Is this true that the Buddha was black?

[Blackking]

@GetInTheTruck you may be confused because we live in the WEst and most of the black you know are slave trade west africans that currently live here.

It's not strange that ancient peoples designed Buddha and created structure depicting him as Africoid?

tens of thousands of years ago, people from Africa settled India. All human on Earth were still black around 7K years ago... People of Indian 4K years ago looked closer to me than most people in India today.

The indians today who are claiming to not be Africa don't look anything like Siddhārtha Gautama, right?

Every scientist that attempted to say that northern climates attributed to lighter skin color were proven wrong......as recently as 6K years ago is when all humans on Earth were black... aligned up with migration and different types of farming.

There are genetic barriers that prevented humans from losing African type features and darker skin.... So Buddha was black because all of the people in 5 century BCE were black men and women.

 

[bouncy]

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.

It's called rounding off! I see you didn't learn math. Because some say around 1500b.c., and other say 1700 b.c., I rounded it off to 4,000 years. You are the dumbest person I have ever dealt with. You are the Indian version of Imam Bashir. People who watch sa netertv on youtube know what I mean.

Now. GET AWAY FROM ME SATAN

 

[bouncy]

@GetInTheTruck you may be confused because we live in the WEst and most of the black you know are slave trade west africans that currently live here.

It's not strange that ancient peoples designed Buddha and created structure depicting him as Africoid?

tens of thousands of years ago, people from Africa settled India. All human on Earth were still black around 7K years ago... People of Indian 4K years ago looked closer to me than most people in India today.

The indians today who are claiming to not be Africa don't look anything like Siddhārtha Gautama, right?

Every scientist that attempted to say that northern climates attributed to lighter skin color were proven wrong......as recently as 6K years ago is when all humans on Earth were black... aligned up with migration and different types of farming.

There are genetic barriers that prevented humans from losing African type features and darker skin.... So Buddha was black because all of the people in 5 century BCE were black men and women.

I wrote this consistently throughout this thread, and even posted pictures to explain my point but, he doesn't want to see it because his racists mind is stuck on his group being who they are from day one. That is that neanderthal trait being expressed through him.

Those indians I posted, some Africans look like them today, but all he sees in his mind is an Indian because of the straight hair, and you cant get him to think of a time before this association was with them only. This is why he posted a black, and white picture, of the SAME man. He wants to play tricks on your mind by showing the straight hair, and the color not being in the picture. Yet, the picture I showed of the same man without long hair, and in color, he looked just like someone who could be related to me. See how he does trickery. He is a devilish man or woman. He knows this view of being black has effected EVERYONE on this earth, and using this wrong knowledge to prove his points, and make me look stupid. He's just caught up in the system that effected millions in his homeland. Of course he won't admit it because he benefits from it, but his actions show he knows how true the racism of the caste is. If he was an honest person he can show science to prove me wrong, yet he keeps using a book of religion to prove his points.

 

[Blackking]

I wrote this consistently throughout this thread, and even posted pictures to explain my point but, he doesn't want to see it because his racists mind is stuck on his group being who they are from day one. That is that neanderthal trait being expressed through him.

Those indians I posted, some Africans look like them today, but all he sees in his mind is an Indian because of the straight hair, and you cant get him to think of a time before this association was with them only. This is why he posted a black, and white picture, of the SAME man. He wants to play tricks on your mind by showing the straight hair, and the color not being in the picture. Yet, the picture I showed of the same man without long hair, and in color, he looked just like someone who could be related to me. See how he does trickery. He is a devilish man or woman. He knows this view of being black has effected EVERYONE on this earth, and using this wrong knowledge to prove his points, and make me look stupid. He's just caught up in the system that effected millions in his homeland. Of course he won't admit it because he benefits from it, but his actions show he knows how true the racism of the caste is. If he wasn't an honest person he can show science to prove me wrong, yet he keeps using a book of religion to prove his points.

I agree with your points....


but i don't think he's a devil though...

He is just part of a culture that has cut and burned it's roots on purpose...

 

[bouncy]

I agree with your points....


but i don't think he's a devil though...

He is just part of a culture that has cut and burned it's roots on purpose...

Isn't that being a devil or having devilish ways!

 

[GetInTheTruck]

@GetInTheTruck you may be confused because we live in the WEst and most of the black you know are slave trade west africans that currently live here.

It's not strange that ancient peoples designed Buddha and created structure depicting him as Africoid?

tens of thousands of years ago, people from Africa settled India. All human on Earth were still black around 7K years ago... People of Indian 4K years ago looked closer to me than most people in India today.

The indians today who are claiming to not be Africa don't look anything like Siddhārtha Gautama, right?

Every scientist that attempted to say that northern climates attributed to lighter skin color were proven wrong......as recently as 6K years ago is when all humans on Earth were black... aligned up with migration and different types of farming.

There are genetic barriers that prevented humans from losing African type features and darker skin.... So Buddha was black because all of the people in 5 century BCE were black men and women.

I don't see africoid features when I see statues of the Buddha, that's what you see. I don't even know what you mean by africoid. If Africa is the birthplace of human diversity then doesn't that make all features African? This game can be played both ways.

Like @The Real said earlier, nobody knows for sure exactly what he looked like, but there is no evidence to suggest that he looked like a continental African and not an Indian, which is what he was by all accounts.

And all people in 5th century BC india were black? I'm sorry but do you want to rephrase that?

 

[GetInTheTruck]

I wrote this consistently throughout this thread, and even posted pictures to explain my point but, he doesn't want to see it because his racists mind is stuck on his group being who they are from day one. That is that neanderthal trait being expressed through him.

Those indians I posted, some Africans look like them today, but all he sees in his mind is an Indian because of the straight hair, and you cant get him to think of a time before this association was with them only. This is why he posted a black, and white picture, of the SAME man. He wants to play tricks on your mind by showing the straight hair, and the color not being in the picture. Yet, the picture I showed of the same man without long hair, and in color, he looked just like someone who could be related to me. See how he does trickery. He is a devilish man or woman. He knows this view of being black has effected EVERYONE on this earth, and using this wrong knowledge to prove his points, and make me look stupid. He's just caught up in the system that effected millions in his homeland. Of course he won't admit it because he benefits from it, but his actions show he knows how true the racism of the caste is. If he wasn't an honest person he can show science to prove me wrong, yet he keeps using a book of religion to prove his points.

The color wasn't in the photograph because it was an old photo of an old Indian man when he was young, that isn't trickery on my part. Photos back in the day were in black and white, or did you not know that?

 

[Blackking]

And all people in 5th century BC india were black? I'm sorry but do you want to rephrase that?

No. If they weren't black then what could they have possibly been?


What did humans look like back then.......especially in south asia and north africa and central africa?

 

[GetInTheTruck]

No. If they weren't black then what could they have possibly been?

People who were varying shades of brown ranging from light to dark along with dark hair....kinda like Indians are today, on average.

What did humans look like back then.......especially in south asia and north africa and central africa?

So you believe that 2500 years ago south Asians and north/central Africans all looked alike?

 

[Blackking]

People who were varying shades of brown ranging from light to dark along with dark hair....kinda like Indians are today, on average.




So you believe that 2500 years ago south Asians and north/central Africans all looked alike?

No they didn't all look alike...

Some looked like Ray Rice. Some looked like Trey Songz. ........ none looked like Virkam Patel Kumar Raaj Satya Srinath Supreet Singh..........whoever that is.

But over the last thousand years there were some changes.

Remember we talked about this chick? some looked like her...

 

[Camile.Bidan]

You are mental. You love to post shyt thinking nobody knows the same thing.

If you see I know the difference between the groups why go through the time of explaining something I already know. I've said southeast asians to you many times in the other thread, even @Camile.Bidan said it when he was explaining southeast asians origins being black, and they not liking to admit that, but you forgot about that, right.

We are not in britian, we are in the U.S.A., and a far east person is called ASIAN. AN INDIAN, is called an INDIAN. Even if I didn't explain this you know what I mean by the context of my sentence.

YOUR EDUCATION IS LIMITED AND ASS.

South Asians have plenty of Ancestral "Black" inheritance. Just look at the Graphic below, which shows how 6 of the world's clinal populations are admixed with each. Take a look at the Sindhi and Kalash populations--lots of "black" genes there.


South East Asians and Indians (south Asians) have ancestral Roots with Black Asians. Thais and Cambodians Represent South East Asians in the Autosome Analysis below. They have a substantial amount of Black Asian Ancestry. The Ami Tribes are represent the ancestral population of both South East Asians (island SEA) and the polynesians.

Here's an AMI woman from the late 1800's

Compare that to Manny Pacquio's Dad.

The case that SEA's are a heavily "black" mixed population is closed in my eyes.

As a side note: Look at how All Europeans are Part Amerindian. What a tragedy.... The Europeans wiped out their own brothers. They were one tribe at one time. Then they met again after 20k years only to kill each other.

K=2 separates African from non-African populations.

K=3 reveals a West Eurasian ancestry component [Blue].

K=4 breaks the African component into an African hunter-gatherer ancestry maximized in Bushmen such as the Ju_hoan_North [Red] and an African farmer component maximized in the Yoruba [Orange].

K=5 breaks the ENA [eastern non-African] component down into one maximized in the Karitiana from the Americas [Green] and one maximized in the Ami from Taiwan [Yellow].

K=6 reveals a south Eurasian component maximized in Papuans [Purple], which is also represented in South Asians.

The study
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf

 

[88m3]

The study
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf

Have a full break down on the colors?

 

[Camile.Bidan]

Have a full break down on the colors?

K=2 separates African from non-African populations.

K=3 reveals a West Eurasian ancestry component [Blue].

K=4 breaks the African component into an African hunter-gatherer ancestry maximized in Bushmen such as the Ju_hoan_North [Red] and an African farmer component maximized in the Yoruba [Orange].

K=5 breaks the ENA [eastern non-African] component down into one maximized in the Karitiana from the Americas [Green] and one maximized in the Ami from Taiwan [Yellow].

K=6 reveals a south Eurasian component maximized in Papuans [Purple], which is also represented in South Asians.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

No they didn't all look alike...

Some looked like Ray Rice. Some looked like Trey Songz. ........ none looked like Virkam Patel Kumar Raaj Satya Srinath Supreet Singh..........whoever that is.

But over the last thousand years there were some changes.

Remember we talked about this chick? some looked like her...

How could that be possible when in 2800 BC Indians looks like this:

A good present day example of what those people probably looked like is something like this:

Skeletal remains from the Indus Valley have been thoroughly examined since they were first discovered and they have been identified as "proto-Mediterranean," not negroid, Africoid, or whatever other term you want to use that correlates with "black" in the way we understand that term today as it relates to race. This is over 5000 years we're talking about, so how could Indians a little over 2500 years ago look like Ray Rice or Trey songz?

And Meghan Rath doesn't look like a black woman at all and on top of that she's half white....she definitely looks like her last name could be Singh, Patel, or Kumar. I don't know why you like to use her as an example in this case.

The problem here is that you guys will stretch your definition of blackness as far as it needs to go when trying to prop up your silly arguments but we all know that in reality that shyt wouldn't fly when push comes to shove. You'll have no problem using things DNA and genetic evidence to point out that King Tut had sub-saharan African DNA in order prove that ancient Egyptians had a racial affinity with other continental Africans but you'll turn around and disregard genetic evidence when it comes to other non-African populations that for whatever reason you go so hard to try and claim. The height of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Blackking]

@GetInTheTruck
lol, I work with a bunch of Indian people. Only a few women................NONE come close to looking anything like meghan rath

When I first saw the show....... I did not think her name was Meghan Kumar. I bet you don't know any Indian chicks that and talk like her.

I remember thinking like most people.... It's a mixed black chick .

Of course because we live in the West we think that most black resemblance = some black mix.

Southern Eastern Asians share the roots with black Asians and come from their black ancestors.

I'm not saying modern say Indians are black. I'm saying the aboriginals of the land were black and african and have been up that way until modern history. To say otherwise is like saying that Black Americans don't have African roots.