posted
King Tut Exhibit Prompts Debate on His Skin Color by Joel Rose NPR Stories
Morning Edition, August 28, 2007 · The King Tut exhibition has drawn millions of visitors to museums across the country since it opened two years ago. But some African-American scholars believe the exhibition makes King Tut look too white. The debate over Tut's race led the Franklin Institute Science Museum in Philadelphia, where the show is on display, to sponsor a conference on the subject.
The show, Tutankhamen and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs has drawn a steady stream of protesters since it opened in Los Angeles. But nowhere have they been as persistent or vocal as in Philadelphia.
More than 500 people showed up to hear scholars discuss Tut's race at the Franklin Institute. The auditorium couldn't hold them all, so the museum had to set up big-screen TVs in the lobby. The three speakers said the exhibition on display upstairs gives the false impression that King Tut was white.
And worse, says Temple University professor Molefi Asante, it implies that Egypt is not a part of Africa.
"We asked the students as they were coming out of the museum, you've seen the exhibition of King Tut, 'Where is he from?'" Asante said. "You would discover that people can see the exhibition of Tutankhamen, and come out and not know that they have seen Africa."
A forensic reconstruction of Tut's head and shoulders at the Franklin Institute exhibit is remarkably lifelike, until you get right up close to it. On the side of the glass case, there is a disclaimer that reads, "The features of [Tutankhamen's] face are based on scientific data. But the exact color of his skin and the size and shape of many facial details cannot be determined with full certainty."
"Our best guess is that he was neither lily white nor ebony black. He was probably somewhere in between," said Nina Jablonski, author of Skin: A Natural History.
Jablonski teaches anthropology at Penn State University. She also served as an advisor to the team from the National Geographic Society that produced the forensic reconstruction of King Tut that's currently on display. Jablonski points out that it's only a working hypothesis. Scientists have not been able to retrieve much DNA evidence from Tut or other mummies.
But they do have a good idea of who lived in Egypt 3,000 years ago — and she says they probably looked a lot like Egyptians today.
"Modern Egyptians are a very heterogeneous group," Jablonski said. "Some of them have very Arabic features. Others of them have very African or so-called Nubian features. This is because the Nile River itself was a tremendous byway for movement of people in the past and present."
Jablonski says Tut's skin probably looked like a mixture of those people, only lighter, because the Boy King would have spent most of his time inside, protected from the sun. The speakers at the Franklin Institute rejected that hypothesis. In fact, they seemed to enjoy making fun of it.
"Okay, now let's look what this really is about. This is shocking. See if you recognize the person on the right," said activist Maulana Karenga, who remain best known as the founder of Kwanzaa. He got a big laugh by comparing the reconstructed image of King Tut with a picture of a young Barbara Streisand.
The panelists believe the Egyptians of Tut's time had, for the most part, very dark skin, like people from sub-Saharan Africa. Charles Finch is the director of International Health at Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta.
"Whenever ancient writers, Hebrew or Greek, make any reference to ancient Egyptians' color, it's always black," Finch said. "There was no issue back then. There was no discussion. There was no debate. It only became a debate in the last 200 years."
For example, Greek historian Herodotus wrote in the fifth century BC that the Egyptians were "dark-skinned and woolly-haired."
But as anthropologist Nina Jablonski points out, it's hard to say exactly what ancient historians meant when they described the skin they saw as "dark." And she says much of the archeological evidence points to a different conclusion.
"When we look at the representation of the Egyptian royalty on the walls of tombs, we see a range of sort of moderate, tan-colored skin on the royalty," Jablonski said. "This probably is a fairly close approximation of what skin color these people actually had."
Jablonski speaks with the patience of someone who has answered this question many times before, and expects to keep answering it until more definitive evidence comes along. That's why she hopes the King Tut exhibition will inspire students to become interested in reconstructing the past.
That could let the students, Jablonski says, "make a better stab at this in 20 or 25 years' time."
Until then, we'll have to make do with an educated guess.
Posts: 391 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jablonski is a brilliant scientist whose studies were cited numerous times on this forum, but unfortunately she either does not know much about Egyptian history or knows better but chooses to 'appease' the mainstream
"Our best guess is that he was neither lily white nor ebony black. He was probably somewhere in between," said Nina Jablonski, author of Skin: A Natural History.
I find it funny that people including experts like Jablonski herself continue to speak of "guessing" when we have actual authentic portraits of Tut made by the people who saw him:
^ It's as if Jablonski tries to evade the undeniable. Yes Tut's color was somewhere between "ebony black" and "Lily white" yet one does not have to be "ebony black" to be black! Many peoples in Africa who are black have the same complexion as Tut, that is not really "ebony black". Does this mean they are not black at all?
"Modern Egyptians are a very heterogeneous group," Jablonski said. "Some of them have very Arabic features. Others of them have very African or so-called Nubian features. This is because the Nile River itself was a tremendous byway for movement of people in the past and present."
But ancient Egyptians are not modern Egyptians! Certainly Jablonski is aware Egypt's demographics have changed drastically since Tut's reign!
Jablonski says Tut's skin probably looked like a mixture of those people, only lighter, because the Boy King would have spent most of his time inside, protected from the sun. The speakers at the Franklin Institute rejected that hypothesis. In fact, they seemed to enjoy making fun of it.
Again how can Tut look like a "mixture" of such people when Egypt did not include such people (Arabs) in ancient times, at least not as great in number as they are since the Arab invasion. And to suggest Tut was "lighter" because he stayed indoors is even more preposterous. Tut as a melanoderm (black person) is not light at all, and even pharaohs went outdoors and did not stay in the palaces anyway!
But as anthropologist Nina Jablonski points out, it's hard to say exactly what ancient historians meant when they described the skin they saw as "dark." And she says much of the archeological evidence points to a different conclusion.
LOL Apparently Jablonski did not know that the Greek and Roman historians actually used the words "melanos" (black) "Aethiopian" (burnt), and "maure" (also black) to describe the Egyptians, and not just 'dark'.
"When we look at the representation of the Egyptian royalty on the walls of tombs, we see a range of sort of moderate, tan-colored skin on the royalty," Jablonski said. "This probably is a fairly close approximation of what skin color these people actually had."
Well apparently she hasn't seen the wall paintings for her to make sucha comment, let alone the other well preserved painted depictions like the ones above!
Jablonski speaks with the patience of someone who has answered this question many times before, and expects to keep answering it until more definitive evidence comes along. That's why she hopes the King Tut exhibition will inspire students to become interested in reconstructing the past.
That could let the students, Jablonski says, "make a better stab at this in 20 or 25 years' time."
Until then, we'll have to make do with an educated guess.
All in all, I must say I am dissapointed in Jablonski for her to make such cop-out statements! I thought she was less bias and more objective than that. But apparently I was wrong.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
And I am MORE surprised that so-called SPOKESMEN and SPOKESWOMEN for the African identity of ancient Egypt could not PUT THIS TO REST ONCE AND FOR ALL. I mean it is plainly obvious and simple to see that ancient Egypt was black African. It doesn't even take a scholar with multiple PhD and degrees to see that. ALL of Jablonski's arguments are EASILY shown to be nothing but QUIBBLING, or telling HALF TRUTHS. The fact that, at least from this article, NOBODY seemed to be able to DEMOLISH that point of view is telling.
Once again, a perfect text book example of what is wrong with Afrocentrism. They set a time and place to do the "final" battle and then proceed to GET BEAT because they don't come with OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE to TOTALLY ERADICATE the opposition. Instead they "talk" which is nothing, because at the end of the day, the PhD and HER POINT OF VIEW will WIN THAT BATTLE of RHETORIC, at least in the minds of the masses.
This is plainly obvious from the article which leaves the African identity of ancient Egypt as an OPEN QUESTION, when THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. That in itself shows why a) if you are going to stage a MODERN forum to do battle you MUST document it b) BRING THE BIG GUNS, PICTURES, PEOPLE (BLACK INDIGENOUS EGYPTIANS) and ARTIFACTS that ARE UNDENIABLE. c) catch the opposition in A LIE and LOGICAL FALLICIES, thus putting THEIR CREDIBILITY at stake. If all you do is talk and present no SERIOUS EVIDENCE and SCHOLARSHIP of your own, then all you are doing is making yourself LOOK SILLY and UNQUALIFIED. Therefore, KEEPING this whole concept of the African identity of ancient Egypt as "feel good" AMERICAN Afrocentric historic revisionism.
And these images are AMBIGUOUS enough for someone to claim that they represent "tan" people, not MEDIUM TO DARK BROWN BLACKS:
posted
"Modern Egyptians are a very heterogeneous group," Jablonski said. "Some of them have very Arabic features. Others of them have very African or so-called Nubian features. This is because the Nile River itself was a tremendous byway for movement of people in the past and present."
"Arabic features" - What does Jablonski know about this? What about "very African"; "forest Negro" archetype perhaps? What "barometer" is she using; are there "very African" features, "borderline African" features, or "not very African" features. All due respect, Jablonski isn't making any sense here.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
"Our best guess is that he was neither lily white nor ebony black. He was probably somewhere in between," said Nina Jablonski, author of Skin: A Natural History.
I find it funny that people including experts like Jablonski herself continue to speak of "guessing" when we have actual authentic portraits of Tut made by the people who saw him
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Jablonski is a brilliant scientist whose studies were cited numerous times on this forum, but unfortunately she either does not know much about Egyptian history or knows better but chooses to 'appease' the mainstream
"Our best guess is that he was neither lily white nor ebony black. He was probably somewhere in between," said Nina Jablonski, author of Skin: A Natural History.
I find it funny that people including experts like Jablonski herself continue to speak of "guessing" when we have actual authentic portraits of Tut made by the people who saw him:
^ It's as if Jablonski tries to evade the undeniable. Yes Tut's color was somewhere between "ebony black" and "Lily white" yet one does not have to be "ebony black" to be black! Many peoples in Africa who are black have the same complexion as Tut, that is not really "ebony black". Does this mean they are not black at all?
"Modern Egyptians are a very heterogeneous group," Jablonski said. "Some of them have very Arabic features. Others of them have very African or so-called Nubian features. This is because the Nile River itself was a tremendous byway for movement of people in the past and present."
But ancient Egyptians are not modern Egyptians! Certainly Jablonski is aware Egypt's demographics have changed drastically since Tut's reign!
Jablonski says Tut's skin probably looked like a mixture of those people, only lighter, because the Boy King would have spent most of his time inside, protected from the sun. The speakers at the Franklin Institute rejected that hypothesis. In fact, they seemed to enjoy making fun of it.
Again how can Tut look like a "mixture" of such people when Egypt did not include such people (Arabs) in ancient times, at least not as great in number as they are since the Arab invasion. And to suggest Tut was "lighter" because he stayed indoors is even more preposterous. Tut as a melanoderm (black person) is not light at all, and even pharaohs went outdoors and did not stay in the palaces anyway!
But as anthropologist Nina Jablonski points out, it's hard to say exactly what ancient historians meant when they described the skin they saw as "dark." And she says much of the archeological evidence points to a different conclusion.
LOL Apparently Jablonski did not know that the Greek and Roman historians actually used the words "melanos" (black) "Aethiopian" (burnt), and "maure" (also black) to describe the Egyptians, and not just 'dark'.
"When we look at the representation of the Egyptian royalty on the walls of tombs, we see a range of sort of moderate, tan-colored skin on the royalty," said. "This probably is a fairly close approximation of what skin color these people actually had."
Well apparently she hasn't seen the wall paintings for her to make sucha comment, let alone the other well preserved painted depictions like the ones above!
Jablonski speaks with the patience of someone who has answered this question many times before, and expects to keep answering it until more definitive evidence comes along. That's why she hopes the King Tut exhibition will inspire students to become interested in reconstructing the past.
That could let the students, Jablonski says, "make a better stab at this in 20 or 25 years' time."
Until then, we'll have to make do with an educated guess.
All in all, I must say I am dissapointed in Jablonski for her to make such cop-out statements! I thought she was less bias and more objective than that. But apparently I was wrong.
The author Henry t. Aubin of the book on how the africans save the hebrews-the rescue of jerusalem has another book out called the rise of the goldern cobra.
The artist of that book did not even get the image that correct for piankhy as others i have seen in the pass.maybe it is a different story inside the book,who knows? and then he has the nerve to say most of the egyptians were tan.
is he blind? some of these western scholars THAT DID GOOD WORK IN THE PAST KnoW better but like you said or i would, they end up distorting the facts too.when i read even some of tim kendall writings he says misleading things when it come to the nile valley to a certain extent but at the same time or in the past they did good.
I DO not know if i want to read Aubin's book on kushite rule in egypt.maybe i will wait for another one from a different author who admits what most ancient egyptians look like correctly.
even for piye,in the front cover of the book piye skin tone,while not light but it is lighter than other images i seen of him.even his lips are thin.i seen more thicker lips on roman statues than the art on the front cover of his new book.of course there are lot of blacks with thin lips,but the artist should be more correct when it come to basic features of what some one may have look like at least.
kushite scholars would tell you that the kushite art that was more realistic and less idealized would show the royal family with tube like lips,in other words thick lips. IT WOULD be like showing george bush with lips that look like king tut's and we know bush has thin lips. I FIND IT STRANGE THAT THE ARTIST FOR THE BOOK IS A BLACK MAN AND THE IMAGE OF PIYE LOOKS ALOT LIKE HIM.I would say to him,draw what piye would have look like,not yourelf on the front cover.
here are two images. the early image of piye and the lastest one. the first and is more correct image when it come to basic skin tone and lip size.I SEEN other images of piye with skin tone a little lighter but they always got the basic lip size right.of course we do not know really what he looked like but we do have a basic idea. THIS from the book piankhy the great.A MORE accurate art image of piye.piye's head may have been more round like his son or brother but we really do not know i think.
I have seen a later imageS of him with a broader head.it was in a book called taharqa for young readers and older folks.it came on in the 2000's but any this is an older image.
the book below is from 1962,so the crown on the first page is incorrect for this time.the link above is the right one.he should have been wearing a breastplate and a shirt too but that is another story.
and the one below is a less accrurate image compared to the one above and others i seen in the past.this may be a well written book,but i think i will just get it from the library instead to read the story.another book on piye will one come out soon away one day and hopefully they would show him more correctly.
have they done it insidethe book? who knows.I WILL FIND OUT SOON ENOUGH because there is suppose to be alot of images of kush and egypt inside this new book.I AM A BIT worried that the egyptians in this book may look like what the Jablonski says she thinks what they look like.so for the image of the egyptians may look even way less accurate if i judge the image of the egyptian boy in the below link.the one with no the headgear.that's all for now. link -
posted
The point is clear and we should stop being confused. Egyptology is nothing but an institution of white supremacy, pure and simple. Its goal is not to spread truth but to spread lies about the white presence in the ancient Nile Valley and to put WHITES on the top of Nile Valley civilization and blacks on the bottom. The purpose of this is obvious, which is to make whites WORLD WIDE feel comfortable after HUNDREDS of years of rape, murder and genocide against the world's black and dark skinned populations and make it seem as if they were ALWAYS superior to black people (anyone darker than white) all over the planet.
The fact that people misunderstand this and are surprised by it is shocking on one hand and funny on the other. Shocking because it shows an absolute MISUNDERSTANDING of white supremacy, its goals and its history. Funny because it reflects a BRAINWASHED mentality that views white historians and white culture as being OPEN to the culture, history and achievements of black people, especially in an objective manner where they can say blacks ever had a upper hand or were in a dominant position relative to whites, especially after hundreds of years of white racist domination of people of color.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Or in the case of Egypt, tanned whites! LOL
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: ...And these images are AMBIGUOUS enough for someone to claim that they represent "tan" people, not MEDIUM TO DARK BROWN BLACKS:
They don't look ambiguous to me! At least if one takes a closer look.
^ Excluding the green Osiris, those figures do not look "tanned" at all, but with a medium brownish coplexion which we today include in the continuum of 'black'.
Definitely nothing ambiguous or "tanned" about these depictions:
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: "Arabic features" - What does Jablonski know about this? What about "very African"; "forest Negro" archetype perhaps? What "barometer" is she using; are there "very African" features, "borderline African" features, or "not very African" features. All due respect, Jablonski isn't making any sense here.
At least for these particular fallacious claims, there is the excuse that Jablonski's field of expertise is in skin color and not cranial features!
If they wanted to get someone to make comments on the facial features of the Egyptians, they could have gotten an anthropologists that deals with cranial features like Susan Anton. But of course experts like Keita, Hiernaux, and others have made it clear enough that Africans vary in features. So there should be no debate as to what features are "very African" which are "Arab"! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Modern Egyptians are a very heterogeneous group," Jablonski said. "Some of them have very Arabic features. Others of them have very African or so-called Nubian features. This is because the Nile River itself was a tremendous byway for movement of people in the past and present."
Jablonski says Tut's skin probably looked like a mixture of those people, only lighter, because the Boy King would have spent most of his time inside, protected from the sun. The speakers at the Franklin Institute rejected that hypothesis. In fact, they seemed to enjoy making fun of it.
Okay, again I must not only reiterate the blatant disregard for historical reality-- that modern Egypt has a totally different ethnic demography from ancient Egypt-- but also the simple fact there exists people in modern Egypt today who best represent how Tut and his people looked like in ancient times, and that is of course the non-Arab (Fellahin) Egyptians, specifically those of Upper Egypt from Thebes to Aswan where Tut's dynasty originated!
^ Notice the modern Egyptian people above have the exact same complexion as Tut in his depictions! Considering this fact, I find Jablonski's claims all the more appalling!
Oh, and as far as her claims of Tut not being "ebony black", I hope she doesn't make the same conclusion about the ancient Egyptian population as a whole let alone the whole royal family since there were people of that complexion. Then again she describes Tut's family as "tanned".
Here is a bust of Tut's grandmother, Tiye:
^ The face of the bust was made from unpainted ebony! Enough said.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually it all serves to support white supremacy. If you think a white archaeologist and anthropologist will OPENLY go against the status quo and put their reputation and access to Egyptian antiquities on the line, you are naive. THAT is why Hawass said what he said, which is mainly to serve to KEEP PEOPLE IN LINE and support the LIE. Egyptology as I keep saying over and over and over and over is a institution of white supremacy PLAIN AND SIMPLE. As such, it is being used to MAINTAIN the views of white European racists and their ilk because they are the ones FUNDING it, are MOST of the tourists and do MOST of the research. There is nothing TRUTHFUL about this institution. The ONLY way this can be understood and the actions of Jablonski is in this context. Whites want to be the SUPREME authorities of Egyptian history and able to summarily dismiss ANY CLAIM that goes against their "expert" opinion, which is merely PROPAGANDA in support of white supremacy.
That whole DEBATE about Tut was nothing but a political token and ploy to say that we had a debate, but "our experts" showed you wrong and the HEAD of Egyptology said that this is correct. In other words to say F**K you and have a nice day, dumb*ss. People need to start being more smart about this. This is a SERIOUS issue and a very serious battle that should not be taken lightly because white supremacy itself IS a very serious issue. A serious forum with SERIOUS intent would have had the appropriate scholars and would not have been just "talk". There would have BEEN black Egyptians in the forum with their OWN points of view, as well as EVIDENCE like that shown here and elsewhere to support the argument. It would have put Egyptology ITSELF to task as an instrument of white supremacy. And above all, it would have SOUNDLY DEFEATED such nonsense notions like that coming from Jablonski. This is the SECOND FORUM that has been held in as many cities that the collection has toured in. Both have done NOTHING but make African Americans look EVEN MORE like losers and whiners who want to CLING onto something because of slavery. THIS FARCE should be obvious by now and not be taken seriously even by those who know the truth. Afrocentrism has done a LAME job in defending its OWN platform and has actually pushed the cause of truth in African history BACK by allowing them to be played as BUFFOONS by the media.
Egyptology wants to make the history of Egypt an AMBIGUOUS study, so that they can claim anything that they want about ancient Egypt, EXCEPT that it was primarily BLACK AFRICAN. Hawass said this, Jablonski said this and ANY OTHER EXPERT that they put forward will SAY THIS. Remember, Jablonski was probably THERE ON THEIR DOLLAR and therefore SUPPORTING the institution of Egyptology, anthropology and archeology, which as it stands ARE institutions of white supremacy. So why would someone expect her to say different?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a Black African, it is too obvious that AE and modern Nubian and Saeedi are closer to Africans such as Beja, Afars, Nilo-Saharan speakers. The problem is that some people who are not Africans have some problem with clearly identifying who is closer physically to AE among the modern Egyptians...for me it's easy to tell, but for Europeans like Jablonsky it can be confusing...either her confusion is genuine or it is just dishonesty...however unlike crazy Nordicist she admits that Black Africans were part of AE people...Hawass dishonesty is too obvious since he just ignore the fact that Black Africans were the main component of the Egyptian population. But at the same time being black is relative, some modern Southern Sudanese claim to be the real black and dismiss anything lighter...what about the San...I know that some Africans who met with them can't believe they are Black...what about AE, it's possible that some Africans might not view them as "real" Black as they don't think that Ethiopians are "real" Black because some had admixture with West Asians...it was probably the case for AE, they lived next to leucoderms in the West(Lybia) and and the East(Levant)...It's almost impossible to think that they didn't mix with those people...they probably looked like your average Amhara...But at the end of the day they were Black Africans...as are Ethiopian, Sans, Somalis or Batwa(Pygmies)...
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Here is a bust of Tut's grandmother, Tiye:
^ The face of the bust was made from unpainted ebony!
lol. yes ironic. denial does produce the most ridiculous rationalisations from otherwise intelligent people.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Actually it all serves to support white supremacy. If you think a white archaeologist and anthropologist will OPENLY go against the status quo and put their reputation and access to Egyptian antiquities on the line, you are naive...
Actually, Doug this is not true! Mind you, I have pointed this out to you and others many times now that there are white Egyptologists who do acknowledge and openly admit the truth about Egypt's black African identity-- Egyptologists like Frank Yurco, Michael Rice, Kent Weeks, Barbara Walker, and a host of others..
The problem unfortunately is that their claims don't seem to be as loud or get as much public attention as those of the status quo!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those are individuals. They are NOT the institution of Egyptology which is represented by the Egyptian antiquities organization and the many European academic institutions that do research in Egypt. Individuals may acknowledge that Egypt was African, but that STILL does not mean that the institution ITSELF is not an agency of white supremacy. One or two voices in the wind don't change that fact. Hawass represents the institution of Egyptology. The display of King Tut that is touring the U.S. with the white looking reconstruction represents Egyptology. The many programs on Discovery, History and PBS showing things found in Egypt with reenactments using lily white actors represents Egyptology. The white museums and their vast collections of Egyptian artifacts that purposely doctor their public collections in order to make white looking Egyptian relics more prominent are institutions of Egyptology. The many books written about Egypt from a "scientific" perspective that says Egypt is not in Africa and that they were not black is Egyptology. The stuff taught in high schools and college campuses about world history and Egypt in particular is Egyptology. Those handful of Egyptologists that may have said so and so on a message board don't change that. What counts are the books they publish for the general public and the public statements made on TV or in forums for a LARGE audience of "average joes" who don't know a lot about Egypt. What counts is not scholarly articles that the average person doesn't see, but what is said in public and in arenas that the average person DOES see. THAT is where you see Egyptology and THAT is where Miss Jablonski, who has in the past been used to SUPPORT ancient Egypt as being black African, showed her TRUE colors. What counts is what is pushed to the general public and in THAT arena, Egypt is often pushed as being mainly populated by whites or tanned whites. What counts is not stuff whispered in back rooms, but people coming out and putting their careers on the line to go AGAINST Hawass and his statements.Egyptology is the "approved" lists of authors and their findings that are treated as de-facto fact by students learning Egyptology . THAT is the Egyptology I am talking about.
Egyptology is more than just digging up relics in the deserts of Egypt. It is about analyzing these objects and making conclusions about what they represent and then DISSEMINATING that information to the wider public. The act of packaging, summarizing and distributing these conclusions and parts of the artifacts found are Egyptology. And THAT has been dominated by white supremacy for over 200 years. That packaging and dissemination has been PURPOSELY designed to appeal to the youth in WHITE European countries and cultures like America, Australia and elsewhere and REINFORCE the notion that whites have ALWAYS been great and ALWAYS been responsible for any and all developments of great civilizations. This packaging will ALWAYS show black Africans as mixed half race mulatto coons, sambos, slaves, ignorant brutes, simpletons and ANYTHING ELSE but intelligent people capable of building great civilizations that inspired the imaginations of whites.
Some people believe that after hundreds of years of raping, murdering and destroying black civilizations in Africa and elsewhere, that SOMEHOW whites are afraid to LIE TO YOUR FACE. That is too hard for some people to accept. THAT is retarded. Some of us need to wake up from fantasy daydreams and accept reality for what it is.
If Egyptology is NOT an institution of WHITE SUPREMACY, then WHAT is the purpose of all this debating? Why did Diop have to go to the UNESCO conference? Why was black Athena such a big issue? Why are there protests in every city that the Tut exhibit goes to? Why do we have this forum? Why are all those things necessary if the TRUTH is being put forward for everyone to see?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I understand what you are saying, but again I say that it is not the field of Egyptology itself that is the problem so much as the Eurocentric institution that controls the field.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see the difference. They are one and the same. Egyptology isn't something that existed PRIOR to Europeans going to Egypt and TAKING treasure. It was something CREATED by Europeans FOR Europeans AFTER they found that they had THOUSANDS of artifacts of historical value that they plundered and needed some way to make sense of what they had taken. In fact, it wasn't until the discovery of King Tut that Egyptians even had ANY SAY in what was taken from their country, as before that the Europeans had them colonized and did what they pleased. The rulers of Egypt before that did not care about ancient Egypt's past and were EASILY bribed by Europeans to allow for them to take what they wanted, because the rulers thought it was nothing more than worthless trash, nothing more than construction material for Mosques and fortresses. In fact, the period since the Roman occupation of Egypt has seen the GREATEST amount of destruction of Egyptian monuments of ANY TIME PERIOD during its history. ALL of this is DIRECTLY because of the invasion of Egypt by ARABS and the IMPOSING of Islam on the population. The Greeks and Romans MAINTAINED much of the ancient culture and relics. It was only AFTER them that the destruction began full scale. So much so that whole cities and temples were demolished in order to re use the stone for modern construction. Therefore, the Europeans who came along took advantage of this, at first to pillage and plunder, but later to make themselves the "saviors" of history and to create a NEW institution of archeology and Egyptology, to begin to take a more disciplined approach to excavating the past. That many of these people were racists is not beyond doubt. It is also beyond doubt that many of the modern research institutions are DIRECTLY descended from these same people and their WEALTHY BENEFACTORS, who initially financed the plunder, but then began to become more 'philanthropic' by donating portions of their collections and funding various academic departments and continuing endeavors in the field.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't see the difference. They are one and the same. Egyptology isn't something that existed PRIOR to Europeans going to Egypt and TAKING treasure.
Whatever may be said of "Egyptology" as an institution, in terms of the elements that appear to be "loudest" in mass media establishment, one thing is clear: Europeans didn't *invent* the idea of studying "ancient Egypt".
^...and these *antecedents* of European "Egyptologists", were not any less *disciplined* in their work. Ancient Egyptian heritage isn't the *ownership* of Eurocentrists and doesn't have to be; the various voices here and elsewhere as you've acknowledged briefly in your last post, are making that unmistakably clear.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
when you think about the kushites would be the first egyptologist.a scholar mention that awhile ago.they were the first folks who really studied early egypt and they restored the culture in egypt and had a major impact for many years down the road.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes, but they were so close to being Egyptians themselves... should they count?
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Why shouldn't they? One doesn't cease to be a pioneering candidate in a study of a heritage, simply because he/she is a direct descendant of the said heritage. There were Egyptians themselves in the so-called Medieval period, who enthusiastically studied the ancient past of their land [Egypt]...before Europeans of the 19th century took interest.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
"Arabic features" - What does Jablonski know about this? What about "very African"; "forest Negro" archetype perhaps? What "barometer" is she using; are there "very African" features, "borderline African" features, or "not very African" features. All due respect, Jablonski isn't making any sense here.
At least for these particular fallacious claims, there is the excuse that Jablonski's field of expertise is in skin color and not cranial features!
If they wanted to get someone to make comments on the facial features of the Egyptians, they could have gotten an anthropologists that deals with cranial features like Susan Anton. But of course experts like Keita, Hiernaux, and others have made it clear enough that Africans vary in features. So there should be no debate as to what features are "very African" which are "Arab"!
No arguments here, but isn't Susan Anton the one who characterized [or suggested] "narrow" nasal index as "Caucasian", granted that she is a physical anthropologist? See: My email to Dr. Sustan Anton on Tut-ankh-amun
"Kieta, Hiernaux and others" who have made it "clear enough that Africans vary in features", do it for me.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
and the kushites made in clear that they had a culture of their own.yes they had alot in common with egypt but they had differences as well.
it would be no different than greeks and romans.greeks had things in common with romans but in other things they did not.the kushite language is one example.scholars could tell the difference however in greek and roman art for an example. kushite art for an another example tend to be less idealized than egyptian art.kushite art on average in other words was more realistic.there are other examples buti just gave only two ,there are others.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: "Modern Egyptians are a very heterogeneous group," Jablonski said. "Some of them have very Arabic features. Others of them have very African or so-called Nubian features. This is because the Nile River itself was a tremendous byway for movement of people in the past and present."
Jablonski says Tut's skin probably looked like a mixture of those people, only lighter, because the Boy King would have spent most of his time inside, protected from the sun. The speakers at the Franklin Institute rejected that hypothesis. In fact, they seemed to enjoy making fun of it.
Okay, again I must not only reiterate the blatant disregard for historical reality-- that modern Egypt has a totally different ethnic demography from ancient Egypt-- but also the simple fact there exists people in modern Egypt today who best represent how Tut and his people looked like in ancient times, and that is of course the non-Arab (Fellahin) Egyptians, specifically those of Upper Egypt from Thebes to Aswan where Tut's dynasty originated!
^ Notice the modern Egyptian people above have the exact same complexion as Tut in his depictions! Considering this fact, I find Jablonski's claims all the more appalling!
Oh, and as far as her claims of Tut not being "ebony black", I hope she doesn't make the same conclusion about the ancient Egyptian population as a whole let alone the whole royal family since there were people of that complexion. Then again she describes Tut's family as "tanned".
Here is a bust of Tut's grandmother, Tiye:
^ The face of the bust was made from unpainted ebony! Enough said.
This is one of the most important points that needs to be reiterated - Ancient Egyptian phenotypes still exist in modern Egypt.
This puts the burden on whitewashers to show that these modern Egyptians who look like ancients are not actually representative of their own ancestors.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Wow, does your skin fall somewhere in between the two?
If so, don't feel so all alone 'cos probably 7 out of 8 taking the test got the same result!
Silly Jablonski -- stick to academics, you suck as a comedien.
quote: "Our best guess is that he was neither lily white nor ebony black. He was probably somewhere in between," said Nina Jablonski, author of Skin: A Natural History.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This ain't so funny.
Lookit here, take this test.
Get something that's lily-white.
Ok, done.
Now get something ebony black.
Alright, finished.
Compare both of them to your own skin.
Wow, does your skin fall somewhere in between the two?
If so, don't feel so all alone 'cos probably 7 out of 8 taking the test got the same result!
Silly Jablonski -- stick to academics, you suck as a comedien.
quote: "Our best guess is that he was neither lily white nor ebony black. He was probably somewhere in between," said Nina Jablonski, author of Skin: A Natural History.
Lol! Absolutely. That statement is an absolutely absurd way of saying a whole lot of nothing. Almost EVERYONE on the planet is somewhere between those two extremes. Duh. How silly these people can be in clinging to their absurdity about ancient Egypt. The funniest part of all is that most blacks too generally fall in between those two extremes, but I guess that goes over her head as well. But of course that is what Egyptology is today, a insane attempt to keep Egypt as "other", not black, not white, not African, not Arab but just "neutral". Thats it, that's what we should call the ancient Egyptians, the neutraloids.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those who don't understand why Egyptology is an institution of white supremacy look at this list of the major institutions of Egyptology:
Egypt and Africa
* Supreme Council of Antiquities, Egypt * National Center for Documentation of Cultural and Natural Heritage * German Archaeological Institute, Cairo * Institut français d'archéologie orientale, Cairo * St. Shenouda Center for Coptic Studies * Department of Ancient Studies, University of Stellenbosch
North America
* Brown University * The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago * Johns Hopkins University * University of Memphis Institute of Egyptian Art and Archaeology * University of Pennsylvania * University of Toronto * UC Berkeley * UCLA * The Wilbour Library * Yale University
South America
* Uruguayan Institute of Egyptology * Instituto de Egiptologia Rio de Janeiro
Asia
* Waseda University Egyptian Expedition
Australasia
* Monash University * Macquarie University
Austria
* Academy of Sciences, Austria--Synchronisation of Civilisations
Belgium
* Katholieke Universiteit Leuven * University of Liège
Czech Republic
* Czech Institute of Egyptology, Charles University, Prague
France
* Egyptology at the College de France * Archeovision, Bordeaux
Germany
* Freie Universität Berlin * University of Bonn o Book of the Dead Project * University of Göttingen * University of Hamburg * University of Heidelberg * Heidelberg University Library * University of Leipzig * University of Marburg * University of Munich * University of Münster * University of Trier * For other information about German institutions see Virtuelle Fachbibliothek Ägyptologie
Italy
* University of Pisa
Netherlands
* Leiden University * The Netherlands Institute for the Near East (NINO) * The Centre for Computer-aided Egyptological Research (CCER)
Russia
* Centre for Egyptological Studies, Moscow
Switzerland
* University of Basel
UK
* The Griffith Institute Oxford * University of Cambridge, Faculty of Oriental Studies * University of Liverpool SACE * Department of Classics and Ancient History Swansea * The Egypt Centre, University of Wales, Swansea
And this does not even list the major Museums that have large amounts of Egyptian artifacts, most of which are NOT on public display.
99% of these institutions are OUTSIDE Egypt and NONE, other than that in Egypt, is in AFRICA. If you ask anyone from ANY of these institutions is Egypt part of African culture or civilization, you should expect and not be surprised that you will get the same nonsense answer that was given by Hawass and Ms. Jablonski. That is precisely because all of these institutions will package and disseminate Egypt to the media and public at large of these countries as being more closer to THEM than to Africa and Africans, meaning closer to white Europeans and their descendants than black Africans and their descendants. Not to mention that the vast majority of those who do field work in Egypt are ALSO white Europeans as well.
And there are many others such as those in Poland and South Africa to name a few. EVERYONE but Africans of course are supposed to feel that this is their heritage, as if Egypt is NOT in Africa.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Doug, I believe Mystery made my point when he states there should be a distinction between Egyptology and Eurocentrism. Yes modern Egyptology is dominated by Eurocentric academia but that doesn't mean Egyptology which is the study of Egyptian antiquities is the same as Eurocentrism. As Mystery pointed out, Arabs and even native Egyptians were studying their past long before Europeans entered the scene.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: No arguments here, but isn't Susan Anton the one who characterized [or suggested] "narrow" nasal index as "Caucasian", granted that she is a physical anthropologist? See: My email to Dr. Sustan Anton on Tut-ankh-amun
"Kieta, Hiernaux and others" who have made it "clear enough that Africans vary in features", do it for me.
You are right, Mystery. But my point was that Jablonski as an expert was speaking out of her field of expertise. Of course this is nothing compared to Hawass who constantly gives his "expert" opinion on many anthropological details when he has no qualifications on such matters. But even then, as you have pointed out, even experts in their own fields can make inaccurate and even silly claims when biased. Just as Anton spoke of narrow nasal indices as being "European", now we have Jablonski suggesting Tut and other ancient Egyptians to be "tanned"!
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: and the kushites made in clear that they had a culture of their own.yes they had alot in common with egypt but they had differences as well.
it would be no different than greeks and romans.greeks had things in common with romans but in other things they did not.the kushite language is one example.scholars could tell the difference however in greek and roman art for an example. kushite art for an another example tend to be less idealized than egyptian art.kushite art on average in other words was more realistic.there are other examples buti just gave only two ,there are others.
Kenndo, I have to ask what is it with you and the Kushites?! LOL You seem to have a little obsession going for them.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This ain't so funny.
Lookit here, take this test.
Get something that's lily-white.
Ok, done.
Now get something ebony black.
Alright, finished.
Compare both of them to your own skin.
Wow, does your skin fall somewhere in between the two?
If so, don't feel so all alone 'cos probably 7 out of 8 taking the test got the same result!
Silly Jablonski -- stick to academics, you suck as a comedien.
If it weren't for the fact that she were an actual scientific authority on the matter, I would've actually laughed at the silliness of her statements. I'm sure Jablonski of all people knows that there is wide range of complexions between "ebony black" and "lily white", including brown hues of many 'black' people! Which is why cop-out is an understatement for such a ridiculous remark!
quote:Originally posted by With a name like Smuckers: I don't care if they're black, white or caramel, I think they're all beautiful.
You may not care, but apparently there are many folks in academia that do if they are going through all this trouble to lie through their teeth about something as mundane as the skin-color of a people, when all the evidence is so obviously apparent! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and another thing I forgot to mention earlier...
One discrepancy that Jablonski (as well as many others who've made the same claim) of the Egyptians being "tanned" yet question the Greek's descriptions is this:
Again, not only did the Greeks use the words "melanos" (dark), "melanchros" (very dark), "aethiope" (burnt), and "maure" (black) to describe the Egyptians, but were not the Greeks of tanned complexions themselves? In fact, the Greeks in their own color dialectics refer to themselves as being tanned from the sun but much lighter than the Egyptians and other peoples of Libya (Africa).
That is one of the basic inconsistancies that refutes the silly claim that Egyptians were "tanned", let alone hat Greek descriptions were a matter of conjecture!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Doug, I believe Mystery made my point when he states there should be a distinction between Egyptology and Eurocentrism. Yes modern Egyptology is dominated by Eurocentric academia but that doesn't mean Egyptology which is the study of Egyptian antiquities is the same as Eurocentrism. As Mystery pointed out, Arabs and even native Egyptians were studying their past long before Europeans entered the scene.
Prior to Europeans there was nothing called Egyptology as a "special" branch of anthropology, archeology or history. Prior to that there was HISTORY, and indeed Arabs and other Muslims were EXCELLENT historians and some would say anthropologists. But that is not the same as Egyptology, which did not exist prior to Europeans. Egyptology is not a "real" science, which is my point and why so MANY of us get confused. It is a form of 'pseudo' science designed EXPLICITLY to promote WHITE SUPREMACY and NOT FACTS. In fact, ALL of these disciplines like anthropology and archeology STARTED as BRANCHES of the science of WHITE SUPREMACY. ALL of the early books and articles written about the various "types" of peoples and cultures found by Europeans world wide were written from a perspective of WHITE SUPREMACY, which was to JUSTIFY the oppression, slavery, genocide and other atrocities of whites against "native" peoples. People need to get their facts straight and remember that these same people were would have DESTROYED Egypt if they were around in the 15th to 20th century, ESPECIALLY because they were black. Whites have destroyed MANY a civilization and culture of BLACKS world wide and then LIED about it in their anthropology and archeology books, saying these people were LOW races unfit for civilization. Whites don't care about history and culture or any one ELSE being civilized first or last, they only care about being about being ON TOP of everyone else, which means being able to power push LIES down your throat and FORCE you to swallow it. This means NEVER having to say you are wrong. It means NEVER having to admit that you are a LIAR and it means NEVER having to apologize, not matter HOW MUCH black skin they ripped off your *ss in the process of making their "civilization". PERIOD.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You are correct that Europeans were the ones who formally organized Egyptology into the academic institution we know it as today. But again you seem to be missing the basic point:
Egyptology-- the study of Egypt and its antiquities
Eurocentrism-- centered on Europe and Europeans, or considering Europe and Europeans as focal to world culture, history, economics, etc.
^ two entirely different things independent of the other, however with modern Egyptological institutions being based on Eurocentric models. This is different from saying one is equal to or the same as the other.
Let me put it to you another way. If the all the Eurocentric models and institutions were abolished and Egypt's past was studied from its correct African perspective, better yet if the entire institution became Afrocentric or was taken over by blacks, would his mean the whole field of study is no longer 'Egyptology'??
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you are missing the point. Egyptology is not a "science" unto itself. Why is there a Egyptology? Studying the artifacts, peoples, culture and history of Egypt are aspects of Archeology, anthropology and history. NOTHING "special" is added to this by calling it Egyptology. Egyptology is all about SHOWCASING, REPACKAGING, SUMMARIZING and DISSEMINATING the work done by OTHER disciplines and OTHER sciences. This REPACKAGING, SUMMARIZING and DISSEMINATION is where all the LIES get told, the HALF-TRUTHS get stated and the downright FALSEHOODS get propagated. As we ALL KNOW, there are many up to date studies in anthropology, genetics and archeology that PROVE BEYOND A DOUBT that Egypt was black African. However, that does not matter because those studies and that research doesn't count where Egyptology is involved, because the PURPOSE of Egyptology is to LIE and support WHITE SUPREMACY, NO MATTER WHAT FACTS are published by OTHER disciplines. OTHERWISE, there would be no NEED for Egyptology, as the basic FACTS, DETAILS and RESEARCH are done by Archeologists, anthropologists, geneticists, linguists and so forth. There is no NEED for Egyptology to REPACKAGE that research unless this REPACKAGING is PURPOSELY designed to PROMOTE WHITE SUPREMACY. Which is what IT IS designed to do. I don't see why people don't understand this. Hawass is an Egyptologist and you see what he says. Miss Jablonski was speaking FOR Egyptology and you see what SHE said. Even though NEITHER of them are qualified as EXPERTS in the field of anthropology, genetics or archeology, they ARE qualified to LIE TO YOUR FACE, which is ALL that Egyptology is designed for. If Egypology was NOT designed to promote LIES and WHITE SUPREMACY, then WHY are we arguing what has been PROVEN time and time again by UP TO DATE research in ALL the major fields of science? WHY is the head of Egyptology ITSELF going against this? WHY are the speakers FUNDED by Egyptology SAYING THIS? There is ONLY ONE ANSWER. Egyptology is designed to PURPOSELY promote a NON AFRICAN, NON BLACK identity for ancient Egypt that puts it closer to Europe and Asia than Africa, NO MATTER WHAT facts and discoveries are made. NO MATTER WHAT is OBVIOUS to everyone. It is an IDEOLOGY and that IDEOLOGY is WHITE SUPREMACY. PERIOD. Why else could someone get certain up to date articles and research or even OLDER books and articles STATING PLAINLY that Egypt was black African and these SO CALLED EXPERTS would seem shocked and unaware? HOW IS THAT if they are so-called EXPERTS on everything Egypt? Because they AREN'T. They are ONLY taught to push THAT information which supports WHITE SUPREMACY.
Who in their right mind thinks NEW research is needed to "figure out" King Tut's or ancient Egypt's identity? IT is already OBVIOUS and supported by TONS of CURRENT and older research. Therefore the only NEW information that they need to come up with is NEW LIES, which is EXACTLY what they are trying to put together.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I think you are missing the point. Egyptology is not a "science" unto itself. Why is there a Egyptology? Studying the artifacts, peoples, culture and history of Egypt are aspects of Archeology, anthropology and history. NOTHING "special" is added to this by calling it Egyptology.
There is nothing special about it, only that all the studies you listed are all centered on Egypt, hence 'Egyptology'.
Can you not say the same about 'Sumeriology', 'Babyloniology', 'Assyriology', 'Grecology', 'Romanology', 'Indology', and even 'Sinology' (the study of China)?? All of these are the same as Egyptology only with those perspective regions of the world in history.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What part of this don't you understand? You must REALLY believe that these people are dumb. They are LIARS. If you and I can see it, WITHOUT any "special" training, then WHY CAN'T these SO CALLED EXPERTS SEE IT? And what else therefore is the purpose of Egyptology, as a so-called "umbrella" discipline if it contradicts ALL the OTHER DISCIPLINES? That is the POINT some people FAIL to comprehend. If it CONTRADICTS and CONSTANTLY GOES AGAINST published research then WHY do you consider it a superset of these disciplines? It isn't. Pure and simple. It is simply a DESIGNED to do JUST THAT as has been SHOWN over and over and over by the PUBLICIZED statements of Hawass and others who REFUSE to acknowledge that Egypt was an African civilization created PRIMARILY made up of black Africans. THAT is the ONLY thing Egyptology is designed to do and YES that means PURPOSELY contradicting SCIENCE, RESEARCH and COMMON SENSE to the contrary, or in other words support WHITE SUPREMACY.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Watching " King Tut's Mystery Tombs Opened" on Science Channel from my DVR.
Refreshing to see King Tut's relation portrayed as Blacks, Was pleasantly suprised, The Blacks were no as dark as the AE portraits but more the Beyonce/Halle Berry type. The wife etc were braided sistas.
Suprised the lunatic Hawass " AE were not black" allowed it since he was featured.
Will drop this on a DVD!!!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe they are getting the point. The afrocentric demonstration is working
Maybe the next battle will be Beyonce black vs the Wesley Snipes blacks Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What part of this don't you understand? You must REALLY believe that these people are dumb. They are LIARS. If you and I can see it, WITHOUT any "special" training, then WHY CAN'T these SO CALLED EXPERTS SEE IT? And what else therefore is the purpose of Egyptology, as a so-called "umbrella" discipline if it contradicts ALL the OTHER DISCIPLINES? That is the POINT some people FAIL to comprehend. If it CONTRADICTS and CONSTANTLY GOES AGAINST published research then WHY do you consider it a superset of these disciplines? It isn't. Pure and simple. It is simply a DESIGNED to do JUST THAT as has been SHOWN over and over and over by the PUBLICIZED statements of Hawass and others who REFUSE to acknowledge that Egypt was an African civilization created PRIMARILY made up of black Africans. THAT is the ONLY thing Egyptology is designed to do and YES that means PURPOSELY contradicting SCIENCE, RESEARCH and COMMON SENSE to the contrary, or in other words support WHITE SUPREMACY.
And what part do you not understand, that Eurocentrism and Egyptology are not the same?! Egyptology is the study of Egypt and its antiquities plain and simple. Yes, the problem is that the field is plagued with and is indeed dominated by a Eurocentric institution but that is not to say that the field in itself is Eurocentric.
There is nothing contradictory about the disciplines themselves, only the bias so-called experts who make the contradictory claims. It was Egyptology through archaeology that demonstrated Egyptian culture and civilization arose in-situ in the Nile Valley of Africa. It was Egyptology via physical anthropology through the works of Batrawi, Robins, Harris, Wente, Zakrewski etc. that show the Egyptians were indigenous to the African continent. It was Egyptology via ethnology that Budge, as well as more recently Yurco, Rice, and Walker, have shown the Egyptian culture to be African.
Therefore Egyptology as an umbrella discipline is a legitimate discipline, and is not the problem! The problem is Eurocentrism that attempts to control Egyptology and distort its legitimate findings!
Egyptology as a field itself is no more invalid than Grecology (the study of Greece), Romanology (the study of Rome), Indology (the study of India), or Sinology (the study of China). The only difference is that Egyptology is still afflicted with the Eurocentric, white racist nonsense that all those other historical-cultural fields don't have!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Watching " King Tut's Mystery Tombs Opened" on Science Channel from my DVR.
Refreshing to see King Tut's relation portrayed as Blacks, Was pleasantly suprised, The Blacks were no as dark as the AE portraits but more the Beyonce/Halle Berry type. The wife etc were braided sistas.
Suprised the lunatic Hawass " AE were not black" allowed it since he was featured.
Will drop this on a DVD!!!
Can you explain more about this program? Exactly which tombs were these, and which of Tut's relations did they belong to?
quote:Maybe they are getting the point. The afrocentric demonstration is working
Maybe the next battle will be Beyonce black vs the Wesley Snipes blacks
That battle has begun a long time ago as part of the racist denial of a black Egypt! It's known that blacks come in a variety of shades and hues having nothing to do with admixture, but when it comes to Egypt all of a sudden these bias white expers revert back to the stereotypical "negroid" myth and claim that because they are not "ebony black" that they are either 'mixed' or not black at all! (As seen from Jablonski's comments in this thread)
The workings of a racist mind in denial. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What part of this don't you understand? You must REALLY believe that these people are dumb. They are LIARS. If you and I can see it, WITHOUT any "special" training, then WHY CAN'T these SO CALLED EXPERTS SEE IT? And what else therefore is the purpose of Egyptology, as a so-called "umbrella" discipline if it contradicts ALL the OTHER DISCIPLINES? That is the POINT some people FAIL to comprehend. If it CONTRADICTS and CONSTANTLY GOES AGAINST published research then WHY do you consider it a superset of these disciplines? It isn't. Pure and simple. It is simply a DESIGNED to do JUST THAT as has been SHOWN over and over and over by the PUBLICIZED statements of Hawass and others who REFUSE to acknowledge that Egypt was an African civilization created PRIMARILY made up of black Africans. THAT is the ONLY thing Egyptology is designed to do and YES that means PURPOSELY contradicting SCIENCE, RESEARCH and COMMON SENSE to the contrary, or in other words support WHITE SUPREMACY.
And what part do you not understand, that Eurocentrism and Egyptology are not the same?! Egyptology is the study of Egypt and its antiquities plain and simple. Yes, the problem is that the field is plagued with and is indeed dominated by a Eurocentric institution but that is not to say that the field in itself is Eurocentric.
There is nothing contradictory about the disciplines themselves, only the bias so-called experts who make the contradictory claims. It was Egyptology through archaeology that demonstrated Egyptian culture and civilization arose in-situ in the Nile Valley of Africa. It was Egyptology via physical anthropology through the works of Batrawi, Robins, Harris, Wente, Zakrewski etc. that show the Egyptians were indigenous to the African continent. It was Egyptology via ethnology that Budge, as well as more recently Yurco, Rice, and Walker, have shown the Egyptian culture to be African.
Therefore Egyptology as an umbrella discipline is a legitimate discipline, and is not the problem! The problem is Eurocentrism that attempts to control Egyptology and distort its legitimate findings!
Egyptology as a field itself is no more invalid than Grecology (the study of Greece), Romanology (the study of Rome), Indology (the study of India), or Sinology (the study of China). The only difference is that Egyptology is still afflicted with the Eurocentric, white racist nonsense that all those other historical-cultural fields don't have!
That is all nice sounding theoretical talk, but I am talking fact not theory. Egyptology was built by for and in the defense of white supremacy. Nothing more and nothing less. SURE, IN THEORY it is supposed to be a specialization of archeology, anthropology and history, but IN FACT it has ONLY been an institution of WHITE SUPREMACY from the VERY BEGINNING and CONTINUES to be such and therefore there IS NO distinction between IT and WHITE SUPREMACY because that is what it has been and has BEEN DESIGNED and BUILT FOR from its inception. A tool of WHITE SUPREMACY is theoretically something that can be used for good, but that does not CHANGE the fact that someone is USING it to BASH YOUR BRAINS IN, so all that THEORY means nothing and you have to DEAL with the TOOL being used AS IT IS, not how it COULD BE. You have to recognize Egyptology for what IT IS, not what you WANT it to be. THAT is one reason why WHITE SUPREMACY in all its forms and guises has lasted so long and that is because so many people BELIEVE that these people are just good honest folk that have made a mistake. Bullsh*t. They want to eradicate all vestiges of ANYTHING black and glorious off the face of the planet and the MAJORITY of blacks if possible. There is nothing GOOD, INNOCENT or MISTAKEN about it. That is just DENIAL.
The other reason people are confused is this:
quote: It was Egyptology through archaeology that demonstrated Egyptian culture and civilization arose in-situ in the Nile Valley of Africa. It was Egyptology via physical anthropology through the works of Batrawi, Robins, Harris, Wente, Zakrewski etc. that show the Egyptians were indigenous to the
Sorry, but THOSE are anthropologists who represent ANTHROPOLOGY, not EGYPTOLOGY. Egyptology HAS NOT AND WILL NOT admit or accept those findings that go against the established traditions and patterns of white supremacy that Egyptology was founded on and continues to be built upon. If not, then why on earth would Hawass and OTHERS say what they say? AND, what do you think would happen if these people were in a public forum with Hawass and other "EGYPTOLOGISTS" who hold the opposite opinion? THEY WOULD STILL say the same thing and that is if they disagreed in the first place. They MIGHT just pull a JABLONSKI and suddenly CONTRADICT their OWN research. Or if anything, agree that "more study" is needed and that Egypt was "between black and white" and LEAVE it ambiguous. Just because they study the SAME THING does not mean that they agree. And on THIS issue, the black African origin of ancient Egypt, the DEBATE has nothing to do with science. People are just STUBBORN in missing the blatantly obvious. As I said, Egyptology as an institution of WHITE SUPREMACY will NEVER EVER OPENLY PUBLICLY and OUTWARDLY admit that Egypt was black African NO MATTER HOW MANY STUDIES AND RESEARCH THAT SAYS OTHERWISE. They will say they were SPACE ALIENS, polka dot, mestizo, mullato, and pablano before they PUBLICLY admit that and this is NO ACCIDENT. That opinion and point of view will be echoed and disseminated by ALL the major INSTITUTIONS Of Egyptology, books, magazines, movies, documentaries, TV programs and EVERY major venue of Egyptian study, NO MATTER HOW MANY studies contradict this idea.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just think, a few days ago on another thread Nina Jablonski was nearly a Goddess. Now she's been demoted to Nina Jablonskib..ch.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will take notes and report back. But from memory - The tomb I believe was KV3. Apparently in the region of Tut's tomb other mummys were found. I believe there were three "coffins". Hawass suspected one of the three was his wife. The other his mother and some other relation. About 25 camera crew were present. Infact they did some overlay computer stuff to demonstrate the family relation showing similar eye and other facial structures. One was his mother.
BTW I always thought Nefertiti was his mother. Maybe I missed that point.
A Dr. Otto and Hawass's female "liutenant" - Sonia. Led the excavation. Hawass made his "grand" entrance to open the coffins.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Watching " King Tut's Mystery Tombs Opened" on Science Channel from my DVR.
Refreshing to see King Tut's relation portrayed as Blacks, Was pleasantly suprised, The Blacks were no as dark as the AE portraits but more the Beyonce/Halle Berry type. The wife etc were braided sistas.
Suprised the lunatic Hawass " AE were not black" allowed it since he was featured.
Will drop this on a DVD!!!
Can you explain more about this program? Exactly which tombs were these, and which of Tut's relations did they belong to?
quote:Maybe they are getting the point. The afrocentric demonstration is working
Maybe the next battle will be Beyonce black vs the Wesley Snipes blacks
That battle has begun a long time ago as part of the racist denial of a black Egypt! It's known that blacks come in a variety of shades and hues having nothing to do with admixture, but when it comes to Egypt all of a sudden these bias white expers revert back to the stereotypical "negroid" myth and claim that because they are not "ebony black" that they are either 'mixed' or not black at all! (As seen from Jablonski's comments in this thread)
The workings of a racist mind in denial.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is something to think about. Given what I said earlier about what how Egyptology seems to be focused on making ancient Egypt accessible to people OUTSIDE the Nile Valley, lets look at how it is packaged for people IN the Nile Valley.
I don't know for sure, but I would say that modern inhabitants are more indoctrinated into Arab/Muslim culture and history than anything else. The educational system along the Nile is HEAVILY influenced by Islam and Arabic culture. Therefore, as a comparison, ancient Egypt is packaged LESS for modern Egyptians and Nile Valley Africans than those OUTSIDE of Egypt. I am sure that Koranic schools and educational systems are NOT going to focus on ancient Egypt. Therefore, it produces a population along the Nile that is heavily infused with Arabic culture and history along with Muslim values and very DISTANT in terms of identity from that of ancient Egypt as a result of an educational and cultural system that intends to KEEP the modern Nile valley Africans DISLOCATED from their ancient past. A very good example of this can also be seen in Sudan. Meanwhile, because of their wealth and power, foreigners are coming into Egypt feeling more in touch with ancient Nile Valley African culture, than Nile Valley Africans themselves, at least IN THEIR BRAINS. Of course the opposite is true, but the propaganda and packaging of ancient Egypt and the systems of education and indoctrination are what produces this situation.
quote: EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM—OVERVIEW
Current educational philosophy in Egypt is the product of three cultural heritages: British, secular (westernized) Egyptian, and Islamic (traditional) Egyptian. The British protectorate in Egypt left an exclusionary, state-controlled education system structured to serve elite (British) interests with little concern for the masses. The heritage was one of restricted opportunity, unenforced limited education (generally of poor quality), and higher education reserved mostly for the elite. Egyptians and non-English foreigners were left few options but to expand private and religious education.
Muhammad Ali, regarded as the father of modern Egypt and its education system, introduced a secular, modern, western educational philosophy complete with sciences. Egyptian leaders since the bloodless revolution that ended the monarchy in 1952 have espoused this approach, viewing it as essential to Egyptian development. Islamic education remained in place and, eventually, the traditional Islamic and the western educational tracks, with their differing orientations, created a dichotomized educational culture that persists to the present.
The Islamic heritage is an educational system, parallel to public education, that is basically a system of transmitting culture. From its founding in 972 until the modern period in the nineteenth century, Al-Azhar University mosque played a central role in shaping the country's religious, educational, and cultural life. At the bottom of the Islamic educational system were kuttabs (mosque or Quranic schools), the madrasas (religious schools), and the Sufi (mystical orders). Resting on memorization and recitation, the traditional methods for learning the Quran, this educational system does not stress experimentation, problem-solving analysis, or learningby-doing. Education is conceived as a process that involves the complete person, including rational, spiritual, and social dimensions. The Arab/Muslim heritage carries an orientation that transcends national boundaries to include all Arabs and Muslims. From 1922 on, Nasser offered free education, not only for Egyptians, but also for students from other Muslim countries. At the same time, Egypt sent teachers and administrators out to the rest of the Arab world where they set up and staffed schools and universities on a large scale.
Egypt's educational system both reflects and augments the socio-economic status of its own people. Historic conflicts between religious and secular leaders, between tradition and innovation, and between foreign and national interests all influence contemporary Egyptian education. Education in Egypt has political, social, and economic objectives, namely: education for strengthening democracy and comprehensive development as a continuous process, within the framework of Arab culture.
Political tides in Egypt are reflected in educational philosophy. In the early decades following independence, the political system was in a state of transformation and experimentation that resulted in confusing educational policies with fragmented development plans. In the era of economic concerns in the early 1960s, education became a tool to promote economic change. The social focus dominant in the later 1960s led schools to instruct strong Islamic values and democratic ideals. During the 1970s, which was a time of institutionalization, the educational system was bureaucratized.
The Egyptian government recognizes the tensions between Islam and western-generated science and attempts to develop educational goals facilitating both. Throughout the past 40 years, the strong autocratic government, rooted in the Islamic tradition of the protective father, sometimes conflicted with the democratization efforts in schools; nevertheless, the number of schools and technical schools increased even in times of economic downturns.
There is an abiding belief in education. It is viewed as vital to the transmission of cultural values and as a critical force in individual development and in national Egyptian development. Pre-university education reflects the dual secular and religious philosophies as it aims to develop the learner culturally, scientifically, and nationally at successive levels "with the aim of developing the Egyptian individual who is faithful to his God, his homeland, and to the values of good, truth, and humanity."
So to summarize, the Educational system enforces a n Arab world view and Muslim identity on one hand and recognizes the West as the basis of science and technology. This allows Egypt to maintain an official Arab Muslim orientation in the educational system, as well as allows FOREIGNERS to dominate the ancient "scientific" study of Egyptian history, which of course is SEPARATE from the modern Muslim Arab dominated culture and political system of Egypt today. Which produces a cultural schizophrenia about Egypt and its place in Africa historically and produces statements like those from Hawass and others.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All of this is about agency, where the Europeans want to create agency for themselves throughout the world, so that they can DOMINATE the world, militarily, economically and even culturally. In order to do this they must indoctrinate everyone else to see WHITE Europeans as "the standard" of human acheivement that all others should be measured against. Because of this, the history and education of ALL subject populations MUST be told from a position where Europeans are seen as being the ORIGINATORS and PROGENITORS of civilization, math, science, art and culture, in order to REINFORCE their agency in the current geo political spectrum. THAT agency and that INDOCTRINATION, has been a large reason for the rise of Europe in the last 500 years and part of the plan for maintaining their control going into the future. Conversely, this same system SAPS the light out of the indigenous populations who now are left as "formless lumps of clay" waiting for someone to shine light and life on them and SHOW them how to be "true" humans. Of course all of this is nonsense, but that is exactly what WHITE SUPREMACY is all about. Telling your OWN history and doing your OWN studies produces a PROPER sense of SELF and proper sense of AGENCY, meaning an understanding of the POWER, ABILITY and RESPONSIBILITY one has to for DETERMINING THEIR OWN DESTINY and WELL BEING through the MASTERY of the tools of organization, propagation of identity (propaganda), passing down of events and people of significance from the past(history), disseminating information and lessons about the nature of elements and processes in the world (education) connection to the life force(spirituality and religion), propagation of wealth (economics), development of specialized skills for producing things for ones well being (industry) and cooperating and exchanging items with others internally and externally to gain needed commodities (trade). This concept of agency sees the community, the traditions and institutions OF the community as FUNDAMENTAL AGENTS and INSTRUMENTS of change for the BETTERMENT of SELF, both on an individual and collective level.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Again Doug, you confuse Egyptology which is a field of study that deals with Egypt's antiquities, and yes which is multi-disciplinary-- utilizing different disciplines to accomplish this-- with the Eurocentric institutions that dominate the field. Egyptology as a field itself is no more invalid than Grecology, Indology, or Sinology. I made the point and the case is closed.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Bogus, since Jablonski's comments are old news, and other threads and other topics are irrelevant to this one.
Scholars are properly adjudged on the quality of their ideas.
Anyone making Jablonski a goddess or a witch isn't taking her seriously.
You've confused science with celebrity.
Correct. I'm sorry Grumman that you would assess a scientist in such sensational terms as if she were some Hollywood celebrity. But a scientist is always scrutinzed by his or her claims through logical and scientific analysis.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I will take notes and report back. But from memory - The tomb I believe was KV3. Apparently in the region of Tut's tomb other mummys were found. I believe there were three "coffins". Hawass suspected one of the three was his wife. The other his mother and some other relation. About 25 camera crew were present. Infact they did some overlay computer stuff to demonstrate the family relation showing similar eye and other facial structures. One was his mother.
BTW I always thought Nefertiti was his mother. Maybe I missed that point.
A Dr. Otto and Hawass's female "liutenant" - Sonia. Led the excavation. Hawass made his "grand" entrance to open the coffins.
The only way we can be certain who was Tut's mother is by any historical documentation and/or genetic tests. But I believe Tut's biological mother was Kiya, whereas Nefertiti as his father's chief wife, was his stepmother.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Tomb is KV63 discovered in Feb 2006. So I guess it is old news. But the fascinating thing .. . Yeah!!, sistas playing Tuts wife and mother in the re-enactment.. Apparently Kia(sp?) Tuts mom was the suspected occupant of the tomb.
Title of the documentary – Kig Tut’s Mystery Tomb Opened.
At the end there were no bodies. But what is funny and irritating was Hawass and his lieutenant, Nadia Lokma – A female Hawass.
Otto Schaden was visibly irritated with her. But I guess the Arabs are in control. In one part she speculated that an boroscope image showed a nose, prior to the tomb being opened. Otto commented under his breath - the nose is made of cartilage - it cannot be a nose. In the end the coffin was filled with artifacts but no body.
Four coffins were present – most filled with nic nacs some being gold.
The re-enactment was promising. So White Nord . . Yeah. . .It is now being accepted that the AE are black. The truth is slowly coming out.
PS – they still had the bald fat white priest.
Oh and another thing they found wine jars with inscription that said Turo(sp?) – the experts said it meant Europe. Yeah wine from Europe in 2000 bc. Some fools probably believed it.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I will take notes and report back. But from memory - The tomb I believe was KV3. Apparently in the region of Tut's tomb other mummys were found. I believe there were three "coffins". Hawass suspected one of the three was his wife. The other his mother and some other relation. About 25 camera crew were present. Infact they did some overlay computer stuff to demonstrate the family relation showing similar eye and other facial structures. One was his mother.
BTW I always thought Nefertiti was his mother. Maybe I missed that point.
A Dr. Otto and Hawass's female "liutenant" - Sonia. Led the excavation. Hawass made his "grand" entrance to open the coffins.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Watching " King Tut's Mystery Tombs Opened" on Science Channel from my DVR.
Refreshing to see King Tut's relation portrayed as Blacks, Was pleasantly suprised, The Blacks were no as dark as the AE portraits but more the Beyonce/Halle Berry type. The wife etc were braided sistas.
Suprised the lunatic Hawass " AE were not black" allowed it since he was featured.
Will drop this on a DVD!!!
Can you explain more about this program? Exactly which tombs were these, and which of Tut's relations did they belong to?
quote:Maybe they are getting the point. The afrocentric demonstration is working
Maybe the next battle will be Beyonce black vs the Wesley Snipes blacks
That battle has begun a long time ago as part of the racist denial of a black Egypt! It's known that blacks come in a variety of shades and hues having nothing to do with admixture, but when it comes to Egypt all of a sudden these bias white expers revert back to the stereotypical "negroid" myth and claim that because they are not "ebony black" that they are either 'mixed' or not black at all! (As seen from Jablonski's comments in this thread)
The workings of a racist mind in denial.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Again Doug, you confuse Egyptology which is a field of study that deals with Egypt's antiquities, and yes which is multi-disciplinary-- utilizing different disciplines to accomplish this-- with the Eurocentric institutions that dominate the field. Egyptology as a field itself is no more invalid than Grecology, Indology, or Sinology. I made the point and the case is closed.
I understand what you said and I know what you mean. I never said that Egyptology wasn't a VALID discipline IN THEORY. What I said was that in FACT it is nothing but WHITE SUPREMACY. There is no separation between IT and the WHITE SUPREMACISTS that created it, because that is how it came about AND how it continues to be used. As I said, no matter what research gets done on Egypt, the ideology of WHITE SUPREMACY will always dominate the dissemination and propagation of ancient Egypt as being WHITE or OTHER. That is not because of some SEPARATE institution of WHITE SUPREMACY, it is because of the SAME INSTITUTION of Egyptology itself, whose SOLE PURPOSE is to PROPAGATE such nonsense TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN EUROPE, ASIA and AFRICA. Egyptology is an information clearing house and dissemination service which takes information from the various disciplines and uses it to paint a picture of ancient Egypt for the masses. Since its inception it has and will continue to paint a picture of ancient Egypt that is WHITE, not because the various disciplines are unanimous or agree with this, but because of WHITE SUPREMACY.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am wondering if anyone is thinking of emailing Jablonski to explain why she claims that the Ancient Egyptians were tanned, especially since the evidence doesn't supports her claim??
Posts: 391 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I emailed her a couple of times in the past already with regards to the original complexion of humans. I don't want to seem like a pest let alone one with an 'Afrocentric agenda', even though such question is indeed justified!
I suggest someone else try this time. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, whites seem to go through 3 stages of reasoning when confronted with blacks telling them what really happened as opposed to their own whitewashed version. Kind of like the "5 stages of grief."
Stage One: Denial. "No, Thomas Jefferson didn't have black descendants! None! Not even one! It's all lies told by blacks. You people are inferiors with no history, desperate to latch onto those superior races with a history, who have achieved great things and hope to be associtated with them, even if only tangentially. Pathetic! You know, you really have a lot to be proud of in your own history {of course it goes without saying that what they mean is the history they first destroyed and them replaced with one they hand-wrote themselves beginning from slavery} you don't have to try to steal ours."
**Never mind the fact that if something is truly yours them NOBODY can "steal" it. Sign one that they are not simply nervous, they're truly scared. Note the massive amounts of faux-condescension they use as a flimsy smokescreen to mask the very real fear that the black claims may be true. No facts to refute the argument, just bline emotional resuals to even consider it. The "My Daddy told me so," line of logic.
Stage Two: Equivocation. "Okay, okay, maybe thomas Jefferson had a 'tender' relationship with Sally Hemmings. That doesn't mean that he shtuped her! And he certainly didn't have any bastard kids by her! So okay, maybe they were close, perhaps even intimate -in the Platonic sense!- but no sex took place! He had a good, clean WHITE wife at home. Why would the founder of our nation leave his ideal, white wife for a ...-yuck!- black woman?"
They've gone from hysterical denials to actual analyses at which point they've quickly arrived at the conclusion that there's more than a little meat to the claim. To avoid looking any more ridiculous than they've now made themselves to look they give lip-service to the black claim without actually having to swallow the bitter pill of saying, "Okay, we lied." The hope is that by making a few concessionary sounding noises the debate will die a natural death and they won't have to go any further.
Finally there's Acceptance: "Okay, TJ did it! He screwed her for --SNIFF!- forty years! Wahhh! wahhh! Forty years of betraying his pure, clean wholesome white wife for some nigress. And he did have children by her. But that doesn't erase all the good he did! All great men have faults! You just hate America, that's what it is!"
**Notice that they change the subject to his accomplishments and away from the issue of whether he had children with a black woman or not?
Right now white naysayers and their arab buddies are at Stage Two. Just like the people who claimed Thomas Jefferson didn't have black descendants were with their caterwauling reaching a crescendo in the 1970's --read a book called, "The Jefferson Scandals" for a prime example of this stupidity, it's good for several good laughs, especially in light of the iron-clad "evidence" the author gives --his use of timelines has to be seen to be believed, pardon the pun-- and his constant reassuarance that TJ knocking boots with Hemmings was "simply imposible!". Of course only a short twenty years later he was proven absolutely wrong, and all the folks like him have fallen eerily quiet.
I mention that to say this: The debate on ancient Egypt is over, the white naysayers can see the end now, and they've already begun doing the work of trying to distance themselves from the house of cards they built so high and dense for 200 years. That's why they've gone from, "The Egyptians were WHITE!" to ,"Well, we really can't be sure." Now we've seen the first team of mostly white researchers declare they've made the most accurate represenations of Tut and rather than some lame attempt at bleaching him, they simply used the skintone the Egytians did. Wow! grdounbreaking science at work! Next thing you know "scientists" will start believing photographs are accurate visual representations of people too! When black scholarship confronts white "history" they can't escape that old truism, "History is a lie agreed upon." When you've spoon-fed youself the belief that you and your race are inherently superior, especially on issues of morality, then when the people you singled-out to label as inferior and your polar-opposite keep embarrassing you by putting your lies on display that tends to make you come unglued after a while --note the neo-Nazi trolls who skulk through these boards for proof. Any time they get ready to spout some of what they assured themselves to be good solid "white" history they now have to peer around the room before they speak, to be sure there's no blacks about who might contradict them and tear down another pillar of the lie they built so high and so mighty. They're well-aware that in the setting-the-hostorical-record-straight wars blacks have won every battle, hands-down.
These so-called academics claiming Tut to be white sound like children who have been caught in a lie, and hope that if they just deny it long enough the person asking the questions will become exasperated and walk away.
So let's keep on these guys until they finally stop lying and admit the Egyptians were giving literal representations of what they looked like and all these years of white denials were because their culture is based on their belief in their own superiority --and it drove them to claim that blakc Egyptians were actually white Nordics. We're winning this fight. Let's not forget that!
Posts: 248 | From: Way Down South | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
All in all, I must say I am dissapointed in Jablonski for her to make such cop-out statements! I thought she was less bias and more objective than that. But apparently I was wrong.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic