Anonymous said ...
If you were dealing with a verifiable history, where 69 people from Western Asia came into an African country; stayed 400 years, and left with 600,000 people then their resemblance would be closer to figure B.Various African ethnic groups traveled down the Nile to eventually form Kemetic society. That’s why you see facial features ranging from Narmer to Queen Tiye.
They were all Africans, just like Haile Selassie and Kwame Nkrumah, an Ethiopian and a Ghanaian are Africans.
There is no one phenotype, other than all of those (e.g. Bantu, Nilotic) that we call African, for the people of antiquarian KMT.
If we look at the actual history were a small, obscure group of foreigners came into KMT during the reign of the Hyksos in Lower KMT, and were either driven out with the Hyksos, by Ahmose The Liberator, or they left on their own sometime after the Hyksos were expelled there is no way to determine what they may have looked like.
It’s a safe bet however that they did not look like the European in figure A.
OBTW, the picture of Anwar Sadat on the side is helpful in the sense that Sadat’s mother was a Nubian. That’s why Sadat said that he was the first true pharaoh in 2,000 years.
33 comments:
Is the Rabbi in Picture B a part of the Lembaa people? He doesn't appear to have Eastern African features.
How long are you going to try to keep this up?
No Doc.
He's Polish. Like the cat next to him.
Notice you failed to answer.
Which of these two Rabbis most likely had an ancestor who walked out of North East Africa, with Moses, taking a culture, history, language, literature and religion with them, 3,000 years ago?
(Are you just kidding? Or is your education actually void of any knowledge of the Israelite migration during Roman times to West Africa?)
Answer my question about the Rabbi in question B. And you know I didn't ask his nationality. That was cute.
What does migration during "Roman times" TO Western Africa, have anything to do with Moses leading people out of Egypt?
"What does migration during "Roman times" TO Western Africa, have anything to do with Moses leading people out of Egypt?"
It answers your first question.
1) It explains why the Rabbi does not appear to have East African features. He's not East African.
2) It establishes the presence of Israelites and Jews in West Africa for a couple of thousand years.
3) It implies many of the Africans "Stolen" from West Africa as you put it, were REINTRODUCED to the mythology of Genesis and Exodus when they arrived in this country in bondage.
4) It completely dismisses your earlier insistence that a black man in America claiming a connection to Jesus and Ancient Egypt was appropriating the faith and history of a people not his own and in the process denying his West African heritage.
Now play fair Doc ... and come on in.
We are going to move much faster when you stop fighting what it is becoming obvious.
Denmark Vesey is the truth.
The Lemba are from Southern Africa.
MOTI,
All this does is establish that you have very little knowledge of the world, despite your rhyming otherwise.
You can't seriously think the man in picture B. is ethnically Polish.
The rest of your statements can only be described as tiresome faulty logic. I can almost imagine you on the corner holding court, dullards nodding in agreement at your "connections", not having the intellectual capacity to thoroughly examine your falsehoods.
MOTI, you really need to examine your statements, and perhaps read or re-read a good solid text on logic.
MOTI you really aren't as deep as you think yourself to be. This isn't an insult, this is friendly criticism. If you want to be taken seriously by thinking folks, and not just the gullible masses (as is illustrated by that moving picture of the goateed brother, mouth agape coming to a poorly formed 'epiphany'), you'll have to at least give me something plausible.
I'm getting tired, and bored of you trying to drive to the net with your weak game. Can you maybe phone a friend, or tag someone to stand in your stead?
(Thank you Mahndisa. Help him out)
"You can't seriously think the man in picture B. is ethnically Polish." DMG
fa⋅ce⋅tious
Pronunciation [fuh-see-shuhs]
–adjective
1. not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark.
2. amusing; humorous.
3. lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person.
And that's why I asked. So...what's that brothers ethnicity. Tell me so I can answer your question.
Doc.
I can understand you are a little embarrassed.
I mean. Want Plantation Negro wants to be deconstructed in public?
Maybe it's best go on back to injecting kids with monkey virus and prescribing Vioxx because it's been "peer reviewed".
Cool.
But if Jesus came in and did the Stanky Leg right now you wouldn't acknowledge that he is biologically and ethnically and historically a product of Africa.
That's thought outside the Plantation box and you obviously are not ready for that.
I see you share the same hostility as Undercover Black Man to black men who dare not subscribe to the Plantation Narrative you defend with pitbull tenacity.
LOL. I mean. Bra. I really aint that deep.
Just 24 hours ago you were on some "Jesus is not black! He's JewISH!"
ok.
What the fuck is Jewish?
The Rabbi in image A. Is Polish. He is the descendant of Europeans who CONVERTED to Judaism over 1,000 years after Jesus was dead.
Do you understand that?
What did Jews look like during the time of Jesus?
From where did they come?
Where did their history, culture, mythology and religion evolve?
I mean Doc. My 9 year could explain it to you if need be.
But be honest.
You know the answer.
You are just scared to say it.
The statement was meant to point to an incorrect statement that you made DMG. Recall your first statement above when you said this:
"Is the Rabbi in Picture B a part of the Lembaa people? He doesn't appear to have Eastern African features."
As I said, they are from Southern Africa. You made a mistake.
As to the discussion you and DV are having, I think it is wrong of you to come to his blog and insult him, his intelligence, ability to synthesize information and so forth. I wonder why you would continue commenting here with people that have a completely different world view than yourself; and it is a worldview that you clearly have no respect for. I see you presence here as a person who wishes to argue and set people correct according to how YOU see the world.
Either you are lonely or feel an incessent need to be 'smarter' than everyone else and 'set them straight according to the right way of thinking'.
Your motivations are questionable.
Sorry Mahndisa...I actually know where the Lemba are from, that's why I brought it up. If the Rabbi in picture B had been from the Lemba or alternatively Eastern Africa your boy would have had a point.
Mahndisa, if you just piped up to get into an insult war, I'm not that bored today, so if you'd like to fling shit...fling away.
MOTI,
I'm waiting patiently for you to prove YOUR point. You can't. So you rely on trying to be funny.
If you were dealing with a verifiable history, where 69 people from Western Asia came into an African country; stayed 400 years, and left with 600,000 people then their resemblance would be closer to figure B.
Various African ethnic groups traveled down the Nile to eventually form Kemetic society. That’s why you see facial features ranging from Narmer to Queen Tiye.
They were all Africans, just like Haile Selassie and Kwame Nkrumah, an Ethiopian and a Ghanaian are Africans.
There is no one phenotype, other than all of those (e.g. Bantu, Nilotic) that we call African, for the people of antiquarian KMT.
If we look at the actual history were a small, obscure group of foreigners came into KMT during the reign of the Hyksos in Lower KMT, and were either driven out with the Hyksos, by Ahmose The Liberator, or they left on their own sometime after the Hyksos were expelled there is no way to determine what they may have looked like.
It’s a safe bet however that they did not look like the European in figure A.
OBTW, the picture of Anwar Sadat on the side is helpful in the sense that Sadat’s mother was a Nubian. That’s why Sadat said that he was the first true pharaoh in 2,000 years.
There are no insults on my end, only the truth as I see it. I believe what I said. I question your motivations for posting here so frequently given that you have insulted almost every poster here, with a couple of exceptions and that you have a fundamental disagreement on worldview than the originator of the blog.
I don't know what you are going through in your personal affairs, but it is clear that you have issues. Namely everything I write you take an issue with and attribute things to me that I've never said, you insulted II and questioned her efficacy as a trained attorney and you have insulted DV himself.
Recall you are the bringer of insults, I simply respond in kind.
You need not address me, but you continue to do so even when comments aren't directed towards you in particular.
Whatever your need for validation or your need to feel smarter, well do you, do you.
Frankly I think you are pitiful and have commenced praying for you.
Anonymous, thanks for laying out a cogent reason why DV has a point as to the ethnic or racial grouping of the Jews. I am surprised that someone who claims to have a knowledge of genetics would overlook something so trivial.
The math tells the story. How in the hell does 69 turn into 600000 over such a short period of time? There was no mention that any of the people had noticeable genetic defects, so clearly the jews HAD to marry Africans otherwise die out.
This isn't a conspiracy theory; it is the Godhonest truth.
Thank you Mahndisa for sticking up for a brotha. But I gotta take the blame for this.
Doc is a good cat. He doesn't dish out anything he can't take. Dude is cool. And he's smart. He's welcome here.
You know how we get down at dv.net
We've only got 3 rules: State your case. Back it up. Have some style.
When those are the only ground rules cats sometimes take short cuts to get a point across.
If done right the process often produces art.
This blog does not attract weak personalities.
Everybody here is a character and it's all love.
The good Doctor is a necessary part of the discussion. What is interesting about him is that he doesn't believe in Christianity because it's the "White man's religion" but nevertheless takes anything a White guy writes in a peer-reviewed, double blind, blah, blah, blah collection of secular gospels - called journals - as God's undisputed truth.
Everyone has religion.
II,
I don't believe in ANY religion because to me it's all fantasy that cannot be proved. And why would you think only white guys write peer reviewed articles? I've got a few with my name on them. If the evidence is there, the ethnicity of the author is irrelevant.
And Mahndisa. That's very pious of you to say you've begun praying for me. Save your prayers. You need them more than I.
Inconsistent rhetoric coupled to egocentric self aggrandizement. Yes you need prayer. Not pious at all, simply the truth.
I don't get how anybody would ask a religious person to PROVE the existence of gods or God. You know good and well that this cannot be proven one way or the other.
However, you take many things on faith that cannot be proven either. You have feelings which aren't tangible yet very real. Get over yourself. You are are such a jerk.
"Yes you need prayer"
...says the woman who only as recently as last week through foaming mouth and gushing tears wished me to burn in hell, and consistently goes out of her way to say the nastiest of things.
How.
Very.
Christian.
"You know good and well that this cannot be proven one way or the other."
Mahndisa, that is precisely the point. If you KNOW that you cannot prove the existence of a deity, why do you, with a straight face, shout about what you "know" about said deity. It is perfectly fine to say what you 'feel', and I'll happily accept that if it's contextually appropriate. So you see, we actually may agree on something. My only problem with you, other than your histrionics, is that like most here, you make statements and ask me to take only your word for it. I don't expect you to take my word for anything, why are you somehow special? I'll give you my references if you ask, so that you may weigh them at your leisure. It's not too much to ask for citations is it?
You know how this ends. Do you think we skip your long winded, "pressured typing" posts (that I actually don't read) and get to the wishes for me to burn in hell sometime soon? I'd like to get back to the host. Again, as always, it was a pleasure chatting.
I have come to realize that you simply engage me because you don't have much of a life AND you want to argue with someone. This is getting really old and tiresome. Your approach is to attribute an argument to a person that they've not made, then rail on them about it. Sure I cannot stand you and think you are an asshole, but you continue to engage me. It is obvious you want attention in your lonely life.
Go argue with someone else like John Baez about why he should listen to the likes of you over common sense. Asshole.
...I was hoping for a "I hope you burn in hell!!!!" (as it gives me a better mental picture of the actual spittle flying from your mouth) but I'll accept "asshole". By the way, Joan Baez went to my high school. I met her once, very lovely lady.
By the way, thanks for that link. There's a fantastic picture of the Citric acid cycle there. I think I'll print that out for my son. You see, sometimes you CAN be useful.
Quoting DV's father yet again -
Fighting is the flipside of
Fu%$king.
Both y'all are married. Knock it off.
^ Oh shit! That's hilarious.
DMG: "If you KNOW that you cannot prove the existence of a deity, why do you, with a straight face, shout about what you "know" about said deity."
DMG do you ever take anything at all on faith or do you need proof about everything before you would claim to "know"? I'm just wondering because I've always trusted my gut reactions to things and my ability to "know" without needing evidence. Not on everything, but on the things to which I have a strong gut reaction.
When I was young a friend of mine, I believe she was about 12 at the time, was walking down the street and got a bad feeling from a guy who she was about to pass. Something told her to cross the street but she didn't want to be rude and she ended up being sexually assaulted by him. She always says that if you don't trust something you should just accept that and not worry about accomodating other people's feelings. Do you ever act on faith at all, or do you consider everything to be scientific?
Come on II, don't be jealous. You know your my number one. :)
Pink,
"DMG do you ever take anything at all on faith or do you need proof about everything before you would claim to "know"?"
No. Show me the evidence. Everything else is a guess.
Your friend probably saw something in the way that the man was behaving that triggered the thought. I don't think faith had anything to do with it.
I think instinct is different than faith. Maybe your friend had a reason how ever small not to trust that man (instinct? She saw something subconsciously?). Perhaps she should have crossed the street and waited for evidence that he was NOT dangerous, rather than having faith that nothing bad was going to happen to her that day.
You understand where I'm coming from?
Yeah I understand. I just don't agree. I guess I don't see knowledge as that concrete or black/white or scientific. But hey, science never was my strong suit.
Pink,
It's alright that you don't agree, and that's what's great about these conversations. Everyone has and is entitled to their own opinion. That doesn't exempt anyone from being challenged.
I actually don't see science (especially medicine and biological sciences), as black and white. However, not every shade of gray is valid.
Nothing is 100%, but in science especially clinical science we express findings as being statistically significant or not. If something is significant, I can say that with 95% confidence or higher that my findings are correct (example drug A does what we think it does). The beauty of science is that we continue to question as long as we have evidence. I'm glad you take interest.
LOL DMG!! I like your sense of humor.
You and Mahndisa are too damn smart to be wasting so much comment space on all this PDA.
DMG do you ever take anything at all on faith or do you need proof about everything before you would claim to "know"?
Pink, everything is subject to verification.
What could be more vitally important to verify than your religious practice?
Why on earth settle for less than what you can prove knowable and true?
Everything unverified is merely conversation.....,
Heheheh okay okay DMG you ought to watch your reading comprehension because it wasn't Joan Baez's site; it was her cousin JOHN BAEZ who is a notable mathematical physicist.
Pink you bring up a valid point that is difficult to challenge. Feelings are not tangible but we certainly have them. I can certainly relate to your friend not wanting to be rude and trying to give that strange guy the benefit of the doubt. That is what happened to me when I was 18 and then 19. I TRIED to quantify everything and if it didn't seem logical then I'd say "Golly this has no basis in fact. Therefore it is unreasonable and illogical." EVERY single time I used that reasoning, I got into trouble.
People have hunches and gut feelings and so forth for a reason, I think it was hardwired into our human development as a survival tool.
Contrary to what DMG says, you cannot always see a rational explanation for why you feel a certain way. When I was 18 the guy who assaulted me was a clean cut guy who elicited very little suspicion from anyone for any reason. Same with the guys from when I was 19.
Whatever you do, continue to follow your gut. From what I understand, many scientific achievements also occurred through following a gut instinct about a particular process with no rational reason to do so, but that's sometimes how great discoveries are made.
I saw it Mahndisa. I just prefer the singer. I thought it was funny.
Again, let's not confuse instinct with faith.
Pink I say follow your brain, as it's the "thinking" organ, and fill it with facts and evidence so that you may make well reasoned choices.
The gut processes food, and we all know what it puts out.
There is no confusion between faith and gut feelings. I could care less what you think about how I process my feelings, that aspect of the comment was directed towards Pink.
Pink I agree with you.
Post a Comment