“That’s for 400 years of slavery, you b*tch!”: Rapes White Woman

[Rod1]

Well see this article is based on the findings so it is properly sourced.

Maybe you're just not as smart as you think. lol

Where is the source?

 

[Rod1]

I don't have to post "properly sourced" research papers and the diatribes are mostly on your end kid.

This is a discussion forum, not a court of law or a university. At the end of the day, it's all somebody's opinion.

Up until recently the out of Africa had traction. Modern research says otherwise.

I have a feeling most of this is designed to provoke me anyway. Another time.

Provoke you? im not the one getting rustled at black singers fucking supermodels.

 

[TehGwarch]

Where is the source?

The new findings, published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, casts doubt on the second migration...

That is a source my friend. The whole article is about that paper.

 

[TehGwarch]

Provoke you? im not the one getting rustled at black singers fucking supermodels.

And how did those pictures appear? Magic? Osmosis? lol

They were designed to provoke me.

 

[Rod1]

And how did those pictures appear? Magic? Osmosis? lol

They were designed to provoke me.

Thats the point entirely.

You get triggered at a black singer dating a German supermodel or at the sight of interracial kids.

You need your safe spaces.

And BTW Seal voice is beautiful and he is a good person thats why he got himself a German supermodel to have 3 kids with her.

 

[TehGwarch]

Thats the point entirely.

You get triggered at a black singer dating a German supermodel or at the sight of interracial kids.

You need your safe spaces.

And BTW Seal voice is beautiful and he is a good person thats why he got himself a German supermodel to have 3 kids with her.

Nope, I just fired back exactly what I think and you made some kind of threat to have me banned.

I don't agree they are beautiful or that she is a good person, maybe you're the one who needs the safe space.

That's what this is really about. Sayanara kid.

 

[MysticNinjaJay]

It's funny, when I say the moors enslaved Spain and they were black, you say the North Africans were not blacks to avoid being blamed for white slavery.

But when it comes to evolution North Africa was black, you built the pyramids and you was kangs. lol

If white people came from blacks and we are all the same we cannot be blamed for slavery.

Either way, you're fucked.

Do you get your history lessons from Stormfront? The Moors were African Muslims who colonized Spain and founded Al-Andalus. Some of them were Black (dark-skinned Africans). Most of them were lighter-skinned like your average Berber. The Ancient Egyptians like the scientific article I referenced indicates were primarily Black Africans. The populations they most resembled were the Northeast and tropical African ethnic groups such as the Nubians, Somali and Oromo. Egypt was invaded many times over the course of its history especially after the New Kingdom period and large influxes of immigrants came to Egypt during the Greco-Roman and Islamic period. There was also a population boom during the Middle Ages which is why most modern Egyptians speak Arabic and practice Islam. The light-skinned Arabs of modern Egypt are descended from the ancient Black Egyptians and foreigners who invaded Egypt with Cosmopolitan Lower Egyptians in the North in cities like Cairo closer to Arabs and rural Upper Egyptians in the South around cities such as Luxor and Aswan closer to native Africans. The architects, rulers and majority of the populace from the Early Dynastic to New Kingdom period were predominately Black Africans.

You will dismiss this as Afrocentric nonsense but it is backed by science.

Everyone who enslaved people can be blamed for slavery. White people coming from Black people is irrelevant. We are all one species with some slight variations in phenotype across geographic populations but we are not racially distinct. Humans did not diverge in to biological races (subspecies). The Graves vs. Rushton video I posted explains this (look at the first presentation by Todd Disotell). The evolutionary claim you made about Whites becoming smarter than Blacks because of adapting to the more demanding environment of Northern Europe was also refuted in that video. Anyone who has trouble following the arguments of Graves or wants a more detailed analysis of his arguments can read this article:

What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory Anthropological Theory 2002; 2; 131

Joseph Graves Summary Points:

1. Rushton's arguments rely on r- and K- life history theory. These designations are general descriptions of investment in reproduction and somatic tissue on opposite ends of a spectrum (r- = more reproduction/less soma and K- = less reproduction/more soma.) The problem with this notion is that it has been shown to be incorrect in a series of experiments with a wide variety of organisms. No one took this theory seriously after about 1990.

2. Even if r- and K- theory were correct, I showed that Rushton applied it backwards. By the theory, Africans should be K- selected (K selection occurs in stable environments, such as the tropics) while r-selection was to be favored in fluctuating environments, such as the temperate zones. So by Rushton's reasoning, Africans should be more genetically capable of intelligence, and Europeans/Asians less.

3. Throughout his work, Rushton selectively uses examples to support his ideas. I have caught him manipulating data in unclear ways, for the purposes of making his points.

4. Rushton requires the existence of biological races, which humans do not have. The existence of geographically based genetic variation is not the same as proving races exist, or that in life history features all Africans are different from all Europeans.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Nope, I just fired back exactly what I think and you made some kind of threat to have me banned.

I don't agree they are beautiful or that she is a good person, maybe you're the one who needs the safe space.

That's what this is really about. Sayanara kid.

Tuck your tail and run back to Stormfront David Duke

 

[Rod1]

Nope, I just fired back exactly what I think and you made some kind of threat to have me banned.

I don't agree they are beautiful or that she is a good person, maybe you're the one who needs the safe space.

That's what this is really about. Sayanara kid.

LOL, i dont want to have you banned, you are comedy gold.



I havent reported you.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

I don't have to post "properly sourced" research papers and the diatribes are mostly on your end kid.

This is a discussion forum, not a court of law or a university. At the end of the day, it's all somebody's opinion.

Up until recently the out of Africa had traction. Modern research says otherwise.

I have a feeling most of this is designed to provoke me anyway. Another time.

Oh poor thing. Typical racist always plays the victim card boo hoo.

 

[MysticNinjaJay]

Rod has specified only research papers are admissible on this forum. Sorry kid. lol

Edit: I notice the paper you did post had it's research in the 1980s. A little out of date for obvious reasons.

You was not kangs, sorry kid.

I will post whatever form of information I please as long as it does not break the rules.

I could post more recent papers than that but the research in the article I did post proved my point and hasn't been superseded by more recent research.

There were Kingdoms all over Africa including West Africa where the majority of African-American ancestors come from. There were Black Kings. Ever heard of Mansa Musa? Some of the empires and kingdoms in Africa had many dynasties with lots of Kings and Queens whose rule and exploits were recorded by griots. Most likely many African-Americans descend from rulers of these kingdoms which isn't controversial to people who know anything about genealogy. Most of the Pharaohs of Egypt were Black. That is controversial to some in academia and unacceptable to White Supremacists whose ideology is threatened by the idea of Black Africans building large temples and Pyramids or developing an advanced civilization but recent work on the remains of the Ancient Egyptians by Biological Anthropologists such as Shomarka Keita confirms this.

That article I posted was written in 1996. Keita was cited by National Geographic Magazine a couple of years ago to talk about the race of the Ancient Egyptians and his conclusions are the same as they were then. They haven't been refuted.



In case there is any confusion about what Keita is saying let me simplify it. The Ancient Egyptians were Biologically African. Their culture was indigenous to the region. Their phenotype was variable. Some modern Egyptians particularly in Upper Egypt are good representatives of what the Ancient Egyptians looked like. We need to acknowledge that foreigners came in to the country and mixed with the indigenous population. Claiming that Africans all look alike is biologically wrong and so is claiming that the variation observed in Africa is not of local origin is also wrong.

Basically Keita is opposed to the Hamitic Hypothesis, The Dynastic Race Theory, Eurocentric racism and radical Afrocentrism. A less technical and more blunt interpretation of what he is saying is that the Ancient Egyptians looked like modern ethnic groups in Northeast Africa such as Nubians, Somali and Oromo and foreigners changed the physical characteristics of the average Egyptian making them lighter-skinned than the Ancients. He's basically saying a more scientific version of what this Egyptian scholar is saying.



I know all of this because I spoke to Keita at length via email.

Good luck refuting this evidence. Also good luck proving the Nubians who conquered Egypt and had their own Pharaohs were not Black.

Here is an abstract from a more recent paper on the subject:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2253352

Biological Affinities of the Ancient Egyptians: Old and New Findings

Abstract

The biological affinities of Nile Valley populations, especially those of ancient Egypt, have long been a topic of interest. Older work often worked from a racial model of human variation. Early and more recent studies have used skeletal remains, especially crania, but post-cranial remains were also used; more recently there have been dental analyses. Some serogenetic studies have been done on mummies, and now DNA has been evaluated as well on a few, for example Ramses II. There have been a few studies on soft parts as well (hair, skin). In terms of discussing Egyptian biogeographical origins the remains of greatest interest are those from Upper (southern) Egypt, since these are associated with the cultural sequence that leads to dynastic Egypt. The methods used to analyse Egyptian remains historically involved both morphological and metrical approaches, with the former falling out of favor as being associated with typology and typological thinking. The conclusions from older analyses were frequently expressed in terms of the received racial schema in one way or another. However by focusing on their data and not their conclusions legitimate insights can be gained about population diversity and insights. All of these analyses suggest a population in an overall sense that emerged in an African context and showing affinities with either groups from immediately south of Egypt, the Western Desert or the Maghreb. There is also evidence of a likely Near Eastern impact. Serogenetic and DNA studies on the modern population of Egypt have value in making inferences about the ancient population when compared with surrounding regions. All of these data will be discussed in a manner to understand biogeography of the ancient Egyptian population, in an effort to understand the indigenous and endogenous populations from an evolutionary and non-"racial" perspective. Some attention will be paid to the history of ideas with a critical review of studies.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Thats the point entirely.

You get triggered at a black singer dating a German supermodel or at the sight of interracial kids.

You need your safe spaces.

And BTW Seal voice is beautiful and he is a good person thats why he got himself a German supermodel to have 3 kids with her.

Apparently the pictures are at fault they provoked him into being a racist because right before that he was a renowned civil rights leader

 

[Shidlord]

http://downtrend.com/vsaxena/revenge-for-slavery

When Vanderbilt University football player Cory Batey and three of his buddies raped a 21-year-old white woman on June 23, 2013, he said this to her: “That’s for 400 years of slavery, you bitch!”

Speaking at Batey’s sentencing hearing this Friday, the unnamed victim described how even after the sexual assault, the football player continued to abuse her by degrading her with more hateful speech and urinating on her face, according to The Tennessean.

“Something permanent snapped that day,” she said. “I felt myself detach from my body. Now, I feel like I’m walking around in the shell of someone else. A part of me went numb. A sense of being a whole person with hopes and dreams about what’s possible in the world was now gone. I felt my belief that people are inherently good twist into some cruel joke in an instant.”



Batey’s response? When given a chance to speak, he asked for forgiveness and described the rape as an “unintentional tragedy.”

Uh …

No, Mr. Batey, there was nothing unintentional about what you and your friends did, which was purposefully and maliciously rape a white woman out of the anger you felt about what your ancestors — NOT YOU — experienced hundreds of years ago.

What makes this story a million times worse, however, is that this bastard received a measly sentence of only 15 years in prison.

“All of the defendants in this case basically have life sentences,” Criminal Court Judge Monte Watkins said in defense of the sentence. “After they get out of jail or prison they will be on the sex-offender registry for the rest of their lives. That’s a life sentence in and of itself.”

Yeah, except that in some communities, being an ex-con and sexual deviant makes you a hero:

Did he admit to making that statement?

 

[Shidlord]

As the old joke goes,

If we'd known y'all were gonna be this much trouble, we'd have picked our own damn cotton!

Chicken's come home to roost. You may forget the sins of your fathers very quickly, however we dont.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Chicken's come home to roost. You may forget the sins of your fathers very quickly, however we dont.

Lol, my fore-fathers never made enough money to own slaves

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

You have me confused with your African friends.

No confusion at all, you're the guy that likes to take credit for other peoples accomplishments. That's shows you've done nothing yourself.

 

[RubberGuard5]

Europe was under moslem occupation you see, enslaved and you know...many but not all were fucked by non-whites for 7 centuries.

When that happens, the offspring are not purely white.

Of course many Spanish are white, but not that ones that got fucked. Well, you get it.

Not really an expert, but if it really happened like that (moslem occupiers just going and raping everything at sight), i would guess the offspring would have been killed by women's families.

Realistically, contact between two groups was probably very limited due to majority of population being rural. Contacts were probably sporadic, usually only tax collecting.

 

[superpunch]

I will post whatever form of information I please as long as it does not break the rules.

I could post more recent papers than that but the research in the article I did post proved my point and hasn't been superseded by more recent research.

There were Kingdoms all over Africa including West Africa where the majority of African-American ancestors come from. There were Black Kings. Ever heard of Mansa Musa? Some of the empires and kingdoms in Africa had many dynasties with lots of Kings and Queens whose rule and exploits were recorded by griots. Most likely many African-Americans descend from rulers of these kingdoms which isn't controversial to people who know anything about genealogy. Most of the Pharaohs of Egypt were Black. That is controversial to some in academia and unacceptable to White Supremacists whose ideology is threatened by the idea of Black Africans building large temples and Pyramids or developing an advanced civilization but recent work on the remains of the Ancient Egyptians by Biological Anthropologists such as Shomarka Keita confirms this.

That article I posted was written in 1996. Keita was cited by National Geographic Magazine a couple of years ago to talk about the race of the Ancient Egyptians and his conclusions are the same as they were then. They haven't been refuted.



In case there is any confusion about what Keita is saying let me simplify it. The Ancient Egyptians were Biologically African. Their culture was indigenous to the region. Their phenotype was variable. Some modern Egyptians particularly in Upper Egypt are good representatives of what the Ancient Egyptians looked like. We need to acknowledge that foreigners came in to the country and mixed with the indigenous population. Claiming that Africans all look alike is biologically wrong and so is claiming that the variation observed in Africa is not of local origin is also wrong.

Basically Keita is opposed to the Hamitic Hypothesis, The Dynastic Race Theory, Eurocentric racism and radical Afrocentrism. A less technical and more blunt interpretation of what he is saying is that the Ancient Egyptians looked like modern ethnic groups in Northeast Africa such as Nubians, Somali and Oromo and foreigners changed the physical characteristics of the average Egyptian making them lighter-skinned than the Ancients. He's basically saying a more scientific version of what this Egyptian scholar is saying.



I know all of this because I spoke to Keita at length via email.

Good luck refuting this evidence. Also good luck proving the Nubians who conquered Egypt and had their own Pharaohs were not Black.

Here is an abstract from a more recent paper on the subject:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2253352

Biological Affinities of the Ancient Egyptians: Old and New Findings

Abstract

The biological affinities of Nile Valley populations, especially those of ancient Egypt, have long been a topic of interest. Older work often worked from a racial model of human variation. Early and more recent studies have used skeletal remains, especially crania, but post-cranial remains were also used; more recently there have been dental analyses. Some serogenetic studies have been done on mummies, and now DNA has been evaluated as well on a few, for example Ramses II. There have been a few studies on soft parts as well (hair, skin). In terms of discussing Egyptian biogeographical origins the remains of greatest interest are those from Upper (southern) Egypt, since these are associated with the cultural sequence that leads to dynastic Egypt. The methods used to analyse Egyptian remains historically involved both morphological and metrical approaches, with the former falling out of favor as being associated with typology and typological thinking. The conclusions from older analyses were frequently expressed in terms of the received racial schema in one way or another. However by focusing on their data and not their conclusions legitimate insights can be gained about population diversity and insights. All of these analyses suggest a population in an overall sense that emerged in an African context and showing affinities with either groups from immediately south of Egypt, the Western Desert or the Maghreb. There is also evidence of a likely Near Eastern impact. Serogenetic and DNA studies on the modern population of Egypt have value in making inferences about the ancient population when compared with surrounding regions. All of these data will be discussed in a manner to understand biogeography of the ancient Egyptian population, in an effort to understand the indigenous and endogenous populations from an evolutionary and non-"racial" perspective. Some attention will be paid to the history of ideas with a critical review of studies.

There is a bigger difference between individuals than between races.

"
The traditional definition of race and ethnicity is related to biological andsociological factors respectively. Race refers to a person's physical characteristics, such as bone structure and skin, hair, or eye color. Ethnicity, however, refers to cultural factors, including nationality, regional culture, ancestry, and language.

An example of race is brown, white, or black skin (all from various parts of the world), while an example of ethnicity is German or Spanish ancestry (regardless of race) or Han Chinese. Your race is determined by how you look while your ethnicity is determined based on the social and cultural groups you belong to. You can have more than one ethnicities but you are said to have one race, even if it's "mixed race".

"

So, there were NO WHITE PEOPLE and NO BLACK PEOPLE building pyramids. There were just people. Some were white and some were black. But there were a bigger difference between man and woman. Or regualar person and slave.

 

[MysticNinjaJay]

There is a bigger difference between individuals than between races.

"
The traditional definition of race and ethnicity is related to biological andsociological factors respectively. Race refers to a person's physical characteristics, such as bone structure and skin, hair, or eye color. Ethnicity, however, refers to cultural factors, including nationality, regional culture, ancestry, and language.

An example of race is brown, white, or black skin (all from various parts of the world), while an example of ethnicity is German or Spanish ancestry (regardless of race) or Han Chinese. Your race is determined by how you look while your ethnicity is determined based on the social and cultural groups you belong to. You can have more than one ethnicities but you are said to have one race, even if it's "mixed race".

"

So, there were NO WHITE PEOPLE and NO BLACK PEOPLE building pyramids. There were just people. Some were white and some were black. But there were a bigger difference between man and woman. Or regualar person and slave.

You're preaching to the choir, bro. I have maintained throughout this thread that there are no biological races. There are physical traits such as skin color that differ between geographic populations which are heritable but biological races in the sense of subspecies as it has been defined by biologists and zoologists is not applicable to humans. In terms of physical appearance the Ancient Egyptians were predominately dark-skinned which has been confirmed by science and is indicated in their art. In every day speech these people would be labeled as Black. In terms of biological affinity the Ancient Egyptians were most related to East African populations such as the Nubians, Somali and Oromo. Check my sources and listen carefully to what I am saying. There is no racism in my post. In fact I am actually countering the arguments of a racist.

 

[nhbbear]

he probably won't stand for the star spangled banner, either