the difference btwm the
>common people and the priests
>is that the priests most
>likely did not intermarry with
>other groups of people. Therefore
>keeping the bloodline pure.

There is no such thing as keeping the bloodline pure. Everybody (unless they're identical twins) has a different genetic make-up. Anything short of incest can be considered intermarrying. There never were any "pure" blooded people. Everyone is pure-blooded human, but there have never been any groups isololated for a long enough time from the rest of our species and therefore genetically different enough from everyone else, to be able to call someone "pure" blooded.

To use your example, the original tribe of Jews came from somewhere else right? Did they all come from the same place? They married people and had kids with people they were not related to, right? I mean, there was a time, not long before the Jews and Syrians when Jews and Syrians had common ancestors. Hopefully, the "pure" Jew's ancestors didn't all descend from the same blood line. What I'm saying is that the members of the original tribe of Jews, were themselves mixed.

And your father, a "pure" African...? Well, Africa's a big continent, so it's possible that none of his ancestors strayed off of it, just like I can say, I'm pure Earthese. But go a little north from Nigeria. People slowly get lighter skinned and straighter haired. Does that mean they're mixed? Yes, but no more or less mixed than the Swedes to the north and Nigerians to the south (neither of which they resemble).

Racialists would have you believe that the "black" Algerian is necessarily more closely related to the "black" Ghanaian than he is to the "white" Italian. Not true.