posted
Ya know, I searched and found related info from Ozzy on the vignette but I couldn't locate the discussion over the Champollion quote no matter how tantalyzingly close I got. Where can I find it?
A lot of pre-2004 stuff is no longer archived but maybe is GOOGLE cached?
posted
Here's another easy batting practice pitch to hit (to continue the baseball metaphor)...
Now, I want everyone here to study this image, and they will then realize why I chose it to illustrate a point on my website:
You will note that there are four (4) individuals portrayed here, correct? However, you will also note, if you pay attention, that the two Black individuals drawn are identical/clones/twins from the top of their heads to the bottom of their feet! The "Egyptian" and the "Nubian" are one and the same; thus, there is represented here only a single family. Unless one is determined to see what is not there, then this tableau shows 3 distinct groups! If you can't see it, oh well...
I even had an idiot or two write to me to challenge this Ancient Egyptian image; that the Ancient Egyptians were confused and portrayed the figure of the Rm.t as a "Nubian!" I suppose, they figured that the words next to each figure were merely decoration. (sigh...they will never actually admit that they're really challenging the Ancient Egyptians themselves on their interpretations of who they were). sad... All of this should be obvious.
...and now for the more difficult to understand, the Mdu Ntr... (the following words can be verified in Budge's dictionary, and for that matter, any extensive dictionary of the Mdu Ntr. And for those who have difficulty in word meanings and associations, I strongly recommend Roget's Thesaurus.)
Mesit - race, family (322a) Mhu - tribe, clan, family (316a) M'hau.t - tribe, clan, family, kith and kin, tribesmen, relatives, mob, crowd of people, generation (?) (284a)
Aamu - an Asiatic, a nomad of the eastern desert (111a) Aamu - shepherd, nomad, herdsman, farmer, fellahin (peasant)(here's where the thesaurus would come in handy!) (111a) Amit - an Asiatic woman Lucas has already informed us that the Aamu were employed as servants in Kemet.
Dialectical progression... This division of the human race into three distinct families which is first recorded in Kemet would later be copied by their pupils, and represents a table of peoples and NOT of nations...
Hebrews - Shem, Ham, Japheth (notice the change in the order of things, wherein 'Shem' becomes the eldest or superior one).
Western Europe - Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid (a total, revolutionary reversal of the original order as found in Kemet).
The example of Kemet's African chauvinism is not an exclusive African syndrome; if the chart was done by a German or Frenchman (who put the 'chauvin' in chauvinism), you would then have either of them at the forefront, and the other identical looking Europeans somewhere else. It's simply the human personality at work...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Now, I want everyone here to study this image, and they will then realize why I chose it to illustrate a point on my website:
You will note that there are four (4) individuals portrayed here, correct?
I'm glad you finally learned to count to 4.
quote: However, you will also note, if you pay attention, that the two Black individuals drawn are identical/clones/twins from the top of their heads to the bottom of their feet!
Yes we know that.
quote:The "Egyptian" and the "Nubian" are one and the same; thus, there is represented here only a single family.
They are both Black, yes. Even when they are portrayed with different skin tone and dress they are still both Blacks.
Black is a color, and a reference to ethnicity via dark skin.
Black is not a race, because skin color cannot indicate phylo-genetic relationships, and even for advocates of race catagories - 'black', is not one of the catagories.
quote:Unless one is determined to see what is not there
You mean like when you see and ordering of negro followed by semite followed by caucasian?
You mean like when you invent the delusion that the the rm.t are ordered next to the nehesi...because the they are both really nehesi, wherein nehesi means -> negro race?
You need to take off your rose colored race glasses before you advise others on seeing what is not there.
You see what you want to see, and are oblivious to reality.
This text is relating the 4 ethnic groups being resurrected in the after life as as the sun passes from sunrise to sunset.
It is not and anthropology treatise and it's silly to try and treat it as such.
But you are dogmatically addicted to the delusion of race, so I'm sure you will continue attempting to do so.
quote: then this tableau shows 3 distinct groups!
Incorrect, it shows and relates 4 distinct groups, two of which are dark [Blacks] and two of which are light [Reds].
There are superficial differences of dress and hair within the 2 Reds, and of facial features between the two Blacks.
quote: If you can't see it, oh well...
We can see that the ordering is not rm.t, nehesu, aamu and temehu, as you stated, but rather the rm.t, aamu, nehesu and then temehu.
It is therefore neither a ranking [there is no idea here that the aamu are superior to the nehesu because they are mentioned before them, just as there is no notion of the 'negro' nehesi being superior to the aamu - since the text isn't in that order to begin with], nor is it a grouping by race [since the nehesu are in between the tamehu and the aamu and -furthest from the rm.t].
This is because the Km.t are not trying to relate 'race' a Eurocentric concept imposed by Champollion onto the text and repeated by you, because you cling to 200 year old Eurocentric dogma which shapes your world view.
This in turn is because you don't understand anthropology, and apparently are the proverbial old dog who can't learn new tricks.
quote:I even had an idiot or two write to me to challenge this Ancient Egyptian image; that the Ancient Egyptians were confused and portrayed the figure of the Rm.t as a "Nubian!"
Yes that person is and idiot. Those idiots deny and distort the text and icongraphy because it shatters their racial delusions.
When you distort the text you help these idiots, because they attack Africanists as purveyors of shoddy scholarship and inaccuracy, as evidenced by your misquote of Champollion and dishonest re-arranging of the mdw ntr to suit your racial dogma.
quote:I suppose, they figured that the words next to each figure were merely decoration.
Nah, they just don't like what they see, so they lie about it. Just like you did when you rearranged the ordering of peoples in order to claim it represented a Kemetu ideology of racial ranking.
quote: The following words are verified in Budge's dictionary
Mesit - race, family (322a)
Yes, like Nehesi - negro, the masturbation of Ra - Budge
Still quoting Europeans while claiming to be quoting the Kemetu, eh?
In order to validate Budge's translation -VIA THE KM.T RMT-, you must do the following:
provide primary text showing A list of the Kemetic "Mesits", which will then correspond to your definition of race, - ie - negro, semite, caucasian, and so differentiating it from family, ethnic group, tribe, etc..
^ I don't expect and answer, since you try to talk past difficult questions, such as my question regarding the etymology of Aamu which will supposedly show that it means servant, as we shall see....
quote:Mhu - tribe, clan, family (316a) M'hau.t - tribe, clan, family, kith and kin, tribesmen, relatives, mob, crowd of people, generation (?) (284a)
AS with Mesit, this is irrelevant since we know that the Km.t and every people who ever lived have concepts of family, tribe, ethnic group, crowd, etc..
Your task is to show that the Km.t have and ideology that is specifically denoted in terms of 'race'.
This is why you lied about the Kemetic texts to begin with, in order to suggest this specific meaning, which is not found in the mdw ntr....
so keep quoting and misquoting Budge and Champollion while pretending to be quoting the Km.t
quote:Aamu - an Asiatic, a nomad of the eastern desert (111a)
What happened to your claim that Aamu means servant?
I asked you to produce and etymology of Aamu wherein it means servant. Did you forget the request, or is this just another example of your penchant for false claims?
quote:Aamu - shepherd, nomad, herdsman, farmer, fellahin (peasant)(here's where the thesaurus would come in handy!) (111a) Amit - an Asiatic woman
^ Etymology of Aamu means servant please?
quote:Lucas has already informed us that the Aamu were employed as servants in Kemet.
^ Etymology showing that Aamu means servant please?
quote:This division of the human race into three distinct families
No such division exists, as the Kemetic iconography shows 4, repeat 4 families of which the AE are defined as
1) "Rm.t", and not
2) Aamu nor
3) Nehesu nor
4) Tamehu, and therefore not members of what *you* *falsely* interpret as 'race catagories'.
No matter how hard you try to bend the mdw ntr Wally, the Kemetians did not classify into race.
What you call 'race' is a European concept, which is why you can only quote Europeans on it, and can't produce any primary Kemetic texts.
What a mess.
All because you lied about the mdw ntr.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hebrews - Shem, Ham, Japheth (notice the change in the order of things, wherein 'Shem' becomes the eldest or superior one).
^ The only fact related above is that Western racism is rooted in -distortion- of the Bible.
This is correct, since Blumenbach created his pseudo-scientific notion of race by exploiting Bible myth.
That helps to define your racial dogma as a pseudo science, but does not aid you in justifying it via the Km.t.
quote: Western Europe - Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid (a total, revolutionary reversal of the original order as found in Kemet).'
The idea that C-zoid, M-gloid, N-groid is a "reversal" of the original Kemetic ranking, is ludicrous, since none of those concepts exist in mdw ntr.
This returns us to your original lie - which was that there was such a ranking to begin with.
Wally wrote:-> "Forget the ranking 'business'".
^ translation: Forget that you lied about it, but repeat the lie anyway.
For the record, in the Kemetic book of portals non of the 4 ethnic groups correspond to Negro, CaucaZoid or Mongoliod.
* Mongoloid is derived from Mongolians who are virtually unknown and certainly not represented in the Book of Portals. How you get Mongloid into the mdw ntr is beyound me ? ?
CaucaZoid derives from Europeans who are known by the Km.t but left out of the Book of Portals, and certainly not classified as Tamahu.... because it is NOT repeat NOT and attempt at classification of humanity into races.
Likewise neither Rm.t nor Nehesu can concord with Negro since they are *two distinct listings*, and not synonyms.
When you reorder and rewrite the primary text, you are no longer relating Kemetians....you're just channeling racism thru Blumenbach and 18th century Europe, and using his same methods of perversion and distortion.
Here then, is your *real* source, and what you are victim to, Wally:
Johann Blumenbach, one of many classifiers in the 18th century, lays out the scientific template for contemporary race categories in On the Natural Varieties of Mankind. Blumenbach strongly opposes slavery and believes in the potential equality of all people. Nevertheless, he maps a hierarchical pyramid of five human types, placing "Caucasians" at the top because he believes a skull found in the Caucasus Mountains is the "most beautiful form of the skull, from which...the others diverge." This model is widely embraced, and Blumenbach inadvertently paves the way for scientific claims about white superiority.
posted
DIOP explicitely stated that "his" version was probably the original one because it was published by his brother to who he sent the letters, while the other one was later published by CHAMPOLLION's son.
Do you people think that the correction was due to accuracy from an original mistaken CHAMPOLLION J.F. due to other modern accounts of "Ousireď"'s tombs or to...bias???
Posts: 307 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] As Hau Nebu, north Meds were left out of the religious cosmos of the AEs. But in examining recent posts on the word nb/nbw and finding one meaning of nbw to be equivalent to mister/sir/master, I want to know precisely what H3w Nbw meant ideologically to the AEs.
Has there already been a discussion dedicated to these people on here?
Posts: 307 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE: Do you people think that the correction was due to accuracy from an original mistaken CHAMPOLLION J.F. due to other modern accounts of "Ousireď"'s tombs or to...bias???
As AlTakruri has noted, Champollion's account is both mistaken and biased regardless of whether 'he' ever scrambled the original people orderings.
quote:AlTakruri: In this particular case, Champollion is wrong on several counts (or the translator botched the job).
He is wrong about the hour of the Herd of Ra depiction.
He is wrong about the order of the peoples.
He is wrong about the continental origin of the Tmhhw.
He is wrong about the meaning of the painting in general.
Champollion is wrong and it's wrong to rely on him if one wants to be right.
posted
The Hebrew system implementing Shem, Hham, and Yapheth, is not a reflection of Ra's Flock as depicted in BG 4:5 vg30. Here's why. The Egyptians painted no representatives corresponding to Shem and Yaphet. All the ethnies portrayed would fall under the Hham lineage.
The Egyptians A3mw can be under either the Hebrew's Hham or Shem lineages, pending which particular A3mw are meant.
The Hebrew's Yapheth most closely matches the Egyptian's H3w Nbw. Hau Nebu (for the most part white south European peoples of the Ionian and Aegean) were never seen in any rendition of BG 4:5 vg30.
Again, all the ethnies of the text and vignette correspond to what the Hebrews reckoned to be sons of Hham.
The sons of Ham were Cush, Mitzraim, Put, and Canaan.
Note that the Hebrew system orders the "sons" by "age" precursing linquists' proposed times of split of Afrisan subphyla.
quote:Originally posted by Wally: Dialectical progression... This division of the human race into three distinct families which is first recorded in Kemet would later be copied by their pupils, and represents a table of peoples and NOT of nations...
Hebrews - Shem, Ham, Japheth (notice the change in the order of things, wherein 'Shem' becomes the eldest or superior one).
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the son wanted to mask over his father's, rather obvious to academicians, glowing mistakes.
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE: DIOP explicitely stated that "his" version was probably the original one because it was published by his brother to who he sent the letters, while the other one was later published by CHAMPOLLION's son.
Do you people think that the correction was due to accuracy from an original mistaken CHAMPOLLION J.F. due to other modern accounts of "Ousireď"'s tombs or to...bias???
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The Hebrew system implementing Shem, Hham, and Yapheth, is not a reflection of Ra's Flock as depicted in BG 4:5 vg30. Here's why. The Egyptians painted no representatives corresponding to Shem and Yaphet. All the ethnies portrayed would fall under the Hham lineage.
The Egyptians A3mw can be under either the Hebrew's Hham or Shem lineages, pending which particular A3mw are meant.
The Hebrew's Yapheth most closely matches the Egyptian's H3w Nbw. Hau Nebu (for the most part white south European peoples of the Ionian and Aegean) were never seen in any rendition of BG 4:5 vg30.
Again, all the ethnies of the text and vignette correspond to what the Hebrews reckoned to be sons of Hham.
The sons of Ham were Cush, Mitzraim, Put, and Canaan. [CODE] _______________________ | BNEI HHAM | RA'S HERD | |___________|___________| |-----------+-----------| | Kush | Nehhesu | |-----------+-----------| | Missrayim | Rt Rmt | |-----------+-----------| | Phut | Tmhhw | |-----------+-----------| | K*na`an | A3mw |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Fair enough. But the reason I knew the quote was false is because we discussed it before on Egyptsearch, when Wally presented it, Ozzy refuted it, and then Wally sulked over it, and never brought it up again, until now.
This was years ago.
Why knowingly repeat falsified garbage, unless your aim is to deceive?
Wally is responsible because he knows no such -racial tables - as rmt, followed by nehesi, then aamu, and temehu exists.
Wally isn't dense. He tried to pull a fast one, and got caught.
End of story and end of thread.
LOL Wow, that was so long ago I forgot about that-- Ozzy refuting Wally!
By the way, Wally's mural actually depicts in order from left to right: Rme (Egyptians), Tmhw (Libyans), Nhsw (Nehesi), and Amu (Asiatics)!
Posts: 26316 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The type and tone of muddled responses here reflects the dichotomy between ideologies; between those who KNOW that the world consists of processes and those who believe it consists of events (actually, events are part of a process).
Examples of 'Event' ideology
a) socialism and communism were invented by Karl Marx with the assistance of Engels.
a1) this is nonsense, Karl Marx was a STUDENT who spent much of his life visiting the library, mostly in London. There he discovered that the original form of society was communalism or what he would term 'primitive communism'. The term 'primitive was not a pejorative but meant, like 'radical' - original. He also discovered the science of dialectics and on this basis concluded that communalism overturned by minority seizure of property held by the community in common would ultimately be restored; the primitive classless society would re-emerge as a scientific classless society. This represents a process, not an event...
b) race and racism was invented by Europeans.
b1) This is also nonsense. The ideas of race existed, as I have demonstrated, long before the Europeans could read or write! There is no need to quibble about terminology, the very fact that the Ancient Egyptians called themselves 'Ret-na Rome' or quite simply 'Race of Superior Men' says it all. And this was quite a long time before the Germans called themselves 'the master race.' This too, represents a process, and not an event...
c) computers were invented in the 20th century
c1) this is also nonsense. There's a word in the Mdu Ntr for 'computer' or 'to compute'; and also the process of the development of this device can also be traced back to the Abacus...a process...
This is just a sample of examples to show the why of the muddled responses here... Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: The type and tone of muddled responses....
All of your laughable attempts to ridicule other posters is just a reflection of your own insecurity, your shame at having been so easily debunked, and your inability to answer relevant questions, or to make any sense. Is that clear enough?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When Wally is asked to provide and etymology of Aamu meaning servant,
give and example of Tamehu refering to Europeans,
or show how Nehesu means negro, Mesit means 'race', and that the Rm.t therefore actually 'meant' to classify themselves as 'nehesi-mesit' [negro race] he fails on all counts.
Wally then writes back the following off point distraction.....
quote:Examples of 'Event' ideology
a) socialism and communism were invented by Karl Marx with the assistance of Engels.
^ Dude please.
No one wants to hear your banal retro-socialist opinions on Karl Marx, or hypocritical critique of event ideology [since you claim that your race ideology was 'invented' by Ancient Egyptians, and then lie in effort to support your ridiculous claim.]
Just answer the questions on mdw ntr, or admit you have no answers and be silent.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The Hebrew system implementing Shem, Hham, and Yapheth, is not a reflection of Ra's Flock as depicted in BG 4:5 vg30. Here's why. The Egyptians painted no representatives corresponding to Shem and Yaphet. All the ethnies portrayed would fall under the Hham lineage.
The Egyptians A3mw can be under either the Hebrew's Hham or Shem lineages, pending which particular A3mw are meant.
The Hebrew's Yapheth most closely matches the Egyptian's H3w Nbw. Hau Nebu (for the most part white south European peoples of the Ionian and Aegean) were never seen in any rendition of BG 4:5 vg30.
Again, all the ethnies of the text and vignette correspond to what the Hebrews reckoned to be sons of Hham.
The sons of Ham were Cush, Mitzraim, Put, and Canaan. [CODE] _______________________ | BNEI HHAM | RA'S HERD | |___________|___________| |-----------+-----------| | Kush | Nehhesu | |-----------+-----------| | Missrayim | Rt Rmt | |-----------+-----------| | Phut | Tmhhw | |-----------+-----------| | K*na`an | A3mw |
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE: Do you people think that the correction was due to accuracy from an original mistaken CHAMPOLLION J.F. due to other modern accounts of "Ousireď"'s tombs or to...bias???
As AlTakruri has noted, Champollion's account is both mistaken and biased regardless of whether 'he' ever scrambled the original people orderings.
Yes, his interpretation of the images and what the overall content of those reliefs were communicating, was incorrect and obviously clouded by bias, but from what you cited, it would appear that he got the ordering part right.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only French reindition i've seen has the correct ordering.
The incorrect odering is reproduced by Diop, but I have no doubt that Diop is not the original source of the error.
I can believe AlTakruri's suggestion that Champollion or some French interpreter may have screwed up the odering, because the messed up order is part and parcel of the screwed up interpretation, which is always bogus even when the ordering is correct.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
b1) This is also nonsense. The ideas of race existed, as I have demonstrated, long before the Europeans could read or write!
Wally, setting aside your over compensation and self delusion, here is what you have *actually* demonstrated ->
1) Willfull deceit with regards to the primary text in order to promote racial dogma.
2) Failure to answer relevant questions, when they force you to confront the internal contradictions in your dogma.
3) Failure to produce the requested primary text which will supposedly put your words in the mouths of the Ancient Egyptians.
4) Complete and -WILLFULL- failure to comprehend the mdw ntr, even after provided detailed and clear explanation.
5) Need to change the subject, in order to hide from the above.
As for....
^ORIGIN OF THE IDEA OF RACE
by Audrey Smedley
Anthropology Newsletter, November 1997
Contemporary scholars agree that "race" was a recent invention and that it was essentially a folk idea, not a product of scientific research and discovery.
This is not new to anthropologists.
Since the 1940s when Ashley Montagu argued against the use of the term "race" in science, a growing number of scholars in many disciplines have declared that the real meaning of race in American society has to do with social realities, quite distinct from physical variations in the human species.
Attempting to retrogressively root your western, european, racist ideology in Ancient Egypt constitutes a spectacular example of willing participation in one's own brainwashing.
All anthropologists should understand that "race" has no intrinsic relationship to human biological diversity, that such diversity is a natural product of primarily evolutionary forces while "race" is a social invention.
^ The attempt to justify racism through Egyptian history, is as much a propaganda tactic as the attempt to justify racism thru science, or to justify racism thru religion.
All such attempts are easily exposed as internally contradictory, contrived, hypocritical and dishonest, which is the case with Wally's falsification of the Mdw Ntr in this thread.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The modern meaning of race, is essentially 'sub-species' in taxonomy, as applied to homo-sapiens [who in fact have no sub-species], and was created in the 17th century.
Earlier meanings such as the French use of the term which goes back to the 14th century, reference such things as flavors of wine, and one can even argue that the term itself in some way or another may be derived from 'Ra'.
However meanings commonly bandied about today such as 'Racial', actually have no known usage even in a European context much earlier than the 17th century.
As noted by Smedley, race is not and objective reality, or somehow universal social constract.
It is a collection of recently contrived upon ideologies.
By focusing on the physical and status differences between the conquered and enslaved peoples, and Europeans, the emerging ideology linked the socio-political status and physical traits together and created a new form of social identity.
The model for "race" and "races" was the Great Chain of Being or Scale of Nature (Scala Naturae), a semi-scientific theory of a natural hierarchy of all living things, derived from classical Greek writings. The physical features of different groups became markers or symbols of their status on this scale, and thus justified their positions within the social system. Race ideology proclaimed that the social, spiritual, moral, and intellectual inequality of different groups was, like their physical traits, natural, innate, inherited, and unalterable.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yup, and Westerners then tried to reflect their scheme upon the Egyptians, hence the K-zoid Egyptian vs. N-groid Nubian dichotomy. It would be a grave error for Africanist scholars to make the same mistake. But then again, that is the problem with Afrocentric scholarship isn't it?
Posts: 26316 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would be a grave error for Africanist scholars to make the same mistake.
Wally gives his error away with ....
Western Europe - Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid (a total, revolutionary reversal of the original order as found in Kemet).
^ Actually, Wally's dogma constitutes a reactionary Afrocentric reversal of Eurocentric racism having nothing whatsoever to do with Ancient Egypt.
Still waiting for Wally's claimed specific answers from the primary text, as opposed to rhetorical bluster and channelings of 19th century European racism.
We wait knowing full well that none of the claimed evidence will ever be presented, as no such evidence exists.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Worse yet in the link between ancient history and contemporary understandings are the comments of Emily Vermeule, an emeritus professor of classics from Harvard University.
Such devastation has been wrought by Bernal’s ‘turning of the world upside down’ that normal historical understandings have been cast aside. As a result:
“Bernal also believes that Egypt was essentially African, and therefore black. But he does not say what we are to make of historical accounts of Egyptian pharaohs campaigning against black neighbours in the south, in the Land of Kush, as when Thutmosis I of Egypt, around 1510 B.C., annihilated a black Kushite army at the Third Cataract and came home with the body of a black Kushite prince hanging upside down from the prow of his ship. Perhaps Bernal thinks of this as African tribal warfare.”'
Students who follow Vermeule’s historical methodology in centuries to come will surely have grave difficulty in understanding twentieth-century history.
The amazing thing abour Vermeule's comment is that she believes she has made a clear point about the ideology of *racial hatred* between "Egyptians" and "Blacks".
She totally fails to grasp that what she just did was expose the depths of her own racial hatred, and then projected it on the Africans.
Another example:
quote:Such was the scholarly objectivity surrounding the preservation of some of the ancient Egyptian mummies that W. G. Browne would claim that their presence provided proof of the ‘prescience of that people concerning errors into which posterity might fall, exhibit[ing] irrefragable proof of their features and of the colour of their skin’. In other words, as Edith Sanders interprets this wonderful passage, since ‘the ancient Egyptians knew they could be mistaken for Negroes . . . [they] left their bodies in evidence to refute such an allegation’
Ah, so now we know why the Egyptians perserved their bodies...it was 'racial'!
Racialist can only see their own insane rationale ever reflected back at them thru their own eyes.
Keita's wisdom would likely not penetrate the depths of such insanity and all its defense mechanisms...
quote:“There is a problem of language or logic here since the ‘ancient authors’ did not have any race concepts, terms or theory synonymous with those ‘in twentieth century usage’ . . . It cannot be stated that the Graeco-Romans (or Egyptians) had no race concepts and then claim that their words or art depict ‘race’. Their words and art only depict the ethno-nationalities they knew, not ‘race,’ a more recent idea (emphasis in original).” - SOY Keita
posted
^ Race draws its [rhetorical] power from its natural science root - Keita/Kittles.
...and therefore is rightly held accountable to it's [scientific] claims.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
To Rey Diasporan and Maestro.
Please forgive this thread bump. There is just too much critique of Champollion in this thread to xfer to where Lioness is making pretend a 1st time exposč. That's a form of plagiarism and by a moderator no less.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic