So it could be great to stop consider that all the "so called whites" are racist and own things to the rest of humanity because of their past...
R1a is thought to have been the dominant haplogroup among the northern and eastern Proto-Indo-European language speakers, that evolved into the Indo-Iranian, Thracian, Baltic and Slavic branches. The Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in the Yamna culture (3300-2500 BCE). Their dramatic expansion was possible thanks to an early adoption of bronze weapons and the domestication of the horse in the Eurasian steppes (circa 4000-3500 BCE). The southern Steppe culture is believed to have carried predominantly R1b (M269 and M73) lineages, while the northern forest-steppe culture would have been essentially R1a-dominant. The first expansion of the forest-steppe people occured with the Corded Ware Culture (see Germanic branch below). The migration of the R1b people to central and Western Europe left a vacuum for R1a people in the southern steppe around the time of the Catacomb culture (2800-2200 BCE). The forest-steppe origin of this culture is obvious from the introduction of corded pottery and the abundant use of polished battle axes, the two most prominent features of the Corded Ware culture. This is also probably when the satemisation process of the Indo-European languages began since the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian language groups belong to the same Satem isogloss and both appear to have evolved from the the Catacomb culture. http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml The white race defined by anthropologists in the 19th century has not existed but the R1a people were the ancient Russians who were responsible for the spread of advanced cultures from India to the Middle East. The Slavic haplogroup R1a is closely associated with the mythical Indo-Europeans as the migration map shows.
Some of the rules associated with being "White" are inconsistent from person to person. I would say it's an ethnic group, but it's not even that. Whiteness is nothing more than an ideology. The purveyors of whiteness can, have, and will restrict or welcome different ethnic groups into its club. The rules associated with whiteness are not based in science. They are based on an imposed social order.
exactly. You can have the blackest skin ever but if you were a legendary philosopher or king then white academia will say you were a black caucasian aka white person
I think we can all agree that there are biological differences between geographic populations. The classification of White is based on a real biological difference in skin tone which is observable and measurable. There is a real biological difference in skin tone between several populations. Calling White a race however implies that it is a category distinct from other groups implying an objective biological distinction as race is synonymous with "type", "kind", "lineage" or "subspecies." From a scientific perspective there are no biological races (subspecies). From a social perspective race is still considered to be biologically valid and socially important. We aren't going to end racism by telling people that there is no such thing as the White race. Racists are going to identify their skin color and other superficial physical traits as an indicator of important difference between themselves and others.
When I say the White race is a social construct, all I'm saying is that what we know as the White race was socially, legally, and politically developed over a period of time. I wouldn't say the white race isn't real because that social construct is upheld and enforced throughout society. The construct is very real. There may be a true classification of White based on real biological difference in skin tone, but that is not always what people mean when they say white. For example, many people don't see African Albinos as White despite their pale skin. Irish and Italians weren't even seen as white until they got adopted into the higher social order.
This is how the history of Black people has been stolen from them. When I was in junior high school our teacher taught us about the great general, Hannibal. But she didn't tell us that Hannibal was Black. And some people still argue that he was White. He wasn't.
This is why Muslims and Israelites forbid images they are ahead of the game, because they know what tricks the devil will play ,
I actually took a Western Civilization class in college where the professor stated that Cleopatra and Hannibal were not Black. When talking about Hannibal he stated that the region in North Africa where he lived (Carthage/modern Tunisia) was populated by Caucasian types and that Hannibal was a descendant of Phoenicians who descend from modern Lebanon who spoke a Semitic language so Hannibal could not be Black. He also dismissed race-mixing as a factor in his ancestry because Hannibal was a member of the elite therefore most likely of pure Phoenician ancestry. I made the argument that since there were no contemporary images of Hannibal made during his life time we really didn't know what he looked like and you can't fully rule out him having partial Black African ancestry because some of the Carthaginian ruling case had Black ancestry. I cited an anthropological study by Shomarka Keita to back up my claim. He didn't know what to do with that, he conceded that some of them could have been Black but insisted on the racial purity of the elite in Carthage. As time went on it became clear that this professor was a Conservative. I don't know if he was a racist but I find it suspicious that he would make a point to deny the Blackness of historical figures. OK maybe they weren't Black but why make a point of this? Racists do have a habit of trying to write Black people out of history by downplaying their achievements or outright denying them. Thus the race of the Ancient Egyptians is a heated controversy. And the Nubians? Well according to White Supremacists they didn't really accomplish anything significant or worse they aided the downfall of Egypt. The racist narrative of human nature and human history is quite insidious and it is both entertaining and disturbing to witness their mental gymnastics over topics like this.
I read somewhere that the people of Carthage were brown skinned, kinky haired Caucasian people! Can you believe that? And here I always thought those were traits of African peoples. Yes, it is sad the lengths some people will go to in order to write Blacks out of history. I bet that professor felt real dumb. Wish I could have seen his face.
Also, Hannibal and his troops invaded southern Italy and remained there for many years. While there they intermingled with the Italian ladies. Hence, many people from southern Italy have dark hair and brown eyes up till this day. Most people from northern Italy have blonde hair and blue eyes.
If you look at the people of modern Tunisia most of them have a "Middle Eastern" look, tan skin with dark, wavy hair and "Caucasian" facial features. They don't look West African Black or even East Asian Black. However there have been a lot of population movements in North Africa. The Arabs invaded the region in the 7th Century (around 600 A.D.). There are historical accounts of dark-skinned folk in ancient North Africa including in Carthage. I'm sure that there were different phenotypes in North Africa back then and it is not out of the question that someone like Hannibal could have noticeable Black ancestry including relatively dark skin, curly hair and broad ("Negroid") features. Here is the passage that I referenced for the professor: When I brought up the subject his initial reaction was shock. Then he tried to calmly give his opinion. He seemed dumbfounded when I brought up Keita and grimaced when making his concession that there might have been Blacks in the region. His facial expressions were amusing. You could tell that he not only didn't think Hanniabal was Black but didn't want him to be Black. He didn't make any overtly racist comments in the class or treat the Blacks in the class badly and he enjoyed the writing assignments I presented but the comment about Hannibal and Cleopatra was suspect. I mean when he spoke of Cleoptra he said she was of Greek descent and didn't have one drop of Egyptian blood stating it emphatically. A Black girl in the class was shocked by claim that Hannibal was not Black and seemed very confused saying she saw a portrait in a museum of him portrayed as Black (no doubt referencing the Great Kings and Queens of Africa series). The professor told her that the claim originated with the Black Power Movement during the 1960s. She seemed really disappointed and surprised. That prompted me to confront him about the issue.
I haven't been to Italy but I'm fairly certain based on pictures that most of them are olive-skinned with dark hair. The Northern Italians might be lighter skinned on average. Hannibal actually traveled to Italy through the Alps on the back of Elephants and invaded Italy from North to South. He was literally at the gates of Rome when the Romans decided to return the favor and invaded Carthage. I'm sure there was some raping of Italian women along the way but not enough to change the populace. Also think think this myth originated with the movie True Romance where the father of one of the main characters is interrogated by a gang of Sicilians. He tells the boss that Sicilians were "spawned by N-Words" because the Moors invaded Sicily and "did so much (*)(*)(*)(*) with Sicilian women" they changed the bloodline turning Sicilians from blonde-haired and blue-eyed Whites to dark-haired and dark-skinned Mulattoes. The boss promptly kills him and expresses extreme embarrassment over the "history lesson." The writer of the film was Quentin Tarantino and I heard he claimed a Black friend or roommate told him this story so he added it to the movie script. I don't think it's factual. Even if the Carthaginians or Moors had sex with Italian women and they were Black the offspring would look like Black-White biracial people not olive-skinned with dark hair. Some dark-skinned Italians will get angry at you if you claim they have Black ancestry. I think it's just one of those racial myths that has become an urban legend over time.
Hannibal was descended from the Phoenicians, many of whom belonged to the Arab haplogroup J2. Many other Middle Eastern tribal groups such as the Hattians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Canaaites, and Carthaginians also belonged to J2. Even though African admixture was pretty common in the Fertile Crescent (10-15%), Hannibal may not have been a typical black person with Haplogroup E. An Arab woman of Phoenician descent (Haplogroup J2)
There seems to be a common theme of questioning whether certain Africans were really "Black" whenever they enjoy a high, non-subservient profile in Western history. It's threatening to the notion of White European centrality. Hannibal for instance came close to conquering Rome itself whereas Cleopatra seduced two of Rome's great statesmen. As for the Egyptians, their civilization is generally regarded as predating those of the hallowed Greeks and Romans and certainly they had a technological and organizational edge over most of Europe during the heyday of their civilization. Not to mention they might have enslaved Europeans (the Sea Peoples) and Middle Easterners they came into conflict with. The idea of Africans dominating or infleuncing "Caucasians" at any point in history is a kick to the gonads in the Eurocentric imagination. They don't mind placing Black civilizations far south in sub-Sahara, in places like Mali or Zimbabwe, but have them close enough to "Caucasian" lands to potentially conquer or influence them is going too far for them.
When trying to identify skeletal remains, first gender is identified, then age and then race. Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasian have defined bone structure differences from the skull to the leg bones. Race as a "social" construct is a ridiculous and useless notion. You are unable to escape your race. You certainly can adapt values, and culture regardless of your heritage. And a white person taking on black cultures doesn't have the ability to change out their race. I wonder if a notion like race as a social construct is designed to keep people in their place...
-Homo sapiens Eoropeus albescens - - ("white" people from Europe) -Homo sapiens Africanus negreus - - - -("black" people from Africa) -Homo sapiens Asiaticus fucus - - - - - -("dark" people from Asia) -Homo sapiens Americanus rubescens - ("red" people from the Americas) The man who invented the taxomonical classification of H. sapiens above is Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a 18th-century German anthropologist. Blumenbach divided the human species into five races in 1779 based on the measurement of craniums. During the 18th century, most of the taxonomists and naturalists in Europe were trying to classify biological variation around humans in terms of their limited scientific knowledge at the time. In this new age of genetic science, forensic experts should be done with craniometry which has been dismissed by the scientific community, if they are actually capable of reading Nature or Cell articles. In ancient China, the Five Elements were regarded as the foundation of everything in the universe and natural phenomena.
It would not be an issue if it were not for the fact that Black people are written out of history so much. Many White people (and Blacks too sometimes) think Black people have no history other than living in mud huts in stone age conditions. That is why it matters.
Oh, you mean the thing about how black scientists actually created whites in a laboratory? Yeah, I can see why whites need to keep a lid on that.
You are just repeating public school political correctness aka garbage. General Hannibal was a Phoenecian>>>>>http://phoenicia.org/punicwar.html
heh heh.....It would not suprise me if they start teaching that in the public schools.............I mean they have already embraced political correctness....when pc comes in....the truth goes out.