Re: Early Amerind assimilation (Was: Re: Romans in the New World?)

R. Gaenssmantel (
14 Aug 1996 22:26:23 GMT

Peter Bromfield (peter) wrote:
: You must understand that the system of classifying people as 'caucasian' or
: 'negro' is based on white dominance or superiority. Consider this: People from
: the Caucasious Mountain area are classified as 'caucasians', yet genetically
: they have more in common with 'negros'. The white people of northern
: Scandinavia are farther from being descended from people in the Caucasius
: Mountains than are the Ethiopians and Somailis. Medeterraneans are classified
: as 'white', yet genetically they are closer to the African 'Negros' than the
: people from the far reaches of northern Scandinavia (who are REALLY white).

I agree that the 'caucasian' label is overly simplistic, but that's what always
happens when some scientific findings are only half understood and washed with
political correctness. The reason why caucasian is used has probably more to do
with the fact that in the 90s any refference to skin colour is frowned upon.

If you want to get a bit of a better understanding of the peoples in the old
world - less 'black and white' so to speak - you might want to study the
migration waves in the past several millenia. You will for example find that
the the Turks although they might look similar (and would be by your present
boxing systme be black/more black than white) are a Turkic people that came
from the Asian savannas (the Uigurs and Kirgises (sp?) in western China are
related to them and speak a language which can be understood by Turkish
speakers); the persians are an Indoarian people (despite using an alphabet
based on Arabic); the Finns and the Hungarians are related; the Basques don't
fit in anywhere and are assumed to have been in Europe before the big
migaration ... . You'll really be surprised to find out who came wherefrom and
how the peoples are related. That's far more complex than just more black or
less white.

: >Arabs aren't quite black, but not white either.

: I've heard this argument zillions of times, yet i've known several Arabs from
: Saudi Arabia, and the gulf area who put down 'white' on their forms yet they
: look no different from most of the people you would see walking down 125th st.
: in Harlem New York.

Hmm, having been in in Egypt, as 'black' an Arabic country as you can get
(apart from Sudan), a couple of times, I can assure you they look quite
different. Even those where you can see the Nubian influence (Upper Egypt, or
what is Sudan these days) are clearly identifiable as Arabs, not as


: >What's this got to do with the 'Moors'? Also, maybe we should consider, that
: >there are other ethnic groups than just black and white. If you lineup an
: >European, ad Arab, and an African, you'll clearly find that the Arabs features
: >are closer to the European than the African

: For people far moved away from reality this is true. In Hollywood they make
: white characters play the parts of Arabs they have them wear a stupid-looking
: long noses and die their skin light-brown. If you actually visited Saudi
: Arabia, and other gulf countries you would discover that many of these people
: look like African-Americans. If you watch T.V., they like to feed into white
: supremacy, so ofcourse they make them look white.

I wonder if you have ever been to Europe or any Middle Easter country.


: Do you think an Arab or a Greek would be welcome at a Ku Klux Klan meeting? If
: not then why should we call them 'white' or 'caucasian'?

Do you accept the standards of a racist white supremacist organisation as
yours? I don't!


: Muhammad's uncle, MuTalib was of Habashi (Ethiopian) origin. An Islamic scholar
: from Saudia Arabia gave me this information and he said it can be easily backed
: up from Arabic Historical literature. In this day and age, it has been verified
: that some of the direct descendants of the profit Muhammad are Somali and
: Ethiopian. All you have to do if you don't believe me is go to an Islamic
: scholar (someone with a Ph.D is Islamic law) and ask him if Muhammad has black
: people in his family. Muhammad was spoken of being light-skinned with hair that
: was neither straight nor curly. What kind of people do you see with hair that
: is not straight or curly?

Do you really want me to join this discussion? I don't think I will let myself
into it, just a few points:
* was Mutalib (that's a better spelling by the way) the brother of Mohammads
father or mother or was he the husband of the father's/mother's sister?
Probably the latter otherwise his father/mother would have been referred to
Habashy/Habashiyya. Hence this can't be used to argue he was black.
* Mohammad was a prophet, not a profit
* If your kinds were Russian, would that make you Russian? So why should
Mohammad's descendants make him balck?
* Does having women in your faily make you a woman? So why should black people
Mohammad's family make him black? That was the case you set out to proof.
* Hair that's not staright is fairly common among Africans, however it is
curly. The fact that you describe it as not curly would contradict your
point. If hair that's not straight and not curly was an indication for people
being black, I suppose I would have to apply for a Zambian passport - would
have to invest into tons of sunblock, though!!!


: Thanks for the info. on the Moors.

: -Peter

: [cut]