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

R. Gaenssmantel (
16 Aug 1996 16:35:56 GMT

I think this thread has outlived it's sell-by date.

Peter, if you believe 90% of the worlds population are black (even if they
look white) - that's fine with me. If you think of everyone with curly hair or
bronze coloured skin as black - fine. However, I think this discussion has run
dead. I think it's clear that you will never win over any of the others, nor
will we manage to convince you. You've got a theory and the rest have their's
(NB I'm not judging on the quality of the theories, I'll leave that to the

You believe what you want, and let the rest of us believe what we want.

May I propose the motion: 'This newsgroup wants to leave this discussion at
this point'.
The 'Ayes' won't participate in this thread any further, the 'Noes' may


Peter Bromfield ( wrote:
: R. Gaenssmantel wrote:
: >
: > Peter Bromfield (peter) wrote:
: > 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.

Well, I'd say your nomenclature of white and black is at least as incorrect.

: > 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.

That's true, but if you want to argue your corner about nearly everybody
being black, you should make sure you know how these peoples are related.

: > : >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

The reason you consider them the same is becouse you would like them to be the
same. And the psychological hang up applies just the same.

: 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

I'm not sure they would have egreed to be called black 1500 years ago (after
all their colour is bronze not black), and that should have been well before
any 'white supremacist indoctrination' was possible.

: 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').

Kinky hair are just like behaviour not the only clues to where your origins

: 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.

Ahh, yes, and all those 'whites' having nose jobs are only those kinky
haired blacks with white skin???????

: No offense intended

Not taken, because nose jobs aren't specific to any paticular 'colour'.

: > 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

Why do you use them then as proof that these people (e.g. Greeks) are black
(being apparently the set containing everyone who you don't consider to be

: > 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

I don't know who Bilal and Mutalib are related. I assume from you argument,
that they are related and Bilal is closer to Mohammad than Bilal?? Why didn't
you mention him straight away??

: 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.

But as you admit just an excuse. I tink there is more to a cultural identity
than just language (although it's part of it) - culture. A lot of German
peoples for example living in the Soviet Union were prohibited from using
there language (deja vu??), but they stuck to their traditions a lot closer
than African-Americans.

: 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.

Hmmm, no! Some relatives of mine actually bothered to put up a family tree
of my fathers side going back to the early 1700s. There's no-one from
outside Germany in there, Germany only had a few colonies (and significantly
later). Nevertheless I got my curly hair off my father. I suppose your next
argument will be that was the remains of the 'Moor' who started migrating...
Well, it would be against geetical science to claim any such gene would still
take effect after being watered down through at least 2 1/2/ centuries
(assuming 25 years = one generation that is more than ten generations, that
means genes pooled from more than 1024 people).

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

So, you've got one tradition saying he was white and one 'genius' who said
he was black. One of the two is wrong, which one?


: -Peter