Were you hurt by the wall of text?

Most lame thing about black ppl is when they hate on and blame white people for things like slavery when it was black ppl who sold the black slaves to white ppl.

https://humanityunited.org/wp-conten...go/hu-logo.png

http://www.gratitudeforgood.org/uplo...464850.jpg?366

http://spacecollective.org/userdata/...544/united.jpg

I didn't say Berbers were black. I compared them to Latinos and said they look more black or more Arab depending on which region they are from, and then I pointed out examples of Berber or Tuareg people who phenotypically would be considered black.
I am familiar with the wall painting you are probably referring to. The Book of Gates in the tomb of Seti I. However, all the versions showing Caucasian-looking figures are reconstructions. The actual original tomb painting itself is so damaged and with faded colors that the figures could be interpreted to have looked otherwise when they were originally painted. Also, they were depicting a Libyan, not necessarily a Berber. Then, as is the case now, not all Libyans looked the same. North Africa had been invaded by Mediterranean Europeans (Romans) and also Phoenicians, but the Berbers are indigenous to North Africa and didn't come from elsewhere. White people may have been present in ancient North Africa, but they are not indigenous to it and they are not Berbers. Even if the image was meant to depict a Berber from Libya, I've already said "A Tuareg from Burkina Faso looks a lot different than one from Libya." A Berber from Libya looking "white" is not indicative of how all Berbers from other regions look.

I don't really like or subscribe to the term "Semitic" for describing people, maybe because it's based on the Bible, which I consider largely a myth. It comes from the sons of Noah (Ham, Shem, and Japhet) who are supposed to be the progenitors of the Hamites (Africans near the Levant--Egyptians, Ethiopians, etc.), Semites, and (no one really knows who Japhet is supposed to be the father of but I've heard people say Caucasian and some say east Asians). It doesn't account for Australian Aborigines or Polynesians, for example. It's how ancient Middle Easterners tried to explain the world around them, and their world was very small because there was so much they were unaware of. Truthfully, most of the people I've met who are self-described Jews, I would consider white...and I don't consider Arabs to be white. So "Semitic" as a term inclusive of both those people (European Jews and Middle Eastern Arabs) is inadequate to me because I consider them distinct. As a caveat, maybe because I'm such a PC Liberal (lol), I respect people's right to identify however they choose to, so it doesn't really matter what I think of the term "Semitic..." or who is white or who is black. If someone identifies as such, I will respect that and address them as such. Race, at the end of the day, is really an arbitrary social convention. What would pass for white or black to me could be different from what would pass as such for you. I'm not interested in forcing labels on anyone and I'd rather let them speak for themselves. All the Tuareg people I've personally met identified as black, if they used such terms, but I'm pretty sure there are also Tuareg people who identify as white. Who am I to tell them any different?

If there were black Moors, it isn't a "gigantic" misconception that the Moors were black.



There's only so much one can learn from Wikipedia entries. I have personally studied under Marabout and Sufi sheikhs. I've studied with sheikhs from the Tajani, Qadiri and Naqshabandi orders. The Sufis, like the Marabouts, are often considered heretics in the eyes or orthodox Muslims.

"The Book of Gates" - Your answer makes me think you just googled it real quick. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're well versed in Egyptian Mythology/ History. However, claiming the depictions were too faded to tell the race is absurd. Egyptians made Africans look much different than Libyans.

"That was Libyans not Berbers" - I think you're confused with ancient Libyans and the modem state of Libya. Ancient Libyans are the ancestors of the Berber people. The inscription is much older than the Greek or Roman empires so they didn't affect the look of Libyans. Ancient Libya was from Morocco to Algeria btw.

"The Latin name*Libya*(from GreekΛιβύη,*Libyē) referred to the region west of the*Nile*generally corresponding to the modern*Maghreb. Its people were ancestors of the modern*Berbers.[1]Berbers occupied the area for thousands of years before the beginning of human records in ancient Egypt.Climate changes*affected the locations of the settlements."

"I pointed out they look black" - Berbers are not black nor were their ancestors. But there are black Africans that mixed with Berbers and adopted the Berber culture. That was around 700ad to 1100ad and the majority of Berbers are Berber / Arab with a little European and African mix.

Im glad you're such an expert and told me my wife's heritage didn't matter. Even though, she's Berber and has been to Libya, Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria several times. Of course, you know her ancestry better than her.

"I don't subscribe to the term Semitic" - Ok so you don't subscribe to science? Now im thinking you're trolling me. Or maybe you believe Hebrews were black just like you do Moors? Maybe you watch to much YouTube. Im sure you believe black Egyptians built the pyramids?

Semitic "adjective

1.

relating to or denoting a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family.

2.

relating to the peoples who speak the Semitic languages, especially Hebrew and Arabic."

"Genetic studies indicate that modern Jews (Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi specifically), Levantine Arabs,*Assyrians,Samaritans,*Maronites,*Druze,Mand aeans, and*Mhallami, all have an ancient indigenous common Near Eastern heritage which can be genetically mapped back to the ancient Fertile Crescent, but often also display genetic profiles distinct from one another, indicating the different histories of these peoples.[14]"

"I dont consider Arabs to be white" - It doesn't matter, Arabs are white by US standards.

"For 71 years, the United States has classified Americans of Middle Eastern and North African ancestry as “white”"

"Only so much one can learn from Wikipedia" - Well maybe you should start there cuz I've shown you to be wrong many times. If you think I learned from Wikipedia you're sadly mistaken.

"I've studied under Sufi Sheiks" - Are you saying you dance and sing well? Sufis are just the esoteric branch of Islam. And religion isn't race. Anyone can be a Sufi. I dont know what it has to do with Berbers tho. Point?

---------- Post added at 10:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 AM ----------

In my estimation black revisionist are as bad as white ones. Either blacks built everything and were Moors, Egyptians, Berbers, Hebrews and g0d or the great white race were Pharaohs, Aryans and the creators of mathematics and Noble behavior. Yeah... and if you think people are what ever race they identify with then you must believe Aryans are the great white race. Well, as long as white people believe they're such.

---------- Post added at 10:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 AM ----------

I'm a Scythian warrior btw

---------- Post added at 10:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 AM ----------

Black revisionism, with support from it's liberal enforcers, is what made memes like "Hitler did nothing wrong" so effective and popular. Trolling begets trolling. No one ever gaf about Hitler, rather the reactions from saying it.

---------- Post added at 10:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 AM ----------

I actually did Google because I couldn't remember the name of the picture and where it was from. But I was already familiar with it and I was at one point well versed in Egyptian mythology and history. Saying Egyptians made Africans look much different is simply stupid. The Egyptians were Africans themselves and so we're the Libyans. Everyone depicted on that wall were Africans. Or do you want to argue that Egypt and Libya are not in Africa? I think what you meant is they made Sudanese or people to their south look different with darker paint.

I actually thought you might have been confused, but I'm glad we're both aware that ancient Libya spans a greater geographical area than the modern country named Libya. That's why I added that, then as is the case now, not all Libyans looked the same, and neither was Libya filled with only Berbers, and there had been Phoenician settlers in North Africa even before the Romans and Greeks. So a depiction of a "Libyan" doesn't necessarily equate a depiction of a Berber. A "Libyan" at that time could have been anybody from the settlers to the indigenous people of various shades.


You seem to think of race as an absolute. For the sake of argument, let's assume what you say is true and Berbers are not black but are mixed with black, Arab, and European. Are they all homogeneously mixed, or are some a little more mixed with black or a little more mixed with Arab than others? At which point are they so mixed that one can say they "look black" or "look Arab?" If you're saying any degree of mixture means they are not black, then you might as well say African Americans aren't black even though their DNA is like 80% African on average. Lol. Go tell a Fulani from Nigeria or a Tuareg from Mali they are not black.

Untuck your dick from between your asscheeks and realize I didn't say your wife's heritage didn't matter. What I said was MY OPINION of what I think her race is or what I think of terms like "Semitic" ultimately doesn't matter, but what DOES matter is how people choose to identify themselves. If your wife thinks she is white, then I respect that and will address her as a white person.


Semitic is not a scientific term, concept, or theory so how does saying I don't subscribe to the term Semitic mean I don't subscribe to science? Yes, science can be used to map the genetics of people we call "Semites" and show a correlation of haplogroups, but that doesn't make the term "Semitic " scientific. The term Semitic is derived from the Bible (Shem, one of the sons of Noah) and I specifically mentioned that as one of the reasons I find it inaccurate. So the term Semitic is Biblical, not scientific. I know the word exists and what it means or what it's supposed to mean. That doesn't mean I'm precluded from thinking more accurate term for describing people within the same set can be found. Even though we disagree, you were cool until this post when you started sounding cheeky, putting words in my mouth and coming with strawman arguments. I think you probably watch YouTube more than me and have came across people arguing that everyone from the Moors to Egyptians were black and are lumping me into the same category so to some extent, you're arguing against them, not me. Have I said anything about Egyptians in this thread? I may or may not believe black Egyptians built the pyramids, but let's not get ahead of ourselves and stick to arguing against only what has been stated thus far.


Like I said before, race is an arbitrary social convention, and while I may have opinions about people's race, I ultimately respect their right to identify however they choose. If an Arab person told me they are white, I'll accept that. I'm pretty sure there are some who identify as white just as I'm sure there are some who don't. If you're will to tell an Arab who denies being white that they are in fact white because of US standards, be my guest.




Are you aware that not all Sufis sing and dance or belong to the so-called whirling dervishes? I mentioned the specific orders the sheikhs I studied under were from. Research Maraboutism, which I said earlier was a syncretic religion practiced by the Moors in Spain, then come back and tell me what it has to do with Berbers and Sufism.

---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:20 PM ----------

It's Sad @NOBLE, trying to win an argument by semantics or exceptions.

Or finding where I misspoke to win an argument, of zero importance.. eeeww you got me!

Black, white and Semitic are common ways of describing common ancestry yet you took issue with me using the word Semitic, why? Semantics. You have no substantive argument so you argue about definitions. When clearly there's a social standard already set in place. Second, if you want to use obscure definitions you should make sure we both agree on the definitions so there's no confusion.

Regardless, of anything you say Berbers are a distinct racial group. I don't 'subscribe' to the racial classifications myself but for the sake of argument i simplified things. I'm not a faggot.

---------- Post added at 01:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 PM ----------

If you don't believe me Sufis dance ask this guy pal

That chick who has white fleash who is black is hot, i think i love her.

As 4 the sufis, the sufis are alright, the mystic ones are fine, mystics, shamans, saints are all cool, average religious folk kinda silly with it imo.. Jesus was not Christian, buddha was not Buddhist nah mean.

I don't think I'm "winning" this argument at all, and neither am I trying to...because we're arguing opinions and not fact. Race isn't a scientific fact. Sure, there are science-related fields like forensics that can determine the race of an unknown perpetrator based on evidence left behind like hair follicles or the genetic profiles of their DNA. However, those findings are based on probabilities and use inductive reasoning. They don't have enough deductive force to be considered science because it is possible for something to be true statistically but factually wrong. Even when they do paternity DNA tests, they can only say someone is the father with 99 point something percent accuracy, not 100% because it's based on probability and statistics. It's the same thing with the question of what race a particular hair follicle or DNA sample belongs to. I remember watching a series where Henry Louis Gates (an African American scholar) was interviewing some black celebrities and helping them find which tribe in Africa their DNA mostly matches. When he did himself, he found out he was actually more European genetically than African. Lol! So if he commits a crime and left some DNA evidence, forensics could conceivably think they are looking for a Caucasian individual rather than someone who is visually black. Research the "problem of induction" and you may understand why race cannot be scientific. Race is more of an opinion than anything else.
What makes this argument even more absurd, and why I don't think either of us can win the portion about race, is the fact that we are debating the race of a people neither one of us are claiming to belong to. You are not a Berber and neither am I. That's why I said I'd defer to a Berber speaking for themselves as to whether they consider themselves black, white, Arab, or none of the above. I think the way someone defines themselves takes precedence over the way they are defined by others. Your wife, for example, may be a Berber and claim to be white. I have also met Berbers who claim to be black..so even when they speak for themselves, they may not all agree. Like I said...arbitrary opinion. But on an individual level, I respect someone's right to define themselves. If you tell me your name is Muhammad Ali, I'm not going to insist on calling you Cassius Clay, no matter what your birth certificate says, because I'm not an asshole like that. It isn't my opinion or your birth certificate that ultimately defines your identity. It is you who define it, and I respect that.
The portion about history is more concrete and winnable as a debate item. But the thing about history is...we mostly get the side of the winners and it can be told from many angles. For example, the perspective with which I was taught about the War of 1812 growing up in the US is rather different from the perspective that I learned was taught here since moving to Canada. This brings me to what you were saying about black and white revisionists. Yes, there are historical revisionists, both black and white or otherwise, who twist history to suit their own agenda or to make themselves feel better or their ancestors look better in the past than they actually might have looked. However, history being revised isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes it's actually history being corrected. Like I said, history is mostly told from the perspective of the winners. "Until lions have their own historians, tales of the hunt will always glorify the hunter"....or so the saying goes. Particularly for people who have been marginalized or have been the losers of historical events, you can't always take for granted that what we were all taught is 100% factual. An alternative version of history can be wrong, but it isn't wrong simply because it is alternative, if you get what I'm trying to say.
Either way, it's been an interesting chit-chat. Keep elevating!

The black man is God, so Everything Comes from us.. Including white folks

How did this get posted here?