...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
What did King Tut really look like?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by kenndo: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by osirion: [b] Again you are referring to genetic origins (or race). I am referring to shared cultural affinities such as language, religious practices, social structures, food preparations and various rituals. For example, a very simple example, is that African women traditionally carry things on their heads. AE depict women doing this in significant numbers. I have not seen depictions of European women doing the same nor is it culturally identifiable trait of European women to transport products on their heads like it is practiced in Africa (yes including AE). The discussion about race is just too arbitrary. It is difficult to get an agreed upon line drawn between the different groups since features overlap. Simple example is the reconstruction of Tut. The head shape is easily recognizable as African but the nose is not. What do you use to identify the race (the shape of the head or the shape of the nose?). Too many double standards are applied in these overlap situations. Simple example: Negritos of New Guinea and Adamans have protrusive mouths and broad noses with low nose bridges but the shape of the heads is not like Africans. So even though Negritos look black they are classified as a different race due to the shape of their heads. So why wasn't Tut classified as a different race than the caucausian based on the shape of his head? Simple, it is called racial politics. You have been complaining that there is too much racial politics in the forum but the truth is that the statements are in response arbitrary lines drawn between races that are not agreed to by a considerable number of people and there are clear double standards that create frustration when thise lines are discussed. I think the issue of culture is easier to discuss and probably more relevant to the discussion of "so called" ethnic ownership. Note, however, I am not stating that I have the answer to the discussion. I have just noted that there are a few things about the AEs that are clearly African in origin and I am curious to find out if that means anything. Oh yeah, by the way, Hor, I don't think most blacks get into Afrocentrism to booster their Egos or to express anti-western feelings. The problem is that, especially in American, we have been taught that people that look like Tut (even the poor skin tone version of him) are Black because they have African genes (ie: Alicia Keys or Halle Berry - look up pictures on them). However, the same people that told us Alicia Keys is black try to say the Tut is White. These double standards are very, very frustrating especially when you get into the tecnichality of it all and you find that someone like Tut has 80% black features and only 20% White but he is still defined as White. Great for Tut but I have a nephew that looks like him and I don't think we would have welcomed hime as a White person in 1950's Alabama.[/b][/QUOTE] correction-the people of new guinea are classified as black. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3