[Ruiceara]

Krishna isn't black...

[Dr.Hoodoba]

Krishna isn't black...

True, but his complexion is attributed to dark skin. Not really black.

[Lkemybab]

True, but his complexion is attributed to dark skin. Not really black.

Who knows how Krishna looked like or what his skin tone is. But I sure as hell know they were Indians.

[bMc8F9ZI]

Who knows how Krishna looked like or what his skin tone is. But I sure as hell know they were Indians.

Mmm....could be. But in mythology and ancient texts he is shown to be what I mentioned.

[Zugaxxsn]

Moses was definitely black. I think Moses was a combination of E1b1b1 and J which would explain why Hebrews have "Jew-fros". E1b1b1 (M35) haplogroup has been observed in all Jewish groups worldwide. It is considered to be the second most prevalent haplogroup among the Jewish population outside of the J haplogroups.

[IssuessBratte]

Ethiopians are black. If Ethiopians aren't black then Italians aren't white.

ok.

I'm fine with that.

This is why we should stop using the Black-White terminology.

rather than "Blacks" in the Bible.....thread starter should of mentioned actual ethnic groups in the Bible....but he can't.

[wrewsTear]

The name Nubia was an original name of the continent we call Africa. Aithiopia (of Greek origin) and Cush (originally of African,spelled Kush) as-well. More African so-called biblical figures- Seti- Ramses- Queen Candace of Meroe- Revised picture- More people of color in ancient religion Buddha-

[Julik19]

^^^

Now don't tell me Buddha is African...

Siddhartha was born into a Hindu royal family. Nothing to do with Africa or Africans.

The oldest statues of Buddha comes from Gandhara. Not S.E. Asia like those ones.



Buddha



Bodhisattva

Everyone around the world makes Buddha or Bodhisattva in their own way.

[allvideO]

There were no Siddis or Zanj people in Ancient India. They are of a recent origins there connected to the slave trade and/or the spread of Islam. Buddha wasn't black either.

[i32I7qyH]

Only real contact India had with Africa is with the Ethiopians.

The Aksum empire was right in the middle of Ancient India and the Roman empire. And trade was frequent until the Arabs took over the trade route.

[errolespopume]

I SWEAR some people do Not FUCKING READ!

PEOPLE OF COLOR DOES NOT JUST MEAN AFRICAN PEOPLE...WTF is wrong with u people catching a titty Attack!

If Krishna is not considered a person of color idk wtf this guy is...FUCKING KILLING ME!!!!

---------- Post added 2012-07-02 at 19:59 ----------

ok.

I'm fine with that.

This is why we should stop using the Black-White terminology.

rather than "Blacks" in the Bible.....thread starter should of mentioned actual ethnic groups in the Bible....but he can't.

Ethiopia was not a clearly defined term back then...It was used very broadly to refer to a range of people living below Egypt.

If I were to refer to the thread as Ethiopians in the bible that still would be incorrect and you still wouldnt have been satisfied. Come off your horse and suggest a name instead of using unreasonable mindless insults...How the hell Am I suppose to know their actual ethnic group...you know how long ago this was? Things change over time just like how Nubia does not exist anymore those ethnic groups might not necessarily reflect what we see today...SMFH

WTF!!! Its too hot for this shit

[molaunterbizone]

Maybe you should read the title. It says "Blacks in the Bible". What does Buddha or Krishna have to do with that? These examples are apart of the dharmic religions. Polar opposite from Abrahamic religions.

[infarrelisam]

Maybe you should read the title. It says "Blacks in the Bible". What does Buddha or Krishna have to do with that? These examples are apart of the dharmic religions.

unbelievable...Maybe u should read the post...Ive included people of color...I was trying to be inclusive. I CLEARLY mention that other groups of people are in the bible and that I wanted you to share people of color in other religious text as well...Im not saying this again. Im just not

[alegsghed]

^^^

Ok, I didnt read that last part. I thought it some Afo-Centrics claiming stuff again.

I'll post some.







Buddha






Bodhisattva

[18holesin]

^^ Thanks for understanding

[Twelearly]

Shiva

---------- Post added 2012-07-02 at 20:22 ----------





Guanyin, Chinese interpretation of Bodhisattva




Pashupati, important idol in Indus vally civ






Krishna and Arjuna

[DextExexy]

Only real contact India had with Africa is with the Ethiopians.

The Aksum empire was right in the middle of Ancient India and the Roman empire. And trade was frequent until the Arabs took over the trade route.

Just an FYI:

Aksum was not the only African state that had contact with India. Indian Ocean trade was controlled by city states of ancient Somalia (Opone etc.) who collaborated with Arabs. When Romans conquered the Nabataean Empire (Arabs) (1st AD) the Somali and Arab merchants conducted all trade with India in Somalia and barred Indians from Roman occupied areas. Greeks and Romans had been tricked by the Arab and Somali traders into thinking spices came from East Africa and they did not want the Romans to find out. It was documented that Somali sailors were also traveling to ancient India.

So no Arabs did not take over trade and I'm definitely sure Africans did make it to ancient India.

BTW...Why is everyone posting photos of Buddha? Are we talking about all religions now?

[Poohoppesmase]

Only real contact India had with Africa is with the Ethiopians.

The Aksum empire was right in the middle of Ancient India and the Roman empire. And trade was frequent until the Arabs took over the trade route.

Yea. Although it is possible even the IVC traded with Egypt and such but there were certainly no black people in Ancient South Asia. All the Africans are the result of Islam and Arabs.

[viagra-kaufen]

@chicken

I sometimes group east Africans like Ethiopians and Somalians together. They're like the same thing to me, sorry.

I have always read the Arabs after the conquest of Byzantine lands took over this route. And was getting very rich because of it. Later they got displaced by the Europeans like the Portuguese. Both of these groups are very famous in western parts of India, because of the trade. Somalis, not so much.

Yes, East Africans I'm sure went to ancient India, but in the coastal regions, not in the heart lands of India.

[toyboy]

Yea. Although it is possible even the IVC traded with Egypt and such but there were certainly no black people in Ancient South Asia. All the Africans are the result of Islam and Arabs.

I understand the current African population in India came much later w/Arabs and Islam (Siddis). But Africans definitely were in South Asia during antiquity. Did they settle permanently? Maybe. Even if they did settle in ancient India they would obviously not be a visible minority and probably were absorbed into the local population since it was so long ago.