Is this worth reading? It's about how classical civilization came from African, and that Greece was originally black but they were later forced out, and that the idea white Greeks invented it is a racist myth.
>inb4 WE WUZ
It's not a pop work, it's a three-volume academic work that is highly respected and meticulously researched
>and that Greece was originally black
What? That's not what Black Athena is about it isn't some Afrocentrist garbage. The thesis is just that the Egyptian and western Asian influences on classical Greece were much greater than was previously thought.
>>8267874
It says that Africans were the original colonists of Greece, and the idea that Indo-Europeans were is a dated 19th Century thesis.
WE
So it's a comedy?
>>8267874
But Western Asia and Egypt aren't ( and weren't ) black. Then why have a black figure on the cover? Shock value? Why not something from an actual Afro-Asiatic culture such as an Egyptian statue?
I don't think the Greeks were influenced much by the Hausa, Somalis or Ethiopians ( well maybe a bit Ethiopian but that was later )
>>8268046
The book contends that the Egyptians were black, and that they were the original inhabitants of Greece.
Disclaimer: Only read the wiki on this book
Sounds like bullshit to be honest m8. I can tell what he's getting at, but it sounds immensely overstated.
>early Greek statues look Egyptian
The large ones, yes. Greece made smaller ones before the Egyptian influence sets in. The Egyptian influence results from Ionians and some other groups of early Greeks who went to assist Egypt in battle, not were conquered by them. The Ionians craftsmen came back with Egyptian techniques to make larger statues, which then spread throughout the Greek system. However, they were not conquered by the Egyptians but served as allies. It's also not the origins of sculpture in Greece, and as they refined the technique of large free standing sculptures from the Egyptian influence, the Greek sculptures of youths started to look like the earlier palm sized sculptures of Greece, only bigger.
>Originally black
You could almost accuse him of antisemitism on this one because if the Phonecians are anything, they're semites: it refers to Canaanite origins and later spread to include port towns in north Africa as trade from the Levant spread out. As it spread, it referred less to race and more to mercantile practice.
Anatolian Greeks start as the Ionians are building up power, but it's not an Egyptian invasion of Turkey, it's a Greek invasion of Turkey. Egyptian records have the Hattics and Assuwa etc there until the Hitties, a common enemy.
While Hitties are a 19th century Western renaming according to the bible, they're not Egyptian either, and the Carians who mixed with the Greeks rebelled against them anyway if they were, thus bringing in the Greeks not the Egyptians.
The Ionian and sea people build up of defenses in the area isn't because of Egyptian colonisation, because the Egyptians had no plans to colonise the area and usually just attempted border control during all these developments. Egyptian influence to the area is more because of Ionian alliances with Egypt muddying the spread of influences rather than any occupation, so it's a second hand influence through their actual colonizers at best, and a lot of Carian culture maintained regardless even when allied to Greeks because of the Ionians build up of defenses against the Hitties.
You could make a stronger case that it was Jews than you could Egyptians because the Egyptians by their own records know the Hitties are in the areas he wants them to have colonized. It's more a case that the Ionians formed an alliance with the Egyptians because they didn't want to be colonized by the Hitties than Egypt colonized them. It's a voluntary and not complete intermingling of their armies and trade routes not a colonization.
>Alexander was interested in Egypt
I don't even know why the wikipedia article mentions this as proof of Egyptian colonization.
Sounds like complete bullshit to me OP if the wikipedia is reflective of content. You don't need three books of bullshit.
I don't understand why people believe the lies the popes and old universities told, that people who blister if in the sun for more than 60 minutes (no sunscreen back then) ruled some of the hottest countries in the world (e.g. Egypt).
This makes me believe that the history books are cooked in their (Europeans) favor. Look at all the lies Columbus told about peoples and lands, won't be surprised if this didn't happen on a large scale with the "white washing" of Egypt.
What you guys think?
>>8267864
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olqPODTcRHI
>>8269630
Isn't Australia super hot?
>>8269630
Well the sun exists everywhere so you might actually be onto something that white people actually don't even exist because how could they exist since sunscreen didn't even exist and yet the sun shines on the entire world?
>>8269671
>t. afrimerican scholar, circa 3327 A.D.
>>8269661
>>8269630
>everyone who aren't negroid are white
You could read criticisms on its Wikipedia page to see that it's bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Athena
>>8269692
That is who "white scholars" portrayed it. "Whites" rules Egypt.
Just the usual cultural appropriation that Europeans have been doing for centuries. If something looks good that it took a well educated mind to make? Claim it for your people.
>>8267864
I think those kinds of things are fun 2bh. There's a handful of guys that contend the phoenicians were black and colonised everywhere including Ireland and Scandinavia so everyone important is originally black. I'm not massively convinced they take themselves that seriously in general, they just want to balance up some of the "we wuz ROMANGS und VIKANGS" shit that predominates a lot of this type of history shit generally.
A couple of things to point out this that iirc this covers: the Greeks were a lot darker skinned than modern Greeks (and way more than today's pasty anglos), there are writings saying they were a lot darker than the Persians (but maybe the Persians were a lot lighter skinned back then). They also did depict themselves as cert dark skinned on pottery the moment they had the techniques to do it. And they did colonise and have kids with a whole lot of northern Africa (inb4 some racist sperg starts crying about how they aren't really black or something). So in many ways while the premise is ridiculous it's probably a lot less ridiculous than the orthodox whitey wuz kangz view.
>>8269630
>Whites are vampires and Mediterranean people don't exist
> Hi
Besides, we know Greeks weren't white white because of quotes like Pope Gregory's "alas that the author of darkness should have men so bright of face in his grip, and that minds devoid of inward grace should best so graceful am outward form" when he saw real whites for the first time.
>>8269681
>Aboriginals rule Australia
lol whatever you say
>>8269737
>we know that Greeks were mediterraneans
wowzers, what a revelation
>>8269868
But mediterraneans were not white.
>>8270102
They were not black either.
>>8270134
Yet white modern day caucasians called they were white. My point stands about culture appropriation.
WE
>>8270184
This is where arguments with these insecure afrocentric revisionists inevitably go after you push them.
>YA WELL YOURE NOT SO GREAT EITHER
It's very clear where their deep need for a proud history comes from. It would be tragic if they weren't so obnoxious.
>>8270297
>identify as white
What does this even mean though?
What does "White" identity mean?
I'm Anglo-Irish and about as "white" as you can get, but I don't feel that I have any innate commonalities with Frenchmen or Germans just because they're sort of the same colour as me.
I'm a Working Class Englisman, "White" doesn't come into it.
>>8269729
They portrayed themselves as white with white feature.
WE
WUZ
DISCOURSE
>>8270280
>This is where arguments with these insecure afrocentric revisionists inevitably go after you push them.
From what I understand that poster is saying is, current day "whites" think that anyone of note back in the day is "white". Current day "whites" call back in the day Mediterraneans, "white".
Hel,l I've seen some call the Arabics rulers of ole "white", because they don't want "black" to be associated with their "legacy".
DAS RITE
>>8269729
>If something looks good that it took a well educated mind to make? Claim it for your people.
Exactly
WE
WUZ
KANGZ
>>8270645
It's sad that some /pol/lie sat down and made that instead of reading a book.
>>8270675
ayo hol up
*smacks lips*
so u finna be tellin mah black ass
*grabs muh dick*
that we wuz kangz?
>>8270675
t. alberto barbosa
i'm from reddit and i know the epic memes XD
>>8267864
AYO HOL UP
U BE SAYIN
WE WUZ HOMOS N SHIT
WE WUZ ARCHONS
>>8269737
Greeks are "dark white" according to Huxley. Herodotus called the Egyptians "Melanchroes" meaning dark-skinned. Xenophon called Nubians black. The ancient Greek people just had a nice tan kinda like Italians. But I don't think their race really matters, the Greeks didn't, they only thought location was what mattered.
>>8270739
why would someone, regardless of skin colour, flash a gang sign while expressing attraction to someone
>>8269863
well they did for like 50,000 years you fucking muppet.
>>8270772
they didn't do much with the place
>>8270840
They did burn down entire rainforests.
>>8270312
>Anglo-Irish
Black Irish is a thing bruh. Irish doesn't necessarily entail being pasty, the Anglo part pretty much does tho.
>>8270297
I've met a Persian Jewish girl who had olive skin and she and her parents described themselves as white.
>>8268113
Ethiopians are semitic and very much black tho.
>>8270862
It's Dark Irish, not Black Irish, you Mongol
>>8267864
Literally KANGS
>>8270875
Pls don't tell me how to talk you plastic jackine fuck.
>>8270883
>implying imprecise language is okay
you certainly wuz kangs weren't you
>>8270883
It's jackeen, not jackine, you mongol
>>8270875
"black Irish" is an Irishman with black hair.
>>8270894
> it's póg you Mongols
Also doesn't change Black Irish being a thing.
>>8270887
Black Irish just means you tan easily. Or you're American and have Native and Irish heritage
>>8270900
If anything dark Irish would mean black hair because the saints Ciarán
Irish people that were or went dark skinned were often nicknamed Black-Whoever not all that long ago.
>>8267864
Sorry black people, you'll just never win at ethnic chauvinism. It's not even that you're not in the same league, it's that you don't even have a ball.
>>8270909
"black Irish" is a meme.
>>8270949
I'm guessing you're still sore about being pasty and English not making you Irish. How the tables turn my man, how they turn.
>>8269671
keked
>>8270874
semitic speaking because of lingua franca in phonecian-canaanite colonies, they're not canaanites genetically.
like I said, it's easier to make the argument jews were colonizers who forced their cultures on blacks if you're using phonecian colonies than it is to do the other way around.
>all these people thinking Mediterranean means only the north side of the sea
kek
>all these people thinking "black Irish" refers to more than hair color
Irish myth says they're descended from Japeth, the white one, and the rest of you are jews
The Irish term for black skin is "gorm" meaning "blue" probably because of indigo trading with tuareg tribes, who are berber.
Y'all ignorant racists, learn to racism better.
>>8271031
t. Ginger Irishman, while peeling potatoes for dinner
>>8271564
>tfw /lit/ gives you high compliment
:3 anonkun you're making me blush
>>8271760
It's a compliment being soulless?
>>8271789
not read many irish authors then, have you?
>>8269731
>alot darker
>even though they've been under continious rule by the roach and other muslims for hundreds of years until just a few decades ago
until you've found actual respectable studies, it's we-wuzism
>>8269731
>They also did depict themselves as cert dark skinned on pottery the moment they had the techniques to do it
Black figure pottery comes after black animal and geometric styles, and way before that you have the Minoans, who still have murals of white and red skin standing today.
Black figure pottery isn't the start of Greek pottery and comes after the orientalising style where they copied Persian etc motifs in black.
Black figure pottery spread to the Etruscans too, but they were hardly black, just copying the Attic style which copied more eastern styles again. When they're not copying the east, and before Corinthian and Ionic contact with the Egyptians' style, they painted themselves as white/red which re-emerged after the black pottery phase.
Black pottery is just when they were exporting more pottery, and it's a stylistic choice not an accurate representation, and usually chosen because it was to symbolise the dead rather than the living in the beginning.
If you're using pottery to say they were dark skinned, animals were all dark skinned before humans became black, since they were still painting white/red murals of people when they were making black animal vases.
For much later developments people try to shoehorn in to their we wuzism
>Romans
hated tanning and are too much of a backwater to have strong African linked origin. It's a sign you work outside by the stage they have African ties and no patrician would want a tan or even olive skin. Their women used shave red headed and blonde slaves to make wigs and used lead powder even though they knew it was poisonous to lighten their skin.
However, jumping from that whitening to "they were secretly black in origin" is hard when they made a point of mentioning people's skin colour; pointless too as they had a lot of black contact in later periods and even black emperors.
>Vikings
are later again, and did meet Persians etc for trade, and even tried to attack the Persians unsuccessfully once the Bulgars were less of a problem. Ingvar's the first to get that far, while the Turkic peoples have travellers about a century earlier coming the other way. (ibn Fadlan) To get from the Persians and Vikings met ~900AD to "they're both black in 900BC" is a very big stretch, especially since the Vikings didn't exist back then for them to be black.
The funny thing about the two of those is that Rome did have black emperors, once they stopped being a backwater, so you don't need a black origin story for Rome to have black kings; and just after when they're trying to shoehorn blacks into Viking culture, the richest man in the world who controlled the gold price of the entire Mediterranean was from Mali and constructed most of North African road and education systems. If these people just bothered to learn actual history instead of making it up, they'd find plenty of kings. Instead they assume there are no black kings and they have to make them up and people laughing at them are just racists.
>>8270909
I'll never understad how Shane looked BETTER with rotten teeth
>>8267864
>written by a black author
>must be 100% accurate
>>8270297
Mediterraneans identify as white as much as slavs do, and everyone save for stormfronters and butthurt blacks recognise that. White does not equal nordic or aryan.
>>8267864
it is WE WUZ
the thesis is unsupported by evidence
>>8267864
Uh, no. That's not what it's about at all.
Black Athena is all about analyzing possible Nubian and Ethiopian influence on Mediterranean society.
>>8267864
I was looking up if this guy was of Jewish ancestry just for laughs since pol always spouses on and on how revisionist academics tend to be Jewish and to my >suprise
this guy actually has Jewish ancestry...
Themoreyouknow.jpeg
>>8269729
this is /pol/ falseflagging. it has to be.
>>8270772
aboriginals had no conception of 'ruling' as they hadn't, in the 50000 years of living in terra australis incognita, yet come up with the notion of private property. a sentiment that unfortunately still resonates amongst aboriginal youth.
>>8273834
Never went to pol mate, I hang out in the sff containment thread. Just thought I would add my 2 cents and share what I heard. All in the hopes of being better educated of course.
>>8272136
>pointless too as they had a lot of black contact in later periods and even black emperors.
name one, and it better not be fucking Phillip
>>8273873
you just confirmed it, /pol/yp. We've had enough of you fucks to figure out your pathology.
What I don't understand is what afrocentrists hope to get out of claiming that historically great white civilisations had black ancestry.
Regular black people had full african ancestry yet they didn't seem to do so well, what happened?
>>8273919
What I don't understand is what 19th century Germans hoped to get out of claiming that all historically great civilisations had "white" ancestry
>>8273930
nigger what
>>8273950
mother and father
are you under the impression that curly hair = black or are you reading some obscure afro-centrist website like:
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Crests/History_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire_3.htm
>>8273932
because Germans are a pseudo race of backwards savages.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ztOV2wrrkY
but I still don't get what afrocentrists are trying to get out of it. Could it really be something as trivial as overcompensation?
>>8273961
http://www2.fiu.edu/~harveyb/HI-NietzEssay.htm
>>8273980
they have pretty strong features not at all consistent with africans. hmm.
must be africans though, right?
>>8273960
idk man. those are some pretty white statues.
>>8273980
>if you don't believe my bullshit then wow ur dumb
where's the fucking proofs lad? that he was from an African province? I'm not seeing any African features on those statues and his lineage doesn't give me the impression of African blood
>>8269630
People with pale complexion can avoid getting sun-burnned and other skin diseases by making sure that they exposed themselves to the sun steadily. A pale-person whose spent most of their days of their lives in the sun, or spend their time outdoors daily throughout all seasons of the year is going to develop a tan that resists getting sun-burned. Only those who have a very inadequate exposure (like people who work all day in the office and spend one day at the beach in the middle of summer) are those who are susceptible to getting sun-burned. But even if one does get sun-burned, the pain is temporary while they still get a tan out of it that further protects against solar rays. So it is possible for pale-people to naturally adopt to high UV areas. There's even a pun in one of Aristophanes' comedies where a bunch of Athenian women (who mostly stayed indoors) try to disguise themselves as men to get into the Assembly and vote themselves in power, and the male members of the assembly make comments about them (unknown to them that they're women) that they must be all cobblers because of their pale complexions (the joke being a jab at artisans in tradesman such as cobblers for being commonly pale from working in indoor environments). Not only that, but the Ancient Egyptians are believed to have made their own sun-screens and the Greeks had ones too.
>Look at all the lies Columbus told about peoples and lands
Columbus was prosecuted by the Spanish crown in his lifetime.
>>8273914
Of me being better educated you cunt, not educating you guys.
Pol doesn't want to learn, what am I doing in one of the few threads that actually read(sffg) if I didn't want to learn shit?
>ITT
>>8272136
> they were pale, not even olive skinned
> they used to lighten their skin artificially
Your reasoning isn't checking out right there. It's pretty clear tho that the etruscans were olive skinned as shown by their painted sculptures (sarcophagus of the spouses has the guy with pretty dark skin).
Greek pottery didn't portray everyone as black either, and the animals thing afaia was just a fashion at the same time as the transition. Shit does get pretty interesting in the ol colour schemes.
>>8267864
does this mean that if i'm ethnically greek, i can write african american on phd applications?
>>8273985
They painted their statues (horrendously garish colours). The tight curls does make one think of an afro but it's difficult to work out with these things, it does seem to point to them generally having curly as shit hair tho.
Another question for the ages: was Samson's hair natty dreads? Inb4 muh semites were pale anglos too.
>>8272136
>To get from the Persians and Vikings met ~900AD to "they're both black in 900BC" is a very big stretch, especially since the Vikings didn't exist back then for them to be black.
I was actually talking about the tendency white historians to shoehorn in some random lineage to Rome or Vikings to their own culture every chance they get, often with diminishment of any other cultures like the Celts or Black America or w/e.
>>8274380
Blacks aren't the only people with curly hair you know.
>>8274257
I have no idea what you were even trying to communicate.
>>8274363
He says they don't want to get tanned and didn't want olive skin, not that they weren't olive skinned. I'd think the whitening was because they might have less than white skin by being olive skinned. Are you thinking they were putting white lead powder on white skin to have white skin? That seems less reasonable than whitening olive skin they didn't want.
AYO HOL UP
>>8274416
Curly haired folks are typically what you'd call swarthy tho. And the tightness of the curl is determined by a particular shape of hair follicle and hair.
And while being pale is meant to be a vita.in d thing because less sun, having curly hair is typical of a too much sun thing in that evolution type argument.
>>8274418
I'm fairly sure it was just a feminine thing like it is now. Like you tend to see lighter skinned women and darker skinned men pottery and sculptures. White skin was very lady like.
>>8267864
>three-volume academic work that is highly respected and meticulously researched
>>8274434
No, not that, I'm asking where he got
>>8274363
>> they were pale, not even olive skinned
from, because the first one seems like they were lightening olive/tanned skin as unfashionable, but he seems to be quoting it as lightening white skin.
English people use do that with lead too even though they're whitewhitewhite, but I think the first guy meant they were lightening olive skin, not claiming they weren't olive in the first place?
>>8267864
that picture is really racist, didn't the greeks know that black face is really offensive?
>>8274500
/b/esque post outside b gives you 30 days in the slammer. Did you know that?
>>8267864
>>8267864
>highly respected
lol
Take a field trip to your uni's classics department (or a library) sometime
The argument that racism against blacks roots itself in ancient history is embarrassing to all parties of debate. First off even if Greeks were black it has literally no impact on modern race relations, and leads to conspiratorial thinking. Either it points to a conspiracy in the past to cover up black Greeks, or even claims that modern historians are conspiring to cover up the "real" truth.
Finally and most unforgivably it subtly implies that racism is an ever present and immortal ideology that has been with humanity since its birth and will cling to the species forever. I feel bad to the person who wrote this, all it does is frame the argument in a fashion that paints blacks as lesser: black people can only be great if they were ancient Greeks.
The cringe is unreal.
>>8276094
Don't people hate another people for a reason?
Why do Indians and Chinese both hate blacks?
It has to be they have an "unaltered" history which tells a different story. Either blacks were more prosperous than them and it's plain envy/jealousy, or blacks were the vikings of the era. They went around wrecking everybody's shot and that stays with both of those traditionalists peoples?
The only reason any of the white 15-50 year old white males care about the skin color of ancient peoples is so they can say "ha! My color did that!"
They might also want to convince themselves that thier fear of black people is justified.
Regardless, modern african Americans come from West Africa, which was impressive in its own right.
Laughing at someone who thinks his ancestors were kings when you actually believe you have anything in common with ancient heroes besides skin color, is the most pathetic ironically stupid bullshit ever.
>>8276480
>The only reason any of the white 15-50 year old white males care about the skin color of ancient peoples is so they can say "ha! My color did that!"
Isn't that exactly the point of "we wuz"ism?
I agree with the last sentence somewhat, but the humour in that situation is that current study of history doesn't back the idea that black people were "kings" at least in the context it's used
>>8276492
The black people rely on theories which are basically "It's in Africa so they african then."
The difference is that while black people are just looking for positive racial achievements, the white people on the other side are looking to diminish any achievement.
If you told them that the aborigines learned how to cultivate and control fire ingeniously, they'd say something like, "couldn't make a kingdom" "ugly" "how come they didnt invent pants?"
If you told them about the mali they would say that those people don't fucking matter at all because they are gone.
I think we WUZ kings is hilarious when it's actually a joke and it's not some faggot trying to be smug about something him and his shitty ancestry had no part in.
>>8276480
>Laughing at someone who thinks his ancestors were kings when you actually believe you have anything in common with ancient heroes besides skin color, is the most pathetic ironically stupid bullshit ever.
I don't know, at least I share an ethnicity with people who accomplished great things and don't have to make up ahistorical bullshit to make myself feel good. You can tell how insecure blacks are about their race's history of subjugation and defeat. That's what seems pathetic to me.
>>8276510
>
The difference is that while black people are just looking for positive racial achievements, the white people on the other side are looking to diminish any achievement.
Not sure if I can quite agree.
pigheaded pol users are a subset of white people and the few normal white people proud of their cultures or heritage just like 'european art appreciation' pages on FB.
The derision I think mainly comes from a response to afrocentrism, but I could be wrong.
>I think we WUZ kings is hilarious when it's actually a joke and it's not some faggot trying to be smug about something him and his shitty ancestry had no part in.
I agree
>>8276529
Are you even sure you share the ethnicity? Are you perhaps a mix of some great leaders cousin and a town prostitute? Have you tracked your ancestry for all of those years? Can you honestly say that you had any part in leading a nation or contributing to ancient wonders?
No. So when you hint that you do, its pathetic. It's also pathetic that black people desperately seek cultural validation, but at least the don't stoop as low as to insinuate that Aryans in China were the real gunpowder inventors.
>>8276537
Thier opinion on the Maya, Inca, Atzecs
>Fucking filthy murderous savages glad they are gone couldn't even stand the test of time
Their opinion on Native Americans
>"They didn't even invent the fucking wheel"
Their opinion on any African tribe
>Sitting banging rocks on trees for 1000 years.
Their opinion on Asia
>Got cucked lol.
It comes from them trying to think their shit doesn't think because their great great grandparents fucked on a farm and suffered or left thier homeland throughoit history.
>>8276588
who are "they"?
Personally I don't care either way if people take pride for their people's accomplishments (provided that they ARE historical and actual accomplishments) or don't.
Though I admit if I was from the same place and culture that birthed the likes of Beethoven or Klimt I think I would be proud too.
My country's only deed worthy of note is being involved in a gruelling civil war. And oddly popular bad music.
KANGZ
>>8276596
They are the people who engage in his sort of discussion with their own side in mind.
You shouldn't be proud of something you had no part in, you can love your tradition and you can call it 'yours', but it's something you should act like you helped with.
The problem really, is that it's a bunch of atrociously poor people pretending that they themselves had great ancestors like the black people, when most likely they were peasants.
Where you from?
>>8276696
korea by birth.
I mean I understand your point and where you're coming from. Then again I think it's great for people to be proud of their cultures and heritage if they're actually something to be proud of.
Unfortunately, a fact of reality is that black people and most African cultures haven't had much global relevance. Though I'm sure you or anyone else could argue against this by mentioning African kingdoms, their folklore and myths etc.
I just think it's weird that black people have to claim other cultures as "their own". I would argue that a certain portion of contemporary black culture is in itself interesting and somewhat relevant. Why don't they just focus on their current achievements and positives?
>>8276600
>tfw egyptian kangz are my long distant cousins
>>8276752
Would a Korean girl be interested in a black guy?
I'm talking dress proper, talks proper, doesn't have tattoos or face gang signs.
I wwnt to know because I heard Korea is the most racist of the Asian countries. Hell Inheard they call Cambodians the "Africans" of asia.
>>8276780
well depends on the girl and depends on the guy.
I don't think I would date a black guy as a general rule (all the black guys I've met during my time in america were not great) but if the man in question is an upstanding gentleman I see why not.
It's true that most of us prefer light skinned people. Are you of african descent?
>>8276799
yeah, admiral Yi was pretty great. People think a lot of what he accomplished was embellished in wartime nationalistic propaganda but if anything it was downplayed in the history books because the reigning king at the time feared Yi's growing influence and popularity among the commoners
>>8276831
>I don't think I would date a black guy as a general rule
So.... you're a gril...
Yes, I'm of African decent. Since I was small I liked "fair skinned" females. Not caucasians, more like light skinned indians, Asians, maybe Portuguese.
As I got older I got more attracted to Asians, I love the almond eyes they have when they put on a little eyeshadow. That's mostly it, as I watched tv I would stare into their eyes, the almond look is quite sexy.... but I don't know of I fetishized Asian girls for my sick pleasures.
Doesn't matter anyway, there aren't any/much Japanese /Koreans where I live. We have a LOT of Chinese though, and most that I've seen doesn't look like they know much about toothpaste... but the ones who are born here look reasonably good... but they are pretty close nit, it rarely you see a thick qt Asian gf with a black guy(saw one), it's mostly Chinese guys taking black wives (at least of ole, I think we have enough of them now for them to marry their own).
But I'm a beta cuck, a lot of Chads stole girls I was interested in over the years. Hell, one stole a girl that actually liked me and wanted me to take her maiden head... but I was too "weird" for her and she gave it to Chad(I wasn't interested in her, but that's besides the point), she still comes and sits on my lap and rubs my chest... meh.
Not to be racist or anything, but if I saw a Korean where I lived around me, I wouldn't be able to tell them apart at a passing glance from the Chinese, unless they got the eyelid surgery ... and the Chinese could have done that before they came here.
>>8276780
Being racist doesn't mean hating black people, Anon. Koreans are mostly racist about the Japanese, then other Asians after that. They don't have enough black people in Korea to have a fully formed opinion.
>>8276780
Korean American? Sure, if they're of the college SJW variety they feel sorry for Black people and would love a black SO to up their virtue signalling.
If they're the conservative type and you're a Christian, it's usually a good match - know a lot of these couples and they're happy. KoreAms aren't particularly racist toward Black people.
In Korea, good luck. Maybe the girls low on the socioeconomic ladder would go for a Black GI or something, having nothing to lose from being ostracized. That's just the way it is :P
>>8276696
Its the same shit as when people cheer about your local football team getting a goal. You arent on the team, and arent vested in their success in any way, but it sure nice to rub it in the face of the cunts down the street.
>>8276752
>I just think it's weird that black people have to claim other cultures as "their own". I would argue that a certain portion of contemporary black culture is in itself interesting and somewhat relevant. Why don't they just focus on their current achievements and positives?
Most don't ever bother to think in that line and most Black History education boils down to "yea you idiots were slaves for a while, rest in peace MLK, etc". People are openly getting sick of that shit though.
Also, claiming other cultures is an American thing in general. There's always some goofball going about "being part Native/Irish/etc" as if it actually matters.
Personally, as an American Black I'm actually glad I dont feel the greatest need to be so encumbered with "cultural pride" and all that shit. I can just live my life and die.
>>8277593
>so, claiming other cultures is an American thing in general.
Aside from silly blacks claiming that the Hebrews were subsaharan african and Puerto Ricansbasically rape babiesand Boston Irishyay IRA!!!!multicultural festivals in the US comes down to food, and your grandparents droning on about how you should never forget where you came from.
>>8277581
>no Korean qt to marry alpha marine black gi
Why live?
>>8277626
Sexual neurosis alert. Did you have a girlfriend in high school?
>>8277614
Jarhead grunts have alpha personalities but they aren't alpha in the ways that matter to Koreans
>>8276588
>b-but white people want to drag everyone down
No, white people are capable of telling objective truths about civilisations. None of those other civilisations are as widely mocked or criticised as African "civilisation", in fact you're more likely to find someone who finds indigenous Americans and East Asians captivating.
>dey great grandparents dindu nuffin man
I've traced my family tree, along with quite a few of my friends. There are quite a lot of soldiers, musicians, merchants and other assorted positions of educated employment. Because that's what happens when society requires skilled labour, people are taught skills.
>>8276696
>nigger doesn't understand that not everyone is an individualist
>thinks society is the result of aristocrats and not the collective effort of everyone involved
>has no idea that the phenotype/genome of a population is what makes people proud of "others achievements", as it's a direct reflection of their racial capability and success
>great ancestors like the black people
There's that famous black inferiority complex. It's more than mere coincidence that everyone from Ibn-al Faqih to Charles Darwin has described black people as subhuman.
>>8277669
Nice family tree. What have you done besides propping up your ego by the achievements of other people?
>>8277564
Well put it this way. Koreans sort of had to become nationalistic (not saying they weren't before) because of both Japanese imperialism and the civil war that immediately followed.
Add in the fact that "White Americans" saved us from the red peril.
Korea had to fend off invaders pretty much all throughout its history and that's why xenophobia and general distrust of 'the foreign' is ingrained in our collective consciousness. It's also why we are obsessed with images of purity and all that (racial and cultural, though not a lot of my countrymen see the stupidity in the impossibility of the latter)
>>8277581
this guy sort of knows what he's talking about
>>8277593
you're great, guy. keep doing you. seriously.
>>8277626
visit san francisco
if blacks invented white culture, and white culture is responsible for slavery and colonization, then blacks invented slavery and colonization. they should pay whites reparations to make up for their sins.
>>8269731
Current Greeks are genetically indistinguishable from remains of ancient Greeks.
>>8277669
>other people worked hard and achieved something
>I also achieved that because I'm related to them
It's roaches like you who fight people's will after they died, because you believe you deserved something /deserved more. When in fact you didn't help the person in anyway to achieve that standard
>b-but I played with him when he was 3, I deserve that 5 million
Kys fagget
>>8277827
Kek
>>8274459
>no patrician would want a tan or even olive skin.
Rereading it now it looks like a massive misunderstanding on the guys part of what olive skin was, but on the face of it it does imply that light skin was the norm and olive skin was somehow shameful.
The whole tanning thing is a load of bs too, no doubt there were fashions for it but an awful lot of the top Romans were working men or from working men stock. Or even bandit and outlaw stock. Lots of outdoors activities and so forth. There's a couple of points he could be talking about but it's still a misrepresentation of Roman culture in general.
>>8277669
Way to signal pal.
I like how instead of saying there were some peasants, you said there were some learned people.
It goes exactly to my point. It's fine if your ancestors were peasants, they worked hard too, and its irrelevant to your standing because your actions and achievements are your own and they can be good ones without a rich family history.
That's exactly why you can't pin yourself to the achievements of your relatives. Idiot.
African civilizations are only "mocked" by stormfronters and poltards. True intellectuals are fascinated by their world.
That being said, its ludicrous for people to pretend that it's all the white man's fault that particualr region of culture failed or any similar drivel.
>>8277721
Nice strawman
>>8267864
>inb4 WE WUZ
No such thing.
>>8276537
I agree with Fucking hilarious joke and some of the memes are funny as but yeah "muh whitey ancestors dominated niggers" is stupid
>>8280880
white ancestors did 'dominate' africans.
>>8280888
>>8276480
>The only reason any of the white 15-50 year old white males care about the skin color of ancient peoples is so they can say "ha! My color did that!"
Wrong. That's the only reason why black males care. And white males don't claim that any of these non-European civilizations were white, but simply that the ones that were not Sub-Saharan African were not black. No white person outside of Stormfront seriously believes that the ancient Egyptians were straight up white people, except of course for the rulers of the Ptolemaic Kingdom, who were white Greeks, Afrocentric temper tantrums notwithstanding.
By contrast, blacks claim that essentially all Egyptian rulers and the majority of Egyptian citizens were black, all the way until the Islamic conquests of the 7th century. They then claim that the Arabs genocided/forced out/[insert historically absurd tale here] the original black North Africans, hence all of the brown North Africans of today. All I say is that this has been so thoroughly rebutted as to not merit any further response.
As for West African civilization being "impressive in its own right," please spare me. The Mali empire was okay. It didn't really accomplish much besides creating a university that looks like a giant sand castle and collected books written by Arabs.
>>8281241
>By contrast, blacks claim that essentially all Egyptian rulers and the majority of Egyptian citizens were black, etc
Only a select group, an the majority see them as retards since actual Egyptians are hardly Black, at best there was intermixing. Those types you're talking about are laughed at just like the "Black Hebrew" types. All bullshit.
t. Black
>>8281241
>t. /pol/lie 2.0, stormfag trying to smokescreen that his fellow neos aren't fucking stupid racist who will believe anything that puts white in the right light
>>8281248
Beta Israel has imo a better claim to Judaism than most of the other houses.
I think the best and most likely thing you can say is all these ancient peoples were probably darker than white and lighter than black
>>8281248
pretty large select group
'we wuz kingz' wouldnt have found popularity as the more inoffensive edgy meme if it weren't true. a lot of "normal" black people identify with egyptians for some reason. It's in popular rap, for crying out loud. I forget who, must've been someone influential like 2pac or nas or whatever, that put "we were kings before they [whatever blah blah blah]"
>>8281910
The Egyptians come into fashion every so often as founders of civilisation as we know it. And Black peeps have a better claim to that shit than most tighty whities 2bh (although if you're not Egyptian you don't really have that great a claim). And hiphop culture have some Egypt references from the start p much (look up "tutting dance").
One thing which is like a different argument to this and (while I'm unconvinced on the whole) is interesting is possible Nsibidi influence on Hieroglyphs.
Why are blacks so despised around the world? I know it can't be violence, whites are responsible for most of the know wars in the past centuries.
>>8282905
Because they have not become civilized in society and smell bad and don't work
>>8283038
Why are you projecting from your basement?
>>8276094
Agree
>>8282905
Speaking as a non black (ethnic nonetheless), I really do think that on some level it's purely animal instinct.
Black skin, yellowish sclera and black eyes. Black people look frightening to asians and white people. I'm sure black people had the same reaction when they first saw people with lighter skin.
