Picture of Egyptian man in 1910

Malta

Sweetwater
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
66,896
Reputation
15,136
Daps
279,720
Reppin
Now who else wanna fukk with Hollywood Court?
NOPE .. IT ALL STARTED IN CANAAN. GO READ THE BIBLE, SHIITHEAD


Look at the white jew shytting up another thread :scust:


Every thread you post in people call you trash. @Swagnificent this is who you break bread with, someone denying that civilization started in Kush/Kemet :smh:
 

Rev Leon Lonnie Love

damned mine eyes, DAMNED mine eyes!!
Joined
Nov 11, 2017
Messages
21,889
Reputation
5,468
Daps
88,939
Black people are diverse. We have all sorts of phenotypes. Not all Black people resemble littoral West Africans
Just cause someone is very dark doesn't mean they are not mixed. Again, those people have facial features similar to that of Arabs. The only thing they share with black people is the dark skin tone. If skin color was the deciding factor for blackness then we might as well call all them dark skinned indians in New Delhi black people then.
image-result-for-black-indian-skin.png

you gon call this dark skinned Indian a Black woman with straight-curly hair huh? :comeon:

Even the west Africans with 4A/4B hair didnt just get that hair out of thin air. That hair texture resulted from the countries being infiltrated by non-black muslims many years ago who ended up sleeping with the black women there. Now the majority of the features were obviously bred out, but the hair texture is evidence of the past minor cross-breeding. Them Nigerians didnt just become Muslim, that influence came from somewhere.

To show this, compare the hair texture of west Africans and those in Southern African countries who have very little cross-breeding with non-blacks. You will see the striking difference in their hair texture and facial features.

Now back to my point: Those dark-skinned Egyptians may have some black in them, but they are obviously heavily mixed with Arab genes. I cant co-sign calling them black at all.

Ask yourself this: why do Americans today who consider themselves black look vastly different from the black people in Africa even though their ancestors originally came from Africa. The cross-breeding that happened during slavery introduced cac and native indian genes that forever changed that gene pool of black people over there. Thats why you got all these "mullatos" "light-brights" and "curly haired goddesses" nowadays. Their slave ancestors do not share those features with them.

I really don't get why most of you sweep this mix-breeding under the rug like it never happened, both in America, North and East Africa. Its pretty evident :mindblown:


But let coli members tell it with their " my cousin is 'full black' straight hair like a cac" rhetoric :beli:
 

The Odum of Ala Igbo

Hail Biafra!
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Messages
17,969
Reputation
2,965
Daps
52,725
Reppin
The Republic of Biafra
Just cause someone is very dark doesn't mean they are not mixed. Again, those people have facial features similar to that of Arabs. The only thing they share with black people is the dark skin tone. If skin color was the deciding factor for blackness then we might as well call all them dark skinned indians in New Delhi black people then.
image-result-for-black-indian-skin.png

you gon call this dark skinned Indian a Black woman with straight-curly hair huh? :comeon:

Even the west Africans with 4A/4B hair didnt just get that hair out of thin air. That hair texture resulted from the countries being infiltrated by non-black muslims many years ago who ended up sleeping with the black women there. Now the majority of the features were obviously bred out, but the hair texture is evidence of the past minor cross-breeding. Them Nigerians didnt just become Muslim, that influence came from somewhere.

To show this, compare the hair texture of west Africans and those in Southern African countries who have very little cross-breeding with non-blacks. You will see the striking difference in their hair texture and facial features.

Now back to my point: Those dark-skinned Egyptians may have some black in them, but they are obviously heavily mixed with Arab genes. I cant co-sign calling them black at all.

Ask yourself this: why do Americans today who consider themselves black look vastly different from the black people in Africa even though their ancestors originally came from Africa. The cross-breeding that happened during slavery introduced cac and native indian genes that forever changed that gene pool of black people over there. Thats why you got all these "mullatos" "light-brights" and "curly haired goddesses" nowadays. Their slave ancestors do not share those features with them.

I really don't get why most of you sweep this mix-breeding under the rug like it never happened, both in America, North and East Africa. Its pretty evident :mindblown:


But let coli members tell it with their " my cousin is 'full black' straight hair like a cac" rhetoric :beli:


And just because some Africans have wavy hair doesn't mean they have non-African DNA in them. Similar to how some Africans who are light-skinned don't have European ancestry
:yeshrug:
 

Rev Leon Lonnie Love

damned mine eyes, DAMNED mine eyes!!
Joined
Nov 11, 2017
Messages
21,889
Reputation
5,468
Daps
88,939
And just because some Africans have wavy hair doesn't mean they have non-African DNA in them. Similar to how some Africans who are light-skinned don't have European ancestry
:yeshrug:
You are Julzing now :ufdup:. Didnt I just explain to you that hair like that doesnt just come out of thin air on black people? Also you have to understand that African =/= Black. You have Africans who are not black all over the continent. The only BLACK AFRICANS who are legit light-skinned without European mixing are the koi-san descendants. The rest have some mixing in previous generations of their bloodline, even if current generation doesnt resemble cacs.
 
Top