IslandMix

si....99.9% of all human DNA is identical and it's that .1% that makes the differences in us all.....


and u didnt have to highlight that we werent all kings and queens....i'm sure u got the point i was making....steups

__________________
Yuh mudda khunt fcuk up!

ONESHOT, we're GENETICALLY quite SIMILAR how?

ask oto so he can provide with all the links,

I am ASKING U....U R the one who MADE the COMMENT.

lol, that was funny.

MS.69 I see your point of view that yes many people do think of blacks as being of lower stature. First we have to understand why this way of thinking came about. In earlier time, we are descendants from different kingdoms spread through out the continent of Africa before the arrival of the Europeans and Asians.

Many things you may have learned about in school concerning the accomplishments of the Greeks and the Romans, the concepts that came about all came from the BASIC knowledge of an object(s) written language, architecture, mathematics, medicine, farming, were already in place in African civilization. Through divide and conquer techniques, most of these were adopted by the Europeans and through racist scholars and scientist, formed there opinion to block every single concept out of written books about black civilization, why is it we know more about "SLAVERY" but less about what "WE (Blacks) were before Slavery?. So one must ask the question, why is that? thus further research is needed.

As time progressed and technology advanced and strict penalties enforced in the Science Community, many facts have been ruled out as not being genuine for where in that era, the scientist were only concerned about putting "White" as the highest achiever in man kind, today, we know this is not true, for where some of these people go as far to re-write the bible it self, also thus creating a FALSE theory on the notion that blacks are the descendants of HAM. This too is false.

But the damage have already been done, there are many avenues that needs to be explored to find the real TRUTH to our history and spreading the message to others around the world including the POPE, to give permission to enslave hundred of millions of our people as not being so call smart enough were all done out of divide and conquer techniques. Thus many who hold the power of the media and other sources also holds the same trait of thinking about black people to further continue the unjust treatment of black people to this day and images are a very powerful source to exploit such.

P.S. I would not rely on OTO for genuine sources, example, take a look at what he tried to do to my 2 week research project here to the point that i had to request the form to be closed.http://www.islandmix.com/backchat/f9...tribes-155901/

to keep him from confusing the research. If oto was apart of the Science Community he would have gotten banned a long time ago.

__________________
Progress.

I used to laugh when i hear people say this line....but now i just dismiss it as stupidity. Its such a stupid comment to make...but some people need it to feel better about themselves I guess.

Race is a social construct more than anything else.

Just to add to what Bago has said

Race is little more than a social construct and a relatively recent construct at that. Prior to the 15th and 16th C there was almost no preoccupation at all with race as we know it. That changed when the Europeans needed to create constructs and institutions that justified their exploiting and enslaving of the Native Americans and Africans.

Now even though the seeds of modern day racism may have originated in Persia over 3000 years ago with their concept of light(good)/dark(evil) duality and even though the ancient Greeks and Romans did have certain prejudices, they were by no means racist or racialist in the way we understand these terms today. In fact, with regard to dark skin, it was a source of wonder and awe among many Greeks and they used "Ethiopians" (Ethiops - burnt face) as a friendly cariacature.

Modern-day racism certainly didn't exist in England and other parts of central and Western Europe up to the 15thC either. Otherwise how is it that Rome had at least three African popes (St Victor I, St Miltiades and St Gelasius with a possible fourth, Hadrian) and two African Emperors (Septimus Severus and his son Caracalla)? There were African Vikings, squires, knights and nobles and merchants.

But European society has always been characterised by xenophobic impulses; always a need to identify a hostile and adversarial Other. Some scholars believe that this can be traced back to the period at the end of the last Ice Age when the harsh wintry climate, barren land and scarce food stocks meant that roving tribes were constantly warring against each other in order to survive. As such, even when hundreds of years later when European tribes became more settled into city-states and nation-states, that ideology of "Othering" was firmly embedded into their psyche. So, when Europeans became their expansionist drives into the Americas, in order to justify their exploitation of the Native Americans and later on Africans, Chinese, Indians, etc, the concept of race was developed and evolved into some pretty sophisiticated ways by the end of the 19thC when the discipline known as anthropology came into being. By that time Europe, particularly England, France and Germany were embarking on some extreme nationalistic exercises and many "social sciences" were created or had been refined in a very racist and imperialist context. The intent was to use science to provide "proof" of the superiority of the Euro in politics, religion, military, economics, music, and so on.

Cheikh Anta Diop made a pretty good mockery of race in his book African Origin of Civilisation: Myth or Reality? and Civilisation or Barbarism, I recommend them both. I also highly recommend Marimba Ani's "Yurugu: an African-centred Critique of European cultural Thought and Behaviour"

Wellllll, maybe, but it doesn't necessarily need to be. I mean I don't know what was Oneshot's thinking but frankly, it's the truth: not all our ancestors were queens and kings and why should they have been? Maybe I'm a nitpicker but the emphasis upon our ancestors were queens and kings really had its time; it was to address a need to counter the very real racist arguments in academia and religion, etc 50, 60, 70 years ago.

The problem was that in so doing we found ourselves attempting to argue European racist claims by using European hierarchical constructs. And we still do it. It is only in the patriarchal model (such as that of the West) that the "king" is given so much importance. Any serious understanding of traditional African society would show that the much touted king and queen was little more than a figurehead; the real power brokers were the councils-of-elders, women's political groups, priests-philosophers and court poets/singers/storytellers. The king was really the spiritual embodiement of the people and their titular head; he was by no means a despot or a supreme, maximum leader. Any decision he made was really decisions outlined by the groups I had mentioned.

So I jes say ah go use this question to inject a plea to let we start looking at we ancestry through our eyes. It's true we were "kings" and "queens", but much more importantly we were djalis, priests, artists, and many other things that in the militaristic culture of Europe was nothing more than irrelevant distractions when dey wasn't killing out each other.

Ancient Africa's Black Kingdoms

African Timelines Part I -- African Time line to present.

Africa's Ancient Kingdoms and Empires :: View topic - East African Photo Gallery: Mid-1800's & Early 1900's Images of earlier Africans.

Thats a good source to check out some stuff.

__________________
Progress.

Annotation to yours and my previous comments.

Ancient Kemet (as the ancient Egyptians called their kingdom, a term dating from ca. 3100 BCE) is also the cradle of Black African civilization. A subject of heated contemporary debate is the ethnicity and/or color of the ancient Egyptians, and Africanist scholars like Molefi Kete Asante and Abu S. Abarry observe that "the more [ancient] Egypt is seen as a society of significance to human civilization, the more its [black African] origins are disputed by some white scholars." They claim that racist sentiments have led "revisionist historians of the fifteenth to the twentieth centuries, the age of the European slave trade [and European colonization of Africa], …to discredit Africans," "to explain away the African base" of ancient Egypt, "and to accredit all African achievement to the presence of European genes." It is well to note that the ancient Greeks described the way the Egyptians looked to them: "The ancient Greek writers Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, and Aristotle all testified …that the ancient Egyptians were ‘black-skinned'"

__________________
Progress.

The issue of the ethnicity of the ancient people of Kemet is only disputed vehemently by those who insist upon retaining the conservative (read White supremist) perspective. I have read Vol 2 of the UNESCO General History of Africa and the appendage to Chap 1 was the summary of the 1974 debate between Cheikh Anta Diop, Theophile Obenga and several conservative scholars on the subject of the ethicity of the Ancient Egyptians and the origin of the Meroitic script. Diop and Obenga pretty much made short work of the nonsense Vercoutter and the others were .

Like I've said so many times before, like, say England or Trinidad, Ancient Kmt was a cosmopolitan society. However for much of its very long history, its ruling class, priesthood, language and culture and its general polulation were indigenous African.

So RACE is a BIOLOGICAL CONSTRUCT and not a SOCIAL construct?

Perhaps you need to re-read my first post on the subject. I'd also suggest you don't let that thing known as phenotype confuse you as to what you think I said

I am ASKING U again, maybe this time you will DIRECTLY answer my QUESTION. Since you believe RACE is a "LITTLE MORE than a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT" is then a BIOLOGICAL CONSTRUCT?

lol

You need a lesson in English. The phrase "Little more than" is the same as saying "more or less"...

Ananci is saying thay Race is more or less a social construct. Meaning... give or take a few examples of biological interpretation, race IS a social construct.

LAwd...