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

Peter Bromfield (
Thu, 15 Aug 1996 13:34:45 GMT

R. Gaenssmantel wrote:
> 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.
Wrong, that's political, scientific and historical incorrectness.

> 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.

No, don't condone them; they started this crap long before the ninties.

> 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.

It depends on what aspect of history you are focusing on.

> : >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.

The reason you consider them so much different is because you would like
to believe they are so much different from African-Americans. This is a
psycological hang up many people have. Many people from the Middle East
have mistaken me for 'one of them'. Once they have been indoctrinated
into the white supremist system, they LOOK for differences to try to
convince themselves that they are 'white' regardless of how dark their
skin is and how kinky their hair is. Many Arabs are going through the
same thing many African-Americans went through (trying to be 'white').
Some put all of that junk in their hair and I wouldn't be suprised if
some use skin-lighteners. Oh, nose jobs are common among the
Arab-Americans who can afford it.

No offense intended

> Even those where you can see the Nubian influence (Upper Egypt, or
> what is Sudan these days) are clearly identifiable as Arabs, not as
> Afroamericans.
> [...]
> : >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!

No I don't, but I have to live with it

> [...]
> : 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.

So are you saying that Bilal, who was Habashy was not black? The
Habashys were always spoken of as being very dark and bushy haired.

> * 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?

Russian is a nationality. If my forfathers were Russian and I spoke
Russian I would call myself a Russian. But you still see white people
running around the place calling themselves German, Dutch, and Russian,
yet they can't speak a word of German, Dutch or Russian. With
African-Americans on the other hand, we were stripped of our language so
we have a good excuse.

According to the Islamic literature Muhammad was white, but so was every
one else who was anything but coal black and bushy haired.

> * Does having women in your family 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.

Typical African-American hair is not straight or curly but kinky or
bushy. But still anyone who has curly hair (as I said before) is of
'black' African-origin.

One more thing, a man who was known by Arab Historians as 'a scientific
and literary genius' (Al-JaHiDH) said that Muhammad was black.


> 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!!!
> Ralf
> : Thanks for the info. on the Moors.
> : -Peter
> : [cut]
> --