THE BORE
General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: Flannel Boy on August 20, 2006, 10:04:02 PM
-
Deleted by user
-
"Mel Gibson to make film about newfound hero, Darwin"
-
Unfortunately how people 'react' to ideas has very little to do with the idea itself most of the time.
I really shouldnt have to point anyone involved in this debate to the middle east, but if I could.
-
MUSLIMS
-
darwin's ghost fistfucked my mom :(
-
JEWZ
-
JEWZ
(http://img.ircimages.com/ircimages/d/a/da934276990935da0993f8caf7ad37e1.jpg)
-
"Mel Gibson was set to make film about newfound hero, Darwin until he found out Darwin's theories conflicted with some of his very own nutty religious beliefs!"
Unfortunately how people 'react' to ideas has very little to do with the idea itself most of the time.
I really shouldnt have to point anyone involved in this debate to the middle east, but if I could.
Darwin didn't set down proscriptions, but aimed at discovering the mechanisms of nature. If someone in the future committed a naturalistic fallacy, it isn't his fault.
Religious texts, if that is what you are alluding to, are different than a scientific theory. For one they are more ambiguous, second they are non-falsifiable and three are full of rules to follow.
-
I blame Darwin for all of my problems.
Son of a bitch, I lost my keys again. DARRRRRRWINNNNNNN!!!
-
I blame Darwin for all of my problems.
Son of a bitch, I lost my keys again. DARRRRRRWINNNNNNN!!!
Sounds like a Robot Chicken sketch.
-
Deleted by user
-
I agree
-
Deleted by user
-
floating keys, jews can swim, who knows..
-
Deleted by user
-
floating keys, jews can swim, who knows..
omg :lol
-
Bwfore Darwin there were no massive killings. Why did the Spanish Enquisition happen? Because people read Darwin's pornographic "science" and killed the Indians. Then in the 1600's we started killing the Indians in this country. Why? Because before he cut off Pocahontus' head John Smith read Darwin's book.
Why did the Egyptians enslave the Jews? Because they read his book. It's a fact, get over it Malek.
-
I hope youre joking.
I'd like to think all of those things happen because people, by and large, have a disposition that promotes group think and siding with extreme ideas because it makes them feel righteous.
The jews have been persecuted forever, and I mean that. There wasnt a safe place in europe for them.
Words are just symbols on a page until we give them meaning. The human race adhering to an IDEA about EVOLUTION is really our own fault. Placing blame on one man, one idea, or on publication removes the thing that most people today should honestly start dealing with, thats called Accountability.
and its Inquisition.
-
The ideas of "superiority" and "inferiority" have been in the minds of humans for ages. This is not something that suddenly came to light through Darwin. Traditionally, there has always been a group (almost always white) which felt it was better than other groups, and used its power and religion to dominate weaker groups. We have seen this for thousands of years, from the Inquisition to to the extermination of Native Americans (at the hands of the Spanish/British/Americans) to slavery. Darwin did not create this problem, just as GTA did not create youth violence. If anything, Darwin put a scientific face on the issue. Don't get me wrong - he did not justifiy the extermination of inferior races - Hilter and others took Darwin's work and applied it in ways he never intended.
In many of his writings Darwin expressed racist beliefs, comparing blacks to apes and calling some races savage. This is a fact that cannot be erased by those who would try to discredit it. It is also a fact that Darwin's theories were used as the basis of eugenics. Eugenics were indeed used in the US as well as Nazi Germany in the 2oth century. But as far as I understand, Darwin and Galton never advocated government involvement in the process of "survival of the fittest", IE what Hitler and others attempted to do.
In the end, I do believe there is a dirty side to Darwin that his followers are not willing to acknoledge, but still he himself never advocated the kinds of acts some took to speed up the processes he coined. Is there a connection between the theories of "survival of the fittest", eugenics, and Hitler? Yes. But I think it's safe to say Hitler took things much farther and warped Darwin's ideas.
-
Darwin's theories have very little to do with modern evolutionary theory. At best, he's a symbol and a historical aside.
-
The ideas of "superiority" and "inferiority" have been in the minds of humans for ages. This is not something that suddenly came to light through Darwin. Traditionally, there has always been a group (almost always white) which felt it was better than other groups, and used its power and religion to dominate weaker groups. We have seen this for thousands of years, from the Inquisition to to the extermination of Native Americans (at the hands of the Spanish/British/Americans) to slavery. Darwin did not create this problem, just as GTA did not create youth violence. If anything, Darwin put a scientific face on the issue. Don't get me wrong - he did not justifiy the extermination of inferior races - Hilter and others took Darwin's work and applied it in ways he never intended.
In many of his writings Darwin expressed racist beliefs, comparing blacks to apes and calling some races savage. This is a fact that cannot be erased by those who would try to discredit it. It is also a fact that Darwin's theories were used as the basis of eugenics. Eugenics were indeed used in the US as well as Nazi Germany in the 2oth century. But as far as I understand, Darwin and Galton never advocated government involvement in the process of "survival of the fittest", IE what Hitler and others attempted to do.
In the end, I do believe there is a dirty side to Darwin that his followers are not willing to acknoledge, but still he himself never advocated the kinds of acts some took to speed up the processes he coined. Is there a connection between the theories of "survival of the fittest", eugenics, and Hitler? Yes. But I think it's safe to say Hitler took things much farther and warped Darwin's ideas.
Almost always white? Step the fuck off, this shit goes around world over regardless of color. Darwin talks like a bigot because he existed in a time of bigots.
Additionally ANYTHING can have a 'dark side'. Enough bird shit can kill a man, can I say hitler took the idea of dangerous chemical fumes from bird shit and TWISTED IT TO ITS DARK SIDE for chemical warfare. Come on.
Hitler was a man who grew up jealous of little jewish rich kids and fed off of a country who was brought to complete bankruptcy by the concluding treaty of WWI. Additionally his campaign wasnt about survival of the fittest, it was called 'kill the jews'.
-
Yup, "eugenics" was just a PR spin on planned genocide. If evolutionary theory hadn't existed at the time, he woulda used the Bible to justify his "master race". Wait, he did that TOO just to have his ass covered.
-
It was never belief, just spin for the masses in germany already suffering way too much for a stupid war prior.
-
The ideas of "superiority" and "inferiority" have been in the minds of humans for ages. This is not something that suddenly came to light through Darwin. Traditionally, there has always been a group (almost always white) which felt it was better than other groups, and used its power and religion to dominate weaker groups. We have seen this for thousands of years, from the Inquisition to to the extermination of Native Americans (at the hands of the Spanish/British/Americans) to slavery. Darwin did not create this problem, just as GTA did not create youth violence. If anything, Darwin put a scientific face on the issue. Don't get me wrong - he did not justifiy the extermination of inferior races - Hilter and others took Darwin's work and applied it in ways he never intended.
In many of his writings Darwin expressed racist beliefs, comparing blacks to apes and calling some races savage. This is a fact that cannot be erased by those who would try to discredit it. It is also a fact that Darwin's theories were used as the basis of eugenics. Eugenics were indeed used in the US as well as Nazi Germany in the 2oth century. But as far as I understand, Darwin and Galton never advocated government involvement in the process of "survival of the fittest", IE what Hitler and others attempted to do.
In the end, I do believe there is a dirty side to Darwin that his followers are not willing to acknoledge, but still he himself never advocated the kinds of acts some took to speed up the processes he coined. Is there a connection between the theories of "survival of the fittest", eugenics, and Hitler? Yes. But I think it's safe to say Hitler took things much farther and warped Darwin's ideas.
Almost always white? Step the fuck off, this shit goes around world over regardless of color. Darwin talks like a bigot because he existed in a time of bigots.
Additionally ANYTHING can have a 'dark side'. Enough bird shit can kill a man, can I say hitler took the idea of dangerous chemical fumes from bird shit and TWISTED IT TO ITS DARK SIDE for chemical warfare. Come on.
Hitler was a man who grew up jealous of little jewish rich kids and fed off of a country who was brought to complete bankruptcy by the concluding treaty of WWI. Additionally his campaign wasnt about survival of the fittest, it was called 'kill the jews'.
It wasn't just "kill the Jews" MAF. It was about his theory of Race and Space. Also, Hitler's hatred of Jews did not stem from him being jealous. It stems from his mother's death, supposedly at the hands of a Jewish doctor. Little things like that slowly built a wall in him to the point where he finally came up with his theories.
And I'll stand by my assertion that throughout history it's clear that white's have tried to dominate other races. I'm not suggesting that only whites do it. But it's more than safe to say that just as warped Christianity is responsible for the death of millions of people, on the flipside who warped Christianity and used it as justification for genocide in the first place? They go hand in hand.
Your analogy about bird shit is so childish it doesn't deserve a responce. It's a fact that Darwin's theories on "survival of the fittest" are the basis of eugenics research, which of course was warped just like Christianity (by you know who) to justify the actions of people like Hitler. So the connection is there. But as I said, I have found no evidence that suggests Darwin wanted the government to regulate survival of the fittest.
-
I would like to bring up the following regions guilty of acts of persecution:
Africa, China, Japan, Russia, France, Middle East, United States, South America. The list goes on. Christianity is the most obvious and easiest to read up on, but its time in the limelight does not give it top spot.
Life IS survival of the fittest, it is not a BELIEF it is the WAY THINGS ARE. Winners write the history books, what eats survives past what has been eaten. Suggesting its some kind of cultist belief that creates wars and persecution is fucking silly. Darwin wasnt some genius, he just happened to look past religious dogma and find something entirely obvious. If he hadn't figured it out someone else would have. Then im sure you could blame them.
You read like some kinda of bizzare Ann Coulter, with a similar level of horrible writing.
-
PhoenixDark: Most of the history YOU have been exposed to has been recorded BY whites ABOUT whites. How much do you know about African history? Chinese history?
And Charles Darwin isn't a religious figure, nor were his theories treated with any sort of real reverence.
-
I would like to bring up the following regions guilty of acts of persecution:
Africa, China, Japan, Russia, France, Middle East, United States, South America. The list goes on. Christianity is the most obvious and easiest to read up on, but its time in the limelight does not give it top spot.
Life IS survival of the fittest, it is not a BELIEF it is the WAY THINGS ARE. Winners write the history books, what eats survives past what has been eaten. Suggesting its some kind of cultist belief that creates wars and persecution is fucking silly. Darwin wasnt some genius, he just happened to look past religious dogma and find something entirely obvious. If he hadn't figured it out someone else would have. Then im sure you could blame them.
You read like some kinda of bizzare Ann Coulter, with a similar level of horrible writing.
Four of the reigions you cite are run by whites (assuming South Africa is included in Africa). Your point? If we look at the largest genocides in human history, we will find that whites have been behind most of them. I am not suggesting all whites are evil - I'm just stating that throughout history whites have been the dominate race through genocide, slavery, and racism. Whether it's Native Americans in South America or blacks in Africa.
I am not suggesting survival of the fittest is false, or that it is evil; it makes sense to me. I am merely stating that to deny that it is the basis of eugenics and Hitler's doctrine of Race and Space is ludicrous. That isn't to say Darwin intended his theory to be warped like this.
If you can't defend your point - which you clearly can't - you might want to find a better way of responding. Perhaps you should wait until Malek gets here before you dig a deeper hole for yourself. I have not called you any names or put words in your mouth - I'm merely pointing out the facts. Is Darwin responsible for the Holocaust or abortions? Of course not. This is a case of radical Christians attempting to be scientific and factual - and failing. Their charges do not stand. But that doesn't mean that there is no connection between Darwin's theories and eugenics, for instance.
-
Rwanda, Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge WHAT WHAT
African and Asian history are PACKED TO THE GILLS with genocides and "eugenic" arguments that vastly predate Darwin. I suggest you do some readin' outside of Harry Potter and Tolkien, honky.
-
Rwanda, Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge WHAT WHAT
African and Asian history are PACKED TO THE GILLS with genocides and "eugenic" arguments that vastly predate Darwin. I suggest you do some readin' outside of Harry Potter and Tolkien, honky.
And? Now I could obviously go nutjob right now and start talking about CIA involvement/coups but my ass is already on the line.
-
Im sorry your entire thesis is mislead by the idea that white people do the genociding, but no matter how much internet debate speak you use, it just proves how narrowminded you are.
-
Darwin was far less racist than his contemporaries were back in the 1800's. That may not be much comfort for you, but Darwin was against the mistreatment of other races. He was also explicit that his work shouldn't lead to social or governmental changes.
I would like to add that communists who slaughtered 100 million people in the 20th century were certainly not informed by Darwin in the least.
Darwin's theories have very little to do with modern evolutionary theory. At best, he's a symbol and a historical aside.
Well I suppose you're right, but modern evolution would be lost without the theories of natural selection and sexual selection.
-
Deleted by user
-
Im sorry your entire thesis is mislead by the idea that white people do the genociding, but no matter how much internet debate speak you use, it just proves how narrowminded you are.
If you aren't able to accept that fact, it's your loss. I already made it clear that whites are not the only people who have committed those crimes. But when I look through history, I see a pattern. Whites have dominated other races through violence for years. I don't remember Africa getting on boats and journeying around the world enslaving other people on a large scale basis.
-
You look through WHITE HISTORY written by WHITES, assclown.
Again, how much African history do you know? Asian history?
-
Tribes and early city-states would wipe each other out at the drop of a hat. Fuck, just read the Bible -- the OT is all about tribal and national genocide.
-
Darwin was far less racist than his contemporaries were back in the 1800's. That may not be much comfort for you, but Darwin was against the mistreatment of other races. He was also explicit that his work shouldn't lead to social or governmental changes.
I would like to add that communists who slaughtered 100 million people in the 20th century were certainly not informed by Darwin in the least.
Darwin's theories have very little to do with modern evolutionary theory. At best, he's a symbol and a historical aside.
Well I suppose you're right, but modern evolution would be lost without the theories of natural selection and sexual selection.
I agree with you, and I'm glad you finally showed up in this thread. Welcome.
To my understanding, Darwin was firmly against slavery. He also never supported any mistreatment of races he deemed to be savage or ape-like. This is in start contrast to Hitler. And it really goes back to my point about Hitler warping Darwin's theories. Hitler wasn't carrying out Darwin's will, just like the Catholics weren't carrying out God's will by slaughtering Indians.
-
Im sorry your entire thesis is mislead by the idea that white people do the genociding, but no matter how much internet debate speak you use, it just proves how narrowminded you are.
If you aren't able to accept that fact, it's your loss. I already made it clear that whites are not the only people who have committed those crimes. But when I look through history, I see a pattern. Whites have dominated other races through violence for years. I don't remember Africa getting on boats and journeying around the world enslaving other people on a large scale basis.
Anyone can use violence, but it's easier to do so when you have a vast technological advantage over other races. Europe's vast naval powers would have prevented Africans from enslaving them. However Africans were not prevented from enslaving their fellow Africans, which they did long before honkey ever did so.
-
Tribes and early city-states would wipe each other out at the drop of a hat. Fuck, just read the Bible -- the OT is all about tribal and national genocide.
Do you think I don't know that?
You are referencing micro levels of dominance. One city-state wiping out another city-state is different than an entire country exterminating an entire race. Look at the big picture
-
Im sorry your entire thesis is mislead by the idea that white people do the genociding, but no matter how much internet debate speak you use, it just proves how narrowminded you are.
If you aren't able to accept that fact, it's your loss. I already made it clear that whites are not the only people who have committed those crimes. But when I look through history, I see a pattern. Whites have dominated other races through violence for years. I don't remember Africa getting on boats and journeying around the world enslaving other people on a large scale basis.
Anyone can use violence, but it's easier to do so when you have a vast technological advantage over other races. Europe's vast naval powers would have prevented Africans from enslaving them. However Africans were not prevented from enslaving their fellow Africans, which they did long before honkey ever did so.
Interesting point.
Africans had naval technology before Europeans, and actually visited the Americas before Columbus. And when they got there they didn't attempt to enslave anyone or take anyone's land.
-
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-kay. Did you go to one of those Montessori schools?
-
The link between Darwin and mass genocide is a bit weak at best, I suppose this is just the christians trying their best to demonise a great man.
-
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-kay. Did you go to one of those Montessori schools?
Perhaps you aren't as up on your history as you should be?
-
I sorely doubt that. Please find me a credible source for, and I quote:
Africans had naval technology before Europeans, and actually visited the Americas before Columbus. And when they got there they didn't attempt to enslave anyone or take anyone's land.
Also, Europeans didn't enslave anyone or take land until they were in America in sufficiently large enough numbers. Last I checked, Africans weren't even here in numbers greater than zero, which makes enslaving or taking ANYTHING rather difficult.
-
I sorely doubt that. Please find me a credible source for, and I quote:
Africans had naval technology before Europeans, and actually visited the Americas before Columbus. And when they got there they didn't attempt to enslave anyone or take anyone's land.
Also, Europeans didn't enslave anyone or take land until they were in America in sufficiently large enough numbers. Last I checked, Africans weren't even here in numbers greater than zero, which makes enslaving or taking ANYTHING rather difficult.
You can start here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0394402456/002-0232355-6621629?v=glance&n=283155
Native Americans had an understanding of Islam long before Columbus' voyage. Who taught them? Also, how did they create statues of Africans before Columbus set foot there? Hm.
Also, Europeans didn't enslave anyone or take land until they were in America in sufficiently large enough numbers. Last I checked, Africans weren't even here in numbers greater than zero, which makes enslaving or taking ANYTHING rather difficult.
Ever hear of Native Americans? You know, the group that was here first, and then exterminated over the next 200 years? I don't know if you're familiar with the history of this group, but they were the original slaves. It didn't work too well, causing whites to seek workers who could work longer without getting sick. Hence the little trips to Africa.
-
until they were in America in sufficiently large enough numbers.
HTH!
Also, that book: WTF, dode. Did I not mention SCIENTIFICALLY CREDIBLE?
-
until they were in America in sufficiently large enough numbers.
HTH!
Also, that book: WTF, dode. Did I not mention SCIENTIFICALLY CREDIBLE?
It's historically credible. Your point?
You have none. Explain the questions I brought up in my previous question.
-
Deleted by user
-
The Amazon link doesn't seem to work. Not that I think I'm missing much.
You can’t believe everything you read. I once had a massage therapist (hooker) try to convince me aliens live on the moon because she read it in some book. In life you're faced with a million sources. Because you can not look into every source, exam every claim with scrutiny, deconstruct every argument, etc. you must choose your sources well.
True.
This book has been controversial for years, but has never been discredited fully. And I have yet to meet anyone who can properly explain why Native Americans not only were familiar with Islam but also constructed monuments to negroes.
-
Deleted by user
-
Here's an interesting piece:
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/ancientamerica.htm
Africans were masters of the seas (through boat making and understanding of wind patterns) for many years. They traveled the world and traded in South America long before the white man.
I had heard that Africans had discovered Americans before, but only a few years ago did I actually learn details on the subject. It was explored in my African Literature class for a whole semester, and later I talked about the subject with a teacher at U of M. Of course I had done my own research as well.
-
Deleted by user
-
I haven't read the book, so I have no idea what claims it's making, outside of the fact that they're quite fringe and sound fuckin' loopy.
My grandma has several books that describe a historical person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation conspiracy stemming back to the Knights Templar and the early French banking systems, and I'm not quite ready to accept those as true, either, given that they're contradicted by, I dunno, EVERYTHING ELSE written on the subject. Of course, when I laugh at her, she claims I'm just another blind status quo fool being led around by those evil Jews.
I'll read the link though nonetheless. Reeks of fringe far-left anthropological frippery.
-
WHICH IS FACT AND RESEARCH to internet jockeys
-
people who believe in the development and protection of a Jewish nation
-
people who believe in the development and protection of a Jewish nation
-
I haven't read the book, so I have no idea what claims it's making, outside of the fact that they're quite fringe and sound fuckin' loopy.
My grandma has several books that describe a historical person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation conspiracy stemming back to the Knights Templar and the early French banking systems, and I'm not quite ready to accept those as true, either, given that they're contradicted by, I dunno, EVERYTHING ELSE written on the subject. Of course, when I laugh at her, she claims I'm just another blind status quo fool being led around by those evil Jews.
I'll read the link though nonetheless. Reeks of fringe far-left anthropological frippery.
Sounds credible to me!
-
Here's an interesting piece:
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/ancientamerica.htm
That piece is long, though the list of citations isn't long at all (hint). I went to section on black indigenous groups and decided to see what I could find on these tribes. The article claims for instance that the Washitaw Nation regained lands from the US government however there is no record of this (outside of other black revisionist websites). According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs they aren't even a recognized tribe. Nor are any of the other tribes the article mentions. WTF dode, this is black Hansism.
Mind you "PLANTS ARE PLACED IN CHATROOMS AND ON FORUMS TO ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT ANY USEFUL HISTORY AND INFORMATION OFFERED TO BLACK PEOPLE."
::)
Well I live in a county named after an Indian tribe...Wastenaw.
You're trying to hard Malek. It's a fact that Africans found America first. How do you explain the monuments? There's hard evidence to support this claim.
This topic has jumped off topic. But oh well, it doesn't change the facts.
-
The fact being that America was discovered by Zheng He, the eunuch Chinese muslim.
-
The fact being that America was discovered by Zheng He, the eunuch Chinese muslim.
I'm down with the yellow man too.
-
Deleted by user
-
Just not white guys huh? you'll ignore a statistical probability because of race. Fuck you too buddy.
-
Here's an interesting piece:
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/ancientamerica.htm
That piece is long, though the list of citations isn't long at all (hint). I went to section on black indigenous groups and decided to see what I could find on these tribes. The article claims for instance that the Washitaw Nation regained lands from the US government however there is no record of this (outside of other black revisionist websites). According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs they aren't even a recognized tribe. Nor are any of the other tribes the article mentions. WTF dode, this is black Hansism.
Mind you "PLANTS ARE PLACED IN CHATROOMS AND ON FORUMS TO ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT ANY USEFUL HISTORY AND INFORMATION OFFERED TO BLACK PEOPLE."
::)
Well I live in a county named after an Indian tribe...Wastenaw.
You're trying to hard Malek. It's a fact that Africans found America first. How do you explain the monuments? There's hard evidence to support this claim.
This topic has jumped off topic. But oh well, it doesn't change the facts.
What does the word "Washtenaw" mean?
There are many legends concerning the name Washtenaw. Some people think it was the name of an Indian who lived near the mouth of the river. Other people think it was the Potawatamie word for large stream or river. Emerson Greenman, a former curator of the museum of anthropology at the University of Michigan, wrote that Washtenaw derived from the Algonquin and meant 'Far Country' with Detroit as the Point of reference.
Not a tribe either. Though what does this have to do with the price of tea anyhow?
God dammit Malek, what a bastard. I should have done more research into that before saying it :P
My point still stands. You have yet to discredit the hard evidence, from the monuments to the Islamic roots. So meh!
-
Deleted by user
-
Wikipedia my ass
-
Wikipedia my ass
I was going to make a wiki about your ass, but got scared when wikipedia told me that they have my IP. :(
-
Wikipedia my ass
I was going to make a wiki about your ass, but got scared when wikipedia told me that they have my IP. :(
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/010.html
Here's an overview of the book's contents.
The first evidence of a black presence in the America was given to Columbus by the Indians themselves: they gave concrete proof to the Spanish that they were trading with black people. “The Indians of this Espanola said there had come to Espanola a black people who have the tops of their spears made of a metal which they called gua-nin, of which he [Columbus] had sent samples to the Sovereigns to have them assayed, when it was found that of 32 parts, 18 were of gold, 6 of silver and 8 of copper. The origin of the word guanin may be tracked down in the Mande languages of West Africa, through Mandigo, Kabunga, Toronka, Kankanka, Banbara, Mande and Vei. In Vei, we have the form of the word ka-ni which, transliterated into native phonetics, would give us gua-nin.” p.11. This was just one of the numerous instances, cited by Professor [van] Sertima, where the names, cultures and rituals of the Mandigos confluenced with those of the ancient Americans.
Aside from these confirmed sightings, there are also an abundance archeological evidence of an Africa presence in pre-Colombian times. These were in the form of realistic portraitures of Negro-Africans in clay, gold, and stone unearthed in pre-Colombian strata in Central and South America.- pp.23-24. Moved by these overwhelming evidence, the Society of American Archeology at a conference in 1968, Professor [van] Sertima reported, concluded: “Surely there cannot now be any question but that there were visitors to the New World from the Old in historic or even prehistoric time before 1492.”
The hard evidence cannot be denied. The paintings and monuments didn't appear out of nowhere for no reason.
-
If it cannot be denied ill be seeing it in history books far and wide soon, oh wait...
-
Deleted by user
-
The monuments are very abstract and have features that could be ascribed to several South- and Middle-American races, as well as that of early Mongolians and several other Asiatic tribes. Language parity is common thanks to a limited set of phonemes and morphemes achievable by the human palate, and ol' Ivan wossname (educated in South America, taught Swahili by his expatriated parents, and apparently trained to hate the West at an early age) gets pretty damn creative in his linguistic analysis.
I've spent the last 30 minutes Google Fu'ing this subject and all of the praise for the book seems to come from the fringe anti-Colonialist set that plagued middle-grade University liberal arts departments from 1970-1990. There seems to be VERY little anthropological credence granted this theory from anthropological scholars outside of a very narrow set, although it's clear the Nation of Islam folks have lept on it.
-
Well the white man wrote the history books, of course he's going to tell you Columbass discovered America and was kind to the Indians. He has his own holiday yay!
-
It's a white man what wrote "They Came Before Columbus," homes.
Hey, the Ramthites seem to dig this book, too; it got some coverage in their cultthink defenestration of quantum mechanics, "What the Bleep Do We Know" although they were talking about creating one's own reality by misinterpreting observation for mystical influence. Poignant!
-
I dont believe Columbas discovered America, but I won't rule out any race just because it lets me STICK IT TO EM.
Its not as if there's some pride behind 'discovering' a giant fucking landmass.
-
The information is out there. If you choose to not believe it, fine. You can stay ignorant if you want, or you can follow the rabit hole of information.
I know the NOI has latched onto this information, as well as the New Black Panther Party. Those are groups who would have you believe 90% of the slave traders were Jewish (which is impossible). I know their history; hell, I did an ethnographic study on the NBPP and attended some of their meetings. But I am a firm believer that Africans set sail on this continent first, and it's not suprising why others would want this information supressed. Your history book would also have you believe that Columbass came to the Americas in peace and treated the Indians like people. I am not interested in the least in revisionalist history written by people who supress the truth.
-
BLACK PEOPLE!!!! (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/dictators/idi-amin-dada/)
-
I think there's more 'hard facts' published by fringe publishing companies out there supporting the idea that aliens discovered america and stuck stuff in the butts of the people before rising back up into the sky only to be seen in the future by trailer parks.
Fact of the matter is this is an issue with you:
A.) You want to believe, which is cool. Ive seen X-Files
B.) You assume because there are others who want to believe, and the book was published it is 'cold hard fact', which is false.
You have formed a new religion for yourself buddy.
I dont give a shit who discovered America first, and frankly, 90% of the people out there stopped caring the minute Teddy R kicked the bucket.
-
Deleted by user
-
Also, if you really want to claim someone discovered America before Columbus, at least have a map to support the claim, like Zheng He:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bc/Zhenghemap.jpg/800px-Zhenghemap.jpg)
-
Whiteman: Thats cool!
Im sure Pheonix Dark will be open to your suggestion cause he wasnt white, and white is the DEVIL lolz
-
You can stay ignorant if you want
That's exactly what my grandma said right before she launched into a rant about how the Holocaust was an invention of invisible Jewish organizations.
-
BLACK PEOPLE!!!! (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/dictators/idi-amin-dada/)
His self hatred of his race, planted in him sub-consciencely by the pale man, caused him to commit those crimes.
:P
-
how about you start MAKING history instead of INVENTING it
-
I always liked this part:
As the years went on, Amin became increasingly erratic and outspoken. He had his tunics specially lengthened so that he could wear many World War II medals, including the Military Cross and Victoria Cross. He granted himself a number of titles, including "King of Scotland". In 1977, after Britain broke diplomatic relations with his regime, Amin declared he had beaten the British and conferred on himself the decoration of CBE (Conqueror of the British Empire). Radio Uganda then read out the whole of his new title: "His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Alhaji Dr Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE"[1].
He was just as delusional as TBS!
-
how about you start MAKING history instead of INVENTING it
Sort of like how the black man created the light bulb and Edison stole it?
-
Deleted by user
-
Deleted by user
-
how about you start MAKING history instead of INVENTING it
Sort of like how the black man created the light bulb and Edison stole it?
Fuck not this too!
:lol
I'm joking about that - don't worry
-
Deleted by user
-
Zheng He map was made in the 17th or 18th century according to carbon dating. Carbon dating was invented by a white man and should not be trusted however. The map also contains an error common to European maps. Obviously whitey copied the map from the Asians! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He#The_.22Zheng_He_map.22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He#The_.22Zheng_He_map.22)
It's only ever been claimed that the map is a copy of an earlier map. Even if it is a forgery invented in the 17th century, at least the Chinese put some effort into their hoax, which is more than I can say about them mapless BLACK PEOPLE (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/minister-louis-farrakhan/).
-
How can I distinguish whether you're being serious or joking?
Base it on the insanity of the post. There's nothing crazy about pointing out Africans found America first, or that Colombus' wind patterns possibly suggest he got them from Africa. Now when it comes to suggesting the white man is the devil, don't pay attention to that. I do believe the white man is responsible for most of the large crimes against humanity, but all whites shouldn't be demonized.
-
ORF 2 ORF
-
Willco why don't you answer my PM? Or are you racist against black people?
I can't change my avatar :(
-
Deleted by user
-
I just did! I am at work. I cannot wait on you hand and feet unless you want to pay for the server bills!
My family is black leave me alone!
-
This thread was an opportunity to mock crazy right wing creationists.
Where did it go wrong?
Willco why don't you answer my PM? Or are you racist against black people?
I can't change my avatar :(
He's white isn't he?
Well it went off topic after I crashed the party by pointing out the facts about Darwin. Pfft, sorry.
-
Deleted by user
-
No one really challenged me on Darwin, unless we count MAF's ramblings. The connection is there. Obviously this is a chance to laugh at stupid Christians and Ann Coulter, but that shouldn't end the discussion.
-
BLACK PEOPLE (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/nazi/mengele/)
-
Im gonna publish a book called 'Phoenix Dark is a Moron' then maybe you'll accept some COLD HARD FACTS!
-
Im gonna publish a book called 'Phoenix Dark is a Moron' then maybe you'll accept some COLD HARD FACTS!
Impressive!
-
BLACK PEOPLE MAY HAVE INVENTED IT, BUT WHITE PEOPLE MADE IT WORK LOL
-
Deleted by user
-
Im gonna publish a book called 'Phoenix Dark is a Moron' then maybe you'll accept some COLD HARD FACTS!
Thing will be bigger than the phone book.
These are facts:
1. God created the Earth; evolution is a joke
2. Dinosaurs survived; some are in the Congo, others remain in the ocean
3. Blacks found America first
4. Homosexuality predates heterosexuality
-
Deleted by user
-
How do you defend some of God's pointless and shitty design decisions, like the giant panda or men's nipples?
-
How do you defend some of God's pointless and shitty design decisions, like the giant panda or men's nipples?
Men's nipples were created to please men (you know you like them), and Giant pands were created to inspire man's creation of Pokemon.
-
Phoenix: Is this some sad attempt to grow a quirky personality?
-
If god doesn't like gay people, why did he make penises fit in butts so perfectly?
-
If god doesn't like gay people, why did he make penises fit in butts so perfectly?
Not everyone has a butthole that you can throw a beer bottle into and hear a WHOOSH noise. So speak for yourself!
-
If god doesn't like gay people, why did he make penises fit in butts so perfectly?
Not everyone has a butthole that you can throw a beer bottle into and hear a WHOOSH noise. So speak for yourself!
Sorry Willco, we're not all like you. Maybe you shouldn't be using this puppy as frequently as you do:
(http://i8.tinypic.com/24y5ptt.jpg)
-
These are facts:
1. God created the Earth; evolution is a joke
2. Dinosaurs survived; some are in the Congo, others remain in the ocean
3. Blacks found America first
4. Homosexuality predates heterosexuality
wow, you are weak.
-
If god doesn't like gay people, why did he make penises fit in butts so perfectly?
Ever heard of busted red blood vessels?
*runs*
-
MEMBRANES