Many biblical figures were african.

http://www.debate.org... There is a link to the original debate. My opponenet wished to redo round 3 [he missed it due to lossing track of time], so make sure to read rounds 1 and 2 of that debate before reading and voting on this debate. RE: Jesus http://archives.cnn.com... As you see, that man has a bronze/olive colored face. And also wooly hair. And it's also one of the most recent attempts at what Jesus really looked like. It's what people from the area were thought to look like at the time. It's definitely a seperate race from 'African.' RE: Israelites When I said "shortly after" I meant "a few generations after." I think I specifically said this in R2 of the first debate. After not living in Africa for a few generations, the Israelites could no longer be considered natives of Africa, and therefore could not be considered to be African. They certainly have African descent, but I showed the difference between the two in R2 of last debate. If we base our ethnicity on our entire family tree rather than simply the last few generations, then we are all Africans, since there would never be a point when someone would stop being African. My opponenet has given no criteria where a person is separated from their former race. Since humans originated in Africa, we would therefore all be African, with no way to ever stop being African. I, onthe other hand, have presented a case that allwos for us to have the many diverse ethnicities we have. After a few generations away from a country, a person can no longer be considered to be that ethnicity. I have a mojority of european blood, but I am an American. This is because my family has been in America for generations now. If I was a first, second, or even third generation immigrant, I might not consider my ethnicity to be 'American' just yet. I think it is appearance and racial identity that is making my opponent fail to see the point here. It is likely much more difficult for him to see himself as an American than it is for me, since I am white, and the general image of an American is a white person. White people tend to not care about their racial identity. However, this is not true for many black people. Probably as a result of past oppression, being a minority, or something else, blacks more often tend to prefer to identify with their roots rather than their present. This is nonsense though. An American is a person who is native to America. If you know the culture of America more than any other culture, the language of America more than other language, etc, then you are an American. This process often takes a few generations, but I would contend that it is sufficient criteria for one to be considered a "Native." Remember, my opponenet has given no criteria to base it off of. My opponent asserts that no matter how integrated into society he is, he would still be an "African at heart." This makes no sense. Just as I am not a European at heart. This is clearly a case of my opponent trying to hold onto his 'roots' for little to no reason. An Americanized person is an American at heart. They act, speak, and think like an American, not an African, regardless of racial descent. My opponent is correct whne he says I would not become Japanese if I moved there. Because I would not be a Native. I would be a foreigner. If I completely integrated into their culture [which would likely take a few generations of my family living there], then my family would be Japanese. Also, about the olive colored skin and wooly hair, see the pic I posted in the link near the top in RE: Jesus. For those interested, here are Olive, Bronze, and that face to compare it to. http://www.mccullagh.org... http://budgetcastingsupply.com... http://pursuingholiness.com... See the wooly hair, and the non-african-ness? Also, note that even if these people did 'look' African, they would not automatically BE African. Heck, I probably look pretty Australian, but I'm decidedly not, and I don't even have any heritage there. Regardless, I have responded to the two offenses my opponent is usiung. I have shown that the Israelites were not African as soon as they had lived somewhere else for a while [generating their own culture in the process]. I have shown that Jesus was probably not African, and it is most widely considered that he was middle-eastern. Middle-easterners of that time do not have to look like middle-easterners of this time. And they're definitely different ethnicities anyway. We'd consider Caesar to be an Ancient Roman, not an Italian. From Wikipedia: "Ethnic identity is marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and by common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits." Sure, by this definition, my opponent might be considered African, due to his dark skin [biological trait], but by ALL THE OTHER CRITERIA, which are listed first [this indicates more importance], he would decidedly NOT be African. Well, actually, I suppose I can't know that. But by these criteria we can be certain that a few generations after the Israelites moved from Africa, they could and probably should be considered a new ethnic group. I suppose I'll just leave it there.