"GWhyte" <gwhyte3003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:qf2dnYLzC4Ez3NXeRVn-uQ@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ... So there is
> absolutely no scientific research which has shown origins of Whites in
that
> area despite the claims made by your interlocutor.
Am I the "interlocutor" you refer to? Allow me to provide an intentionally
brief summary of the argument for why White Folks are called Caucasians
and
we can get more granular from there, if you wish. This is lengthy for a
Usenet post, but even so space does not allow me to properly cover what is
required.
NOAH'S ARK, SUMER, AND THE CAUCASUS
--------------------------------------------------------
Okay, let's start with Noah's Ark. I must presume that you agree with me
that the biblical account is, well, just not entirely believable. How
could
you fit two of every species of animal on one boat? How could you keep
them
from eating each other? What about animal species which only existed on
the
other side of the planet? What about the logistics of elimination of the
animals' urine and bowel movements? Such questions abound and they all
lead
to the same conclusion ... this just could not have happened as the bible
describes it. But ... if you at least tem****arily set any religious, or
anti-religious, convictions aside and merely approach the bible as one of
many tools for determining Original Truth, the bible nows becomes this
incredibly valuable Rosetta Stone tool for decoding oral pre-historic
myths.
If you have wondered why I so often refer to scriptures in my posts, now
you
know. I am not a bible belt christian. I am on a Quest for Original Truth.
There are just too many ante-deluvian myths in too many cultures for a
inquisitive mind to not at least consider the possibility that there was
"something" which occurred in pre-history, something which the Noah's Ark
story refers to, which oral traditions (probably Babylonian oral
traditions
in the case of the old testament) called the great flood. The point within
the biblical account which is salient to our discussion is the reference
to
the ark finally coming to rest on Mt. Arafat (Genesis 8:4). We know where
this place is because these mountains exist today. They exist in the
Caucasus.
The biblical account of the history of Man is obviously not "literally"
true. It just could not have "literally" happened as the bible says. One
possibility, a reasonable one to make, is that it merely represents the
history, a somewhat romanticized version, of one branch of humanity's
history, specifically the history of the people the bible refers to the
Hebrews.
Who where these Hebrews, these "chosen people"? The biblical account
describes them as being descendants of Abraham ... on Sarah's side of the
family tree. The biblical account paints Sarah's kids as being legitimate
and Haggar's and Keturah's as illegiitimate. But, on this point one has to
keep in mind that the Old Testament, as we know it today, was written by
people who thought of themselves as being descendants of Sarah and
Abraham.
Anyway, back to the the burning question, who were these "chosen people"?
The biblical account describes Abraham and Sarah's roots as being from Ur
of
the Chaldees (Genesis 11:27-28). Once again, we know where this place is
because of numerous archaeological proofs. Ur was one of the city states
of
the ancient Sumerian civilization. Now, what have colleges and
universities
been teaching students for quite a while now about the race of the
Sumerians? That's right. They have been claiming that the Sumerians were
white, specifically the descendants of whites who migrated from where?
That's right, the Sumerians were people, white people, the white people
linguists call the "Indo-Europeans", who migrated not entirely, but
certainly en masse, from the Caucasus.
Should I stop here to explain certain code words? I think, perhaps, I
should. White Supremacists have these things they do to avoid having to
explain the inexplicable. One of these tactics is something the current
administration has perfected to an art ... i.e., dismissing criticism of
thoroughly obvious and boneheaded mistakes as being "unpatriotic." A
second
tactic is to insist that anyone who dares to confront the rather open and
obvious practices of racism is "playing the race card." Finally, they
figured out that the best way to claim that the great civilizations of the
past (Egypt, Sumeria) were white is to call them "not black". Obviously,
one
could never prove to a critical thinking human being that the Sumerians,
or
the Eyptians, were white. The proof just ain't there, not even weak proofs
which could be exaggerated. But, what you can do is argue the negative,
that
the ancients were "Not black". "Not black" is a code phrase which the
Sheep
have been programed to translate internally to mean "white". Let's
continue
...
So, if one is aware of what is being commonly taught in colleges and
universities today, and further if one is honest enough to accept that
Christianity has, indeed, become, since the days of Constantine and hs
First
Council of Nice, the "opiate of the m*****", then one can easily
understand
how White Folks came to be called Caucasians.
White Folks have pictures of a white Jesus, and a ferocious angry white
God,
in their bibles, on their church ceilings, and in their heads because they
think they started out as the same race of people as the chosen people,.
the
Hebrews. They think this race of people thundered down from the Caucasus,
conquering any and all "heathens" who got in their way because, after all,
this is/was God's Will ... that the Chosen People should rule the earth.
All
you have to do is listen to one of W.'s "punish the evil do-ers" speeches
to
realize that this manner of thinking still pulls down its shorts and
squats
at the center of their collective asili.
Yes, I know White Supremacists have this problem with the "racial purity"
of these people who call themselves Jews. But, the Anglo problem with Jews
has to do with the notion that Jews are whites who broke ranks with their
own kind and mingled their blood enough with blacks to end up with dark
hair
and a big nose. Hitler, arguably the most influential White guy of his
time,
plunged the entire world into a war because of this, forgive my blunt
speech, f**ked up misconception arrived at in a time in his youth when he
had recently lost both parents, was not able to keep a job, struggling to
find his next meal, and blaming all of his problems on the Jews he felt
were
running the Socialist Democratic Party and controlling the media. He chose
to believe that Whites were the Master Race, chosen by God to rule the
earth. For Jews to betray the White Race was heresy, in his mind an
affront
against god himself, hence they must suffer the wrath of his white, angry,
ferocious Old Testament god.
Yes, it is true. The Religious Right never talks about it, but Hitler was
a
church-going, god-fearing Christian. Interested in viewing some intriguing
photos?:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
To not recognize that this mindset is alive and well today is to not
recognize your enemy. And, after all, how can you "love your enemy"
without
at first being honest enough to recognize him as your enemy?
THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT:
----------------------------------
Afrocentric scholars discard the afore-mentioned argument. They point to
the
numerous historical records of pre-historic people who migrated from the
continent of Africa hundreds, if not thousands, of years before the peak
of
the Sumerian civilization .. some of these migrations were into the area
which eventually became Sumeria. They refer to the oral historical
accounts
of a no longer existent land bridge, a by-foot route, between the
continent
of Africa and Asia.
They refer to historical records which refer to the Sumerians as
"blackheads". They refer to certain artifacts from certain digs which
could
reasonably be argued to exhibit negroid features. Most convicning, for me
at
least, they point to the strong indications that Sumeria had the sort of
reverence for women which is typical of African cultures (even today, we
black men find ourselves referring to black women as black queens .. it
seems almost genetic) while white cultures lean the other way (the
patriarchal deities of Greece, the difficulties, even up to this very day,
for white cultures to accept women as leaders).
I could go on for quite a while longer, but perhaps this is a good place
to
stop.
Istlota
|
