Terms of Service | Translator | Nubian School | Channel Africa | Recommended Books
While I am sure that black blood is in some of these guys looking at the lips and other things, you are going overboard in saying that these peoples are very black. I would argue that they have blackness in them, but I have to go with what the majority of the people in the region looked like at a particular period. That to me appears to be mostly of a white (probably non-Asian) origin.
I do the same for Egypt. That is why i can say that there is not doubt that they were black. In many cases you could say very black, but in Sumers case: "I see white people!"
If you see any of them with African characteristics, it is probably due to them doing what most whites do and have been doing for thousands of years when they go into black lands. Befriend the natives. Compliment them. Act like they mean no harm. Act like they are equals. Learn their language and culture. Dress like them. Wear their hair like them(that is something you have to learn to examine when you look at these things...). Start having sex with them. Fight a few battles. Have kids with them to have the offspring become proof of their belonging to the land (meaning: they have kids with the natives, so they have a right to stay). After all of that, the blacks have let their guards down and the whites finally move in for the kill. That is why blacks end not appearing too much anymore in certain areas.
That is the MO of the ancient white man. The more modern one saw that when the ancient whites moved into areas, they mixed with the natives and their identity was lost. They studied Rome (Anglos) and base their whole civilization on Rome. They complain when Balcks do it and tell blacks to "focus on Africa." When they do, they say "focus on West Africa." They claim ALL of Europe as their culture. It is not true. It was only true when Rome ruled Europe, then the French and finally most European got together for the land grab. Certain Asians and Indians were not apart of any white family then. Only Europeans. Then pnly certain Europeans - those with the power to do what they pleased (Spain/Portugal) and those who came late and had a white supremist fuel for their fire.
It is usually hard for people to imagine that blacks could have been in control of inovative nations, but it was so. If we did not have people to say that blacks (decenents of lowly slaves and white terroism no less...) created rock n' roll, jazz, blues, pop/r&b that whites now dominate or continue to try and dominate, you would not believe that! A lot of people still don't! It is funny how the American white stole the black music, but the British came and stole their modification of it and did it better! They did it better because they knew where the music came from and studied those people (black). That is part of the reason that the British have the greatest rockers in the history of it.
Now, in the mid east, people are semites for a reason. It is called the middle east for a reason. The people are a combination of blacks and whites. Why do you think arabs look like they do(mullatoes)? They (the ruling clans) don't always look like Africans and they don't look like whites. They often look like the result of the two. These early civilizations shows you that fact. You see whites here and blacks there. Then you see some that look like they could be black, but they also look like they could be white. That is because they are both.
|Trinicenter Int. | Africa News Links | 9/11 Home | Latest News | Sources | Search | Homepage
|NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material
from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.