quote:Vida doesnt see how he is twisting himself into a knot.
How? Please demonstrate..
quote:We say there are no races.
He says there are since we say the Egyptians were mostly blacks.
Wrong, I am saying there ARE races and you are saying there ARE NO races and therefore I have not choice, but to come to the conclusion that Egyptians cannot be defined by any other description but Egyptians. Not black or white etc.
Please reiterate people's points clearly and concisely otherwise that is called "lying". You are my boy and I like you so I'll let you off with a warning this time
quote:We say black is not a race.
Ok, now please tell me why is black not a race considering this is an attribute of the social concept of race especially in western society?!?!
quote:He says, yes it is, especially since Europeans see the Egyptians as white, which means that they werent black, which proves that there is a such thing as race.
^^^^What the hell?!?! Man are you crazy or something, where did you see me say this?
quote:Vida, skin color is a fact of biology. Skin color is not race. The FACT that SOME people view skin color as a SIGNIFICANT aspect of human biology for the purposes of DEFINING and CATEGORIZING humans for SOCIAL, POLITICAL and ECONOMIC purposes does not change the fact that SKIN COLOR does not equal RACE.
Ok, so the problem is the word "race" --prima facie-- being used by me and not the denotation(grouping people based on appearance) of the word?
What word would you like me to use?
Question: What is the "race" of Egyptians? Which word should I replace for "race" [type of people]/[kind of people]?
When you say black and white..what is the umbrella statement for these two words? Is it "color"? If yes, then why are most Egyptians not painted black and what is the evidence of their skin color due to geneticists? What "color" do geneticists say Egyptians are and can you please give a citation.
By the way, what "color" are Armenians? What "color" are Koreans? What "color" are Brazilians?
This will be a doozy...How many "colors" are there of humans(this is where this falls apart)? Considering in my racial model I only had 8 racial types.
Now here is how you guys are making no sense
1. Race as a social construct is based on appearances.
2. The most ESSENTIAL attribute of this construct was skin color *snickering*
3. Because white geneticists say "race" cannot be used, it is accepted by people on this board to denote people by skin color because geneticists do so?!?!
4. It is more childish to describe people based on their skin color than a racial epithet like "negroid, mongoloid, cuacasoid"
5. Does not negro mean black in spanish?!
6. Why do geneticists use the term "black"; considering most Africans aren't black skinned?
7. Isn't the above actually even less precise than terms like negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid considering that precision and consistency is what motivates geneticists to abhore race in the first place?
Here is my demonstration of how this whole "color" thing stinks!!
^^^According to society all of these people would be grouped in the racial category of "black/negro/negroid"
Based on the color "black" being prefered by the people on this board and not "negroid/negro", why would these people be called "black" since neither of them have "black" skin?!?! hmmm
Especially when this is the color "black" :
and why yes, yes there are "black" people please compare:
(*snickering* sorry for using the typical Wesley Snipes example I couldn't think of any other African American celebrity that would be Internationally known)
Now based on the folks on this boards rationale, only Wesley Snipes out of the five total people I have posted fits the category "black"...YOUR WORDS NOT MINE he he he...now lets see who has put themselves in a knot. Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote:Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
Some eight 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid 5. Vedoid 6. Oxidental 7. Semetic middle eastern 8. Hispanic latin/native hybrids in the Americas
Again, there are no phenotypic variants within these groups?
Yes as stated above.
Making no sense. Where are the variants within "Negroid", "Mongloid", etc, respectively?
quote: Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
Regardless of how unscientific, unspecific, inconsistent these labels maybe to the said human; this is how humans make sense of the world reason, logic in classifying difference which culturally are called races/ethnic groups. I didn't start this so do not put the blame on me.
Outside the Eurocentric world, which indigenes use these criteria for human group?
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote:Mystery Solver: Well, humans have the tendency to find social kinship and thence, the grouping, but who's to say that this is 'race'? Misuse of 'race' in human grouping, is a Eurocentric concept.
Well this is more African American self hatred by assuming that only the great white man can logically see differences in human beings and not the primative African smh but, I understand the problem finally.
Relevance of this non-sequitur?
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
What you and Rasol are saying is that by me using the word "race" I can not apply that to humans based on the word prima facie.
"Race" as a term, is a European construct, and it has its proper objective meaning - the one defined in biology. So, use of this same word in the Eurocentric world, socially, to represent human groupings, is misuage of the term.
Additionally, I've asked you this, but you dodged it earlier; try your best not to repeat this underachievement:
Which indigenes outside the Eurocentric world, have used the exact same constructs to group or to identify human-made social units, and apply it as 'race'?
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
You are holding to the biological definition and orgin of the word used for "species" while I am using the word in cultural context both being actual valid points.
I'm holding the term 'race' to the biological context, because that is what the word is. In that your use of the term is a misuage of the term without a well-established definition/explanation, how can you say both are equally valid?
The application is either objective, or it isn't - your's has yet to meet the former.
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
The problem with this is that he fact remains that even if the word "race" is being misused the denotation of it in it's use is not the same as it is being used in biology.
As you noted, it is 'misused'; essentially, this would make the said use of the word invalid. Why then question those who do use the valid use of the term? You just shot yourself in the foot.
What people are describing socially, isn't 'race'. Period.
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
For example...Christmas in the West..the first image that pops in people's mind is Santa Clause and Christmas trees and presents...not some kike on a stick. What you are saying is that I am wrong for linking the cultural denotation of Christmas with Santa and not it's true denotation with Jesus.
Citation? - failure to deliver is tantamount to lying.
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
I understand, but that is not going to stop people from taking their kids to sit on Santa's lap in the mall.
Relevance?
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
Now that I understand you two can you try to understand me with my analogy?
What does non-sequiturs of Santa, tooth fairies, or Disney land for that matter, have to do with 'race'? Not making sense.
quote: Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote: Mystery Solver:
Vida also says:
"And I have said ad naseum that race is a social construct and NOT biological. The problem is you hold everything to biological constructs and that is biased and the concept of race was NEVER biological to begin with so this is a non-sequitor."
Race is a biological construct; the definition has already been provided. Actually it is a biological construct, misused socially in the Eurocentric world.
Well that is fine, but this is based on your perception of misusage.
Wrong - it's based on the biological [scientific/objective] definition. That is the difference between my use and your use. Mine is scientific [correct], and your's isn't [misuse].
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
Misusage and usage are both the same thing because they are positive actions.
Being lighthearted (?) - surely you are bright enough to know the difference between 'misuse' and 'use', right?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
Democracy is misused, Capitalism is misused, Money and Guns are misused. That doesn't mean they don't all exist dude lol.
Non-sequitur, but don't let this stop you from demonstrating how human 'races' actually exist. Please demonstrate.
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote:Mystery Solver:
Race applies to all organisms, including humans. You have just failed to show us that human 'races', as opposed to the human 'race', exists.
I understand finally what you are saying and I concur with your problems with the "word" prima facie
Citation?
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
but denotations and inference of words are actually more applicable by human beings in society..just thought you might want to know this.
Re: name indigenes, outside the Eurocentric world who characterize human social units as race.
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
People use the word "race" and are not indicating that there are different species of humans.
People in the Eurocentric world, as in any other, only repeat after what they're socially conditioned to do at an early age.
What do you know about things like 'Jim Crow', 'Apartheid', or the Nazi groupings culminating in the genocide of Jews, etc - did any of this have anything to do with the idea that human differentiation is at the subspecies level?
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote:Mystery Solver:
How can you say both are valid, when 'race' is a clearly defined biological construct, a definition which you've abandoned, but claim that another without 'definition' is just as valid as the former?
No no, the ORIGIN of the word race is biological, but socially it has taken on a new definition.
Then, socially, the word is being misused or abused. How does this help you in criticizing those who do correctly use the term?
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
–noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
^^^^There is nothing biological about this definition. You can't pick and choose which to use when both are used!!!
Of course, there's everything biological about the use of the term as used; not all, however, pertain to the definition of the term. In that the term is 'biological', only one definition is correct - the biological definition, which you baselessly criticize.
E.g. If one says the "Dutch" or "American" race, and the Dutch or American folks happen to be people of visible diversity both phenotypic-wise and mrca-wise, then this is a nationalistic/political grouping of people, with the underlying notion that there is only the human race [not too bad]; still, it is not the correct use of the term, because it is a social unit, incorrectly applying biological term for political cohesion on the one hand, and political isolation from others on the other hand. It is essentially as social as any other human social units/grouping, and again, the application of 'race' to this social unit, is a Eurocentric misuage of the term.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote: Mystery Solver:
I'm an advocate for race, just not the way you use it [which still needs to be clarified].
race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. 3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use. b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race. 5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
^^^^please stop ignoring this, that is rude.
Vida, how can I ignore something that wasn't part of our exchange to begin with? This is called a non-sequitur, which is the real rudeness here.
Stop being needlessly emotional; reference the post above.
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote:quote:
Outside the Eurocentric world, who uses the term 'race', or even group people as the Eurocentric world does?
Well if it wasn't for the Eurocentric world we wouldn't be on a computer talking about this dude.
Dude, relevance?
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
Black people and white people are very much used in non-westernized countries as well as asians did you not know this? Kokujin means nigger in Japanese. *shrugs*
Relevance?
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
Only to African Americans that hate being black ( because I have no problem with it and am very proud)
*Yawn* - Relevance?
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
For someone to abhore the usage or misusage of a word based on it's definition or denotation has a personal problem with concept of that word.
'You' have a personal problem with race; people here correctly apply the term, but you whine on about this. The onus is on you to show that the said application isn't correct, and thus provide the alternative, rending you either correct or incorrect - you haven't done this yet.
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote:Mystery Solver:
What is 'normative' about your use of 'race', which lacks definition, as opposed to my well-defined presentation of the term? and in what way does my definition of the term, suggest that race doesn't exist?
It is normative because you are saying it is falsifiable based on your criteria of what definition should be properly used.
Incoherent. How can you proclaim something that is 'incorrect' to be 'normative'?
Again, 'my' definition, is also the established 'biological' definition - you need to learn this.
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
I will be more specific with the fact that when I said you say race doesn't exist, I mean concerning human beings...excuuuuse me.
Well, human 'races' don't exist, but the human 'race' certainly does. What is wrong that?
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote:Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
Even the theory of relativety is being challenged by your constative model of what race ought not to be.
Share the details of this 'relativity', and how it is challenged by my presentation of race, which also happens to be the biological definition of the term - hence, not really 'mine'?
This is moving the goal post.
How can you accuse me of that, for responding to something which 'you' unexplainably introduced into the discussion - is that not abuse of logic?
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
The debate is that race exists in a social human construct and now you are talking about species.
The debate entails 'race', which is a biological construct. The biological term has a precise definition, which you baselessly criticize. Why should I not reference 'species' in the biological term, as it so involves?
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
Stop it with the biological non sequitors. I have posted to social construct definition from Webster's dictionary over five fucking times!!!!! Biology has NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT WORD!!!!!!!!!
On the condition that you stop with the baseless charges about race, which has everything to do with biology, because it is a biological construct to begin with - when you will learn?
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote:Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
You can't have a word that exists that is relative to a word that doesn't.
Coherency please?
Yes, I would like some because how can "racism" exist without "race"..that is incoherent to me.
In case you missed it, Mansa Musa's concise post already addressed it, but any way to make it simple, it's because the term is already being misused socially in the Eurocentric world. Hope that helps.
All this typing, and you have yet to produce a coherent case. Not good.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here is my demonstration of how this whole "color" thing stinks!!
The above is a demonstration of a childish rationalisation of one persons racism - ever looking for some kind of excuse - in order to evade confronting its own essential uglyness.
Here is the essential fact all of this nonsense seeks to run away from:
The AE referred to themselves by color as Blacks.
Of course, Eurocentrists think this stinks, because they aren't Black, they hate Blacks, they worship the AE and.... they can't stand the fact that the AE were Black.
Of course this says nothing about race, but reveals everything about their racism.
If you truly oppose references to skin color - then why not crusade against Europeans calling themselves whites?
This would be logical, because it's something you could theoretically change [right ].
Other than lie about it, or try to obscure it through passive aggressive rheotrical hand wringing, you can't do anything about Km.t being Blacks because it's a fact of history.
Blacks is exactly what it means. Blacks is exactly what they were.
You can lie to yourself, and you can lie to yourself about why you are lying about it.
But when you are done lying Km.t will still mean Black you can't change that by lying about it.
Here's another truth for you to suck on:
You don't oppose people referring to themseves in terms of color.
You only oppose Ancient Egyptians being black.
You've failed completely to prove the existence of race, and at the same time...you've exposed your own racism. lol.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol writes: When you admit that race does not exist biologically - you falsify your own thesis , and your argument comes to and end, 'social-distractions' notwithstanding.
quote:Another LIE!!!! Rasol you aren't as good of a debator as I thought you were I am disappointed.
My my, but you *are* upset aren't you?
You should be.
For weeks you posed as and African who was only here to ask innocent questions.
In 24 hours i've made you completely blow your cover, and reveal your agenda.
Now, write some more paragraphs about how you hate 'the whole color thing', so I can toy with you some more.
The above discourse translates as -> you hate 'Blacks', thus it's the only color group you are obsessed with, and whose very existence you wish to blot from the historical record, out of your own hate.
Ohh my friend...I've just begun to have fun with you. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote:Vida doesnt see how he is twisting himself into a knot.
How? Please demonstrate..
quote:We say there are no races.
He says there are since we say the Egyptians were mostly blacks.
Wrong, I am saying there ARE races and you are saying there ARE NO races and therefore I have not choice, but to come to the conclusion that Egyptians cannot be defined by any other description but Egyptians. Not black or white etc.
Please reiterate people's points clearly and concisely otherwise that is called "lying". You are my boy and I like you so I'll let you off with a warning this time
quote:We say black is not a race.
Ok, now please tell me why is black not a race considering this is an attribute of the social concept of race especially in western society?!?!
quote:He says, yes it is, especially since Europeans see the Egyptians as white, which means that they werent black, which proves that there is a such thing as race.
^^^^What the hell?!?! Man are you crazy or something, where did you see me say this?
quote:Vida, skin color is a fact of biology. Skin color is not race. The FACT that SOME people view skin color as a SIGNIFICANT aspect of human biology for the purposes of DEFINING and CATEGORIZING humans for SOCIAL, POLITICAL and ECONOMIC purposes does not change the fact that SKIN COLOR does not equal RACE.
Ok, so the problem is the word "race" --prima facie-- being used by me and not the denotation(grouping people based on appearance) of the word?
What word would you like me to use?
Question: What is the "race" of Egyptians? Which word should I replace for "race" [type of people]/[kind of people]?
When you say black and white..what is the umbrella statement for these two words? Is it "color"? If yes, then why are most Egyptians not painted black and what is the evidence of their skin color due to geneticists? What "color" do geneticists say Egyptians are and can you please give a citation.
By the way, what "color" are Armenians? What "color" are Koreans? What "color" are Brazilians?
This will be a doozy...How many "colors" are there of humans(this is where this falls apart)? Considering in my racial model I only had 8 racial types.
Now here is how you guys are making no sense
1. Race as a social construct is based on appearances.
2. The most ESSENTIAL attribute of this construct was skin color *snickering*
3. Because white geneticists say "race" cannot be used, it is accepted by people on this board to denote people by skin color because geneticists do so?!?!
4. It is more childish to describe people based on their skin color than a racial epithet like "negroid, mongoloid, cuacasoid"
5. Does not negro mean black in spanish?!
6. Why do geneticists use the term "black"; considering most Africans aren't black skinned?
7. Isn't the above actually even less precise than terms like negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid considering that precision and consistency is what motivates geneticists to abhore race in the first place?
Here is my demonstration of how this whole "color" thing stinks!!
^^^According to society all of these people would be grouped in the racial category of "black/negro/negroid"
Based on the color "black" being prefered by the people on this board and not "negroid/negro", why would these people be called "black" since neither of them have "black" skin?!?! hmmm
Especially when this is the color "black" :
and why yes, yes there are "black" people please compare:
(*snickering* sorry for using the typical Wesley Snipes example I couldn't think of any other African American celebrity that would be Internationally known)
Now based on the folks on this boards rationale, only Wesley Snipes out of the five total people I have posted fits the category "black"...YOUR WORDS NOT MINE he he he...now lets see who has put themselves in a knot.
No Vida, now you are WHINING.
Why? Because of the simple fact that BLACK skin just like WHITE skin is a FACT of biology, but it isn't RACE because the genes that determine SKIN COLOR are a TINY PORTION of the overall human genome, so much so as to be IRRELEVANT when looking at genetic markers. Some people are black, some people are white. So WHAT? Skin color is a FACT of human biology and genetics, RACE IS NOT. There are WHITES in Europe. There are BLACKS in Africa. Egypt was POPULATED by AFRICANS. The fact that they largely had BLACK SKIN does not mean that RACE exists in the human species. What it MEANS is that YOU refuse to ACCEPT that they had BLACK SKIN.
You are WHINING because RATHER THAN STICK TO THE FACTS, that the Ancient Egyptians largely had dark skin complexion, which we BLACK, you want to argue about RACE. There is no race in human beings. Case closed. If you want to argue about a civilization that lasted 3,000 years and try and decide whether they were black/white or other, you must understand it is NOT A RACIAL ISSUE it is a PHENOTYPE ISSUE. Over 3,000 years there were various peoples that entered Egypt, but these weren't RACES, these were various ETHNICITIES. And the ORIGINAL INDIGENOUS Egyptians were BLACK AFRICANS. The facts and evidence are there to support this. The EGYPTIAN civilization developed IN AFRICA from LOCAL CONDITIONS among POPULATIONS that have been LIVING and DEVELOPING for THOUSANDS OF YEARS IN AFRICA. Egypt was a CONTINUATION of the HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA, not a SEPARATE ASPECT.
Picture spamming wont help,unless you are going to SPAM pictures from Egypt itself as opposed to MODERN people, which is IRRELEVANT to the issue.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Vida doesnt see how he is twisting himself into a knot.
We say there are no races.
He says there are since we say the Egyptians were mostly blacks.
We say black is not a race.
He says, yes it is, especially since Europeans see the Egyptians as white, which means that they werent black, which proves that there is a such thing as race.
lol. Excellent disection of Vida's nonsense discourse.
-> file it under -> limits people go to rationalise their ugly bias.
And for the record, ancient Europeans - who knew the AE - considered them Blacks, and referred to them as such.
Only modern Eurocentrists - the intellectual "incest spawn" of their own racism - began dissembling against this truth, by denying that the AE were Black, and within the last couple centuries.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Vida's posts are a symptom of lack of familiarity with basic biology.
For instance, non-existence of human 'races' [as opposed to the human 'race'] is misinterpreted as precluding variations within humans. This is something that a person totally oblivious to the biological determination of race will unnecessarily arrive at.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Vida is simply trying to make sense [rationalise] her bias and predictably making a mess of it.
This results in contradiction and nonsense.
Ex:
quote:rasol writes: Pseudo-science is that for which scientific claims are made, but in fact can in no way be sustained.
quote:Vida respounds: Coherency? Where is this word "scientific" coming from?
^ Scientific comes from biology. Race is biology. Vida can't follow this? Literacy?
Or perhaps you too busy scrambling to reconsile hapless contradictions, such as...
quote:Vida writes: Is race biological to Vidadavida NOOOO, is race a social construct to Vidadavida YESSSS!!!!!!!
But later [when made to realise precisely the hopelessly pseudoscientific nature of asserting race without providing biological proof]....
quote:Vida writes: Race is a biological AND social construct
Well, which is it?
Does Vida really know what Vida actually believes?
You may recall that I began by noting that Vida has no real definition of race, because race itself is and incoherent, and ultimately childish discourse.
15 posts, [of Vidas] and nearly as many exclamatory polemics later, isn't it fair to say that Vida has proven just that?Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
Ok, so the problem is the word "race" --prima facie-- being used by me and not the denotation(grouping people based on appearance) of the word?
And that's a significant problem, because it is a word which has a substantive and concise biological meaning, which cannot be altered. What you can do however, is to support your position of "human races" while adhering to the definition. You've seriously failed to this end.
quote:Vidadavida:
What word would you like me to use?
Anything but attribute it to 'racial' substance. E.g. there is such a term as 'ethnicity' or 'ethnic'.
quote:Vidadavida:
Question: What is the "race" of Egyptians?
The human race.
quote:Vidadavida:
Which word should I replace for "race" [type of people]/[kind of people]?
Confused thinking, but if it's any constellation, ancient Egyptians were Africans.
quote:Vidadavida:
When you say black and white..what is the umbrella statement for these two words? Is it "color"?
That would be the euphemism for skin hue or pigmentation. Of course, these terms are also used in an ethnic sense, with the underlying hint to skin pigmentation.
quote:Vidadavida:
If yes, then why are most Egyptians not painted black
Of course they are; they painted themselves as dark skin people. 'Black' is not literally 'black', but a euphemism for substantial exhibition of pigmentation, as seen by the human eye.
quote:Vidadavida:
and what is the evidence of their skin color due to geneticists? What "color" do geneticists say Egyptians are and can you please give a citation.
Tropical body plans would be a hint to ancestry in the tropics, where the natural adaptation to UV radiation is substantial pigmentation. Hence, this can be used to extrapolate their likely skin hue. An additional extrapolation can be made from MRCA markers, based on the location and appearance of groups who not only share these MRCA markers, but also harbor the more ancestral lineages of these markers. Linguistic reconstruction is yet another tool to extrapolate from. But for direct evidence, one can get that from Kemetic records themselves.
quote:Vidadavida:
This will be a doozy...How many "colors" are there of humans(this is where this falls apart)? Considering in my racial model I only had 8 racial types.
Human color is almost as clinal in nature as are the lineages, which is understandable due to inbreeding between populations. Tropical latitudes generally warrant substantial need for pigmentation to address intense UV radiation, while places outside the tropics require less so.
quote:Vidadavida:
Now here is how you guys are making no sense
1. Race as a social construct is based on appearances.
Wrong. Race is a 'biological construct', misused socially.
quote:Vidadavida:
2. The most ESSENTIAL attribute of this construct was skin color *snickering*
Non-qualifier, as your context of race is wrong to begin with.
quote:Vidadavida:
3. Because white geneticists say "race" cannot be used, it is accepted by people on this board to denote people by skin color because geneticists do so?!?!
Wrong again. Geneticists don't say 'race' cannot be used; rather, it is a biological construct with a concise definition, underlying a methodological approach to determine what adheres to the said definition, and what doesn't. Thus the definition has a substantive weight, which looks at a multitude of biological things under this umbrella definition.
Skin color reference, as already noted, is a euphemism for degree of pigmentation.
quote:Vidadavida:
4. It is more childish to describe people based on their skin color than a racial epithet like "negroid, mongoloid, cuacasoid"
Then that would make the AE just as childish, not to mention Europeans, who resort to color reference to describe people. "Negroid" is itself based on 'color', and the other terms with the suffix 'oid' are no less childish, in that they use rigid 'stereotypic' caricatures, presumably using people originating from a single designated geographical origin as a template, to box people from wide-ranging geographical locations and environments into arbitrary biological units, who may or may not even be related by way of MRCA.
quote:Vidadavida:
5. Does not negro mean black in spanish?!
6. Why do geneticists use the term "black"; considering most Africans aren't black skinned?
Most recent studies that I've come across use 'geographical terms' more so than color-designated references, like "north Africans", "east Africans", "West Africans", "sub-Saharans", "tropical Africans", "Saharo-tropical" Africans, etc, or else resort to lingual-designations like, Khoisan, Bantu, Berber, Niger-Congo, Semitic, and so forth. But even if 'black' is used, it is likely to be in the sense I had already mention above time and again.
quote:Vidadavida:
7. Isn't the above actually even less precise than terms like negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid considering that precision and consistency is what motivates geneticists to abhore race in the first place?
How is Negroid et al. any more precise than reference to skin hue? Your rationale is out of sync with that provided in science. Negroid et al. are deemed scientifically bankrupt, because they were meant to indicate 'racial' affiliation. Isn't race what were are discussing to begin with, and what does biology have to say about this?
You have to first understand what other people are communicating, and also the basics of biology, before you proclaim to be dissecting the thoughts of others. You've been shown to be completely out of sync with what is being communicated.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mystery Solver writes: Confused thinking, but if it's any constellation, ancient Egyptians were Africans.
Self generated confusion as well, since as was pointed out earlier Vida has already admitted that...
quote:Genetically they were certainly African
^ Thus the question that Vida knows the answer to is regurgitated out of apriori "need" to evoke race in order to evade Black.
Vida seeks to be confused over race, so race can serve its intended psychological purpose for her - which is to prevent clear recognition of the fact that Km.t were Black.
This is the 'rod' [against blackness] she spoke of earlier, and desparately seeks, but has not been able to find.
quote:How many "colors" are there of humans(this is where this falls apart)?
Coherency? Take the word humans in your sentense, and replace it with - sky, trees, flowers, or crayons.
How is color different in humans than for anything else?
If you admit that there is no difference, your statement implies that you reject the concept of color - period.
Yet it is clear that you do not have a grudge against 'color'.
Nor do you reject color in humans.
You only object to the fact that AE were Blacks.
That is the -> 'this' which you wish to make -> 'fall apart'. Isn't this so.
That's the extent of your war against color [war on blackness].
However all you are doing is making completely illogical arguments which only reveal the depths of your own color prejudice, against Blacks, and your need to rationalise it into something other than hate.
Vida what falls apart - with nearly every sentense you write - is *your* argument.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is more childish to describe people based on their skin color
You mean like this?
Osirus, Kem Wer, the Great Black, He of the Black Face:
I will gladly entertain your view that the Ancient Egyptians regard for Blackness was childish, *provided* you can explain why you feel that way, other than out of prejudice?
Until then, my answer to your question is that the AE refering to themselves as Blacks *makes perfect sense*, and that it is only you inability to emotionally accept this fact that is childish.
^ You may now endeavor to prove otherwise....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here is my demonstration of how this whole "color" thing stinks!!
The above is a demonstration of a childish rationalisation of one persons racism - ever looking for some kind of excuse - in order to evade confronting its own essential uglyness.
How can one evade something that one confronts hence the reason I am saying the color thing stinks.
quote:Here is the essential fact all of this nonsense seeks to run away from:
How does posting equal running?
quote:The AE referred to themselves by color as Blacks.
They refered to themselves as KM.T(a burnt stick of wood with an owl)...what this is supposed to mean who knows. Does it say anything about them being black or white noooooooooo.
quote: Of course, Eurocentrists think this stinks, because they aren't Black, they hate Blacks, they worship the AE and.... they can't stand the fact that the AE were Black.
Non sequitor and Red herring and ad hominem to whomever you are talking about...by the way what is a Eurocentric anyway because the way you have been using it lately I am thrown off by your context? It seems "Eurocentric" = anyone that disagrees with rasol <----why?
quote:Of course this says nothing about race, but reveals everything about their racism.
Lie and Ad hominem *yawn*
quote: If you truly oppose references to skin color - then why not crusade against Europeans calling themselves whites?
I don't oppose skin color and you know I don't considering I use the word black and white all the time here. What the hell are you talking about?
quote:Other than lie about it, or try to obscure it through passive aggressive rheotrical hand wringing, you can't do anything about Km.t being Blacks because it's a fact of history.
I am waiting for the citation of geneticists that says Egyptians were black...you show me this and I will shut up
quote:Blacks is exactly what it means. Blacks is exactly what they were.
Read statement above
quote: You can lie to yourself, and you can lie to yourself about why you are lying about it.
About what?
quote:But when you are done lying Km.t will still mean Black you can't change that by lying about it.
I really don't know what km.t means and neither do you considering I didn't know "owls" denoted a color
quote:Here's another truth for you to suck on:
You don't oppose people referring to themseves in terms of color.
Correct
quote:You only oppose Ancient Egyptians being black.
Superimposing, but oh well, I don't know what Egyptians were as I have statement many times before.
quote:You've failed completely to prove the existence of race, and at the same time...you've exposed your own racism. lol.
Extremely stupid comment and I have posted the social definition of race over 8 times. Not knowing that Egyptians are black does not equate to racism because if it did the whole damn world would basically be racist because the world's perception of Ancient Egypt is usually based on what they show in movies of people that aren't black and you calling me a racist is not only a lie and ad hominem it is also called "projective identification". You Rasol are the racist and you HATE the very thing you are.
That is why you keep posting things about whites being barbarians 5000 years ago yet your ancestors are still barbarians today. So your racist agenda makes no sense.
Blacks should be weary of weak minded nigs like you that are too paranoid for their own good. You would destroy any foundation of a black organization just on how race and racism and the two words period affects you.
Are you even a man or a woman? Did you get abused as a child, I just don't see why you are so affected by silly ass white people. I grew up around white people and have experienced more racism from whites and (african americans) more than all of you combined and I am not affected by it. What gives?
Is it that most of you are raised by your momma or some fat Jamima sweet potato pie makin grand mother and not a father that makes you so weak minded jeeesh?
It frustrates you that WHITE racists can impose their will and power with their racist ideals and you can only express it in a teeny tiny corner of the cyber world on a forum while living in a studio apartment lmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not my fault or any racist white person's fault for that matter deal with it Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida Extremely stupid comment
^ Such childish frustrated rhetoric only shows your anger at your inability to answer the questions. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote:Vida doesnt see how he is twisting himself into a knot.
How? Please demonstrate..
quote:We say there are no races.
He says there are since we say the Egyptians were mostly blacks.
Wrong, I am saying there ARE races and you are saying there ARE NO races and therefore I have not choice, but to come to the conclusion that Egyptians cannot be defined by any other description but Egyptians. Not black or white etc.
Please reiterate people's points clearly and concisely otherwise that is called "lying". You are my boy and I like you so I'll let you off with a warning this time
quote:We say black is not a race.
Ok, now please tell me why is black not a race considering this is an attribute of the social concept of race especially in western society?!?!
quote:He says, yes it is, especially since Europeans see the Egyptians as white, which means that they werent black, which proves that there is a such thing as race.
^^^^What the hell?!?! Man are you crazy or something, where did you see me say this?
quote:Vida, skin color is a fact of biology. Skin color is not race. The FACT that SOME people view skin color as a SIGNIFICANT aspect of human biology for the purposes of DEFINING and CATEGORIZING humans for SOCIAL, POLITICAL and ECONOMIC purposes does not change the fact that SKIN COLOR does not equal RACE.
Ok, so the problem is the word "race" --prima facie-- being used by me and not the denotation(grouping people based on appearance) of the word?
What word would you like me to use?
Question: What is the "race" of Egyptians? Which word should I replace for "race" [type of people]/[kind of people]?
When you say black and white..what is the umbrella statement for these two words? Is it "color"? If yes, then why are most Egyptians not painted black and what is the evidence of their skin color due to geneticists? What "color" do geneticists say Egyptians are and can you please give a citation.
By the way, what "color" are Armenians? What "color" are Koreans? What "color" are Brazilians?
This will be a doozy...How many "colors" are there of humans(this is where this falls apart)? Considering in my racial model I only had 8 racial types.
Now here is how you guys are making no sense
1. Race as a social construct is based on appearances.
2. The most ESSENTIAL attribute of this construct was skin color *snickering*
3. Because white geneticists say "race" cannot be used, it is accepted by people on this board to denote people by skin color because geneticists do so?!?!
4. It is more childish to describe people based on their skin color than a racial epithet like "negroid, mongoloid, cuacasoid"
5. Does not negro mean black in spanish?!
6. Why do geneticists use the term "black"; considering most Africans aren't black skinned?
7. Isn't the above actually even less precise than terms like negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid considering that precision and consistency is what motivates geneticists to abhore race in the first place?
Here is my demonstration of how this whole "color" thing stinks!!
^^^According to society all of these people would be grouped in the racial category of "black/negro/negroid"
Based on the color "black" being prefered by the people on this board and not "negroid/negro", why would these people be called "black" since neither of them have "black" skin?!?! hmmm
Especially when this is the color "black" :
and why yes, yes there are "black" people please compare:
(*snickering* sorry for using the typical Wesley Snipes example I couldn't think of any other African American celebrity that would be Internationally known)
Now based on the folks on this boards rationale, only Wesley Snipes out of the five total people I have posted fits the category "black"...YOUR WORDS NOT MINE he he he...now lets see who has put themselves in a knot.
quote:No Vida, now you are WHINING.
Why? Because of the simple fact that BLACK skin just like WHITE skin is a FACT of biology, but it isn't RACE because the genes that determine SKIN COLOR are a TINY PORTION of the overall human genome, so much so as to be IRRELEVANT when looking at genetic markers
Ok, thats fine, but what YOU are saying is that only Wesley Snipes in the listed 5 is "black" because he is the only one with black skin. Considering 99.9% of Egyptian depictions don't have them with "black" skin means that they AREN'T black in YOUR CRITERIA NOT MINE!!!
quote:Some people are black, some people are white. So WHAT? Skin color is a FACT of human biology and genetics, RACE IS NOT.
I am not disagreeing with this. What I am saying is the racial term used for freakin blacks is "black" and you are saying there is no "black race" yet saying there ARE "blacks" that is fucking rediculous and circular!!!!!!
And to top it all off..."we can't say negro because that denotes race, but we can say black which actually was the racial epithet in the first place and yet negro means black in spanish" <-----GOOFY!!!!!!!!!
quote: There are WHITES in Europe. There are BLACKS in Africa. Egypt was POPULATED by AFRICANS. The fact that they largely had BLACK SKIN does not mean that RACE exists in the human species.
I never said race exists "in" human beings because race is not biological. I said it exists in society which human beings ARE "in".
Egyptians didn't depict themselves primarily with "black skin". So therefore in your rationale they aren't black. Yet you people say I am wrong for using the term negro when in actuality "negro" in social racial terms encompases a miriad of skin colors from black to dark brown to brown to light brown to caramel to redbone to yellowbone etc. etc.
Based on my model of race I am doing Egyptians more justice than YOU are LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!
quote:What it MEANS is that YOU refuse to ACCEPT that they had BLACK SKIN.
No, actually they did because they didn't depict themselves as such.
quote: You are WHINING because RATHER THAN STICK TO THE FACTS, that the Ancient Egyptians largely had dark skin complexion, which we BLACK, you want to argue about RACE.
There would be no argument if people were honest about race being used socially, but this board isn't very honest I am afraid. Largely had dark skin complexion is moving the goal post and ad hocing...I thought you said they were "black"..."black" is not synonymous with "dark"..black is a color(noun) and dark is an adjective.
quote:you must understand it is NOT A RACIAL ISSUE it is a PHENOTYPE ISSUE
Ok, but this is where the confusion sets in. The Eurocentrist is going to say their phenotype is Caucasoid lol...so then what is the response to that?!?!? That there is no Caucasoid? Ok, but then what is the Phenotype of Egyptians then?
quote:And the ORIGINAL INDIGENOUS Egyptians were BLACK AFRICANS.
The only disagreement we have here is that I see "black Africans" as a socially racial construct and you see it as some "color" concept *shrugs*
quote:The facts and evidence are there to support this.
Show me the citation of a geneticist that says Egyptians are black and I will shut up.
quote:The EGYPTIAN civilization developed IN AFRICA from LOCAL CONDITIONS among POPULATIONS that have been LIVING and DEVELOPING for THOUSANDS OF YEARS IN AFRICA. Egypt was a CONTINUATION of the HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA, not a SEPARATE ASPECT.
^^^No problems here.
quote:Picture spamming wont help,unless you are going to SPAM pictures from Egypt itself as opposed to MODERN people, which is IRRELEVANT to the issue
NO NO NO address my question...what "color" are the top 4 people?
quote:That is why you keep posting things about whites being barbarians 5000 years ago yet your ancestors are still barbarians today
I have no idea what you are ranting about, or why you need to humiliate yourself by attempting to insult my ancestors with such unintelligible prattle, but I am amused by the sheer frenzied nature of your nakedly hateful response.
No rebuttal is necessary....in fact I would like you to continue.
Please tell us more about 'my ancestors still being barbarians today'? Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida Extremely stupid comment
^ Such childish frustrated rhetoric only shows your anger at your inability to answer the questions.
quote:I have posted the social definition of race over 8 times.
Untrue and irrelevant. You posted -other peoples differing opinions- on race. We ask for *your definition.* You did not present it, and in fact have contradicted yourself several times.
When asked for your definition, you 1st stated that race is *not* biological, and then later claiming that it *is.*
The question you were asked was - which is it?
You respound with desparate ranting, and claims for the number of times you've cut and pasted irrelevancies, but never actually answer the question.
Why is that?
LOL!!!! All lies now show me where I said race was biological....waiting.....*whistling*
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is more childish to describe people based on their skin color
You mean like this?
Osirus, Kem Wer, the Great Black, He of the Black Face:
I will gladly entertain your view that the Ancient Egyptians regard for Blackness was childish, *provided* you can explain why you feel that way, other than out of prejudice?
Until then, my answer to your question is that the AE refering to themselves as Blacks *makes perfect sense*, and that it is only you inability to emotionally accept this fact that is childish.
^ You may now endeavor to prove otherwise....
Funny how the first gods of Egypt are depicted Green so based on your conclusion shouldn't Egyptians be that "color"?
This kem wer means nothing considering the sea we call the red sea was called that dumb ass lol.
Why is Geb and Nut(osirus' parents) Not depicted black?
How do you not know that black is a symbolic color just as green, gold, platinum, blue, red and yellow are.
You are saying that people are of those colors?
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Vida: LOL!!!! All lies now show me where I said race was biological....waiting.....*whistling*
quote:Posted by Vida on 20 June, 2007 at 01:46 PM: Race is a *biological* and social construct
^ Hypothesis: Perhaps you are *losing your mind*, due to excessively polemical ranting and no longer recall what your own comments from one post to the next?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Vida: LOL!!!! All lies now show me where I said race was biological....waiting.....*whistling*
quote:Posted by Vida on 20 June, 2007 at 01:46 PM: Race is a *biological* and social construct
^ Hypothesis: Perhaps you are *losing your mind*, due to excessively polemical ranting and no longer recall what your own comments from one post to the next?
You keep doing this....Race is a biological and social construct as far as the "WORD" itself!!!!!!!
Race being biological in Human beings is a totally different thing and you know this you are just trying to squirm a debate along. So if you are going to condemn me for anything it should be that I am not totally saying "race is not a human biological construct but a social human construct" If this is the case than I apologize for not fully articulating properly each and everytime.
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Actually Kem Wer means Great Black which means *everything* in the context of this discussion.
quote:considering the sea we call the red sea was called that
Only by the Blacks who controlled it in antiquity, making Black Sea analogous to Black-Africa, as opposed to the Red Asiatics who control it now, and from whence we derive "red sea".
Of course you know this, since you got this information from here in the 1st place:
I think all of us, yes ALL of us will be happy with this.
And I like this:
quote:Defining race Main article: Race In biology, some people use race to mean a division within a species. Thus, in certain fields it is used as a synonym for subspecies or, in botany, variety. In the case of honeybees, for instance, it stands as a synonym for subspecies. In this usage, race serves to group members of a species that have, for a period of time, become geographically or genetically isolated from other members of that species, and as a result have diverged genetically and developed certain shared characteristics that differentiate them from the others. Although these characteristics rarely appear in all members of the group, they are more marked in or appear more frequently than in the others.
The analysis of most social scientists conclude that the common notions of race are social constructs. These definitions of race are derived from custom, vary between cultures, and are described as imprecise and fluid. Often these definitions rely on phenotypic characteristics or inferred ancestry. The analysis of human genetic variation also provides insight into human population history and structure. The recent spread of humans from Africa has created a situation where the majority of human genetic variation is found within each human population. However, as a result of physical and cultural isolation of human groups, a significant subset of genetic variation is found between human groups. This variation is highly structured and therefore useful for distinguishing groups and placing individuals into groups for some scientists. Admixture and clinal variation between groups can be confounding to this kind of analysis of human variation. The relationship between social and genetic definitions of race is complex. Phenotypic racial classifications do not necessarily correspond with genotypical groups; some more than others. To the extent that ancestry corresponds to social definitions of race, groups identified by genetics will also correspond with these notions. Whether human population structure warrants the distinction of human 'races' is a matter of debate, with the majority of opinions varying between disciplines. Today, most biologists and anthropologists prefer the term population to race, avoiding the scientific stigma of predefined racial constructs.
So the word I should be using instead of race is "population"?
Is everyone happy with this posted link?
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*: Is race biological yes or no?
Yes
Are there human races yes or no?
Biologically no, socially yes
^ Then this leads us back to the question I asked you in the 1st place.
If race in humans is not biological, then does it not follow that biology can not be used to assess race in the 1st place?
If race is biological and not biologically valid in humans, then isn't the social bases of race in humans pseudo-scientific?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So the word I should be using instead of race is "population"?
Is everyone happy with this posted link?
Seems like and irrelevant dodge to me.
You have already admitted that the Km.t were genetically African and socially Black, so why do you imagine the non-sequitur of 'population' can help you run away from this admission?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So the word I should be using instead of race is "population"?
Is everyone happy with this posted link?
Seems like and irrelevant dodge to me.
You have already admitted that the Km.t were genetically African and socially Black, so why do you imagine the non-sequitur of 'population' can help you run away from this admission?
So then what is the beef? If I admit and agree that Egyptians are genetically(biologically) African and socially black then why the debate?
My initial point why am I wrong for calling Egyptians "black/negro" by a social racial construct?
I am not going to call them "black" based on a "color" construct because they were not mostly "black skinned" as most Africans are not black skinned.
If you just call them African then a Eurocentrist can just say "yeah they are African and caucasoid(north Africans).
And what I said is how can you defend against this based on this "color" construct?
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:So then what is the beef? If I admit and agree that Egyptians are genetically(biologically) African and socially black then why the debate?
Then we agree on the material point at hand. I can't make heads nor tails out of your opinions on race, but they are admittedly irrelevant to the above so....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Vida's game of playing the 'run-around' with Rasol chasing has left me kind of dizzy. What was the original question again? I forgot. LOLPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Vida's game of playing the 'run-around' with Rasol chasing has left me kind of dizzy. What was the original question again? I forgot. LOL
Basically it came down to how do you defend against Eurocentricts in the question of what race were Egyptians. If there is no race what would you say? North African is caucasoid to them, "black" is too literal for them.
As far as my skepticism it is based on alot of the pharoah's mummy's and their skulls, but I guess you fascilitated that in the other thread even though the Eurocentric will say those skulls are caucasoid.
I will still ascribe to race "socially" because it is alot more sound than "color".
I think "kem" means burnt rather than black which doesn't mean Egyptians weren't "negro"(but for some reason I can't say this word) based on the burnt stick of wood. I just don't know what the "owl" means. Osirus, Isis and Horus being black colored to me is symbolic and again has no bearing on the race or appearance or population of Egyptians either way and it is a seperate issue.
I do have a question though: In the mdw ntr km.t nwt what does the little hump like in the glyph for ptah mean and in kmtwy I also see the little hump again.
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
You keep doing this....Race is a biological and social construct as far as the "WORD" itself!!!!!!!
Race is a biological construct in every sense of the word, even by the ordinary people in the Eurocentric world who take the word for granted and misuse it - you'll never learn, will you?
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
Race being biological in Human beings is a totally different thing and you know this you are just trying to squirm a debate along. So if you are going to condemn me for anything it should be that I am not totally saying "race is not a human biological construct but a social human construct" If this is the case than I apologize for not fully articulating properly each and everytime.
This is jibberish. Coherency is in order.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
I think "kem" means burnt rather than black which doesn't mean Egyptians weren't "negro"(but for some reason I can't say this word) based on the burnt stick of wood. I just don't know what the "owl" means.
According to which authorative source? The use of the owl figure has already been touched on several times, including discussions you have participated in.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
I will still ascribe to race "socially" because it is alot more sound than "color".
All human constructs are ultimately "social", because that's what words are meant to do, to promote communication and socialization. Race as a term, is a social construct with a 'purpose'; its function is one which is biological. Therefore, the term can only be correctly assessed biologically. Biology maintains a specific definition for the term, and so, any use of the term outside this definition, is the incorrect use of the term. Given that you made it known that you shall use the term incorrectly, then also be prepared to not criticize those who do use it correctly and thereby complain about not knowing what ancient Egyptians were, just because your concept of human 'races' is foundationless. One doesn't have to prescribe pseudo-science in order to know who ancient Nile Valley indegenes were; quite simply, they were indigenous Africans and part of the continuum of in situ African humanity.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The term "social race" is ultimately a pseudo-scientific oxymoron.
It evokes the authority of scientific truth, [because the term is rooted in biology/science] but shrinks from the requirement of standing up to scientific scrutiny.
It is a pseudo-or-fake science in precisely the same sense as the statement 2+2 = 5 is pseudo mathamatical, ie - "social arithmatic", defined as:
Arithmatic that is not mathamatically valid.
Pseudo-mathamtics.
Fake or just plain 'bad' mathamatics.
Likewise:
Social race.
Biology that is not scientifically valid.
Pseudo biology.
SOY Kieta well understands and has seen thru this charade:
"Race draws its *power* from it's natural science root.
Simplifying: Race is socially powerful because it implies a claim of scientific truth.
Once race is exposed as pseudo-science it loses its social-grip over all but the weakest minds, who cannot perceive well enough to separate clarity [ie Keita] from babblement such as [Vida].
Vida seeks desparately to sustain a race-ist discourse to gain some distraction/relief from what she now admits as "genetically African, socially Black", Ancient Egyptians.
But it's a futile task, for with the above admission - the question is answered, and the game is over - bitter protestation to the contrary notwithstanding. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
I think "kem" means burnt rather than black which doesn't mean Egyptians weren't "negro"(but for some reason I can't say this word) based on the burnt stick of wood. I just don't know what the "owl" means.
According to which authorative source? The use of the owl figure has already been touched on several times, including discussions you have participated in.
I draw this by the mdw ntr and its picture of a stick of burnt wood. Also phonecian/hebrew word "ham" meaning burnt/hot. Also from Arabic the wrod al khem/alchemy to where one must burn/boil water to extract elements.
All I got from the "owl" post was that it implied complete? I don't understand that nor how someone or some authority came to that conclusion.
I had a theory that maybe the "wise old owl" concept traces back to Egypt and that maybe it refered to complete as to be "finished or refined" denoting knowledge or wisdom.
To be burnt = to be complete/refined maybe? This is just my guess. Like the word for copper with the word "kem" in it. Copper is not black but maybe by this word they mean burnt/refined copper.
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^True, Vida's deduction, as has been in this entire discussion, yet again doesn't hold water.
As far as the purpose of the 'owl' is concerned, and one which isn't always necessarily associated with the term 'km' in its feminine singular form ['km.t'], or noun forms ['kmtnwt' et al.], it has been discussed in the following link like elsewhere, along with the precise meaning of 'km': KM.t[rmt.st] = Black[people] i.e., Word + [determinative]Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*: [QB]
quote:Vida doesnt see how he is twisting himself into a knot.
How? Please demonstrate..
quote:We say there are no races.
He says there are since we say the Egyptians were mostly blacks.
Wrong, I am saying there ARE races and you are saying there ARE NO races
More accurately, that there is not enough difference between 'racial-groups' to substantiate the biological 'races'
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida and therefore I have not choice, but to come to the conclusion that Egyptians cannot be defined by any other description but Egyptians. Not black or white etc.
Why not black and white, those are just colors in reference to the percieved shades of an individual's skin color.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT SUCH A THING DOES NOT EXIST?
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida:
Please reiterate people's points clearly and concisely otherwise that is called "lying". You are my boy and I like you so I'll let you off with a warning this time
You've been applying my tips haven't you.
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida
quote:We say black is not a race.
Ok, now please tell me why is black not a race considering this is an attribute of the social concept of race especially in western society?!?!
It's not a race, biologically. Why is that so hard to understand?
Race only exists as a social construct, based off phenotypical traits.
black and white ARE NOT 'races', biologically
THEREFORE, we CAN DESCRIBE THE ANCIENT KEMETIANS AS THEY DESCRIBED THEMSELVES., without being advicates of 'race'.
See?
I think vida was just givnin it a real hard (depending on the individual) challenge
...not hiding as an undercover fish among piranhas...
quote:Originally posted by Willing Thinker {What Box}: *out of reader mode*
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*: [QB]
quote:Vida doesnt see how he is twisting himself into a knot.
How? Please demonstrate..
quote:We say there are no races.
He says there are since we say the Egyptians were mostly blacks.
Wrong, I am saying there ARE races and you are saying there ARE NO races
More accurately, that there is not enough difference between 'racial-groups' to substantiate the biological 'races'
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida and therefore I have not choice, but to come to the conclusion that Egyptians cannot be defined by any other description but Egyptians. Not black or white etc.
Why not black and white, those are just colors in reference to the percieved shades of an individual's skin color.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT SUCH A THING DOES NOT EXIST?
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida:
Please reiterate people's points clearly and concisely otherwise that is called "lying". You are my boy and I like you so I'll let you off with a warning this time
You've been applying my tips haven't you.
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida
quote:We say black is not a race.
Ok, now please tell me why is black not a race considering this is an attribute of the social concept of race especially in western society?!?!
It's not a race, biologically. Why is that so hard to understand?
Race only exists as a social construct, based off phenotypical traits.
black and white ARE NOT 'races', biologically
THEREFORE, we CAN DESCRIBE THE ANCIENT KEMETIANS AS THEY DESCRIBED THEMSELVES., without being advicates of 'race'.
See?
I think vida was just givnin it a real hard (depending on the individual) challenge
...not hiding as an undercover fish among piranhas...
You dumb ass read the whole thread we already went though all of this that you are addressing.
Pay attention kid this whole post of yours was a waste.
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know why it's so hard for Vida to understand that since race is a social construct and is NOT scientifically valid, it only exists in people's minds.
Also, race is different from color. There are black people in Africa, and there are black people in the Pacific but one of the main definitions of 'race' is common lineage. Melanesians share lineages with non-Africans even non-black ones than they do with Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*: That is why you keep posting things about whites being barbarians 5000 years ago yet your ancestors are still barbarians today
^ LOL I missed this. So, it seems Vida shows his true colors! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I don't know why it's so hard for Vida to understand that since race is a social construct and is NOT scientifically valid, it only exists in people's minds.
Also, race is different from color. There are black people in Africa, and there are black people in the Pacific but one of the main definitions of 'race' is common lineage. Melanesians share lineages with non-Africans even non-black ones than they do with Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*: That is why you keep posting things about whites being barbarians 5000 years ago yet your ancestors are still barbarians today
^ LOL I missed this. So, it seems Vida shows his true colors!
I don't know why you don't understand that it was never a scientific debate in the first place that was just their way of Ad hoc-ing.
You should read the WHOLE thread not just your cyber buddy's posts.
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If "sociology" is a pseudo-science then you need to publish something about it. Don't talk about it...be about it.
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(*snickering* sorry for using the typical Wesley Snipes example I couldn't think of any other African American celebrity that would be Internationally known)![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
].![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
LOL 
Printer-friendly view of this topic