Is Racism Over Yet?

[Asclepias]

Hey monkey. The DNA shows that not only are the Egyptians Black Rameses II is from the interior of Africa.

Here you go, you dumb shitskin:

Mummy DNA unravels ancient Egyptians’ ancestry

The findings show that the mummies’ closest kin were ancient farmers from a region that includes present-day Israel and Jordan. Modern Egyptians, by contrast, have inherited more of their DNA from central Africans.

Sorry monkey. Read it and weep

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-02-01.pdf

"
These results indicate that both Ramesses III a
nd Unknown Man E (possibly his son Pentawer)
shared an ancestral component with present day popul
ations of Sub-Saharan Africa. This preliminary
analysis based on eight STR markers does not identif
y the percentages of Sub-Saharan African ancestry
for these ancient individuals. This preliminary an
alysis also does not exclude additional ancestral
components (such as Near Eastern or Mediterranean
related components) for these ancient pharaonic
Egyptians.
In addition, these DNA match results in present day world regions might in part express
population changes in Africa after the time of Rame
sses III. In particular, DNA matches in present day
populations of Southern Africa and the African Great
Lakes might to some degree reflect genetic links
with ancient populations (formerly living closer to
New Kingdom Egypt) that ha
ve expanded southwards
in the Nilotic and Bantu migrations of the past 3,000 years"

E1b1a can be present outside of sub-Saharan Africa, even if it may be present in greater concentrations in sub-Saharan Africa. If you actually read the BMJ study (the supposed source of your article), they make pretty much no conclusion regarding the race of Ramesses. On the other hand, my article actually references research involving numerous mummies. Obviously, the researches of the BMJ article understood the limitations of their research (unlike you, who uses the research like a blunt object).

Of course it can be present outside of Africa. Its in the US and Europe but the vast vast majority are Black people. Obviously you didnt read the study. This is why I laugh at you white monkeys when you say you are smart.

The King Tut Gene - DNA Consultants

"Tutankhamun (also spelled Tutenkhamen) is the most famous of all pharaohs. He was the son and successor of Akhenaten, grandson of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and great-grandson of the royal matriarch Queen Thuya. Archeologist Howard Carter’s opening of his intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 ranks among the most splendid discoveries of history. In 2010, genetic fingerprinting of his mummy determined that he died at the early age of 19 as the result of violence or an accident to which the incestuous relationship of his parents and several genetic defects contributed. Tutankhamun actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other markers it has a sparse distribution outside Africa with a worldwide average frequency of 4%. Still, Africans and African-influenced populations (1 in about 10) are about twice or three times as likely to have it as non-Africans."

In other words, non-Africans can still have it, which means he could have been non-African. That's precisely why real researchers (intelligent whites) look at much larger groups of mummies before making such conclusions, unlike dumb shitskins like you.

Yeah they did look at other groups and found them to be African as well. Kinda sucks for you doesnt it?

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

Genetic Analysis of Amarna Mummies

Geographical analysis of the Amarna mummies was performed using their autosomal STR profiles based on 8 tested loci.
4
Results are summarized in
Table 1
and illustrated in
Figure 1
. Maps for
individual Amarna mummies are included in
Figures 2-8
in the Appendix.
Discussion:
Average MLI scores in
Table 1
indicate the STR profiles of
the Amarna mummies would be
most frequent in present day populations of several
African regions: including the Southern African
(average MLI 326.94), African Great Lakes (average
MLI 323.76), and Tropical West African (average
MLI 83.74) regions.
These regional matches do not necessarily indicat
e an exclusively African ancestry for the
Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate th
ese ancient individuals inherited some alleles that
today are more frequent in populations of Africa than
in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and
D21S11=34).

 

[katsteve2012]

Thanks! You should send that info to Zimbabwe.

It wasn't until 2000 that Mugabe's campaign gathered strength and he forced 4,000 white farmers to give up their land. Zimbabwe's agricultural output dropped almost overnight.

"There was an immediate food shortage," remembers Akinluyi. "People went hungry."

The move was followed by two years of bad harvests and an extended dry spell, leading to the country's worst famine in 60 years.

How Robert Mugabe killed Zimbabwe's economy

Maybe they need some black farmers?

Mugabe is a hero for getting rid of the white people. The country will recover. It was fine before whites invaded and long after whites cease to exist it will be fine again.

Look at Zimbabwe, a fk'n disaster. South Africa is on it's way to becoming another Zimbabwe.

2 examples of what white colonization has done to Africa.

(X) And two things that white South Afrikaners brought to SA is civilization and to help blacks from killing each other in tribal wars.

The only thing whites brought to south africa is more head lice. There were already civilizations there.

Thanks! You should send that info to Zimbabwe.

It wasn't until 2000 that Mugabe's campaign gathered strength and he forced 4,000 white farmers to give up their land. Zimbabwe's agricultural output dropped almost overnight.

"There was an immediate food shortage," remembers Akinluyi. "People went hungry."

The move was followed by two years of bad harvests and an extended dry spell, leading to the country's worst famine in 60 years.

How Robert Mugabe killed Zimbabwe's economy

Maybe they need some black farmers?

Mugabe is a hero for getting rid of the white people. The country will recover. It was fine before whites invaded and long after whites cease to exist it will be fine again.

Look at Zimbabwe, a fk'n disaster. South Africa is on it's way to becoming another Zimbabwe.

2 examples of what white colonization has done to Africa.

(X) And two things that white South Afrikaners brought to SA is civilization and to help blacks from killing each other in tribal wars.

The only thing whites brought to south africa is more head lice. There were already civilizations there.

Much more than head lice.
Disease and Depopulation of Africans during Colonialism - Global Black History

 

[bgrouse]

Here you go, you dumb shitskin:

Mummy DNA unravels ancient Egyptians’ ancestry

The findings show that the mummies’ closest kin were ancient farmers from a region that includes present-day Israel and Jordan. Modern Egyptians, by contrast, have inherited more of their DNA from central Africans.

Sorry monkey. Read it and weep

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-02-01.pdf

"
These results indicate that both Ramesses III a
nd Unknown Man E (possibly his son Pentawer)
shared an ancestral component with present day popul
ations of Sub-Saharan Africa. This preliminary
analysis based on eight STR markers does not identif
y the percentages of Sub-Saharan African ancestry
for these ancient individuals. This preliminary an
alysis also does not exclude additional ancestral
components (such as Near Eastern or Mediterranean
related components) for these ancient pharaonic
Egyptians.
In addition, these DNA match results in present day world regions might in part express
population changes in Africa after the time of Rame
sses III. In particular, DNA matches in present day
populations of Southern Africa and the African Great
Lakes might to some degree reflect genetic links
with ancient populations (formerly living closer to
New Kingdom Egypt) that ha
ve expanded southwards
in the Nilotic and Bantu migrations of the past 3,000 years"

E1b1a can be present outside of sub-Saharan Africa, even if it may be present in greater concentrations in sub-Saharan Africa. If you actually read the BMJ study (the supposed source of your article), they make pretty much no conclusion regarding the race of Ramesses. On the other hand, my article actually references research involving numerous mummies. Obviously, the researches of the BMJ article understood the limitations of their research (unlike you, who uses the research like a blunt object).

Of course it can be present outside of Africa. Its in the US and Europe but the vast vast majority are Black people. Obviously you didnt read the study. This is why I laugh at you white monkeys when you say you are smart.

The King Tut Gene - DNA Consultants

"Tutankhamun (also spelled Tutenkhamen) is the most famous of all pharaohs. He was the son and successor of Akhenaten, grandson of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and great-grandson of the royal matriarch Queen Thuya. Archeologist Howard Carter’s opening of his intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 ranks among the most splendid discoveries of history. In 2010, genetic fingerprinting of his mummy determined that he died at the early age of 19 as the result of violence or an accident to which the incestuous relationship of his parents and several genetic defects contributed. Tutankhamun actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other markers it has a sparse distribution outside Africa with a worldwide average frequency of 4%. Still, Africans and African-influenced populations (1 in about 10) are about twice or three times as likely to have it as non-Africans."

In other words, non-Africans can still have it, which means he could have been non-African. That's precisely why real researchers (intelligent whites) look at much larger groups of mummies before making such conclusions, unlike dumb shitskins like you.

Yeah they did look at other groups and found them to be African as well. Kinda sucks for you doesnt it?

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

Genetic Analysis of Amarna Mummies

Geographical analysis of the Amarna mummies was performed using their autosomal STR profiles based on 8 tested loci.
4
Results are summarized in
Table 1
and illustrated in
Figure 1
. Maps for
individual Amarna mummies are included in
Figures 2-8
in the Appendix.
Discussion:
Average MLI scores in
Table 1
indicate the STR profiles of
the Amarna mummies would be
most frequent in present day populations of several
African regions: including the Southern African
(average MLI 326.94), African Great Lakes (average
MLI 323.76), and Tropical West African (average
MLI 83.74) regions.
These regional matches do not necessarily indicat
e an exclusively African ancestry for the
Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate th
ese ancient individuals inherited some alleles that
today are more frequent in populations of Africa than
in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and
D21S11=34).

View attachment 180148

That's discussing King Tut again. Are you done beating those mummies? Aren't they dead enough? Linking to the same shit multiple times won't make your sample bigger. Oh, and even the article says you're full of shit:

These regional matches do not necessarily indicat
e an exclusively African ancestry

They're even flat out telling you that. Perhaps they knew the limitations and intent of their research and included that having foreseen that a dumb shitskin like you would try to use the research like a blunt object.

 

[bgrouse]

E1b1a can be present outside of sub-Saharan Africa, even if it may be present in greater concentrations in sub-Saharan Africa. If you actually read the BMJ study (the supposed source of your article), they make pretty much no conclusion regarding the race of Ramesses. On the other hand, my article actually references research involving numerous mummies. Obviously, the researches of the BMJ article understood the limitations of their research (unlike you, who uses the research like a blunt object).

Of course it can be present outside of Africa. Its in the US and Europe but the vast vast majority are Black people. Obviously you didnt read the study. This is why I laugh at you white monkeys when you say you are smart.

The King Tut Gene - DNA Consultants

"Tutankhamun (also spelled Tutenkhamen) is the most famous of all pharaohs. He was the son and successor of Akhenaten, grandson of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and great-grandson of the royal matriarch Queen Thuya. Archeologist Howard Carter’s opening of his intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 ranks among the most splendid discoveries of history. In 2010, genetic fingerprinting of his mummy determined that he died at the early age of 19 as the result of violence or an accident to which the incestuous relationship of his parents and several genetic defects contributed. Tutankhamun actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other markers it has a sparse distribution outside Africa with a worldwide average frequency of 4%. Still, Africans and African-influenced populations (1 in about 10) are about twice or three times as likely to have it as non-Africans."

In other words, non-Africans can still have it, which means he could have been non-African. That's precisely why real researchers (intelligent whites) look at much larger groups of mummies before making such conclusions, unlike dumb shitskins like you.

And that's why your real researchers have determined Egyptians were black.

Modern ones are certainly more black, per the research.

The ones that started the Egyptian civilization and built it into a thriving center of enlightenment were all Black. Even the ancient Greeks have testified to them being Black.

I'm supposed to believe what some ancient Greek may have written over modern science? You know you're full of shit when you do that!

 

[Asclepias]

Sorry monkey. Read it and weep

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-02-01.pdf

"
These results indicate that both Ramesses III a
nd Unknown Man E (possibly his son Pentawer)
shared an ancestral component with present day popul
ations of Sub-Saharan Africa. This preliminary
analysis based on eight STR markers does not identif
y the percentages of Sub-Saharan African ancestry
for these ancient individuals. This preliminary an
alysis also does not exclude additional ancestral
components (such as Near Eastern or Mediterranean
related components) for these ancient pharaonic
Egyptians.
In addition, these DNA match results in present day world regions might in part express
population changes in Africa after the time of Rame
sses III. In particular, DNA matches in present day
populations of Southern Africa and the African Great
Lakes might to some degree reflect genetic links
with ancient populations (formerly living closer to
New Kingdom Egypt) that ha
ve expanded southwards
in the Nilotic and Bantu migrations of the past 3,000 years"

E1b1a can be present outside of sub-Saharan Africa, even if it may be present in greater concentrations in sub-Saharan Africa. If you actually read the BMJ study (the supposed source of your article), they make pretty much no conclusion regarding the race of Ramesses. On the other hand, my article actually references research involving numerous mummies. Obviously, the researches of the BMJ article understood the limitations of their research (unlike you, who uses the research like a blunt object).

Of course it can be present outside of Africa. Its in the US and Europe but the vast vast majority are Black people. Obviously you didnt read the study. This is why I laugh at you white monkeys when you say you are smart.

The King Tut Gene - DNA Consultants

"Tutankhamun (also spelled Tutenkhamen) is the most famous of all pharaohs. He was the son and successor of Akhenaten, grandson of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and great-grandson of the royal matriarch Queen Thuya. Archeologist Howard Carter’s opening of his intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 ranks among the most splendid discoveries of history. In 2010, genetic fingerprinting of his mummy determined that he died at the early age of 19 as the result of violence or an accident to which the incestuous relationship of his parents and several genetic defects contributed. Tutankhamun actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other markers it has a sparse distribution outside Africa with a worldwide average frequency of 4%. Still, Africans and African-influenced populations (1 in about 10) are about twice or three times as likely to have it as non-Africans."

In other words, non-Africans can still have it, which means he could have been non-African. That's precisely why real researchers (intelligent whites) look at much larger groups of mummies before making such conclusions, unlike dumb shitskins like you.

Yeah they did look at other groups and found them to be African as well. Kinda sucks for you doesnt it?

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

Genetic Analysis of Amarna Mummies

Geographical analysis of the Amarna mummies was performed using their autosomal STR profiles based on 8 tested loci.
4
Results are summarized in
Table 1
and illustrated in
Figure 1
. Maps for
individual Amarna mummies are included in
Figures 2-8
in the Appendix.
Discussion:
Average MLI scores in
Table 1
indicate the STR profiles of
the Amarna mummies would be
most frequent in present day populations of several
African regions: including the Southern African
(average MLI 326.94), African Great Lakes (average
MLI 323.76), and Tropical West African (average
MLI 83.74) regions.
These regional matches do not necessarily indicat
e an exclusively African ancestry for the
Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate th
ese ancient individuals inherited some alleles that
today are more frequent in populations of Africa than
in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and
D21S11=34).

View attachment 180148

That's discussing King Tut again. Are you done beating those mummies? Aren't they dead enough? Linking to the same shit multiple times won't make your sample bigger. Oh, and even the article says you're full of shit:

These regional matches do not necessarily indicat
e an exclusively African ancestry

They're even flat out telling you that. Perhaps they knew the limitations and intent of their research and included that having foreseen that a dumb shitskin like you would try to use the research like a blunt object.

Yeah dummy. I dont have an exclusively African ancestry either but I am still Black.

 

[Asclepias]

Of course it can be present outside of Africa. Its in the US and Europe but the vast vast majority are Black people. Obviously you didnt read the study. This is why I laugh at you white monkeys when you say you are smart.

The King Tut Gene - DNA Consultants

"Tutankhamun (also spelled Tutenkhamen) is the most famous of all pharaohs. He was the son and successor of Akhenaten, grandson of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and great-grandson of the royal matriarch Queen Thuya. Archeologist Howard Carter’s opening of his intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 ranks among the most splendid discoveries of history. In 2010, genetic fingerprinting of his mummy determined that he died at the early age of 19 as the result of violence or an accident to which the incestuous relationship of his parents and several genetic defects contributed. Tutankhamun actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other markers it has a sparse distribution outside Africa with a worldwide average frequency of 4%. Still, Africans and African-influenced populations (1 in about 10) are about twice or three times as likely to have it as non-Africans."

In other words, non-Africans can still have it, which means he could have been non-African. That's precisely why real researchers (intelligent whites) look at much larger groups of mummies before making such conclusions, unlike dumb shitskins like you.

And that's why your real researchers have determined Egyptians were black.

Modern ones are certainly more black, per the research.

The ones that started the Egyptian civilization and built it into a thriving center of enlightenment were all Black. Even the ancient Greeks have testified to them being Black.

I'm supposed to believe what some ancient Greek may have written over modern science? You know you're full of shit when you do that!

i dont care what you believe. What I want you to do is explain why the ancient greeks that actually saw the Egyptians said they were Black? Can you do that? I'll wait.

 

[bgrouse]

E1b1a can be present outside of sub-Saharan Africa, even if it may be present in greater concentrations in sub-Saharan Africa. If you actually read the BMJ study (the supposed source of your article), they make pretty much no conclusion regarding the race of Ramesses. On the other hand, my article actually references research involving numerous mummies. Obviously, the researches of the BMJ article understood the limitations of their research (unlike you, who uses the research like a blunt object).

Of course it can be present outside of Africa. Its in the US and Europe but the vast vast majority are Black people. Obviously you didnt read the study. This is why I laugh at you white monkeys when you say you are smart.

The King Tut Gene - DNA Consultants

"Tutankhamun (also spelled Tutenkhamen) is the most famous of all pharaohs. He was the son and successor of Akhenaten, grandson of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and great-grandson of the royal matriarch Queen Thuya. Archeologist Howard Carter’s opening of his intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 ranks among the most splendid discoveries of history. In 2010, genetic fingerprinting of his mummy determined that he died at the early age of 19 as the result of violence or an accident to which the incestuous relationship of his parents and several genetic defects contributed. Tutankhamun actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other markers it has a sparse distribution outside Africa with a worldwide average frequency of 4%. Still, Africans and African-influenced populations (1 in about 10) are about twice or three times as likely to have it as non-Africans."

In other words, non-Africans can still have it, which means he could have been non-African. That's precisely why real researchers (intelligent whites) look at much larger groups of mummies before making such conclusions, unlike dumb shitskins like you.

Yeah they did look at other groups and found them to be African as well. Kinda sucks for you doesnt it?

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

Genetic Analysis of Amarna Mummies

Geographical analysis of the Amarna mummies was performed using their autosomal STR profiles based on 8 tested loci.
4
Results are summarized in
Table 1
and illustrated in
Figure 1
. Maps for
individual Amarna mummies are included in
Figures 2-8
in the Appendix.
Discussion:
Average MLI scores in
Table 1
indicate the STR profiles of
the Amarna mummies would be
most frequent in present day populations of several
African regions: including the Southern African
(average MLI 326.94), African Great Lakes (average
MLI 323.76), and Tropical West African (average
MLI 83.74) regions.
These regional matches do not necessarily indicat
e an exclusively African ancestry for the
Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate th
ese ancient individuals inherited some alleles that
today are more frequent in populations of Africa than
in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and
D21S11=34).

View attachment 180148

That's discussing King Tut again. Are you done beating those mummies? Aren't they dead enough? Linking to the same shit multiple times won't make your sample bigger. Oh, and even the article says you're full of shit:

These regional matches do not necessarily indicat
e an exclusively African ancestry

They're even flat out telling you that. Perhaps they knew the limitations and intent of their research and included that having foreseen that a dumb shitskin like you would try to use the research like a blunt object.

Yeah dummy. I dont have an exclusively African ancestry either but I am still Black.

Your article underlines the fact that they don't even know the guy was exclusively African (which does have lighter-skinned people in North Africa), so you're the only moron who thinks the Egyptians were shit-colored. Get it?

 

[bgrouse]

In other words, non-Africans can still have it, which means he could have been non-African. That's precisely why real researchers (intelligent whites) look at much larger groups of mummies before making such conclusions, unlike dumb shitskins like you.

And that's why your real researchers have determined Egyptians were black.

Modern ones are certainly more black, per the research.

The ones that started the Egyptian civilization and built it into a thriving center of enlightenment were all Black. Even the ancient Greeks have testified to them being Black.

I'm supposed to believe what some ancient Greek may have written over modern science? You know you're full of shit when you do that!

i dont care what you believe. What I want you to do is explain why the ancient greeks that actually saw the Egyptians said they were Black? Can you do that? I'll wait.

Why don't you go and ask them, stupid? They're your source! Ask them what methodology they used and how many Egyptians they actually examined. You know, kind of like what my article did.

 

[Asclepias]

Of course it can be present outside of Africa. Its in the US and Europe but the vast vast majority are Black people. Obviously you didnt read the study. This is why I laugh at you white monkeys when you say you are smart.

The King Tut Gene - DNA Consultants

"Tutankhamun (also spelled Tutenkhamen) is the most famous of all pharaohs. He was the son and successor of Akhenaten, grandson of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and great-grandson of the royal matriarch Queen Thuya. Archeologist Howard Carter’s opening of his intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 ranks among the most splendid discoveries of history. In 2010, genetic fingerprinting of his mummy determined that he died at the early age of 19 as the result of violence or an accident to which the incestuous relationship of his parents and several genetic defects contributed. Tutankhamun actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other markers it has a sparse distribution outside Africa with a worldwide average frequency of 4%. Still, Africans and African-influenced populations (1 in about 10) are about twice or three times as likely to have it as non-Africans."

In other words, non-Africans can still have it, which means he could have been non-African. That's precisely why real researchers (intelligent whites) look at much larger groups of mummies before making such conclusions, unlike dumb shitskins like you.

Yeah they did look at other groups and found them to be African as well. Kinda sucks for you doesnt it?

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

Genetic Analysis of Amarna Mummies

Geographical analysis of the Amarna mummies was performed using their autosomal STR profiles based on 8 tested loci.
4
Results are summarized in
Table 1
and illustrated in
Figure 1
. Maps for
individual Amarna mummies are included in
Figures 2-8
in the Appendix.
Discussion:
Average MLI scores in
Table 1
indicate the STR profiles of
the Amarna mummies would be
most frequent in present day populations of several
African regions: including the Southern African
(average MLI 326.94), African Great Lakes (average
MLI 323.76), and Tropical West African (average
MLI 83.74) regions.
These regional matches do not necessarily indicat
e an exclusively African ancestry for the
Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate th
ese ancient individuals inherited some alleles that
today are more frequent in populations of Africa than
in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and
D21S11=34).

View attachment 180148

That's discussing King Tut again. Are you done beating those mummies? Aren't they dead enough? Linking to the same shit multiple times won't make your sample bigger. Oh, and even the article says you're full of shit:

These regional matches do not necessarily indicat
e an exclusively African ancestry

They're even flat out telling you that. Perhaps they knew the limitations and intent of their research and included that having foreseen that a dumb shitskin like you would try to use the research like a blunt object.

Yeah dummy. I dont have an exclusively African ancestry either but I am still Black.

Your article underlines the fact that they don't even know the guy was exclusively African (which does have lighter-skinned people in North Africa), so you're the only moron who thinks the Egyptians were shit-colored. Get it?

Thats because even though the vast majority of the DNA is African he has traces of middle eastern which BTW were Black people too.

 

[Asclepias]

And that's why your real researchers have determined Egyptians were black.

Modern ones are certainly more black, per the research.

The ones that started the Egyptian civilization and built it into a thriving center of enlightenment were all Black. Even the ancient Greeks have testified to them being Black.

I'm supposed to believe what some ancient Greek may have written over modern science? You know you're full of shit when you do that!

i dont care what you believe. What I want you to do is explain why the ancient greeks that actually saw the Egyptians said they were Black? Can you do that? I'll wait.

Why don't you go and ask them, stupid? They're your source! Ask them what methodology they used and how many Egyptians they actually examined. You know, kind of like what my article did.

How can I ask the ancient greeks why they called the Egyptians Black? What kind of idiot are you?

 

[bgrouse]

In other words, non-Africans can still have it, which means he could have been non-African. That's precisely why real researchers (intelligent whites) look at much larger groups of mummies before making such conclusions, unlike dumb shitskins like you.

Yeah they did look at other groups and found them to be African as well. Kinda sucks for you doesnt it?

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

Genetic Analysis of Amarna Mummies

Geographical analysis of the Amarna mummies was performed using their autosomal STR profiles based on 8 tested loci.
4
Results are summarized in
Table 1
and illustrated in
Figure 1
. Maps for
individual Amarna mummies are included in
Figures 2-8
in the Appendix.
Discussion:
Average MLI scores in
Table 1
indicate the STR profiles of
the Amarna mummies would be
most frequent in present day populations of several
African regions: including the Southern African
(average MLI 326.94), African Great Lakes (average
MLI 323.76), and Tropical West African (average
MLI 83.74) regions.
These regional matches do not necessarily indicat
e an exclusively African ancestry for the
Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate th
ese ancient individuals inherited some alleles that
today are more frequent in populations of Africa than
in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and
D21S11=34).

View attachment 180148

That's discussing King Tut again. Are you done beating those mummies? Aren't they dead enough? Linking to the same shit multiple times won't make your sample bigger. Oh, and even the article says you're full of shit:

These regional matches do not necessarily indicat
e an exclusively African ancestry

They're even flat out telling you that. Perhaps they knew the limitations and intent of their research and included that having foreseen that a dumb shitskin like you would try to use the research like a blunt object.

Yeah dummy. I dont have an exclusively African ancestry either but I am still Black.

Your article underlines the fact that they don't even know the guy was exclusively African (which does have lighter-skinned people in North Africa), so you're the only moron who thinks the Egyptians were shit-colored. Get it?

Thats because even though the vast majority of the DNA is African he has traces of middle eastern which BTW were Black people too.

Where does it say "the vast majority of the DNA is African?" Is that more shit you pulled out of your asshole?

 

[bgrouse]

Modern ones are certainly more black, per the research.

The ones that started the Egyptian civilization and built it into a thriving center of enlightenment were all Black. Even the ancient Greeks have testified to them being Black.

I'm supposed to believe what some ancient Greek may have written over modern science? You know you're full of shit when you do that!

i dont care what you believe. What I want you to do is explain why the ancient greeks that actually saw the Egyptians said they were Black? Can you do that? I'll wait.

Why don't you go and ask them, stupid? They're your source! Ask them what methodology they used and how many Egyptians they actually examined. You know, kind of like what my article did.

How can I ask the ancient greeks why they called the Egyptians Black? What kind of idiot are you?

Gee, I guess thats the problem with using outdated, poorly documented claims to support your argument! That's why I use modern, documented research! Get it now, shitskin?

 

[Asclepias]

Yeah they did look at other groups and found them to be African as well. Kinda sucks for you doesnt it?

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

Genetic Analysis of Amarna Mummies

Geographical analysis of the Amarna mummies was performed using their autosomal STR profiles based on 8 tested loci.
4
Results are summarized in
Table 1
and illustrated in
Figure 1
. Maps for
individual Amarna mummies are included in
Figures 2-8
in the Appendix.
Discussion:
Average MLI scores in
Table 1
indicate the STR profiles of
the Amarna mummies would be
most frequent in present day populations of several
African regions: including the Southern African
(average MLI 326.94), African Great Lakes (average
MLI 323.76), and Tropical West African (average
MLI 83.74) regions.
These regional matches do not necessarily indicat
e an exclusively African ancestry for the
Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate th
ese ancient individuals inherited some alleles that
today are more frequent in populations of Africa than
in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and
D21S11=34).

View attachment 180148

That's discussing King Tut again. Are you done beating those mummies? Aren't they dead enough? Linking to the same shit multiple times won't make your sample bigger. Oh, and even the article says you're full of shit:

These regional matches do not necessarily indicat
e an exclusively African ancestry

They're even flat out telling you that. Perhaps they knew the limitations and intent of their research and included that having foreseen that a dumb shitskin like you would try to use the research like a blunt object.

Yeah dummy. I dont have an exclusively African ancestry either but I am still Black.

Your article underlines the fact that they don't even know the guy was exclusively African (which does have lighter-skinned people in North Africa), so you're the only moron who thinks the Egyptians were shit-colored. Get it?

Thats because even though the vast majority of the DNA is African he has traces of middle eastern which BTW were Black people too.

Where does it say "the vast majority of the DNA is African?" Is that more shit you pulled out of your asshole?

In the chart idiot. You didnt read the link did you?

 

[emilynghiem]

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Dear TroglocratsRdumb and IM2
does black blame of whites for pro white bias
while not equally blaming blacks for pro black bias
(so pro white and pro black bias are not treated equally
but one is hated and blamed more than the other)
count as 3 or hatred or intolerance of another race or races

is it hating the racism or hating the race?
if someone hates one form of racism more than the other,
is that from hating one race more? is blaming one side
more the same as hating more? Is that what is causing
that blame or is it the history of the power imbalance
causing that?

 

[bgrouse]

That's discussing King Tut again. Are you done beating those mummies? Aren't they dead enough? Linking to the same shit multiple times won't make your sample bigger. Oh, and even the article says you're full of shit:

These regional matches do not necessarily indicat
e an exclusively African ancestry

They're even flat out telling you that. Perhaps they knew the limitations and intent of their research and included that having foreseen that a dumb shitskin like you would try to use the research like a blunt object.

Yeah dummy. I dont have an exclusively African ancestry either but I am still Black.

Your article underlines the fact that they don't even know the guy was exclusively African (which does have lighter-skinned people in North Africa), so you're the only moron who thinks the Egyptians were shit-colored. Get it?

Thats because even though the vast majority of the DNA is African he has traces of middle eastern which BTW were Black people too.

Where does it say "the vast majority of the DNA is African?" Is that more shit you pulled out of your asshole?

In the chart idiot. You didnt read the link did you?

That's a match likelihood index, retard! It means some of the DNA they analyzed is like that which is present at greater rates in certain regions, not that the DNA of the mummy is that of a mostly black man!

He says it right here for you, retard:

These regional matches do not necessarily indicat
e an exclusively African ancestry for the
Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate th
ese ancient individuals inherited some alleles that
today are more frequent in populations of Africa than
in other parts of the world

 

[IM2]

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Dear TroglocratsRdumb and IM2
does black blame of whites for pro white bias
while not equally blaming blacks for pro black bias
(so pro white and pro black bias are not treated equally
but one is hated and blamed more than the other)
count as 3 or hatred or intolerance of another race or races

is it hating the racism or hating the race?
if someone hates one form of racism more than the other,
is that from hating one race more? is blaming one side
more the same as hating more? Is that what is causing
that blame or is it the history of the power imbalance
causing that?

Emily, when we speak about racism it is based and rooted in the knowledge of laws and policies whites gave made at vey level to dey us equal opportunity. Get it? Stop being ignorant and repeating what whites here have to say about the issue. Not one of them can discuss the reality of what laws ad policies have created. Each time we try to bring it up, we get deflection, lies and more racism thrown in our faces. Then you come in here never questioning whites talking like a fool about black bias and giving the racists every validation of their false beliefs. You, personally, have experienced what racist policy has done in Houston.

So you take yourself to a historic white district in Houston and look around. See if the same things were done over the years to those neighborhoods as Freedmanstown or were they preserved. Until you recognize the difference you will stay stumped thinking that you can find an equivalence then enter places full of white racists asking silly questions like you just did thinking that you are seeing both sides.

This is what racism/bias is not. It is not complaining about racism directed at blacks by whites. It is not the angry response to the built in disrespect of a persons humanity by the race that thinks they are superior either. It is not the animosity built up in those who have been the ones disrespected by the race that thinks they are superior. A lot of whites do not seem to understand what white racism has done and then want to quickly call racism the angry reaction, responses and animosity created by white racism.

Stop supporting the fake white grievance industry Emily.

 

[Correll]

THe majority of people voted for that guy.


The South feared that he would end slavery and rebelled. Funny how they turned out to be right that.



Oh, and yes, I am judging your behavior. People judge other people's behavior all the time.


It is part of the human condition.

Judge as you wish. I have stated re

THe majority of people voted for that guy.


The South feared that he would end slavery and rebelled. Funny how they turned out to be right that.



Oh, and yes, I am judging your behavior. People judge other people's behavior all the time.


It is part of the human condition.

Let's redirect your thinking:

"It is part of the CONDITION" of one who dwells in a glass house house, and is foolish enough to believe that the opinion of a complete stranger has any value"


Secondly:

"Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861."

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year."


The words of a rabid anti slaver? Or those of a fence sitter?

The capitalist business model of America has always taken precedence.

People like you are the kind who ruin the curriculum of teaching the real truth in public schools, by being given a voice.

1. Yes, moral, ethical judgements on the behaviors of others is a part of the human condition.


2. Soo, we have a politician with conflicting statements. That happens a lot. How to tell which are true and which are false?



It is telling that I have to explain this to you.


A rational person would look at the politicians ACTIONS to judge which of his words are true.


Lincoln DID abolish slavery.


THis reveals his anti-slavery words to be true and his statements to the contrary to be "political", ie false.

Slavery was abolished because
the country was moving towards industrialization, and could not do so being divided. It was business.

Sure it could. Indeed, industrialization was very slow in the South even after the Civil War, didn't slow down the North at all.

A poster with a quote does not prove anything.

Just as valid as your Lincoln quote, indeed, far more valid because it matches with his actual ACTIONS.

There was too much at stake economically to NOT abolish slavery.

The conflict on trade policy was part of the divide.

Had slavery been allowed to expand to the north, it would have had a detrimental impact on a WHITE workforce.

Expanding slavery to the North was not on the table.

It is INDEED telling that you are actually an adult who cannot comprehend the difference between the romanticizing of a historical figure and the truth.

The Republican Party was founded to fight slavery. Lincoln was their anti-slavery choice. Lincoln had a long history of being against slavery.

He did indeed end it.


That you can find some quotes of him saying otherwise, while trying to avoid the Civil War, does not change that.


That is the Truth, not a "romanticizing".

Understanding "why" the civil war was fought it not avoiding it.

My refusal to accept your inaccurate interpretation of history as a means for you to glorify those who fought in a war to save a country that collectively viewed those enslaved as less than human is what it is.

The debate of the time was for or against slavery. The nation "collectively" had been growing more and more against slavery, leading to the election of the anti-slavery Presidential Candidate Abe Lincoln.

Your "version" of the truth is to misrepresent the abolishment of slavery as a humanitarian act, in order support your belief that there is some debt of gratitude owed for the president at the time preserving the union. and as a consequence the slaves being freed.

Pretty much everything I've read of the debate of the time was anti-slavers railing against the terrible "humanitarian" aspect of slavery and pro-slavers trying to defend it.

Genuiune anti slavers and abolisionists were not for the "gradual end" of slavery. Their ideology was for an IMMEDIATE end.

True, which was somewhat politically unrealistic, hence Lincoln's plan's to strangle it gradually. But his plan certainly would have put the end to slavery in short order, which is why the South rebelled despite being on the short end of the balance of power, ie outnumbered and outgunned.

The truth is that the emancipation proclamation did not end slavery.

Slavery was not going to survive in the border states with the South Free. The end of slavery was set in stone with the Emancipation Proclamation, barring an unlikely Southern Victory.

Lincoln had a "long history" of QUIETLY being against slavery and just as long a history of belief that blacks wete fundamentally inferior to whites.

The fact that Lincoln does not meet your 21st century Political Correctness standards does not change the fact that he ended slavery to the great benefit of you and your people.

Your inability to feel gratitude to someone who so greatly benefited you and your people, is a personal flaw on your part.

 

[Correll]

1. It's not about my feelings, it's about what type of person is incapable of gratitude for those that fought and died for them.

2. I have no personal responsibility for slavery's existence, you however do have personal benefit from it being ended.

3. Thank you for stopping in your conflation of slavery and jim crow.

4. Noting idealistic about dealing with the documented historical fact that Lincoln was rabidly anti-slavery.

5. All wars are fought for varied reasons. Your desire to focus on the causes of the war, that gives you an excuse to not give credit where credit is due, reflects on you personally.

Lincoln was not rabidly :anti slavery"
You know that. Try to produce a link that says otherwise.

My not being "grateful" for white people fighting a war to force white people to ejote the to remain a part

The only way it makes sense for you to NOT give cred for the abolish of "something" that should not have existed, is if you are blaming the white guys that ended it, for the actions of the white guys that started it. ie considering all white people one entity.


THere is nothing in that that suggests that I am judging other black people based on your behavior.


I did not bring up the civil war, but it came up in conversation once and I offered my opinion on the matter.

My problem with your behavior is not that I want to tell you how to behave, but just that it is bad behavior.

You CAN'T tell me how to behave nor do I give a fuck what you think.

It sounds like you actually believe that my so called "behavior" is for you to judge.

As I often some of the other assholes here, if you don't like what I have to say, use your ignore button, because what you think is insignificant to me.

That's why you get your ass handed to you so often and get your feelings hurt, because you present yourself as some kind of moral authority on what is right or wrong.

This country at that time was a hostile and hateful land that black people ended up in because of an oppresive institution that never should have existed.

No one fought to FREE the blsck population and you know it.

The war wsd fought to preserve a union created for white people, by white people.

Blacks were the equivalent of farm animals by law.

No debt of gratitude is owed nor will any be acknowledged as even sensible.

You have no point that is even .worth discussing.

And Lincoln was in no way a "A rabid anti slaver"

If you can produce even one shred of evidence that validates that he was, then I will acknowledge that you are correct.

Get to work.

THe majority of people voted for that guy.


The South feared that he would end slavery and rebelled. Funny how they turned out to be right that.



Oh, and yes, I am judging your behavior. People judge other people's behavior all the time.


It is part of the human condition.

Judge as you wish. I have stated re

1. It's not about my feelings, it's about what type of person is incapable of gratitude for those that fought and died for them.

2. I have no personal responsibility for slavery's existence, you however do have personal benefit from it being ended.

3. Thank you for stopping in your conflation of slavery and jim crow.

4. Noting idealistic about dealing with the documented historical fact that Lincoln was rabidly anti-slavery.

5. All wars are fought for varied reasons. Your desire to focus on the causes of the war, that gives you an excuse to not give credit where credit is due, reflects on you personally.

Lincoln was not rabidly :anti slavery"
You know that. Try to produce a link that says otherwise.

My not being "grateful" for white people fighting a war to force white people to ejote the to remain a part

The only way it makes sense for you to NOT give cred for the abolish of "something" that should not have existed, is if you are blaming the white guys that ended it, for the actions of the white guys that started it. ie considering all white people one entity.


THere is nothing in that that suggests that I am judging other black people based on your behavior.


I did not bring up the civil war, but it came up in conversation once and I offered my opinion on the matter.

My problem with your behavior is not that I want to tell you how to behave, but just that it is bad behavior.

You CAN'T tell me how to behave nor do I give a fuck what you think.

It sounds like you actually believe that my so called "behavior" is for you to judge.

As I often some of the other assholes here, if you don't like what I have to say, use your ignore button, because what you think is insignificant to me.

That's why you get your ass handed to you so often and get your feelings hurt, because you present yourself as some kind of moral authority on what is right or wrong.

This country at that time was a hostile and hateful land that black people ended up in because of an oppresive institution that never should have existed.

No one fought to FREE the blsck population and you know it.

The war wsd fought to preserve a union created for white people, by white people.

Blacks were the equivalent of farm animals by law.

No debt of gratitude is owed nor will any be acknowledged as even sensible.

You have no point that is even .worth discussing.

And Lincoln was in no way a "A rabid anti slaver"

If you can produce even one shred of evidence that validates that he was, then I will acknowledge that you are correct.

Get to work.

THe majority of people voted for that guy.


The South feared that he would end slavery and rebelled. Funny how they turned out to be right that.



Oh, and yes, I am judging your behavior. People judge other people's behavior all the time.


It is part of the human condition.

Let's redirect your thinking:

"It is part of the CONDITION" of one who dwells in a glass house house, and is foolish enough to believe that the opinion of a complete stranger has any value"


Secondly:

"Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861."

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year."


The words of a rabid anti slaver? Or those of a fence sitter?

The capitalist business model of America has always taken precedence.

People like you are the kind who ruin the curriculum of teaching the real truth in public schools, by being given a voice.

1. Yes, moral, ethical judgements on the behaviors of others is a part of the human condition.


2. Soo, we have a politician with conflicting statements. That happens a lot. How to tell which are true and which are false?



It is telling that I have to explain this to you.


A rational person would look at the politicians ACTIONS to judge which of his words are true.


Lincoln DID abolish slavery.


THis reveals his anti-slavery words to be true and his statements to the contrary to be "political", ie false.

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia

From your link.



" it was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and in an attempt to entice border slave states to stay."



It was an diplomatic attempt to avoid war.


The slaver states didn't believe it would work. And I bet the Lincoln didn't either.


Lincolns earlier words, when he was not facing a bloody war, that he might not win, and his later actions,


showed where his true position on the issue was.

 

[Correll]

THe majority of people voted for that guy.


The South feared that he would end slavery and rebelled. Funny how they turned out to be right that.



Oh, and yes, I am judging your behavior. People judge other people's behavior all the time.


It is part of the human condition.

Judge as you wish. I have stated re

THe majority of people voted for that guy.


The South feared that he would end slavery and rebelled. Funny how they turned out to be right that.



Oh, and yes, I am judging your behavior. People judge other people's behavior all the time.


It is part of the human condition.

Let's redirect your thinking:

"It is part of the CONDITION" of one who dwells in a glass house house, and is foolish enough to believe that the opinion of a complete stranger has any value"


Secondly:

"Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861."

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year."


The words of a rabid anti slaver? Or those of a fence sitter?

The capitalist business model of America has always taken precedence.

People like you are the kind who ruin the curriculum of teaching the real truth in public schools, by being given a voice.

1. Yes, moral, ethical judgements on the behaviors of others is a part of the human condition.


2. Soo, we have a politician with conflicting statements. That happens a lot. How to tell which are true and which are false?



It is telling that I have to explain this to you.


A rational person would look at the politicians ACTIONS to judge which of his words are true.


Lincoln DID abolish slavery.


THis reveals his anti-slavery words to be true and his statements to the contrary to be "political", ie false.

Slavery was abolished because
the country was moving towards industrialization, and could not do so being divided. It was business.

Sure it could. Indeed, industrialization was very slow in the South even after the Civil War, didn't slow down the North at all.

A poster with a quote does not prove anything.

Just as valid as your Lincoln quote, indeed, far more valid because it matches with his actual ACTIONS.

There was too much at stake economically to NOT abolish slavery.

The conflict on trade policy was part of the divide.

Had slavery been allowed to expand to the north, it would have had a detrimental impact on a WHITE workforce.

Expanding slavery to the North was not on the table.

It is INDEED telling that you are actually an adult who cannot comprehend the difference between the romanticizing of a historical figure and the truth.

The Republican Party was founded to fight slavery. Lincoln was their anti-slavery choice. Lincoln had a long history of being against slavery.

He did indeed end it.


That you can find some quotes of him saying otherwise, while trying to avoid the Civil War, does not change that.


That is the Truth, not a "romanticizing".

The problem with your bullshit is that Lincoln authored a long forgotten amendment that is still pending ratification today. This amendment would have made slavery legal for eternity. If the south had not been stupid there would have never been a civil war.

The South knew it was bullshit. There was no way that an America where the Western States entered as Free States, and the South was greatly outnumbered, would have slavery for very much longer.


Any TRUE attempt to save slavery, would have involved extending the Mason Dixie line compromise and balancing the Free and Slave states, at LEAST in the senate, if not the House somehow.


Maybe by expanding to the South, to get more slave states.

 

[Correll]

Judge as you wish. I have stated re
Let's redirect your thinking:

"It is part of the CONDITION" of one who dwells in a glass house house, and is foolish enough to believe that the opinion of a complete stranger has any value"


Secondly:

"Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861."

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year."


The words of a rabid anti slaver? Or those of a fence sitter?

The capitalist business model of America has always taken precedence.

People like you are the kind who ruin the curriculum of teaching the real truth in public schools, by being given a voice.

1. Yes, moral, ethical judgements on the behaviors of others is a part of the human condition.


2. Soo, we have a politician with conflicting statements. That happens a lot. How to tell which are true and which are false?



It is telling that I have to explain this to you.


A rational person would look at the politicians ACTIONS to judge which of his words are true.


Lincoln DID abolish slavery.


THis reveals his anti-slavery words to be true and his statements to the contrary to be "political", ie false.

Slavery was abolished because
the country was moving towards industrialization, and could not do so being divided. It was business.

Sure it could. Indeed, industrialization was very slow in the South even after the Civil War, didn't slow down the North at all.

A poster with a quote does not prove anything.

Just as valid as your Lincoln quote, indeed, far more valid because it matches with his actual ACTIONS.

There was too much at stake economically to NOT abolish slavery.

The conflict on trade policy was part of the divide.

Had slavery been allowed to expand to the north, it would have had a detrimental impact on a WHITE workforce.

Expanding slavery to the North was not on the table.

It is INDEED telling that you are actually an adult who cannot comprehend the difference between the romanticizing of a historical figure and the truth.

The Republican Party was founded to fight slavery. Lincoln was their anti-slavery choice. Lincoln had a long history of being against slavery.

He did indeed end it.


That you can find some quotes of him saying otherwise, while trying to avoid the Civil War, does not change that.


That is the Truth, not a "romanticizing".

The problem with your bullshit is that Lincoln authored a long forgotten amendment that is still pending ratification today. This amendment would have made slavery legal for eternity. If the south had not been stupid there would have never been a civil war.

The boy lives in a lie thinking h can repost this crap over and over and that's supposed to mean something. He's under he pretense that for most of American history whites have been on the side of making certain blacks had equality. He's got to have some kind of organic brain disorder.

Did the South leave the Union because they thought they had the support of the rest of the nation?