posted
The topic of this thread is about the difference in looks between two pharaohs from different dynasties NOT specious debates on skin color, which is what Antalas issue is!
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: ^ It is not practiced everywhere. For example in Sweden race or skin color is not a part of any census, and neither is it written in peoples passports or other ID papers. It is usually not mentioned in police reports, or other kinds of judicial documents either.
I'll address you Archaeopteryx because you are innocent and because you're from Sweden you don't understand or may be unaware of the socio-political agenda going on.
Here in America color labels of black and white were used to distinguish European colonizers from the African slaves and free settlers.
In societies where people are of the same 'race' or color there is no need for such distinctions. In Africa where everybody is 'black' then nobody is called 'black'. The same is true for Europe yet notice how Europe is being racialized with many European nations being pressured to adopt color labels such as 'white' when the overwhelming majority are white (for now).
Interestingly, in ancient times the Greeks and Romans distinguished themselves and other peoples living north of the Central (Mediterranean) Sea from those living south of it as 'black' Greek- melanchroi Latin- Nigri. That is because they noticed and acknowledged a distinction as well.
By the way, be aware if your nation of Sweden begins adopting the term 'white'. It means that your people are being homogenized and contrasted with non-white peoples who will gain a foot-hold there.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26431 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: That is as good a suggestion as any other in my opinion.
The matrlineal factor can only explain why princesses have the title of iryt-pat without being the daughter of the king, despite Egyptologists assuming they were not royal because of that lack of royal paternity. This also explains the curious phenomenon of some princes having the title 'King's Son but not of his body', meaning they were not biological sons of the king but adopted sons. Adopted on whose behalf other than their mothers.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26431 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ]What is the actual color of the people who call themselves white?
It can vary between pink, beige and light brown. White is also an oversimplification.
People can call themselves black how much they like, but that does not give them the right to try to impose that color scheme on other dark skinned people who do not identify as black (or at all as a color).
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2800 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The topic of this thread is about the difference in looks between two pharaohs from different dynasties NOT specious debates on skin color, which is what Antalas issue is!
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: ^ It is not practiced everywhere. For example in Sweden race or skin color is not a part of any census, and neither is it written in peoples passports or other ID papers. It is usually not mentioned in police reports, or other kinds of judicial documents either.
I'll address you Archaeopteryx because you are innocent and because you're from Sweden you don't understand or may be unaware of the socio-political agenda going on.
Here in America color labels of black and white were used to distinguish European colonizers from the African slaves and free settlers.
In societies where people are of the same 'race' or color there is no need for such distinctions. In Africa where everybody is 'black' then nobody is called 'black'. The same is true for Europe yet notice how Europe is being racialized with many European nations being pressured to adopt color labels such as 'white' when the overwhelming majority are white (for now).
Interestingly, in ancient times the Greeks and Romans distinguished themselves and other peoples living north of the Central (Mediterranean) Sea from those living south of it as 'black' Greek- melanchroi Latin- Nigri. That is because they noticed and acknowledged a distinction as well.
By the way, be aware if your nation of Sweden begins adopting the term 'white'. It means that your people are being homogenized and contrasted with non-white peoples who will gain a foot-hold there.
People here use different labels partly depending on context. Most people in their daily life or in media do not go around calling themselves white all the time. But in certain political discussions it occurs, especially if race relations are discussed. It is still considered a bit weird if people here call themselves white too often. People who do that risk to be called racists.
When comes to black people they are also called different things depending on circumstances. In old times they were called "blamadr", "morians", "negroes" and later "blacks" or "Africans". Certain groups like Somalis are also called by their ethnicity.
In old times also some non African groups could be called black, like the Romanis ("Gypsies"). Also dark haired and brown eyed Swedes could be referred to as "black".
But race labeling has not been so consistent here, mostly because immigrants of other race have been rather rare.
"Dark skinned" is a rather common term for both blacks, Indians and others with dark skin. It is more descriptive than black.
Sweden actually participated in the slave trade, but in a rather small scale. Interestingly black slaves, in the West Indies (Sweden had a colony there) were called "negroes", while black, mostly free people living in Sweden were called "Morians". Later the term "negro" came to replace "Morian" also in Sweden itself.
It reminds me of a description in an old document where a black person was described. In the document the persons occupation was said to be "Negro".
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2800 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Sweden doesn't have enough nonNordic less lone non-white ppl to need a racial/color census nor does it have a history of involvemnt in forcefully importing Africans and/or Asians then discriminating against them to the point of hanging and castrating ppl due to racial hatred and fear.
Why is it still such a need to separate people by color, race in USA? Seems like the old obsessions still linger in peoples minds.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2800 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ True, but another more significant reason is that certain peoples in power want to use race as a weapon to divide and conquer. They thrive off conflict which they manipulate for their political ends. The same was done in Europe except instead of 'race' they used ethnicity.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26431 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic