Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: redgolum

But if there is no hard and fast separation between races based on the three sons, the whole notion of there being three races because they are descended from Noah’s three sons goes out the window.

I do agree that this separation is specifically disproven by the Bible. For instance, one of the sons of Ham was Canaan, and the Canaanites were physically indistinguishable from the Israelites.

In East Africa, the people fall into two general categories.

One is what are sometimes called the Bantu or Negroid. These appear to have spread out from somewhere in West Africa, and are the group from which most American blacks are descended, for fairly obvious geographical reasons. They are relatively short and heavy, and have the classical “African” or Negroid features.

The other used to sometimes be called “Hamitic” and includes the Tutsi, Masai, many Ethiopians and Somalis, etc. They are in general much taller and more slender, and have features we would consider more “European” or Caucasian, with more narrow noses, less prominent brows, etc.

The Tutsi are classic “Hamites,” which is now considered pejorative, and the Hutu classic Bantu or Negroid. They’ve apparently lived in proximity for at least a thousand years and there’s been a lot of mixing, so the distinction in appearance isn’t absolute.

But the physical difference in appearance was distinct enough the Hutu killers generally had little difficulty determining which people to kill.


65 posted on 05/04/2014 12:09:15 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]


To: Sherman Logan

Thanks for bringing more details! I couldn’t remember the specifics with the Tutsi’s.

But remember that not all believe the Canaanites were Semites. There were a variety of peoples in the Levant during that time, and while the group that became the Phoneticians/ Carthaginians were Semitic, the Canaanites referenced could have been part of an earlier group that was in the area more related to the old Egyptian peoples. I do not remember what book that came from, but I think it was “In Search of the Genesis World”.


70 posted on 05/05/2014 5:45:19 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan

That is incorrect. “Hamitic” is a subgroup of the Caucasoid race. The taxon was reserved for populations inhabiting North and Northeast Africa that speak non-Semitic languages from the Hamito-Semitic/Afro-Asiatic family i.e. from the family’s Berber, Cushitic and Egyptian branches. This includes populations like the Berbers, Egyptians, Abyssinians, Somalis, Tuareg and Sahraoui. It doesn’t include Bantu/Nilotic Negroid populations like the Tutsi and Masai, though these groups do have some Hamitic admixture.


77 posted on 05/05/2014 7:11:41 PM PDT by jimmy49
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson