Honour

First, with all due respect, I think that what I have said about the caucasian, IF he were truly African, having full rights to claiming African heritage can hold as justice.

(IF....)

Main reason would be that the same restarch that is used to support this hypothesis also shows that the caucasian did not 'voluntarily' leave Africa. He was either physically driven out by Black Africans, or had to leave because of some other compulsion.

In fact, the main purpose of this hypothesis (which keeps being ignored) is that it positions the caucasian as a victim of man or nature (or both). It justifies everything they did (and are doing) because worse things were done to them in the distant past.

If the caucasian is a victim, then they also deserve reparations. How much value shall we put on 80,000 years enforced stay behind ice barriers in the most inhospitable parts of the Earth? What judgement shall be passed on those who caused them to go there? What is 400 years of slavery, colonisation and neo-colonisation compared to that?

No, let us examine the whole package before we accept it. Let us especially keep in mind that there is another version that states that the first caucasians encountered by ancient Africans were invaders and despoilers. Which is true or, which shall we accept as truth?

A good place now for me to say that the opposite of what you said regarding the possibility of believing everything could be also true (i.e. a person could be one who believes nothing). A person could say, "Until I see it with my own eyes, I reject it as reality."

I will use something you said to illustrate what I mean when I talk of belief and knowledge. You said you would like to believe you live rent free but, thing is you KNOW you do not live rent free. Every week (or month) a certain amount of money (i.e. something material) leaves your hands to into someone else's. You KNOW you do not live rent free.

To believe what is contrary in a situation where there are solid facts to back up what is real would mean one was deluded. And no, I cannot agree that by saying one can choose what to believe I imply that one can believe everything. We were given a sense of discernment in order that we may CHOOSE what is most beneficial and, what is beneficial for one, may not be benficial for another. I choose what is best for me and I defend my borders. If some person wants to believe what is diametrically oppossed to me, that is his/her choice. As long as he/she keeps his tracks away from my earth, there will be no trouble.

I have no problem with belief. There are things I hold on to which are only beliefs. The reasons why I would choose to believe varies with the nature of what I'm looking at. Some things I belive in (like the woman telling you about Sanskrit) because they make me feel good. Some I believe because they make me strong.

This I think, is how it works for most people. However, the thing about belief is this : it is not to be leaned on with all of the self. A belief that seems as solid as an iron wall can turn into vapour in a heartbeat.

For example, a man may believe himself to be one with integrity, he may have held this belief for a long time and this may have been a source of strength to him and, if he is lucky, this belief will never be tested.

What I'm saying is, until this belief is tested over and over, the man cannot KNOW for sure that he truly is one with integrity. In fact, only when looking back from the other side of the road (at the moment of death) will we know for sure what we really were.

When the woman told you about Sanskrit, you chose not to believe because you have no investment in Sanskrit. She did, and that was her PRACTICAL reason for believing what she said.

There are also practical reasons why Africans should reject any attempts by outsiders to tell us what we are or what our family is made of. There are practical benefits to be got from Africans saying "We will tell the story of our origins from it's beginnings."

And you know what? It is only a story, the 'white' mind (and it's tenants) may dress up thier version with as many abbreviations and pseudo-scientific mumblings as they can pack in. It is only a story. There is no human living now who was there when we first stepped on Earth. There are no eye-witness accounts. And, if there is anyone on this message board who has carried out with thier own hands and minds the research this theory rests on, let them speak up. Let them identify the methods they used, the areas they dug up, and the means by which they arrived at thier INDEPENDENT and incontrovertible point of view.

You know the version I hold on to and I am seriously interested in knowing why you find it unacceptable. I am trying to learn something : why is it so important to some Africans that non-Africans are proven as being from the same physical root as themselves?