[ Centered for natural head tilt _________________________ Unnaturally centered at clavicle. Why? ]
In her latest book, Kara Cooney draws parallels between the rulers of 3,000 years ago and the authoritarian leaders of today.
Alison Hewitt | December 6, 2021
Pyramids, pharaohs and ancient Egyptian gods have entranced many, but it’s time we stopped romanticizing the trappings of authoritarianism, according to UCLA’s Kara Cooney.
Cooney is a UCLA professor of Egyptology and archaeology and already a bestselling author (“The Woman Who Would Be King,” 2014, and “When Women Ruled the World,” 2019). In her latest book, she admits that her fascination with ancient Egypt has soured — so much so that she now describes herself as a “recovering Egyptologist.” The uncritical admiration of the pharaohs that has continued to the present day, she writes, is a legacy of the ancient rulers’ efforts to manipulate how they were perceived, and has even served as a narrative and cultural foundation propping up modern authoritarianism.
“How many of us have had deep obsessions with the ancient world — I just love Egyptian temples! I adore Greek mythology! — that are really symptoms of an ongoing addiction to male power that we just can’t kick?” Cooney writes.
“The Good Kings: Absolute Power in Ancient Egypt and the Modern World,” published by National Geographic, draws direct parallels between the rulers of 3,000 years ago and modern tyrants. In it, Cooney describes how the pharaohs created a compelling moral argument for power that continues to mislead people today, and which is linked directly to the current rise of authoritarianism.
Cooney explores the pitfalls of patriarchal systems that harm women and men alike, and she convincingly argues that society is duplicating the historical patterns that have repeatedly led to power collapses. Only this time, she notes, climate change has altered the rules of recovery.
Cooney is chair of UCLA’s Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. In an interview with UCLA Newsroom, she talks about what lessons ancient Egyptian narratives might offer in light of the societal and social challenges the world faces in 2021.
Why are the pharaohs of ancient Egypt still so relevant thousands of years later?
We’re still living in those narratives. We may tell ourselves we’re too smart to be fooled, but the idea of modern exceptionalism is a fake-out. We’re still just as prone to the fears of an early death or a lack of prosperity. We’re just as superstitious and god fearing.
All those vulnerabilities make us very, very easy marks for authoritarian regimes if we don’t think critically and understand the tools they are wielding over us.
What do you hope people take away from the book?
I wanted to give readers a playbook, in a sense, for what could come next from a historian’s perspective, and why the patriarchy is not the only way of running a system. The patriarchy is destroying itself. It’s happening. And we need to be there, anti-patriarchically, to rebuild something that better protects us all from the abuses of power. You write that you see signs that the patriarchy is leading society toward a collapse, repeating a pattern that has occurred throughout history. But you also note that climate change will interrupt the cycle in a big way. What can we learn about what comes next by studying the rise and fall of ancient Egyptian regimes?
The patriarchy rises and falls in cycles, collapsing and rebuilding. But the thing that’s haunting authoritarian regimes now is that the Earth is not allowing that cycle anymore. The Earth is not allowing the ongoing extractive, consumptive, unequal hoarding that defines those regimes, because it’s unsustainable, and that unsustainability is now the undoing of the patriarchy.
We’ve had smaller-scale climate change for thousands of years; think of cities wiped away by deforestation that led to mudslides. The difference now is the scale. Now it’s global. The patriarchy sows the seeds for its own destruction again and again before coming back in a vicious cycle, but the difference this time is global climate change threatens to make this the final cycle.
I’m not a soothsayer, but from my 10,000-year view of history, I see two paths. It could be more patriarchy for another 500 years until the planet is truly dead, and then that’s it; that’s the end of the story. But I think we will flirt with patriarchy and mess with it for another 200-some years, and then we will find our way through to something sustainable and different.
Sounds like she's projecting.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
I don't think anyone here would seriously argue that the pharaonic system of government was one we would consider ideal. The glitz and glamor of the royalty and nobility aside, it was undeniably a system wherein a small elite led by a theocratic, hereditary monarch hoarded the vast majority of the country's wealth, some of it appropriated (through taxes and corvee labor) from the subservient masses and the remainder captured through war and conquest. Typical for Bronze to Iron Age agricultural states, mind you, but still not a system of government most of us would like to live under.
That said, Kara Cooney gives me uncomfortable "White feminist" vibes. I remember her When Women Ruled the World argued that the ancient Egyptians picked queens to be regents for their pharaohs because they supposedly recognized that women had certain psychological perks compared to men---and the female perks she identified were probably rooted in modern Western ideals of gender more than ancient Egyptian ones. It was the sort of Eurocentric gender essentialism that I would expect a third-wave feminist to reject.
Posted by TubuYal23 (Member # 23503) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: Sounds like she's projecting.
she is
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
From the Back Cover Offers a broad and unique look at Ancient Egypt during its long age of imperialism
Written for enthusiasts and scholars of pharaonic Egypt, as well as for those interested in comparative imperialism, this book provides a look at some of the most intriguing evidence for grand strategy, low-level insurgencies, back-room deals, and complex colonial dynamics that exists for the Bronze Age world. It explores the actions of a variety of Egypt’s imperial governments from the dawn of the state until 1069 BCE as they endeavored to control fiercely independent mountain dwellers in Lebanon, urban populations in Canaan and Nubia, highly mobile Nilotic pastoralists, and predatory desert raiders. The book is especially valuable as it foregrounds the reactions of local populations and their active roles in shaping the trajectory of empire. With its emphasis on the experimental nature of imperialism and its attention to cross-cultural comparison and social history, this book offers a fresh perspective on a fascinating subject.
Organized around central imperial themes―which are explored in depth at particular places and times in Egypt’s history―Ancient Egyptian Imperialism covers: Trade Before Empire―Empire Before the State (c. 3500-2686); Settler Colonialism (c. 2400-2160); Military Occupation (c. 2055-1775); Creolization, Collaboration, Colonization (c. 1775-1295); Motivation, Intimidation, Enticement (c. 1550-1295); Organization and Infrastructure (c. 1458-1295); Outwitting the State (c. 1362-1332); Conversions and Contractions in Egypt’s Northern Empire (c. 1295-1136); and Conversions and Contractions in Egypt’s Southern Empire (c. 1550-1069).
Offers a wider focus of Egypt’s experimentation with empire than is covered by general Egyptologists Draws analogies to tactics employed by imperial governments and by dominated peoples in a variety of historically documented empires, both old world and new Answers questions such as “how often and to what degree did imperial blueprints undergo revisions?” Ancient Egyptian Imperialism is an excellent text for students and scholars of history, comparative history, and ancient history, as well for those interested in political science, anthropology, and the Biblical World.
--This text refers to the hardcover edition. About the Author Ellen Morris is an Assistant Professor in the Classics and Ancient Studies Department at Barnard College, Columbia University. She has published extensively on issues pertinent to ancient Egyptian imperialism including a book entitled The Architecture of Imperialism: Military Bases and the Evolution of Foreign Policy in Egypt's New Kingdom (2005). Her ongoing research interests and other publications focus on the dynamics of political fragmentation, state formation, sexuality and sacred performance, retainer sacrifice, island theory, and divine kingship. She has excavated in the Nile Valley at Abydos and Mendes, and at the site of Amheida in the Dakhleh Oasis.
_________________________________
Some try to romanticize Egypt in at over a 3,000 year dynastic, they try to imply never did anything imperialistic, never did anything just to acquire booty and taxes that everything was defensive and the depictions of smite clubbings by kings and proud displays of collared and arm tied foreign enemies and vassal tributes was all muts have been just punishment from attacks and banditry "they started it"
I haven't read the above book also written by a woman but the topic is clear, imperialism in ancient Egypt
the author UCLA professor of Egyptology and archaeology Kara Cooney says:
Pharaohs open themselves up to social justice discussions. The hard thing is that the pharaohs were arguably the best ever at presenting an authoritarian regime as good and pure and moral. That’s the underlying idea that needs to be popped first, because we still buy into it today. Concepts of patriarchal society, extraction of natural resources for profit, exploitation, overwork, misogyny and more all came pouring out of the Egyptian narrative.
We’re still living in those narratives. We may tell ourselves we’re too smart to be fooled, but the idea of modern exceptionalism is a fake-out. We’re still just as prone to the fears of an early death or a lack of prosperity. We’re just as superstitious and god fearing.
All those vulnerabilities make us very, very easy marks for authoritarian regimes if we don’t think critically and understand the tools they are wielding over us.
I wanted to give readers a playbook, in a sense, for what could come next from a historian’s perspective, and why the patriarchy is not the only way of running a system. The patriarchy is destroying itself. It’s happening. And we need to be there, anti-patriarchically, to rebuild something that better protects us all from the abuses of power.
I haven't read this book either but I find the title misleading It says in big print "Good Kings" and the words "Good Kings" is not even put in quotes
There is nothing that tells you that what she really means is that the were bad kings
but under that in small print we see "Absolute Power in Ancient Egypt and the Modern world"
That contradicts the title, "absolute power" usually has a negative connotation not a "good" one So the title is like some kind of trick, draw in people who expect stories of king's goodness but instead find badness
but further we see in her remarks we see she is talking about patriarchy that that is what is leading to this authoritarian bad king rulership
yet there is nothing about patriarchy in the title or sub-title
I think a book like this should have a title with clearer intent instead of this title which has no clue to her thesis, that this authoritarianism is rooted in patriarchy (although I haven't read it but it seems evident in her own remarks)
So I think it's sort of a cowardly title. If this is her theory she could have at least put a question mark in
and then add something about patriarchy
something like
GOOD KINGS?
Patriarchy and Authoritarianism in the Ancient and Modern world"
that seems more reflective of what she is saying the book is about
Of course, though if you put a question mark you are also going to get more heat and backlash
_______________________
UPDATE: I have skimmed the video about the book and watched several parts, searched the transcript Patriarchy is talked about but not throughout. I'm not clear how much focus there is in the book, it seems to be mainly in the epilogue from how she talks about here and spoken about mainly in the last 5th or so in the video
Anyway, as far as the "romanticization" of ancient Egypt goes...
Most people tend to be drawn to wealth and glamor, especially in capitalist societies like ours which define success by how much money someone earns or how famous they become. Even our historiography tends to fixate on the rich and powerful leaders more than other individuals from the past.
Furthermore, I've always had the feeling that Black people by and large were tired of their history being constantly represented as one of enslavement, poverty, and struggling for civil rights. No wonder they like to call each other kings and queens! Compound that with racist narratives about Black people being incapable of developing advanced civilizations and it's no wonder that they're so infatuated with African empires like Egypt, Kush, Mali, etc.
That said, I don't know if the general public does in fact view ancient Egypt with romanticized rose-tinted glasses. Egyptophiles might, but most representations of pharaonic Egyptian civilization in pop culture emphasize the creepy mummies, slavery and other forms of coerced labor (if they don't suggest it was the aliens who built the pyramids), or Cleopatra's sexualized shenanigans. Ancient Egypt might be seen as cool in an exoticized sort of way, but it doesn't seem to be revered to the same extent as the classical Greeks and the Roman Empire.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
That said, Kara Cooney gives me uncomfortable "White feminist" vibes.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
Furthermore, I've always had the feeling that Black people by and large were
here we go, white vs black stuff has to be added into every topic
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
If you don't like it lump it and GTFA
Bit and pieces of my life are somehow regularly shattered regularly ragged due to "white v black stuff". Its basis? I can't just be a person, a human being, but I must be, pending attire, swagger, and diction, a suspect Old Gangbanger ex-con or at best "the black guy."
If you were black you'd know that feeling and wouldn't try to play off the crippling real life negative consequences of white black stuff. Being white you don't suffer its consequences and resent hearing we the bearers groan at the weight forced upon us or one of your fellows truly empathize.
This is my thread You will not dictate its direction.
=-=-=-=
I think feminism is a white women's movement, no?
Face it, all of us are biased toward something in some way. And why not? We're only human. Benign ethnocentrism is more and more becoming openly recognized as the maturing MO of the 20th century. At least that's toned down and even at times critical of the overtly racist ethnocentrism it evolved from.
I put the "[sic}" next to the author's "misogyny." I don'tjust strongly disagree. I call bullish on that idea. Females weren't unlimited (gosh dern it started way way back in the very physically intense industries and economies of the dingdong neolithic) yet as time passed females find more roles and rights without any kind of mass protest movement necessary.
Compare roles, status, rights, and law of females re AE versus any contemporaneous nation states. I won't demand they be multi-ethnic nation states as was Ta Wi because until Rome none were.
Please nobody tell me about the the Greek birth of Democracy miracle. Deaf, dumb, and blind. Separate xenophobic slavecratic city states where select males were the only ones with voting and most other rights.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: If you don't like it lump it and GTFA
Bit and pieces of my life are somehow regularly shattered regularly ragged due to "white v black stuff". Its basis? I can't just be a person, a human being,
stop pretending I was talking to you, I'm talking to the dude with patronizing comments to justify a fever fetish
Hey -- I'm talking to you ITS MY THREAD RESPECT IT Don't make me regret broaching it here I can always ask the Mod to send it to Kemet where your contamination would be sterilized from the thread while leaving only your initial post intact. Now please stop derailing and side tracking with irrelevant nonsense.
All posts address all readers
You are so lost about black life in the USA if you think my monologue only reflected myself
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by TubuYal23:
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: Sounds like she's projecting.
she is
She really is!
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: That said, Kara Cooney gives me uncomfortable "White feminist" vibes. I remember her When Women Ruled the World argued that the ancient Egyptians picked queens to be regents for their pharaohs because they supposedly recognized that women had certain psychological perks compared to men---and the female perks she identified were probably rooted in modern Western ideals of gender more than ancient Egyptian ones. It was the sort of Eurocentric gender essentialism that I would expect a third-wave feminist to reject.
She gave me the exact same vibes some years back when I read her online articles and when she made her TV debut on Discovery, but it became officially confirmed by both her 'Gender Transformation in Death' paper as well as her 'When Women Ruled the World' article. Really, Cooney is just a successor in a long line of white feminists who project their own insecurities in Egyptology! You see the exact same mentality in female Egyptologists like Ann Macy Roth and Barbara Mertz. It is the type of confused and misplaced feminism that more sensible feminists like Max Dashu speak of wherein some women associate power only with those forms typically or traditionally wielded by men such as political and military power.
I still recall that some time quite a while ago in another thread Lioness asking why the institution of kingship was traditionally masculine and identified with men. I was a little taken aback by it because I thought it would be obvious to anyone familiar with monarchy or with any political office of chief executor whether it be king or tribal chief, that one of the most fundamental roles of the executor is defense and protection of the people from hostile threats either foreign or domestic.
That a man's role as protector/warrior seems to be disconnected from the political sphere in the consciousness of many people today is the result of a modern Western and I dare say twisted form of elitism not to mention the confounding of gender roles. As Max Dashu says, there were especially in ancient times clear gender roles held in common by many cultures not just 'patriarchal' or male dominated ones. The problem is when female power was present or evident, it tends to get ignored by scholars in favor of the more overt male power seen in traditionally masculine roles of military and especially political might. This focus on male spheres of power gives a misleading and often times distorted image that women in those cultures were powerless or even 'victims' of patriarchal suppression even when they weren't! And this is why even in today's feminist Western Society you see some women crying "oppression".
It's the reason why I had to call b.s. on some of the things Cooney wrote in her gender-shift article here. I remember a couple of years ago I even emailed Cooney on the topic of ancient evidence of women ritual leaders in local communities similar to today, and all she did was refer me to a couple of archaeological sources. It seems she was far more preoccupied with Egyptian queens and whatever political influence they had in royal court than the power of women in everyday life of average Egyptians.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Anyway, as far as the "romanticization" of ancient Egypt goes...
Most people tend to be drawn to wealth and glamor, especially in capitalist societies like ours which define success by how much money someone earns or how famous they become. Even our historiography tends to fixate on the rich and powerful leaders more than other individuals from the past...
Worse than that, Cooney conflates Egyptian pharaohs with modern day dictators! I personally never romanticized Egypt and saw it for what it was. Make no mistake the pharaohs like many rulers of ancient societies were no doubt potentates but to equate them with modern day dictators is an insult! For one thing, unlike modern dictatorships the institute of per-ah (pharaoh) in Egypt had checks and balances. The per-ah wasn't just a political office but a religious one as well where the king was mediator with the gods and had to uphold the mandate of Maat. There were a number of constraints on his power especially the priesthood. Not to mention that the sepati (nomes) had sovereignty of their own similar to the states that make up the U.S.
Yes, the pharaoh used propaganda to maintain some control over the general populace as the pharaoh was viewed as the shepherd of his subjects. But like all ancient kings he risked his life fighting in the battlefield unlike modern dictators who send out generals in their stead. Also unlike modern dictators, pharaohs did not murder their own citizens in acts of democide to solidify their own power! Again it seems to me that fragile white feminist mindset is just triggered by the fact that all those Egyptian (male) rulers glorified themselves in monuments somehow made them no different in her eyes from the likes of Hitler or Stalin.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I think feminism is a white women's movement, no?
Face it, all of us are biased toward something in some way. And why not? We're only human. Benign ethnocentrism is more and more becoming openly recognized as the maturing MO of the 20th century. At least that's toned down and even at times critical of the overtly racist ethnocentrism it evolved from.
I put the "[sic}" next to the author's "misogyny." I don'tjust strongly disagree. I call bullish on that idea. Females weren't unlimited (gosh dern it started way way back in the very physically intense industries and economies of the dingdong neolithic) yet as time passed females find more roles and rights without any kind of mass protest movement necessary.
Compare roles, status, rights, and law of females re AE versus any contemporaneous nation states. I won't demand they be multi-ethnic nation states as was Ta Wi because until Rome none were.
Please nobody tell me about the the Greek birth of Democracy miracle. Deaf, dumb, and blind. Separate xenophobic slavecratic city states where select males were the only ones with voting and most other rights.
Modern feminism as we know it today does indeed stem from white women. There were 3 main waves of feminism. While the 1st wave of feminism that began in the 19th century did have some validity in ending many restrictions on women including the right to education and self-determination, the following waves were largely the result of Marxist activity to use women as both sword and shield for socialist consolidation of money and power as well as the break down of family structure by undermining men. Unfortunately you see this insidious plan work all to well in the black community in America.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Guys. Well, ... I nevuh!
Hitler? Stalin?
Shoo, and here I thought Cooney just meant the power of wielding authority via a 'cult-of-personality' by the term authoritarian.
Didn't know authoritarian = totalitarian now this century.
Easy mark, naive me. The book intrigued me when I first saw the article. Now, per above critiques of its methodology
I think I'll pass on it.
I'm with Brandon on this thing: We do need to recognize, as non-royals and non-nobles unless we were scribes or top ranking militarists, we probably wouldn't want to live in a society where the 'cops' sic baboons on your arse for shoplifting or your employer canes you for sloughing off at the job the same as the AE IRS did thrash 'tax' delinquents.
Nah we couldn't go for none of that but back in its day AE was the epitome of world polical-economies attracting
* white peoples from Europe, * white, off white, and near white peoples from 'the Rock', * hodgepodge-of-colours Levantines, 'Sinai-ans', Jordanians etc
all finding a higher standard of living and civil rights than they ever could even conceive of back home outside of continental Africa
to a society where one's very afterdeath existence is tied into the supremme political authority becoming an Osiris, Osirus who judges your soul and determines 'heaven' or hell for it.
Relativity is a ... itch
Certain government inspired CoVID19 regulations are purely exercises in my authoritarianism in that they test how far a gov can ram new rules down an unthinking unexamining populaces' throats. A populace who are camera monitored via street posts, orbiting satellites, and their very own mobile devices' and Mac/PC's everyday internet activity.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The Good Kings: Absolute Power in Ancient Egypt and the Modern World
description box:
In this week’s episode Kara and Jordan discuss Kara’s new book, "The Good Kings." We look at the kings covered - Khufu, Senwosret III, Akhenaten, Ramses II, and Taharqa - and how these kings’ reigns can help us understand modern authoritarian regimes. Hope you enjoy and if you want to know more....”The Good Kings: Absolute Power in Ancient Egypt and the Modern World” is available where all books are sold.
video introduction:
welcome to After Lives with Kara Cooney in which we discuss ancient Egyptian history and relevant current events that we think will be of interest to our audience I am Kara Cooney and I'm a professor of Egyptology at UCLA this podcast is separate from my teaching and research roles at UCLA in recent years I've become active in communicating with the general public about the history of ancient Egypt through lectures interviews social media books and guest appearances this podcast is my opportunity to take the kinds of deep dives into history that are not always possible in academic formats
10:46
I've been formed in this opinion through other people as well and also through my own thoughts but it was uh Eric Wells, one of my first graduates He's my first graduate student to get his PhD under my co-advisorship and who used to run his podcast, History of Ancient Egypt- Eric Wells... We were in a seminar and this is the beginning of my tenure at UCLA when the grad students were not always super nice and kind of challenged me a little bit more.. I remember there was a period where or a point where we're talking about all of these statues and I'm like why these giant statues, if we talk about Egyptian culture as not needing to to get the peasants to do anything then why produce a massive statue at all? And Eric's like, "no they're like..." (and Eric went to more of an extreme than I necessarily would have) he went to North Korea and and Stalinist Russia and you need all of these statues and it's all of this totalitarianism and I don't think I used the word totalitarianism once in the book. However it make me go, oh it kind of shook me a little bit, which is kind of ridiculous why would an Egyptologist not think of these things as being so we love what we study we are apologists for these people so we look at it positivistically we don't look at it critically oh it's such a beautiful amazing statue of granite and we also as Egyptologists though we do kind of do this we don't do it enough politically "
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Wow! 4 hrs of binge watching. Thx (hope the presentation's viewer friendly, can't sit thru a barrage of talkinghead & charts videos)
Join Curtis Ryan Woodside, Kara Cooney, Bob Bianchi, Sofia Aziz, Aidan Dodson, Paul Harrison and John J Johnston
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I forgot to respond to this but better late than never...
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Guys. Well, ... I nevuh!
Hitler? Stalin?
Shoo, and here I thought Cooney just meant the power of wielding authority via a 'cult-of-personality' by the term authoritarian.
Didn't know authoritarian = totalitarian now this century.
No I did not equate authoritarianism to totalitarianism, but Kara Cooney's complaints seems to do so. It's as if she herself was naïve to kingship in the ancient world and only recently realized how authoritarian it was and begins to equate it with modern socialist dictators! Apparently she didn't realize that authority was a way of life in the ancient world and that those same authorities were based on their abilities to protect the peoples they ruled over. And again there was a system of checks and balances between the priesthood and local rulers who all had authority based on ethics like the pharaoh himself.
quote:Easy mark, naive me. The book intrigued me when I first saw the article. Now, per above critiques of its methodology
I think I'll pass on it.
I'm with Brandon on this thing: We do need to recognize, as non-royals and non-nobles unless we were scribes or top ranking militarists, we probably wouldn't want to live in a society where the 'cops' sic baboons on your arse for shoplifting or your employer canes you for sloughing off at the job the same as the AE IRS did thrash 'tax' delinquents.
It's true that in ancient societies there rights were not equal and were indeed class based, but truth be told even the lower classes and peasants in ancient times had relatively more freedom than in later times and yes even our own time. Living in a modern society that's not overtly controlled like in Communist China there still is covert control especially in the so-called West where one is continuously be monitored both in the internet, phone, and whose tax burdens on the middle class are greater than those of yesteryear, not to mention the political persecution going on today. I'd say a peasant from the Bronze Age had virtually no burdens compared to us now.
quote:Nah we couldn't go for none of that but back in its day AE was the epitome of world polical-economies attracting
* white peoples from Europe, * white, off white, and near white peoples from 'the Rock', * hodgepodge-of-colours Levantines, 'Sinai-ans', Jordanians etc
all finding a higher standard of living and civil rights than they ever could even conceive of back home outside of continental Africa
to a society where one's very afterdeath existence is tied into the supremme political authority becoming an Osiris, Osirus who judges your soul and determines 'heaven' or hell for it.
Not unlike Christian belief where God in the form of Jesus comes back to judge the world for their sins. I don't see how that necessarily is a bad thing if it keeps the personal behaviours of people in line NOT with politics but ethics.
quote:Relativity is a ... itch
Certain government inspired CoVID19 regulations are purely exercises in my authoritarianism in that they test how far a gov can ram new rules down an unthinking unexamining populaces' throats. A populace who are camera monitored via street posts, orbiting satellites, and their very own mobile devices' and Mac/PC's everyday internet activity.
Precisely my point! The whole COVID mandates are nothing more than political totalitarianism disguised as 'healthcare'. Again, no king or pharaoh in the ancient world would have made such decrees, including pressuring citizens to take experimental medicines!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Kara Cooney seems to be one of those feminist types that seem to have a problem with "authority" specifically male authority. She makes it seem as if authority itself is somehow a bad thing not the type of authority or how it is expressed.
Again, I have not read her book but one would think an Egyptologist like her would know that despite the theory of a pharaoh's absolute authority, in practice an Egyptian commoner would feel the authority of his/her village elders than he/she than the nomarch (provincial) ruler let alone the pharaoh.
Would the average Egyptian be say, better off in Mespotamia under the authority of a lugal (king) who was in constant battle with othe lugals for supremacy? Or what about an average Greek who lived under the authority of a tyrant (hereditary king) or archon (elected official)? And as a woman in Greece, she would feel the authority of of her husband or father (if unmarried) before any political ruler. So authority was and still is the order of the day.
The system of government most nations have today especially in the so-called West are based on European systems. Even the most so-called "democratic" governments (which are really republics) have authoritarian tendencies if checks and balances are not put in placed or used. By the way, true or direct democracy was a practice that started in Athens and was still authoritarian though in that case the authority of a mob which is what majority rule is, and therefore minorities much less individuals were at the whim of such mobs and later their mob leaders (oligarchs).
So the real issue when it comes to authority and how bad it is depends on how much restriction on freedoms the people are burdened with. When governments and government institutions whether it be individuals (kings, presidents, chancellors) or groups (councils, congresses, administrations) impose policies on citizens to the point of burden like what's going on today with COVID mandates, that's when it becomes a problem. And I'm not even going into the issue of hidden hierarchies like deep states and shadow governments, when goverments theselves are the tools they exploit.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] Kara Cooney seems to be one of those feminist types that seem to have a problem with "authority" specifically male authority. She makes it seem as if authority itself is somehow a bad thing not the type of authority or how it is expressed.
watch a little of the video, to hear exactly what she says
The Good Kings: Absolute Power in Ancient Egypt and the Modern World
Thank you for the clarification Lioness. I've been so busy lately I haven't had the time to watch Cooney's videos yet or post in this forum like I wanted but I will make the time to do so this weekend.
but I will make a rebuttal as to why ancient Egypt was not 'authoritarian' per the definitions you provided above.
Egyptian political rule was not as centralized as many believe with the 2 lands further divided into sepats and each sepat further divided into provinces with local authorities being had by the peoples' consent and religious appointment (Maat).
No people was suppressed at least by native rulers because to suppress the people is a violation of Maat. In fact, this is why there were many instances throughout Egyptian history when the pharaohs did not have full control over the entire nation with some sepats not heeding his rule and in some cases either Lower Egypt or Upper Egypt not heeding his authority. Often negotiations if not wars had to be fought not on the people but the local rulers to show them that the pharaoh was compitent to rule the entire lands.
Egyptian monarchy was technically not an absolute monarchy because although their power was both military and religious, was tempered by both the priesthoods and generals who ensured the pharaoh followed Maat (Order/Truth). Even though the Pharaoh was a god incarnate and the highest priest and medium to the gods in heaven his domestic and military ministers kept him in check as well as the priests. The same situation occurred with the sepat rulers whose support depended on the priests of local cults as well as provincial chieftains and village elders. The latter were trusted by the general people themselves.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
maybe
there are king's regimes to consider over a few thousand years
There is also the term "imperialist"
One could argue that occupations by the Egyptians and vassals states are only punishment for their attacks but it begins to sounds biased, like Putin trying to justify the invasion
^ I forgot to add that although the pharaohs were far from perfect and may have had issues such as rival claimants to the throne and harem conspiracies, what contrasts them with their royal peers in Asia or Europe was that such issues tended to handled 'in house' so to speak or rather in the royal court and such divisions or feuds for power rarely involved the entire military or common people. Again, I believe the reason for this were the checks and balances placed by the royal priesthoods and the beauracracy which upheld Maat first and foremost and the pharaoh's own station in life was based on Maat. Egyptian royals were groomed and schooled from childhood to fulfil duties that were sacred as well as political.
By the law of Maat the peoples of Egypt were in a consentual contract with their ruler. They are like a herd or flock and their king is to be a pastor or shepherd whose job is to guide and protect them from enemies both material and spiritual and NOT abuse or exploit them. To do the latter is a severe violation of Maat and is disreputable to the office and being of the pharaoh himself.
All of this changed when foreign rulers set themselves up as rulers of Egypt. These rulers were not trained in the ways of Maat and often used their Egyptian subjects as pawns. A perfect example of this is the Ptolemaic Dynasty who brought their Macedonian ways of involving the people in their dynastic feuds leading to the slaughter of many in the Delta area of Alexandrian Egypt.
What I do question is whether the pharaohs violated the rights of certain individuals. I ask this because in past research on divine kingship in Africa I've come across accounts of how African kings would on certain occassions sacrifice certain individuals for their own personal benefit and thus the benefit of their kingdom. For example, I've heard one shocking account from a British gun trader who witnessed a king testing a rifle by shooting and killing a random man. The shocked trader was told such an action was similar to the man being struck by lighting. To be killed by the king who was a god was as much divine providence as it was unfortunate for him and his family but his death served a purpose! [sic]
So I am curious as to whether such incidences occurred in ancient Egypt.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Thank you for the clarification Lioness. I've been so busy lately I haven't had the time to watch Cooney's videos yet or post in this forum like I wanted but I will make the time to do so this weekend.
but I will make a rebuttal as to why ancient Egypt was not 'authoritarian' per the definitions you provided above.
this is her website listing the latest podcasts, she seemed to have stopped doing youtubes Some sex themed, recents
Naturally in modern world where physical fighting ability rules much less some women will want to be to be elected president or take on other leadership roles and try to break male dominated traditions that have set in
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ It's as I said before, leadership roles, particularly in the political realm, have been traditionally masculine because defense was a large aspect of that role. Political leaders in most societies of the ancient world were also warriors who demonstrated the ability to protect their people. This is not to say women had no leadership roles at all as feminist historians like Max Dashu have pointed out women did lead in other spheres of society and culture but unfortunately these tend to be ignored by mainstream history for the more overt and in-your-face domineering political/military spheres that many are all too familiar with. That's why it seems like the only time we hear about women in leadership in history is only in politics as queens and more recently prime ministers and presidents or as warriors. The vast majority of females who were spiritual or community leaders get no attention or are mere footnotes.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
tend to be ignored by mainstream history for the more overt and in-your-face domineering political/military spheres
There have been no female U.S. presidents So some women observe this and Kara Cooney sees a pattern going all the way back to the Egyptians, the female pharaohs were few and far between and usually did not come to power by ordinary means. So then women decide we have to organize to get our foot in the door, so we call it feminism. So naturally we might view resistance to this as the 'authoritarianism' of the male or for want of a better word, you use 'domineering'.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I already explained why political leadership has traditionally been masculine as it largely ties to defense and protection. This is why historically when females come to power as political leaders it is rather exceptional or under atypical situations. A significant part of political leadership is protection of the people against both foreign and domestic threats. As such, is it really a problem that most cultures prefer a man to fill this role even in mother-right or so-called "matriarchal" cultures?? Egyptian culture shows traces of matrilineal practices and scholars to this day remark about the prominent status that women in Egyptian society had compared to their contempary neighbors in Asia and Europe, yet the role of king is still primarily male, even though the institute of kingship involved female relatives-- especially the mother and chief wife. The Elamites whose civilization was the first in Iran were also matrilineal with the king being succeeded by his maternal sister's son, yet it the monarch was a still a man. Even the matrilineal tribes that comprise the Iroquois Confederacy or Haudenosaunee of North America had only male chieftains and never females, even though it was a council of female elders who gave the final vote of approval for a man to become chief.
Are there exceptions to this rule of political leadership and authority being male? Of course! There were matrilineal tribes in the Congo, in Siberia, and even in the Amazon that had female chieftains, but such tribes resided in very secluded areas where there was little to no conflict or instances of warfare and so military defense was not really an issue. In the patrilineal cultures of the Celts of northwest Europe and Iranian peoples of the plateau, a woman could become queen if there was no male heir or inherit the throne as dowager (widow), yet all girls of noble birth were given martial training from childhood similar to the boys just in case. Still, even though capable women were put on the throne as rulers they were still exceptions to the expectation of male rulers for the obvious reason that men are better suited for battle.
This begs the question, why are many 'modern' women in the so-called West like Cooney and especially radical feminists so keen in having women in the government not simply as representatives or legistlators but as chief executors even when that role requires powers of defense especially during a wartime situation? Again, this is not to say that a woman can't or shouldn't fill that role, but generally men tend to be better suited to it than women for the said reason that men were typically the fighters.
I am also curious if Cooney and other women of line of thinking only associate authoritarianism with men and the male sex only. Surely, someone like her familiar with history would know about the 'Good Queens' like Cleopatra, Roman Empresses like Julia Agrippina and Messalina Veleria, Chinese Empresses like Wu Zetian and Zhao Feiyan or queens of England like Mary I and Elizabeth I. I could go on and on since corruption and abuse of power doesn't just pertain to men only.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
You are simply describing a tradition of male dominance where physical superiority was perhaps only a factor in ancient times in small tribes.
The gender of a president is irrelevant to their command of the military and national defense.
a long list
List of elected and appointed female heads of state and government
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: You are simply describing a tradition of male dominance where physical superiority was perhaps only a factor in ancient times in small tribes.
The gender of a president is irrelevant to their command of the military and national defense.
a long list
List of elected and appointed female heads of state and government
Sometimes you have to let go of the modern "social science" and use common sense. In the history of the world there had been a strong correlation between gender and rulership/dominance. If it's just a tradition, it's a human tradition. That long list you provided, grew that long because of modern technology. It's fair if you believe that technology obsoleted gender based society, but there are clear differences between the two biological sexes of human beings. You have to operate with some intellectual integrity when revisiting these "traditions," as gendered roles were clearly spawn from biological imperative.
We have whole unrelated matriarchies across the world which appointed male leadership... clearly there's something more here than just "tradition." Our biological differences are the biggest gatekeepers when it comes to roles distribution by gender. We can't force our contemporary western views of sociology on different populations through time and space.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
I think the main reason you have certain gender roles in cultures around the world is because of the burdens of pregnancy and nursing that many women would have experienced, especially in pre-contraceptive times where almost any sexual intercourse between men and women would lead to babies. I imagine fighting in a war would be tough if you're bearing a child.
That said, I do think gender relations would have been more egalitarian the further back in time you went. There's some recently uncovered archaeological evidence that even the "men hunt, women gather" dynamic you see in modern foragers may have been a recent, post-Paleolithic development.
quote:Sexual division of labor with females as gatherers and males as hunters is a major empirical regularity of hunter-gatherer ethnography, suggesting an ancestral behavioral pattern. We present an archeological discovery and meta-analysis that challenge the man-the-hunter hypothesis. Excavations at the Andean highland site of Wilamaya Patjxa reveal a 9000-year-old human burial (WMP6) associated with a hunting toolkit of stone projectile points and animal processing tools. Osteological, proteomic, and isotopic analyses indicate that this early hunter was a young adult female who subsisted on terrestrial plants and animals. Analysis of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene burial practices throughout the Americas situate WMP6 as the earliest and most secure hunter burial in a sample that includes 10 other females in statistical parity with early male hunter burials. The findings are consistent with nongendered labor practices in which early hunter-gatherer females were big-game hunters.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Also in Scandinavia we see examples of women buried with hunting and fishing tools. One example is the woman from Barum, province of Scania, now housed in the National History Museum in Stockholm. She is also 9000 years old. She was first thought to be a man due to the tools which were found in her grave, but further analyze showed that she was a woman.
quote: The ca 9000 year old skeleton of a woman that’s known as Bäckaskogskvinnan, the Bäckaskog woman, was found 1939 in Scania. For many years she was more known as Fiskaren från Barum*, The Fisher from Barum. This is one of the oldest and most well preserved skeletons from the Mesolithic Stone Age within the borders of Sweden.
The woman was ca 150 cm and about 45 years old when she died, and she was buried in a sitting, crouching position. With her there was a flint-edged bone arrow and a chisel-like bone object that may have been used as a kind of needle for making/mending nets, for digging for roots etc., or for something that we can’t identify. The skeleton was interpreted by archaeologists as having been a man, although there were many uncertainties regarding the gendering; e.g. the size was considered too small for a man and the pelvis and skull not having specifically defined male features. One reason that was used as support for the theory was the arrow with the flints which indicated that the owner had been a hunter, and therefore presumably a man.
This interpretation came to dominate until 1970 when a new examination of the pelvis was undertaken and it was discovered that it had marks from several child-births. The fisher became a woman. At the same time the epithet changed from including an imagined occupation to defining the person’s gender. Apparently the person from Bäckaskog couldn’t keep the epithet ‘fisher’ anymore after it was decided that she was a woman.
(*Bäckaskog is the name of the castle on which properties the find was made, and Barum is the name of the village where the castle is situated. Both place names are used for the find but Bäckaskog is the name that is regularly used by the National Historical Museum.)
But as for romanticizing Egypt generally, there is a huge amount of that slavery is passed off as just punishment for war captives and it is assumed that every war was defensive (history written by the victors) And imagine if Biden or Trump decided to put giant statues of themselves everywhere and have massive tombs made for their passing.
Here the king is celebrated for about to be clubbing someone to death and on the other side beheaded enemies .
.
Captives, Tutankhamun's Footstool
and they love to show off their bound captives and processions of vassal bringing tributes always displaying their dominance over other groups, celebrating it
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I think the main reason you have certain gender roles in cultures around the world is because of the burdens of pregnancy and nursing that many women would have experienced, especially in pre-contraceptive times where almost any sexual intercourse between men and women would lead to babies. I imagine fighting in a war would be tough if you're bearing a child.
That said, I do think gender relations would have been more egalitarian the further back in time you went. There's some recently uncovered archaeological evidence that even the "men hunt, women gather" dynamic you see in modern foragers may have been a recent, post-Paleolithic development.
It goes without saying that women also hunted especially before Humans adopted more sedentary lifestyles. But they did so at a fraction of the rate the men did, and vice versa for gathering... because each respective gender were just better at what they did.
If apes, our closest living relatives adopted gender roles though they're significantly less dimorphic sexually. Why would humans naturally be any different??
Not to get too deep but I typically observe a multilayered series of sociological anachronism... the big ones lie within Modern convention, Adapting to sendentism, and Foraging lifestyles. As it relates to the OP, we tend to try to establish our modern political narratives through the actions of our ancestors... or other ancient human populations. we do the same thing with slavery, and how it was perceived in history as TL points out.
But I think the modern day blank-slate ideology among genders is pretty gnarly. It actually makes no sense but it feels like it should... Imagine me in my adult years learning that a lot of the times women didn't do what men did because they just didn't want to. I always thought it was the patriarchy!
Posted by Techtronics (Member # 15917) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
If apes, our closest living relatives adopted gender roles though they're significantly less dimorphic sexually. Why would humans naturally be any different??
Not to mention the fact nothing sexier than Woman has been found in the Universe. 😎
Rule number #1. Don't discuss sex with *******. 😎
MOD: What are you talking about here? Please respect the discussion topic ///MOD
[ 04. March 2022, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Elmaestro ]
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: You are simply describing a tradition of male dominance where physical superiority was perhaps only a factor in ancient times in small tribes.
Did you read my entire post? This tradition was not limited to small tribes but entire nations and even empires. The political leader was also a military leader who had to prove himself competent in military affairs. Warfare is part of politics. Warriors were typically male. Does this mean there were no female warriors or heads of state? Of course not. I already provided just a few examples but these were the exceptions to the rule. Women were always involved in the politics of their respective states and even had power and influence in that sphere but rarely as chief executors.
Something very interesting that rarely gets discussed is that according to findings of many scholars like Max Dashu, the majority of instances where women end up as political heads either in a tribe or state, do so originally starting off as spiritual leaders and NOT from the political realm. Many of those Siberian and Congolese tribal female chieftains were also shamans who started off as the latter first before being made chiefs. The earliest known ruler known by name in Japan was Himiko/Pimiko who was a Mikogami (shaman) who was made ruler of the state of Yamatai after a long period of civil war and strife. According to the later imperial chronicles of Nihon Shoki when the Yamato emperor was conquering the islands to create the Japanese empire, there were provinces still ruled by miko. Similarly in Mandarin China there were provinces in the south ruled by Wu (shamans). In Europe from Late Roman times to the Middle Ages there are chronicles of village communities and even entire provinces ruled by 'witches' who came into conflict with dukes and kings. The Czech tribes were first united into a single nation by Krok who was succeeded by his daughter Libushe and her two sisters who were vedma (witches) who sat in judgement and prophesized for their people under trees similar what Deborah did for Israel. Libushe founded the capital of Prague and when the people requested a king she relented even though she prophesized that her husband will give them hardship through war and taxation. In the Americas, the first ruler of the Inca ancestors was a Coya (queen) Mama Huaco who was said to be a woman "possessing divine powers" who commanded spirits. The Nahua (Aztecs) in their chronicles say their ancestors came from the north from a land called Aztlan after their chief and chiefs of other tribes failed to challenge Quilaztli a powerful nagual (witch) who became ruler. The most striking examples of female spiritual leaders being made political is during times of great threats by foreign imperial powers as seen in European nations threated by Rome or later African and American nations threatened by European powers. Under such circumstances when the male leaders fail especially militarily they then turn to spiritual guidance which succeeds but only for some brevity before the imperial power takes over.
quote:The gender of a president is irrelevant to their command of the military and national defense.
a long list
List of elected and appointed female heads of state and government
You seem to be hung up on female presidents. As far as I'm aware there weren't many women candidates until only within the last several years. As to how many of them are eligible is a different matter altogether. You're right that gender shouldn't matter as there are female heads of other states so why does it seem to matter to you? Who do you think would be a good candidate? Hillary Clinton?! LOL Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Sometimes you have to let go of the modern "social science" and use common sense. In the history of the world there had been a strong correlation between gender and rulership/dominance. If it's just a tradition, it's a human tradition. That long list you provided, grew that long because of modern technology. It's fair if you believe that technology obsoleted gender based society, but there are clear differences between the two biological sexes of human beings. You have to operate with some intellectual integrity when revisiting these "traditions," as gendered roles were clearly spawn from biological imperative.
We have whole unrelated matriarchies across the world which appointed male leadership... clearly there's something more here than just "tradition." Our biological differences are the biggest gatekeepers when it comes to roles distribution by gender. We can't force our contemporary western views of sociology on different populations through time and space.
This is exactly my point! Again, I don't have any issue with women being leaders, but let's be real when it comes to issues of defense and protection men have been and still continue to be the standard person for such a job despite how modern technology has alleviated such biological disparities i.e. guns and firepower. Ironically while I personally have no qualms with having a female president (as long as she's capable), polls conducted until recently show that the overwhelming majority of women prefer a man for the job than a woman. Why? because women instinctually turn to men for safety and security than other women. It's that simple.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I think the main reason you have certain gender roles in cultures around the world is because of the burdens of pregnancy and nursing that many women would have experienced, especially in pre-contraceptive times where almost any sexual intercourse between men and women would lead to babies. I imagine fighting in a war would be tough if you're bearing a child.
That said, I do think gender relations would have been more egalitarian the further back in time you went. There's some recently uncovered archaeological evidence that even the "men hunt, women gather" dynamic you see in modern foragers may have been a recent, post-Paleolithic development.
quote:Sexual division of labor with females as gatherers and males as hunters is a major empirical regularity of hunter-gatherer ethnography, suggesting an ancestral behavioral pattern. We present an archeological discovery and meta-analysis that challenge the man-the-hunter hypothesis. Excavations at the Andean highland site of Wilamaya Patjxa reveal a 9000-year-old human burial (WMP6) associated with a hunting toolkit of stone projectile points and animal processing tools. Osteological, proteomic, and isotopic analyses indicate that this early hunter was a young adult female who subsisted on terrestrial plants and animals. Analysis of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene burial practices throughout the Americas situate WMP6 as the earliest and most secure hunter burial in a sample that includes 10 other females in statistical parity with early male hunter burials. The findings are consistent with nongendered labor practices in which early hunter-gatherer females were big-game hunters.
The problem is that some people confuse equality with sameness! Just because men and women are equal does not mean they are the same or should have the same exact tasks and roles. By the way, Australian aboriginal women and some Khoisan women did some hunting on the side themselves. It should be noted that unsurprisingly in the Late Paleolithic women in some societies took more part in hunting with the advent of microliths (i.e. bow and arrows) for the obvious reason of technology becoming an equalizer the same as with firearms today.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Also in Scandinavia we see examples of women buried with hunting and fishing tools. One example is the woman from Barum, province of Scania, now housed in the National History Museum in Stockholm. She is also 9000 years old. She was first thought to be a man due to the tools which were found in her grave, but further analyze showed that she was a woman.
quote: The ca 9000 year old skeleton of a woman that’s known as Bäckaskogskvinnan, the Bäckaskog woman, was found 1939 in Scania. For many years she was more known as Fiskaren från Barum*, The Fisher from Barum. This is one of the oldest and most well preserved skeletons from the Mesolithic Stone Age within the borders of Sweden.
The woman was ca 150 cm and about 45 years old when she died, and she was buried in a sitting, crouching position. With her there was a flint-edged bone arrow and a chisel-like bone object that may have been used as a kind of needle for making/mending nets, for digging for roots etc., or for something that we can’t identify. The skeleton was interpreted by archaeologists as having been a man, although there were many uncertainties regarding the gendering; e.g. the size was considered too small for a man and the pelvis and skull not having specifically defined male features. One reason that was used as support for the theory was the arrow with the flints which indicated that the owner had been a hunter, and therefore presumably a man.
This interpretation came to dominate until 1970 when a new examination of the pelvis was undertaken and it was discovered that it had marks from several child-births. The fisher became a woman. At the same time the epithet changed from including an imagined occupation to defining the person’s gender. Apparently the person from Bäckaskog couldn’t keep the epithet ‘fisher’ anymore after it was decided that she was a woman.
(*Bäckaskog is the name of the castle on which properties the find was made, and Barum is the name of the village where the castle is situated. Both place names are used for the find but Bäckaskog is the name that is regularly used by the National Historical Museum.)
Yes there has been a lot or reassessment in archaeology thanks to bio-anthropology particularly in the realm of 'sexing'. A lot of ancient skeletal remains especially in Europe who were previously identified as male due to assemblage alone (weapons) were later found to be female.
You are simply describing a tradition of male dominance where physical superiority was perhaps only a factor in ancient times in small tribes.[/qb]
Did you read my entire post? This tradition was not limited to small tribes but entire nations and even empires. The political leader was also a military leader who had to prove himself competent in military affairs. Warfare is part of politics. Warriors were typically male.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Again this is the modern world and it is war minded to suggest a leader needs to be "had to prove himself competent in military affairs" Look at all the pharaohs, look at all the kings of Europe and in general, kings all around the world Do they all have to prove themselves "prove themselves competent in military affairs" What is this proof? Look at whoever you want, Tutankhamun, Thomas Jefferson, Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, whatever You proposal is that to be a president you have to have been in the military?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:The gender of a president is irrelevant to their command of the military and national defense.
a long list
List of elected and appointed female heads of state and government
You seem to be hung up on female presidents. As far as I'm aware there weren't many women candidates until only within the last several years. As to how many of them are eligible is a different matter altogether. You're right that gender shouldn't matter as there are female heads of other states so why does it seem to matter to you? Who do you think would be a good candidate? Hillary Clinton?! LOL
It matters when you look and see 46 presidents and they are all male and then look at other countries and they have already broken this glass ceiling
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Woman looks at the U.S. presidents and does not see one female and the U.S. is supposed to be socially advanced and then compare to other nations:
And again, this is like saying there aren't that many women in Info-tech fields. Are you saying the problems is sexism or rather that there aren't that many women interested in the field and the ones who are aren't exactly right for the job? In the case of the U.S. we are a young country a little over 200 years old based on Western (Romano-Germanic) culture. And again only recently has there been any number of women who ran for the office of the presidency. We are talking about a major political office here not some college campus student board. So any type of affirmative action/ diversity hire is not acquired.
quote:But as for romanticizing Egypt generally, there is a huge amount of that slavery is passed off as just punishment for war captives and it is assumed that every war was defensive (history written by the victors) And imagine if Biden or Trump decided to put giant statues of themselves everywhere and have massive tombs made for their passing.
Well, unlike Greece or Rome, Egyptians like many Africans restricted slavery only to foreign enemies and criminals. It makes sense that their labor be used as reparations. As for the Biden or Trump bit, those are presidents NOT kings who were viewed as gods incarnate the way Egyptian kings were so yeah.
quote:
Here the king is celebrated for about to be clubbing someone to death and on the other side beheaded enemies . .
Captives, Tutankhamun's Footstool
and they love to show off their bound captives and processions of vassal bringing tributes always displaying their dominance over other groups, celebrating it
As I explained to you in another thread such depictions are part of a magical ritual of execration to ensure the enemies' loss of power in this world and in the next.
Would it make you feel better if such acts are performed by women?
Nefertiti
Kandake (Queen) Amanitore
head of statue Augustus Caesar buried under threshold of Kandake's palace entrance after she defeated him in battle (so as to keep stepping on him)
So when men do it, it's 'authoritarian' [read: toxic masculinity] but if women do it, it's just and loving??
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:But as for romanticizing Egypt generally, there is a huge amount of that slavery is passed off as just punishment for war captives and it is assumed that every war was defensive (history written by the victors) And imagine if Biden or Trump decided to put giant statues of themselves everywhere and have massive tombs made for their passing.
Egyptians like many Africans restricted slavery only to foreign enemies and criminals. It makes sense that their labor be used as reparations. As for the Biden or Trump bit, those are presidents NOT kings who were viewed as gods incarnate the way Egyptian kings were so yeah.
That's called romanticizing Egypt, the idea that slavery of prisoners is "reparations", assuming that all wars by Egyptian kings were defensive and none imperialist, done to control land and extract resources
_______________
Biden, Trump, Jefferson, Tutankhamun. take your pick as regard this idea that someone has to have military service background to lead to a country
Tutankhamun’s sandals, bound Asiatic and Nubian on each to place his feet on
^^ this an ugly display despite apologist explanation suggesting they were superstitious to the extent that they thought they had to do this because they thought it would magically protect them
>> as they made all these group bring them "gifts" in bowing vassal processions
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: That's called romanticizing Egypt, the idea that slavery of prisoners is "reparations", assuming that all wars by Egyptian kings were defensive and none imperialist, done to control land and extract resources _______________
How am I romanticizing? The Egyptians did restrict slavery to enemy prisoners of war and didn't just raid innocent tribes and villages for slaves. Also I never said the Egyptians were not imperialistic as the whole New Kingdom was the result of imperial conquest of both the Levant and Nubia, though such actions were only taken after the Theban kings uncovered the conspiracy of the Levantine Hyksos and Kushites to divide Egypt between them. So unless you can provide me evidence that the Theban kings fought imperial wars just to conquer innocent people and take their resources, perhaps you are guilty of demonizing ancient Egypt.
quote:Biden, Trump, Jefferson, Tutankhamun. take your pick as regard this idea that someone has to have military service background to lead to a country
Biden and Trump never served in the military and I never said one had to serve in the military to lead a country, however the best leaders were the ones who risked their lives in such service. This is why in olden times Jefferson and Washington were picked largely on military service and in ancient times royals like King Tut had to be militarily trained in order to lead his people.
quote: Tutankhamun’s sandals, bound Asiatic and Nubian on each to place his feet on
^^ this an ugly display despite apologist explanation suggesting they were superstitious to the extent that they thought they had to do this because they thought it would magically protect them
>> as they made all these group bring them "gifts" in bowing vassal processions
There is no "apologism" behind it but is simply an objective explanation on execration that I gave here.
To you it's "ugly" but to the Egyptians, not just the king and priests, but even the common people it is a way of keeping the enemy in check.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Also I never said the Egyptians were not imperialistic as the whole New Kingdom was the result of imperial conquest of both the Levant and Nubia, though such actions were only taken after the Theban kings uncovered the conspiracy of the Levantine Hyksos and Kushites to divide Egypt between them. So unless you can provide me evidence that the Theban kings fought imperial wars just to conquer innocent people and take their resources, perhaps you are guilty of demonizing ancient Egypt.
Egyptian version of history similar to Putin's, "they made us do it"
Kings in Egypt are in command of the military due to bloodline not having been combat veterans
but you said you were going to watch some of these Kara Cooney videos and report I only skimmed a couple so I am not representing whatever types of arguments she might be making.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Would it make you feel better if such acts are performed by women?
Nefertiti
So when men do it, it's 'authoritarian' [read: toxic masculinity] but if women do it, it's just and loving??
Interesting but rare image of Nefertiti about to hit somebody with a weapon
Pretty ugly stuff, kings and queens both, showing off their violence in stone "Toxic masculinity", this is not my lingo
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Egyptian version of history similar to Putin's, "they made us do it"
Are you serious?! Why are you comparing what's going on today with modern dictators to ancient Egyptian kings? I think your delusions of 'authoritarianism' are worse than Kara Cooney. Kemet (Egypt) was divided with Lower Egypt being ruled by the Levantine Hyksos and Upper Egypt being ruled by Theban kings who had no ambitions of imperialism until they intercepted a message with an agreement between the Hyksos king and the Kushite king that the latter can conquer Upper Egypt with the former's aide. The Kushites were already guilty of incursions and sackings during the Middle Kingdom and now this. So the kings of Upper Egypt and their queens-- sister-wives fought a series of battles to liberate Lower Egypt from the Hyksos but also establish control over the Levant as a buffer against further Asiatic incursions and they did the same with Kush/Nubia.
Now tell me what does the above situation have anything to do with Russia today and what Putin is doing??
By the way, I'm no apologist for Putin but the Ukrainian government is being manipulated by people who aren't exactly good guys either.
quote:Kings in Egypt are in command of the military due to bloodline not having been combat veterans
Before a prince ascends the throne they are to have combat training and often have combat experience if they ascend as adults just like all royals in ancient times. Do you even know about royal duties?
quote:but you said you were going to watch some of these Kara Cooney videos and report I only skimmed a couple so I am not representing whatever types of arguments she might be making.
I said I'll watch the videos when I have the time, but I'm a very busy person and barely have time to write these responses.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Do you need Legit Hackers? If you are looking for a professional hacker who knows how to get the job done. We provide comprehensive hacking skills in several areas. We are available to assist our clients in achieving favorable outcomes, messages and evidence.
Area of Service & Technical Ability Below
*Online trading & investment fund recovery *Gmail and hotmail hack etc *Twitter hack *Instagram hack *Website hack *Facebook & whatsapp hack *Social media hack *Database hack & Blog Cleaning *Credit Scores Upgrade *Phone & Gadget Hack *CREDIT CARD Loading minimum $10k *PayPal Loading & Money Flipping *Clearing Of Criminal Records
He’s as discreet and professional and good too. He’s kinda picky though so make mention of the reference Rohit. You are welcome. Want faster service? Contact us! uniquebruteforcehack AT Protonmail. com
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I strongly recommend this book from my former library
Robert Briffault (1927) The Mothers: a study of the origins of sentiments and institutions London: George Allen & Unwin LTD
Incidently I fondly remember the hours spent at Allen Bookshop in Philly decades ago. Way down in the basements' former coal bin was were the Africana was stacked.
Anc Hist, Arch and Anth were up on the 3rd floor.
People commented that going through George Allen Bookshop was like visiting the stacks at Oxford.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
By the way, I have to ask about this statement by Elmaestro earlier.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: If apes, our closest living relatives adopted gender roles though they're significantly less dimorphic sexually. Why would humans naturally be any different??
quote:Human sexual body size dimorphism (male/female ratio) is on average 1.15, though depending on the location values range from 1.09-1.28. Estimates of sexual body size dimorphism in the Homo lineage are controversial. Whereas some claim A. afarensis to exhibit marked dimorphism similar to gorillas, others argue for values intermediate to chimpanzees and modern humans. Due to the scarcity of fossil remains, the large area over which they are collected, and assumptions regarding the sex of the fossils, the estimates of dimorphism are highly variable. Apart from overall body size estimates, the canine size of afarensis is smaller than that seen in chimpanzees, with the reduction in size continuing in modern humans. Gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans all exhibit sexual body size dimorphism, but to different extents and for different ontogenetic reasons. Lowland gorillas show the greatest dimorphism, having a male/female bodyweight ratio of 2.37. Orangutans also show large dimorphism (male/female ratio = 2.23), while the ratio for bonobos and chimpanzees is more moderate (1.36 and 1.29 respectively).
By the way, I don't have a problem with the notion that some sex or gender differences in psychology and behavior are hardwired. The very existence of transgender people, who tend to be born with the body of one sex and the brain structure of the other, says to me that there are some innate differences in brain structure between the sexes to start with. However, I think the human brain's fundamental malleability makes it easier to smooth over any mental differences between human males and females with socialization than it would be for other animals. You can raise a man or a woman to go against gender expectations in a way you couldn't for, say, male and female chimps.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Human sexual body size dimorphism (male/female ratio) is on average 1.15, though depending on the location values range from 1.09-1.28. Estimates of sexual body size dimorphism in the Homo lineage are controversial. Whereas some claim A. afarensis to exhibit marked dimorphism similar to gorillas, others argue for values intermediate to chimpanzees and modern humans. Due to the scarcity of fossil remains, the large area over which they are collected, and assumptions regarding the sex of the fossils, the estimates of dimorphism are highly variable. Apart from overall body size estimates, the canine size of afarensis is smaller than that seen in chimpanzees, with the reduction in size continuing in modern humans. Gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans all exhibit sexual body size dimorphism, but to different extents and for different ontogenetic reasons. Lowland gorillas show the greatest dimorphism, having a male/female bodyweight ratio of 2.37. Orangutans also show large dimorphism (male/female ratio = 2.23), while the ratio for bonobos and chimpanzees is more moderate (1.36 and 1.29 respectively).
By the way, I don't have a problem with the notion that some sex or gender differences in psychology and behavior are hardwired. The very existence of transgender people, who tend to be born with the body of one sex and the brain structure of the other, says to me that there are some innate differences in brain structure between the sexes to start with. However, I think the human brain's fundamental malleability makes it easier to smooth over any mental differences between human males and females with socialization than it would be for other animals. You can raise a man or a woman to go against gender expectations in a way you couldn't for, say, male and female chimps. [/QB]
hmm... I learned something here, I didn't know Chimps averaged 10kgs in difference. But to answer your question, I was just thinking of most morphological differences outside of body-weight. Human body weight is highly variable, I think it's best to be inquisitive when looking at the ratio of bodyweight between Men and women in the sense of dimorphism. These three contributing factors are more important to look at in isolation.
Men should weight more than women but they don't in some nations. BMI is quite useful in this context for it scales with height and deals with average healthy functioning adults. What's actually the case in humans, is that women at the same BMI store on average more fat than men according to the CDC (also referenced in Muscular development article above).
TL;DR... in early homonid evolution, Humans developed less muscle mass and females stored more fat. sexual height differences among our closest non human relatives are negligable, Bone density is less dimorphic and muscular development is more dimorphic (with no overlap between sexes). So when it comes to body mass dimorphism we have Chimps beat 2/3, ..but with the difference in musculature we gained more average dimorphism in body composition especially how fat is stored. Both realities contribute to a more equal body-weight between genders in humans.
I see what you're saying about the Transgender issue... It makes sense but, I know not enough to really agree with that or not. At best I can take your word on it. However as for the malleable brain hypothesis, eh I might have to disagree. I don't think it's malleability that makes it easier to smooth over traditional differences. I believe it's more in the complexity of our brains and high sapience that allows us to act in ways that oppose our hard-wiring. We aren't physiologically malleable however we're psychologically powerful. Think about some religions and how it diametrically opposes our biological imperatives through will power for example. So yeah, no doubt we can override some of our differences But there's obvious stress when trying to do so.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I don't want to turn this thread into a sex vs. gender argument, but it seems Lioness is bringing us there.
She brings up the feminist talking points about a "glass ceiling" while ignoring the fact that political executive leadership has traditionally been held by men because they were warriors/soldiers who displayed prowess in defense and this was especially true of monarchs from royal families. Princes received military training from childhood and from adolescence took part in war campaigns and expeditions. This military role in political leadership has continued only until recent times where in modern so-called 'Democracies' leaders can be elected to office without having any military service. Defense service aside, it's gotten to the point where any man (or woman for that matter) could be elected to office based on nice sounding talking points and slogans.
Again, historically there were women who fulfilled the role of political executors or heads of state. But these were exceptions to the rule. The majority of female executors in history whether tribal chieftains or queens started out as spiritual leaders to their people first and through some extraordinary circumstances were thrust into the role of political leadership since religion and politics were always intertwined and in some instances one and the same. In other occasions women became queens due to their economic ingenuity and business savvy. For example, the only woman in the Sumerian King List was Kubaba who was originally a beermaker and tavern owner who founded her own dynasty. In pre-Islamic Indonesia there were kingdoms founded by female merchants who plied trade in their textiles etc. Only in more rare instances do women rise to power as heads from the political sphere alone usually through proving themselves by overcoming certain odds especially during times of war or conflict not necessarily as the bold 'female warriors' that many fantasize in modern times especially Hollywood, but as diplomatic peace-makers and negotiators.
By the way, when it comes to female monarchs the term 'queen' gets thrown out a lot but there were specific 'types' of queens. The most common is queen-consort which is queen by marriage to a king; there is queen-mother which is mother to a reigning king; queen-regent is a queen who rules temporarily while the heir is to throne is too young; queen-coregent is a queen who rules alongside her king; queen-dowager is a widowed queen; and finally queen-regnant is a queen who rules in her own right. The last especially in patrilineal societies only happens when there are no male heirs to the throne. As you may have noticed, all categories of queen are in relation to the king who was typically the ruling monarch. Note that traditionally queens in the royal court even if they were not the reigning monarch still held significant influence if not power since they managed the royal household or palace.
Posted by Tehutimes (Member # 21712) on :
Kara Cooney needs to get a tan. Damn she is so pale complexioned. If she hates Ancient Khemit Kings so much why doesn't she focus on her Celtic tribal heritage, her Roman, Teutonic, or Viking tribal ancestry? She's just spewing negativity since Ancient Khemit was an African Empire built by Black Africans.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
now (ie pre-20th century) in the hands of male Imenokalen?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I don't want to turn this thread into a sex vs. gender argument, but it seems Lioness is bringing us there.
She brings up the feminist talking points about a "glass ceiling" while ignoring the fact that political executive leadership has traditionally been held by men because they were warriors/soldiers who displayed prowess in defense and this was especially true of monarchs from royal families. Princes received military training from childhood and from adolescence took part in war campaigns and expeditions. This military role in political leadership has continued only until recent times where in modern so-called 'Democracies' leaders can be elected to office without having any military service. Defense service aside, it's gotten to the point where any man (or woman for that matter) could be elected to office based on nice sounding talking points and slogans.
Again, historically there were women who fulfilled the role of political executors or heads of state. But these were exceptions to the rule. The majority of female executors in history whether tribal chieftains or queens started out as spiritual leaders to their people first and through some extraordinary circumstances were thrust into the role of political leadership since religion and politics were always intertwined and in some instances one and the same. In other occasions women became queens due to their economic ingenuity and business savvy. For example, the only woman in the Sumerian King List was Kubaba who was originally a beermaker and tavern owner who founded her own dynasty. In pre-Islamic Indonesia there were kingdoms founded by female merchants who plied trade in their textiles etc. Only in more rare instances do women rise to power as heads from the political sphere alone usually through proving themselves by overcoming certain odds especially during times of war or conflict not necessarily as the bold 'female warriors' that many fantasize in modern times especially Hollywood, but as diplomatic peace-makers and negotiators.
By the way, when it comes to female monarchs the term 'queen' gets thrown out a lot but there were specific 'types' of queens. The most common is queen-consort which is queen by marriage to a king; there is queen-mother which is mother to a reigning king; queen-regent is a queen who rules temporarily while the heir is to throne is too young; queen-coregent is a queen who rules alongside her king; queen-dowager is a widowed queen; and finally queen-regnant is a queen who rules in her own right. The last especially in patrilineal societies only happens when there are no male heirs to the throne. As you may have noticed, all categories of queen are in relation to the king who was typically the ruling monarch. Note that traditionally queens in the royal court even if they were not the reigning monarch still held significant influence if not power since they managed the royal household or palace.
@ Djehuti Whenya gessome time please reply to above Kel taGelmoust post, thx!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tehutimes: Kara Cooney needs to get a tan. Damn she is so pale complexioned. If she hates Ancient Khemit Kings so much why doesn't she focus on her Celtic tribal heritage, her Roman, Teutonic, or Viking tribal ancestry? She's just spewing negativity since Ancient Khemit was an African Empire built by Black Africans.
It wasn't built by "black africans" nor do you have anything to do with ancient "khemit"
Posted by TubuYal23 (Member # 23503) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Tehutimes: Kara Cooney needs to get a tan. Damn she is so pale complexioned. If she hates Ancient Khemit Kings so much why doesn't she focus on her Celtic tribal heritage, her Roman, Teutonic, or Viking tribal ancestry? She's just spewing negativity since Ancient Khemit was an African Empire built by Black Africans.
It wasn't built by "black africans" nor do you have anything to do with ancient "khemit"
It was built by "black" Africans no matter how much your delusional azz wants to deny it.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by TubuYal23:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Tehutimes: Kara Cooney needs to get a tan. Damn she is so pale complexioned. If she hates Ancient Khemit Kings so much why doesn't she focus on her Celtic tribal heritage, her Roman, Teutonic, or Viking tribal ancestry? She's just spewing negativity since Ancient Khemit was an African Empire built by Black Africans.
It wasn't built by "black africans" nor do you have anything to do with ancient "khemit"
It was built by "black" Africans no matter how much your delusional azz wants to deny it.
nope it was built by people who looked and were related to modern egyptians certainly not some afro-americans with 20% of anglo ancestry.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^ please let's not go off topic into a "was Egypt black?" picture war, thanks
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Quay quai and take a seat!
How you gonna tell ppl what MY THREAD is for.
It's not about that woman.
It's about the concept many have of painting AE in pastel colors ignoring the dogged reality this bronze-iron age super civilization was one none of us would really want to live in due to HR standards below America and 2nd World political-economies.
TUBALYA23 and that other respondant can post whatever in the world they feel like with my express permission -- though that theme is old and played out since before I got here in 2004.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
How you gonna tell ppl what MY THREAD is for.
It's about the concept many have of painting AE in pastel colors ignoring the dogged reality
Ok, I didn't realize that was the topic
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
How you gonna tell ppl what MY THREAD is for.
It's about the concept many have of painting AE in pastel colors ignoring the dogged reality
Ok, I didn't realize that was the topic
Would you mind not blanking out your comments, especially after being responded to. It's poor etiquette.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I forgot my exact words, if this is a court record somebody let me know exactly what I said in case I left off a dot on an i
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
@Tukuler
I see you're back.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
???
I have taken hiatus of varying lengths many times over the last 18 years.
One such hiatus led to Rey successfully contacting Sammi and acquiring ADMIN status of this sight. Rey was kind enough to ask me permission to do so. That was unnecessary but i did appreciate the respect he showed to me by doing so.
I will take hiatus many more times in the future before I wear myself out over inconsequentials.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
I hear that she sends a little needle sting to what is probably meant to be the "Vintage Egyptologist" concerning appropriate clothing when going to Egypt and participating in fieldwork there.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: If you don't like it lump it and GTFA
Bit and pieces of my life are somehow regularly shattered regularly ragged due to "white v black stuff". Its basis? I can't just be a person, a human being, but I must be, pending attire, swagger, and diction, a suspect Old Gangbanger ex-con or at best "the black guy."
If you were black you'd know that feeling and wouldn't try to play off the crippling real life negative consequences of white black stuff. Being white you don't suffer its consequences and resent hearing we the bearers groan at the weight forced upon us or one of your fellows truly empathize.
This is my thread You will not dictate its direction.
Stop the whining, you are not the only one in the world that has been a victim of prejudice and racism.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I hear that she sends a little needle sting to what is probably meant to be the "Vintage Egyptologist" concerning appropriate clothing when going to Egypt and participating in fieldwork there.
So the colonial era vintage garb is the appropriate?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Quay qui you insensitive Wino voice of clueless white privilege.
Yes the Africans in Ukraine are the latest example of black-white stuff you'll never ever experience.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: If you don't like it lump it and GTFA
Bit and pieces of my life are somehow regularly shattered regularly ragged due to "white v black stuff". Its basis? I can't just be a person, a human being, but I must be, pending attire, swagger, and diction, a suspect Old Gangbanger ex-con or at best "the black guy."
If you were black you'd know that feeling and wouldn't try to play off the crippling real life negative consequences of white black stuff. Being white you don't suffer its consequences and resent hearing we the bearers groan at the weight forced upon us or one of your fellows truly empathize.
This is my thread You will not dictate its direction.
Stop the whining, you are not the only one in the world that has been a victim of prejudice and racism.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
THIS IS MY THREAD
I said enough of centralizing that white woman.
Time to focus on the real topic Romanticizing ancient Egypt in particular and any and all previous civilizations or nation states before our times.
Guarantee you all none of you would want to live in any of them because their human rights records are atrocious compared to any 1st or 2nd World political economies we're quite used to and comfortable living in.
DEAR MOD PLEASE DELETE ANY POSTS CONTINUING TO FOCUS ON THAT WOMAN INSTEAD OF EGYPT ETC AND THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD. THANK YOU.
Except for Barbados and the US of A there's no other Anglophone places I'd rather spend my life in.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness So the colonial ara vintage garb is the appropriate?
Obviously it is not forbidden in Egypt since they can dress like that.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Techtronics: Not to mention the fact nothing sexier than Woman has been found in the Universe. 😎
Rule number #1. Don't discuss sex with *******. 😎
.
Very insightful and a precusor to a sub-theme of this my thread.
Is it not woman's beauty or mystique that made for the Pliestocene 'Venus' figurines of Alpine Europe? Sex seems their emphasis and many suppose both sacred and temporal POWER is what they also had behind them. [no pun intended]
6300 BCE Neolithic Venus figurine called "Red hair goddess” made of terracotta, from the lost Starčevo culture
Can't say much about Gambuto's(sp) matriarchal theories but The Matriarchy is as much romanticized as the later male dominated post mid-Holocene civs.
Perhaps the beauty and sexiness of boobies somewhat dominated or pacified male rule and aggression after the Age of the Venuses?
I think mostly of Minoa and priestesses after temporal rule passed on to male hands as society progressed beyond foraging groups. But in ancient days sacred officiants ruled just as much as kings and chiefs.
Then there's that Kel taMasheq aMazigh female thing.
They haven't actually ruled since foundress Tin Hinan yet women retain a high status among that people though they keep their breasts under wraps.
But getting back to female sexual beauty as the strongest force in our universe, there's an old Hebrew myth about that.
Lemme know if you wanna know what it says OK
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
Please,enlightened me. Also, venus of monruz was "dropping it low" back then.😲😲😲😲😏😏😏😏
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: Please,enlightened me. Also, venus of monruz was "dropping it low" back then.😲😲😲😲😏😏😏😏
Hahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Venus of Monruz was no Marilyn Monroe, ... oh!
Shoo, I was shocked to find they was Boogey Night-ing it way back in the Stuttgart of the geneticists sampling era! And now this
OK long story short.
Based on parasha B*reshiyth shebi`iy-maftir (Genesis 6.1-8)
Angels challenged the Eternal why haAdam (humanity) instead of themselve were given the Torah adding that they could never be swayed by woman like Adam was by Eve.
The Eternal rejoined: "You could resist my Crown of Creation no better than he. You'd be worse."
So some of them angels, biblical Sons of God, banded together and materialized on our Earth. Now male physical bodies, their noses were open.
They took whatever biblical Daughters of Men they desired engendering the Nephilim but not before inventing mascara et al, accentuating bead work for waist, hips, breasts, and thighs, clothes that leave a woman more 'naked' even though fully dressed, and other things enhancing the, already God intended, irresistible feminine ... ... cough, cough ... 'mystique'.
So the Eternal sent the Great Flood to cleanse the corruption fleshed angels introduced in the earth who went as far as forcing crossed species sex onto the animal kingdom as they themselves crossed species to sex women birthing what Greeks would call demi-gods, the biblical Mighty Men of Old.
You can go for the whole megila in midrashic works or check out Graves & PataiThe Hebrew Myths which I DO NOT recommend for devout pious readers who must not regard biblical writings as part of any kind of comparative mythology. I do not want to shake anyone's faith.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
From the colossal temples of Luxor to Tutankhamun’s golden death mask, the pharaohs of ancient Egypt’s golden age created some of history’s greatest treasures. Yet, writes Guy de la Bédoyère, behind the glittering facade lay a society built on brutality, inequality and staggering levels of corruption
[A statue of Thutmose III] By Elinor Evans Published: December 7, 2022 at 7:19 am
On 26 November 1922, when Howard Carter reported what he could make out in the gloom of a dusty chamber in the Valley of the Kings, a new phase of Egyptomania began. For more than 100 years, since Napoleon’s Egyptian campaign at the turn of the 19th century, Europeans and North Americans had been enthralled by the architecture, art, design and dress of this ancient civilisation.
Carter’s discovery was different, though. “Everywhere the glint of gold!” he famously recalled of the moment he first saw the wonders of Tutankhamun’s tomb. The scene was set for an international fixation with this gilded young pharaoh who presided over a glittering court of fabulous wealth. Tutankhamun seduced the world, further sensationalising the popular image of Egypt at its height during the 18th Dynasty (c1550–1295 BC).
Monuments such as the temples at Luxor and Karnak in southern Egypt had already stunned visitors and archaeologists alike. They spoke of a Bronze Age imperialist state possessed of astonishing confidence, led by chariot-borne pharaohs firing off a fusillade of arrows at their cowering foes.
Amenhotep III’s Sun Court at the temple of Luxor. Sites such as this wowed later visitors and archaeologists who were dazzled by Egypt’s golden age. (Image by Getty Images)
Yet look beyond the dazzling architecture, the power and the riches, and there’s a darker tale to be told about ancient Egypt’s so-called golden age. It’s a story of wealth, glory and political power being monopolised by a tiny, spectacularly self-entitled elite, while everyone else was left to scrabble around in the dirt.
Dynamic forces
The 18th Dynasty was born out of an episode of disorder known today as the Second Intermediate Period. Around 1550 BC, a warrior king called Ahmose I emerged from obscurity to expel the Asiatic Hyksos from the Nile Delta region. Adapting the Hyksos’s horse-drawn chariot, Ahmose transformed Egypt’s army into a dynamic force that tore through the near east and Nubia (north-east Africa). He also created the Egyptian royal liberation myth that legitimated the dynasty’s hold on power, posing as the protector of maat (truth and harmony) from the forces of chaos.
Ahmose and his successors diverted Egypt’s resources into self-glorification and the magnificence of temples to the gods who backed their power. No wonder most of them claimed to have been sired by the king of the gods, Amun himself. Indeed, Amun’s temple at Karnak became a state within a state.
The kings were gleefully backed by the elites, who were on the make just as much as their rulers. Take Ahmes, son of Ibana, a brilliantly successful soldier – or so he claimed – under the first three kings of the 18th Dynasty: Ahmose, Amenhotep I and Thutmose I. His tomb biography itemises his derring-do, recounting how his admiring kings handed him shares of booty, slaves and land, as well as promoting him to the highest position in the armed forces. “I have been rewarded with gold seven times before the entire land, and also with male and female slaves. I have been endowed with many fields,” he bragged.
A detail of the gilt shrine of Tutankhamun which originally contained statuettes of the royal couple. (Image by AKG Images)
Thutmose I was equally boastful. A typically tendentious stela inscription from one of his Nubian wars claimed that so many of the enemy archers had been killed that the valleys were “flooded with their innards”, and all of the local birds were unable to carry off the body parts. This was routine pharaonic bombast: inscriptions always portrayed the king as a dynamic superhero, and his hapless Nubian or Asiatic foes as witless cowards led by imbeciles.
War profits were mostly spent on conspicuous waste, but helped create an illusion of permanence. State vanity building projects were designed to glorify the regime as part of that mirage. Take as an example the works of Hatshepsut, daughter of Thutmose I. Widowed after the death of her husband (also her half-brother) Thutmose II in 1479 BC, she acted as regent for her half-nephew, the child Thutmose III, before declaring herself king alongside him. Because Egypt had no concept of the queen regnant, she had to redefine their role as a composite king and queen.
Exulting in her power and wealth, Hatshepsut commissioned her vast terraced mortuary temple in western Thebes (now Luxor), designed by her steward and admirer-in-chief, Senenmut. At Karnak she erected several obelisks, including two that towered over the temple, tipped with glittering electrum. These honoured Amun, her divine father, who had chosen her – so she claimed – to be king. Inscriptions on them record her musing: “My imagination runs riot, wondering what the common people who see my monument in the years to come will say.”
quote:The pharaohs diverted Egypt’s resources into self-glorification and temples to the gods who backed their power
Following her death in 1458 BC, the now-adult Thutmose III roared into action with a vigour that left the near-eastern kings shaking in their sandals. Leading his army with bravado and recklessness, Thutmose conquered more territory than any other pharaoh.
Thutmose III’s Annals, inscribed on a wall at Karnak, comprise a triumphant account of systematic brutalisation and greedy acquisitiveness, itemising his booty with covetous precision. In the first year of conquest alone, the haul included 924 chariots from the enemy army and allied princes. Livestock seized included 20,500 sheep, and he also took several thousand slaves and a “silver statue with a golden head”. The detailed inventory lists everything from knives to “one large jar of Syrian workmanship” and 207,300 sacks of wheat. Year on year, more piled in, along with several trophy wives for Thutmose’s harem.
Royal profiteering
During this period, Egypt’s only interest was profiteering, backed by a constant threat of violence. Nothing was done to create a sustainable system of provincial government. Instead, a teetering hierarchy of avaricious, nepotistic officials and priests squabbled over position and power. They poured their kickbacks into tombs and chapels to memorialise themselves and advertise their families’ greatness, much like the “prodigy houses” of Elizabethan England 3,000 years later.
One such official was Rekhmire, vizier to Thutmose III and his son Amenhotep II. This swaggering bigwig (who indeed wore a big wig to prove his status) built himself an extravagant memorial chapel at Thebes. Scenes inscribed there depict the great man lording it over his underlings as they slaved on various projects, and tribute bearers from foreign lands carrying in epic quantities of goods for the Egyptian state.
Texts at his chapel boast how “greatly loved” and “greatly respected” Rekhmire was, and that he was the beneficiary of royal favour. This chapel was an extravagant monument showcasing his status, paid for out of the profits of high office, legitimate or otherwise. It was later desecrated, suggesting that he fell from favour – a fate that befell more than a few major officials. In the superheated context and bitter rivalries of a Bronze Age superstate court, the stakes were enormous.
quote:The creation of huge statues and monuments involved startling levels of labour and danger for ordinary Egyptians
One gets the measure of these pompous martinets from a letter sent by Sennefer, another high official under Amenhotep II, to a farmer, demanding that food and flowers be made ready for his visit. “Do not let me find fault with you concerning your post,” he ranted. “Do not have it lacking in good order… You shall not slack, for I know that you are sluggish and fond of eating lying down.”
Theft was endemic, a consequence of the staggering inequality pervasive in Egypt at the time. Of course, there’s no point in judging a Bronze Age nation by the standards of today, but in Egypt the gap steadily widened as the elite abused its power. Egyptian kings and high officials happily took from other nations and even from each other. Kings purloined or demolished their predecessors’ monuments, absorbed their achievements, and sometimes even helped themselves to grave goods.
Egypt’s downtrodden underclass were also fully aware of the spoils waiting for those courageous enough to raid graves, often helped or even commissioned by corrupt officials. Tomb-robbing really took off in the centuries following the 18th Dynasty, but two break-ins at Tutankhamun’s tomb soon after his burial in c1327 BC show that gangs were already at work then. All were prepared to risk the brutal punishments meted out to criminals, including mutilation and impalement.
Heights of extravagance
Many of the kings of the 18th Dynasty were young adults or even infants when they succeeded to the throne. So it was with Amenhotep III (ruled c1390–1352 BC), great-grandson of Thutmose III, who was still a child when he became king. Yet so embedded was the system and the divine myth with which the royal line had surrounded itself that such young kings ruled unchallenged. The otiose Amenhotep III and his fiercely dominant wife, Tiye, presided over a culture of solar worship, with the king as the supreme mortal. His reign reached new heights of extravagance.
Most foreign nations handed over tribute rather than risk conflict. Surviving diplomatic correspondence shows that Amenhotep III’s neighbours constantly sought his friendship and benevolence. They took infantile pleasure in receiving evidence of his approval and good intent in the form of letters and gifts. And they grew petulant and worried if these seemed in any way to devalue their conceits about their standing in his eyes.
Amenhotep III built a sprawling palace complex on the west bank of the Nile at Thebes, and a memorial mortuary temple nearby, with courts and pylons fronted by colossi depicting himself. The temple was filled with slaves, and accommodated “the children of the princes of all the countries of the captivity of His Majesty”. It was also surrounded by “settlements of Syrians, colonised by the children of princes”, showcasing Amenhotep’s power.
The temple’s two front statues, the so-called Colossi of Memnon, still stand. In his dedication speech, Amenhotep mentioned the “great rejoicing because of their size”. These vast statues, each more than 18 metres high and weighing perhaps 700 tonnes, were carved from blocks of stone brought from near the site of modern Cairo. They were far from accurate depictions, though. If the mummy believed to be his has been correctly identified, Amenhotep was a man barely over 5ft tall, afflicted with rotten teeth, obesity and his inbred dynasty’s congenital overbite.
Such figures were designed to show that the king was bigger and more powerful than anyone else, but also to trumpet the capabilities of the Egyptian state. The creation of such statues, and most of the gigantic monuments, palaces and temples, involved startling levels of labour and danger for ordinary Egyptians and foreign slaves. Most of these projects were never finished; perhaps going slow was one way for the workers to fight back.
Aten’s agents on Earth
Akhenaten, son of Amenhotep III and Tiye, and his queen Nefertiti launched a religious revolution. He famously shut down the cult of Amun and that of most other gods, supplanting them with worship of the Aten, the solar disc. The Aten was not new, but the idea of putting it centre stage was. Akhenaten and Nefertiti were the Aten’s agents on Earth – the supreme medium through which the Aten’s powers could be accessed.
A huge Aten complex was built at Karnak using forced labour. In the face of resistance from established interests, though, around 1348 BC Akhenaten and Nefertiti abandoned Thebes and moved the whole court north to the site now known as Tell el-Amarna (or simply Amarna), on the Nile roughly midway between Luxor and Cairo. Here they established a new city, Akhet-aten (“Horizon of the Aten”), with palaces and temples where they could indulge their ecstatic cult, bathed in the rays of the Aten. They cruised down the Amarna strip in their chariots, substituting themselves for the old cult statues and posing in tableaux vivants as the intermediaries between ordinary mortals and the gods.
The complex theology of Atenism was built on an idealised state of affairs epitomised in Akhenaten’s “Hymn to the Aten”. “You rise in perfect beauty from the sky’s horizon, the living Aten who begins life”, Akhenaten said, comparing night to death, and musing on how sunrise brought renewal and triggered life in a mother’s womb.
Theirs was one of the most outrageous conceits in history, possible only in a system where the word of the king was unquestioned. For all the bizarre mystery of Atenism and the artistic revolution over which Akhenaten presided, his dreams came at a terrible price for his people (see box, below). The general stress under which the Amarna population lived resulted in an adult population unusually short in stature for dynastic times, when compared to studies from other sites and periods. Men averaged just 5ft 4ins (1.63 metres) in height, and women only 5ft (1.52 metres). And for all their religious idealism and utopian vision, Akhenaten and Nefertiti had little to offer most of their people. They relied on the existing social structure and the traditional acceptance by those lower down the ladder of their position in the hierarchy.
Demise of a dynasty
It’s possible that Nefertiti ruled briefly as king after Akhenaten’s death, but their religious revolution was soon abandoned as fast as it had begun. The dynasty foundered with Tutankhamun, who was probably Akhenaten’s son and married that king’s third daughter, Ankhesenamun. Tutankhamun and Ankhesenamun’s childless, decade-long reign, and the sickly king’s premature death, left the royal line in a tight corner. Foreign powers – especially the rising Hittites – spotted Egypt’s weakness and began to muscle in.
For a few years after Tutankhamun’s death, an elderly career official called Ay – who was also possibly a relative – wielded power before being displaced in 1323 BC by a remarkable figure called Horemheb. Though believed to be of lowly origins, Horemheb had forged a brilliant military career that brought him fame and fortune under Tutankhamun. He then became king, largely because there was no one else left to take the throne. However, Horemheb could not manufacture a myth of being fathered by Amun in the guise of a predecessor. Instead, he claimed to have been chosen and reared by Amun, and embarked on undoing what he called the “storm” of Akhenaten’s regime.
Horemheb understood the responsibilities of power and the transaction between a king and his people. He overturned abuses (or claimed to), and it’s thanks to his reform programme that we know about some of the ingrained corruption of preceding regimes.
Soldiers had become accustomed to brutalising poor people, ripping them off on the pretext of collecting legitimate dues for the royal harem. Royal officials helped themselves to ordinary people’s slaves, putting them to work on their own projects. They took the best of the vegetables from poor people, too, claiming they were “for the impost [tax] of pharaoh”. Such abuses, detailed in a text known as the Great Edict of Horemheb inscribed on a stela at Karnak, dated back at least as far as Thutmose III’s time.
Horemheb ordered grievous punishments for those who abused their power. If a soldier was found guilty of extortion, “his nose shall be cut off”. Those caught stealing hides were to be subjected to “a hundred blows, opening five wounds”. Horemheb also warned members of local judiciary panels not to accept bribes. In the middle of Egypt’s Bronze Age, he was the first enlightened despot.
quote:Egyptians were controlled through the opiate of cult and ritual that dominated their society, with no political representation
Horemheb also played the part of a traditional pharaoh. He built monuments at Karnak, usurped those of his predecessors – especially Tutankhamun and Ay – and completed the demolition of Akhenaten’s first Aten temple at Karnak. But he left no heir. Horemheb was the last ruler of Egypt’s 18th Dynasty.
The despots and dreamers of that dynasty had run an international imperialist state protection racket. They brought Egypt security, stability and a sense of superiority. But those benefits came at an enormous price.
The Egyptian people were controlled through the opiate of cult and ritual that dominated society. There was no political representation, and no mechanism of protest or reform. This was arguably the first great historical era of conspicuous inequality. Egypt’s glory days were built on a hierarchy with gold-bedecked kings at the top and the broken bodies of labourers, including children and prisoners of war, at the bottom.
Excavations of one of ancient Egypt’s great cities reveal how the underclass paid for a pharaoh’s indulgences
Standing on the east bank of the Nile, the city of Akhet-aten (today known as Tell el-Amarna) was one of the jewels of Egypt’s late 18th Dynasty. Built in the 14th century BC by the pharaoh Akhenaten as his great capital, where he could give full expression to his devotion to the solar disc, Aten, it was abandoned just a few years after his death in c1336 BC.
We now know there was a darker side to this city of temples and palaces. That’s because excavations of Akhet-aten’s cemeteries in recent years have provided some of the most graphic evidence for the price Egypt’s underclass paid for pharaonic indulgences. Malnutrition was rife, as was scurvy. Stunted growth was common, along with bone and muscle conditions including injury and degenerative joint disease – the latter evident in more than three-quarters of adult bodies. Two-thirds had fractured bones, consequences of accidents and carrying heavy loads during the construction of Akhenaten’s vanity project.
A medical papyrus from the Old Kingdom (c2575–c2130 BC), with its itemised guidance for the examination, diagnosis and treatment of injuries, shows that Egyptian doctors had long been familiar with the physical consequences of such work. And the tomb of Ipuy at Deir el-Medina in western Thebes illustrates the industrial accidents that even befell those making tomb furniture, including eye injuries and damaged limbs.
Many found at Amarna died young. In one study, more than half of the bodies examined were aged 7–14; more than a quarter of these had suffered fractures of some sort. Few of the adults were older than their mid-twenties at death. None were mummified – they lacked the means even for the most basic process.
Guy de la Bédoyère is a historian and author. His latest book, Pharaohs of the Sun: How Egypt’s Despots and Dreamers Drove the Rise and Fall of Tutankhamun’s Dynasty (Little, Brown) is out now
This article first featured in the December 2022 edition of BBC History Magazine
Authors Elinor Evans Digital editor
Elinor Evans is digital editor of HistoryExtra.com. She commissions and writes history articles for the website, and regularly interviews historians for the award-winning HistoryExtra podcast
^ Interesting, though not surprising. With any large government bureaucracy there's going to be corruption. There is only so much one can do even a god-king to stop it. It's actually ironic. When the central government was weak, there was more political division in the nation and thus no unified kingdom. Yet, when the centralized royal administration was strong and unified the nation, this means a bloated bureaucracy.
Even during times of political and economic upheaval the sacred tombs of the royals was not safe from being looted.
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Are you serious?! Why are you comparing what's going on today with modern dictators to ancient Egyptian kings? I think your delusions of 'authoritarianism' are worse than Kara Cooney. Kemet (Egypt) was divided with Lower Egypt being ruled by the Levantine Hyksos and Upper Egypt being ruled by Theban kings who had no ambitions of imperialism until they intercepted a message with an agreement between the Hyksos king and the Kushite king that the latter can conquer Upper Egypt with the former's aide. The Kushites were already guilty of incursions and sackings during the Middle Kingdom and now this. So the kings of Upper Egypt and their queens-- sister-wives fought a series of battles to liberate Lower Egypt from the Hyksos but also establish control over the Levant as a buffer against further Asiatic incursions and they did the same with Kush/Nubia. 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
