"Jesus was a Black man who was oppressed by White men"

Science disagrees.

- - - Updated - - -

Are they dark skinned Caucasoids?

 

Science does not disagree, you do. You haven't even defined Caucasian, why is that? Maybe you can't, huh, maybe you never even thought of it before now

- - - Updated - - -

Ibelieve in free speech

 

Look it up.. Caucasian was defined by some German guy about 1870..

 

Of course nothing would happen to you, if it got too scary you would power off your pc, in the streets however would be another story of course

- - - Updated - - -

Which has nothing to do with kamit and AIsrael

 

Of course its pseudo science and right up there with phrenology.

The use of Caucasian to mean white was popularized in the late 18th century by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a German anthropologist, who decreed that it encompassed Europeans and the inhabitants of a region reaching from the Obi River in Russia to the Ganges to the Caspian Sea, plus northern Africans. He chose it because the Caucasus was home to “the most beautiful race of men, I mean the Georgians,” and because among his collection of 245 human skulls, the Georgian one was his favorite wrote Nell Irvin Painter, a historian who explored the term’s origins in her book “The History of White People.”

In 1889, the editors of the original Oxford English Dictionary noted that the term Caucasian had been “practically discarded.” But they spoke too soon. Blumenbach’s authority had given the word a pseudoscientific sheen that preserved its appeal. Even now, the word gives discussions of race a weird technocratic gravitas, as when the police insist that you step out of your “vehicle” instead of your car.

“If you want to show that you’re being dispassionate then you use the more scientific term Caucasian,” Ms. Painter said.

Susan Glisson, who as the executive director of the William Winter Institute for Racial Reconciliation in Oxford, Miss., regularly witnesses Southerners sorting through their racial vocabulary, said she rarely hears “Caucasian.” “Most of the folks who work in this field know that it’s a completely ridiculous term to assign to whites,” she said. “I think it’s a term of last resort for people who are really uncomfortable talking about race. They use the term that’s going to make them be as distant from it as possible.”

There is another reason to use it, said Jennifer L. Hochschild, a professor of government and African-American studies at Harvard. “The court, or some clever clerk, doesn’t really want to use the word white in part because roughly half of Hispanics consider themselves white.” She added, “White turns out to be a much more ambiguous term now than we used to think it was.”

There are a number of terms that refer to various degrees of blackness, both current and out of favor: African-American, mulatto, Negro, colored, octaroon. There are not a lot of options for whites. In Texas, they say Anglo. And there is the pejorative we were so pithily reminded of when a witness in the racially charged George Zimmerman trial said the victim, Trayvon Martin, had called Mr. Zimmerman a “creepy-ass cracker.”

IN the South, I was often asked about my ethnic origins, and I had a ready answer. “My father is from India,” I would recite, phrasing it in such a way as to avoid being mistaken for an American Indian. “And my mom is white.” Almost invariably, if I was speaking to black people, they would nod with understanding. If I was speaking to white people, I would get a puzzled look. “What kind of white?” they would ask. Only when I explained the Norwegian, Scottish and German mix of my ancestry would I get the nod.

I theorized that this was because blacks understood “white” as a category, both historical and contemporary — a coherent group that wielded power and excluded others. Whites, I believed, were less comfortable with that notion.

But Matthew Pratt Guterl, the author of “The Color of Race in America, 1900-1940,” had a different take. “They’re trying to trace your genealogy and figure out what your qualities are,” he said. “They’re looking in your face, they’re looking in the slope of your nose, the shape of your brow. There’s an effort to discern the truth of the matter, because all whitenesses are not equal.” In other words, they weren’t rejecting the category, they were policing its boundaries.

Such racial boundaries have increasingly been called into question in the debate over affirmative action, once regarded as a form of restitution to descendants of slaves, but now complicated by all sorts of questions about who, exactly, is being helped. “What if some of them aren’t poor, what if some of them don’t have American parentage, what if some of them are really stupid?” Ms. Painter, the historian, asked. “There’s all kinds of characteristics that we stuff into race without looking, and then they pop out and we think, ‘I can’t deal with that.’ ”

Doubtless, this society will continue to classify people by race for some time to come. And as we lumber toward justice, some of those classifications remain useful, even separate from other factors like economic class. Caucasian, though? Not so much.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/sunday-review/has-caucasian-lost-its-meaning.html?_r=0

 

this topic is complex you say, I would say maybe you should study more non western sources. Mod edit 2 flounder

 

So you know about kamit?

 

Cavalli-sforza doesn't believe in biological races. There is genetic variation within the human species but it's more accurate to conceptualize that variation as discordant geographic clines and clusters.

Conceptualizing human variation Nature Genetics 36, S17 - S20 (2004)

 

In reality human variation forms concordant clusters such that Bangladeshis are more similar to the Irish than the Burmese, and the Burmese are more similar to the Japanese than the Bangladeshis.



It's often asserted that variation is "discordant". It isn't.

 

Check this out: http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/PCA84pops.html (recommend Firefox)

Obviously variation is concordant and more clustered than clinal.

I would ask Egalitarianjay02 to present data supporting his position rather than assertions.

 

If the Helen Wambach Ph. D. research is based on truth…. then the soul that incarnated as Rabbi Yeshua - Jesus almost certainly had also incarnated as a black man……. and probably as a black woman as well……..

http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...hy-reincarnation-edited-out-christianity.html
Why reincarnation was edited out of Christianity?


……
On Saturday I began a Facebook group entitled Barbro Karlen and Anne Frank after one of the most famous cases of a child remembering a past life.

Yesterday I got the most logical explanation I have ever read as to why reincarnation may have been edited out of the Christian scriptures:

http://www.thomastwin.com/

 

Ever seen the death masks the Romans painted for their deceased? I saw a few hundred of them from around the time of Caesar at a museum somewhere. Very lifelike renditions and people looked like us mostly. It was only 100 generations ago folks.

 

He has a good argument, but we still have plenty of people ready and willing to claim they are or others are of one race or another.

Example: Is Obama the first Black President or was Bill Clinton? What is your reasoning?

 

In earlier research, Keith Cheng from Penn State College of Medicine reported that one amino acid difference in the gene SLC24A5 is a key contributor to the skin colour difference between Europeans and West Africans.

‘The mutation in SLC24A5 changes just one building block in the protein, and contributes about a third of the visually striking differences in skin tone between peoples of African and European ancestry,’ he said.


They studied segments of genetic code that have a mutation and are located closely on the same chromosome and are often inherited together.


The a mutation, called A111T, is found in virtually every one of European ancestry.

A111T is also found in populations in the Middle East and Indian subcontinent, but not in high numbers in Africans.

Penn State College of Medicine's Keith Cheng identified a key gene that contributes to lighter skin colour in Europeans and differs from West Africans

They discovered that all individuals from the Middle East, North Africa, East Africa and South India who carry the A111T mutation share traces of the ancestral genetic code.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...lived-India-Middle-East-10-000-years-ago.html

 

No, they dont share the same skin tone. Arabs are brown, the ones that moved to the mountains became whites. Middle Eastern Arabs have different skin tone to caucus mountain asians.

 

You said it originated from East Asians. Your source does not say that.

 

And all afrikans share the same ancestral genetic code to East afrikans and north afrikans. shocking!

Meaning we are all related. Still, hater gon hate and try to divide us but we shall unite under one banner. In my dreams.

 

Oh yes.. you are right.

There is a verse in the Bible that starts, "I am black but comely... dark as the tents of Kadar." I am paraphrasing... I have always loved that verse.

 

you didnt read the whole article:

The mutated segment of DNA was itself created from a combination of two other mutations commonly found in East Asians

This mutated segment of DNA was itself created from a combination of two other mutated segments commonly found in Eastern Asians - traditionally defined as Chinese, Japanese and Korean.

‘The coincidence of this interesting form of evidence of shared ancestry of East Asians with Europeans, within this tiny chromosomal region, is exciting,’ said Professor Cheng.

 

Oh yes.. you are right.

There is a verse in the Bible that starts, "I am black but comely... dark as the tents of Kadar." I am paraphrasing... I have always loved that verse.

 

Yes, lighter Arabs arent born brown lol, whatever that infers. The lighter Arabs you speak of are europeans and their family group, as the OP indicates [light skin europeans are descended from Arabs]

 

bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

you have no evidence that light skin Europeans are descended from Arabs.


please stop making these racist claims.


and no, lighter skinned Arabs/Berbers/Turks/Kurds are not Europeans.

please stop posting this baseless nonesense.

 

"The combining of segments occurred after the ancestors of East Asians and Europeans split geographically more than 50,000 years ago; the A111T mutation occurred afterward."

So it comes from the common ancestor of Mongoloids and Caucasoids, not from Mongoloids.

 

We are all related to chimpanzees and amoebae too.

Let's all unite under one banner.

 

We are all united under the one, the most high Jah.