between groups BUT, when you take into account people still sleep with other people they like regardless of class, and the environment allowing genes to be expressed, the people then would have looked different from the people now. The food they ate also plays a part in what genes were expressed. This is called epigenetics. Go learn something.
There is a big difference in 1,000 years, and 4,000. Now, leave me alone until you learn how things work, and get some common sense. You are giving me a headache
Last edited:
GetInTheTruck
Member
This is about the Buddha and whether he was black or not, not what was going on 5000 years ago in the Indus valley, though those people weren't black either. The Aryan invasion theory is highly disputed and there are multiple theories regarding the origins of India's ethnic groups. One thing is unanimous among credible academics though - neither the Aryans, or the dark skinned natives they allegedly conquered and dispersed were "black" according to how we define that word today when it comes or race.
Even if we were to accept this scenario to be true, it would work against your argument that the Buddha was black because:
- The Buddha was a prince, which denotes Aryan ancestry. The word "Aryan" in vedic literature isn't used to project a racial distinction between Indians, it was a word denoting noble status, and in some instances noble qualities.
- The Buddha spoke an Indo-Aryan language. The darker Indians in India speak Dravidian languages.
- All of the Buddha's who came before and after Guatama were either Brahmins or Kshyhtrias...again, all so-called light skinned Aryans.
The whole point of caste is to establish endogamy among the elites of said social structure. There was some mixing here and there, yes, and the manu-smriti speaks on these scenarios and greatly discourages it. There certainly wasn't enough cohabitation and mixing among castes to turn a black population white, not even close.
Citing Maury Povich and Arnold Schwarzenger as evidence for anything regarding this topic is laughable, really.
You say things like the bolded as if it should be accepted to be true just because you say so. This is not presenting a proper argument, it's just straight up talking out of your a$$hole.
I asked you multiple times to give me an example of what one of these "original" looking north Indians look like and you've declined to respond.
More talking out of your ass....you keep saying citing vague time spans like 1,000 years, 4000 years, etc. without getting specific. This allows for you to present arguments based on your imagination instead of facts and history. I presented you with a basic timeline of Indian history and asked you to point out exactly when all of this mass mixing post 6th century B.C. (The time period this entire thread is about) was taking place...and I say mass because it must have been pretty significant to turn a bunch of knotty haired "black asians" into straight haired, brown skinned Indians....and you came up empty, as expected.
To everyone who wants to understand world history with a view that is realistic to how things were, and evolved, you have to break the image of what is called black people now a days. The world was full of black people but, we had different looks because of the environments we were in, and the type of foods we ate. This is called epigenetics. The white man was the oddball in this world, there was no such thing as black people or Indian people or Asian people because we were all one race. It was when he entered these areas he divided groups. I'm not hating on white people just telling things as they were. We all had different looks. This racists teaching that we all were separate, as far as races, is why this guy posting above me, can't get his head around this idea. He keeps saying the first man was black 50,000 years ago when it was later then that. White skin has been on earth for around 6,000 years, I have given links on this. Its not something I'm making up. Once you accept the world is OLD, and the addition of whites, and the people who are mixed with them, is new, the things I'm saying won't sound crazy anymore. So yes, the people in certain lands will have a different look because of this.
These are black people of the world, and notice how they all have a good amount of similarities, even though they are from different parts of Africa, which has less of the white blood, if at all, then other places of the world. I also posted some southern indians, and southeast asian negritos.
Cameroon
Ethiopia
Swaziland
The San People
Southern India(Tamil)
Negritos of southeast asia
Aborigines of Australia
Again, when I say black people of the past, don't just give them looks that we call black in the west which is just west African. In our families we have different looks on the people. This is not knew. Africa has the most diversity in genes of the world COMBINED, and this means more different looks then other places. If modern man came from there, there is a high chance the people who migrated to other places had different looks as well. Then these people changed in looks a little due to just mixing with each other, and the environment being different. This will cause different genes to be expressed. Again, change the way you view BLACK PEOPLE, and the way you see the world will change. That is the trick that has been used to con you. To be truthful, even white people were black people, they just lightened up. Why did this happen, we are trying to figure out. Remember black or brown is made for this planet to be able to survive. Countries, and continents, are things made up from man, not the truth of nature.
These are black people of the world, and notice how they all have a good amount of similarities, even though they are from different parts of Africa, which has less of the white blood, if at all, then other places of the world. I also posted some southern indians, and southeast asian negritos.
Cameroon
Ethiopia
Swaziland
The San People
Southern India(Tamil)
Negritos of southeast asia
Aborigines of Australia
Again, when I say black people of the past, don't just give them looks that we call black in the west which is just west African. In our families we have different looks on the people. This is not knew. Africa has the most diversity in genes of the world COMBINED, and this means more different looks then other places. If modern man came from there, there is a high chance the people who migrated to other places had different looks as well. Then these people changed in looks a little due to just mixing with each other, and the environment being different. This will cause different genes to be expressed. Again, change the way you view BLACK PEOPLE, and the way you see the world will change. That is the trick that has been used to con you. To be truthful, even white people were black people, they just lightened up. Why did this happen, we are trying to figure out. Remember black or brown is made for this planet to be able to survive. Countries, and continents, are things made up from man, not the truth of nature.
Last edited:
GetInTheTruck
Member
lol. So you're going to just ignore the points I made in response to you, refuse to address my questions, and instead go off on a silly tangent and choose to "address the audience" instead. That's wild corny breh.
I consider the term "black" in the racial sense to refer to people who are either from, or directly descended from the native populations of Africa. I'm using the word "directly" here because I'm not talking about humans 70,000 years ago, since that was well before they evolved and developed the unique identities and cultural characteristics that contribute to human variety today. Things like skin color and hair texture mean nothing in the grand scheme of things and dividing people based on that is a relatively recent phenomenon. In reality "race" doesn't exist and humans are all one species, whites included.
So, with that being said, the Buddha, who was from north-east India and lived only 2500 years ago could not have been black. He was an Indian and you just need to deal with it and move on. You've offered zero evidence to suggest otherwise.
I find it amusing that in the series of pictures you posted above, you chose to post SOUTH Indians who have nothing to do with the Buddha or this discussion. Those people aren't black either though so it doesn't even matter. Your nation of Islam inspired brand of history is garbage and completely unfounded.
I consider the term "black" in the racial sense to refer to people who are either from, or directly descended from the native populations of Africa. I'm using the word "directly" here because I'm not talking about humans 70,000 years ago, since that was well before they evolved and developed the unique identities and cultural characteristics that contribute to human variety today. Things like skin color and hair texture mean nothing in the grand scheme of things and dividing people based on that is a relatively recent phenomenon. In reality "race" doesn't exist and humans are all one species, whites included.
So, with that being said, the Buddha, who was from north-east India and lived only 2500 years ago could not have been black. He was an Indian and you just need to deal with it and move on. You've offered zero evidence to suggest otherwise.
I find it amusing that in the series of pictures you posted above, you chose to post SOUTH Indians who have nothing to do with the Buddha or this discussion. Those people aren't black either though so it doesn't even matter. Your nation of Islam inspired brand of history is garbage and completely unfounded.
GetInTheTruck
Member
I missed this.Buddha lived over 4,000 years ago? @lotty
or am I twisting your words again? Help me understand breh.
GetInTheTruck
Member
Southern India(Tamil)
By the way here's a picture of the same guy when he was a young man:
This guy is black?
By the way here's a picture of the same guy when he was a young man:
This guy is black?
I'm only replying to you to accept the mistake I made. when I wrote 4,000 years ago, I must have mixed up the approximate time the Aryans coming into Northern India to the time of the buddha. And the Aryans were also a group from central Asia who were what we consider white. Just because you don't want to admit it, damn near every scientists agrees with it, and the science shows it, so I believe it. Obviously I know the buddha was around 600 b.c. because when you posted you timeline of indian history, I went back 1,000 years before that and explained the Aryans changing things. Again, you need to learn how to understand context. If you did, you wouldn't be confused if you read something that doesn't connect with the rest.
Second. You are so stupid that you didn't understand why I posted those pictures, even though I explained it in the post, as well as before in other posts in this thread.
For the last time. If you go back thousands of years, the closer the people would have looked like early man. Early man had different looks because he came out of Africa which has the most different looks of any region of the world due to having the most diversity of genes in the world. That is, the world combined. Everyone who has kept a lot of their "blackness" like some indians have, due to the environment, and the genes being expressed from the environment being almost the same as certain parts of Africa, would give an idea of how early man looked. at least for their group who migrated out of Africa. This is why I posted you have to change what you call black.
Again, you don't read post to understand them, you read them to dissect them. If they don't correlate with what you consider right, you try to make the person seem wrong, when if you read the whole thing in its context it would be unnecessary to do this. You did this in another thread dealing with indians and being business owners. You came in trying to debunk what I was saying when I already posted what you said, and the evidence was there. Instead of admitting your mistake, you just leave the thread. With you its not about learning, its about being right, and also keeping your beliefs going.
The real issue here is you want no parts of what you consider black, and want to separate yourself from anything associated with black, that is why you don;t even want to try and understand this. You throw little side comments about cornrow, and hidden colors, because that is your way of saying you don't want to learn about anything "black" just what you were taught by your elders. Unless the black history is dealing with recent history, or hip hop, that is what you will probably listen to.
History is not a period in time, it's happening everyday. So, in order to know the time of the buddha, you have to learn about the time before him. Just like the story of man in every region of the world. You have to look at the origins of their existence to understand how they got to where they were.
Last edited:
GetInTheTruck
Member
You were off by well over a millennium, that's a pretty big mix-up and would help to explain why much of the stuff you've been saying in this thread makes no sense at all.
You can accept all the Aryan invasion stuff if you want to, I won't try to stop you but you should know that the same scientists who promote that theory are the same scientists who divide Africa into Northern caucasoids and Southern negroids. Do you accept that as well?
Did you know that Aryan culture in India today is strongest in the south? The purest form of Vedic brahminical culture is practiced not in the lighter skinned north, but in the darker skinned south. The 3 gurus who pretty much rule over all contemporary vedic thought were all south Indians - Sankara (Kerala), Ramanuja (Tamil Nadu), and Madhva (Karnataka), and they were all Brahmins. How do you explain this?
....and there you go babbling about "early man" when that's not the issue here at all....and those Indians you posted don't look black at all. They look like Indians. Why do they have to change what they call themselves when they are perfectly fine with calling themselves Indians?
God forbid people choose to identify themselves by their cultural identities and not a color. The horror.
I'd rather get my information on who I am from my elders than some self-styled pseudo scholar selling books and dvd's on a street corner. That's where you get your information from and it shows. People like Tariq Nasheed have made millions off of gullible folks like you starving for an identity. It's pretty pathetic. If I want to learn about black African history I'll look to legitimate sources, not "pimps," "metaphysicists," or hustlers with ph.d's from the school of hard knocks.