quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
If "sociology" is a pseudo-science then you need to publish something about it.
"Race" is a biological thing, rendering social races as a function of biological reality, pseudo-scientific. This simple fact will never sink in, now will it?
quote:Vidadavida:
Don't talk about it...be about it.
What do you think this whole discussion was about? The facts are already out there, you just have to avail yourself of them, Vida. It ain't that hard. Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is Vida's tactic of associating [melinan] color with race with the goal of invalidating terms like 'black', hence, making it fallascious to to describe Kemet as 'black'.
Though, we don't see him disputing 'white'.
I have to say, my tips must have helped..
Vida, you're much more smooth now, like you're being yourself.
If it wasn't for your overbearing effort in trying to pose as black a while back,
or your expose now, you would be believe-able.
Like rasol said, that must suck... having put so much time and effort into it. O-well Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*: If "sociology" is a pseudo-science
Simply:
Quote someone saying 'sociology is pseudoscience'.
No quote?
Then admit that your comment is yet another strawman in which you make up stuff no one said because you can't address what *was* actually said.
It's funny, as I was just talking about this in another thread with regards to this phenomenon amongst people who operate from a very shaky premise, the tendency to attribute phantom claims to others, and then purport to be disputing them.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Willing Thinker {What Box}: The problem is Vida's tactic of associating [melinan] color with race with the goal of invalidating terms like 'black', hence, making it fallascious to to describe Kemet as 'black'.
Though, we don't see him disputing 'white'.
I have to say, my tips must have helped..
Vida, you're much more smooth now, like you're being yourself.
If it wasn't for your overbearing effort in trying to pose as black a while back,
or your expose now, you would be believe-able.
Like rasol said, that must suck... having put so much time and effort into it. O-well
How many times do I have to tell your little gay self hating azz to read the thread. This response makes no sense.
The argument is why can't I call Egyptians "black/negro" in social racial construct. They say I can't because race(not realizing that it is just a word people use in society ) is not biological in humans, but that I can call them black by way of skin color(?). I said but most Egyptians weren't black skinned so they would fall out of this category if using the color "black". Then they ad hoc by saying "dark" which is not the same word as "black". It was a rediculous argument anyway considering they didn't even understand what I was saying yet I understood them.
By the way I would be considered an "uncle Tom" black according to the poster's socio-economic backgrounds on this board so maybe that is why you feel I am "Eurocentric and white" *snickering* Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
The argument is why can't I call Egyptians "black/negro" in social racial construct. They say I can't because race(not realizing that it is just a word people use in society ) is not biological in humans, but that I can call them black by way of skin color(?).
False. This is what set off the argument:
Originally posted by Vidadavida:
Acient Egypt's racial make up just seems too ambigious to make any assertions honestly. Right now I would accept Ancient Egypt to be a Mixed international society than a solely black one.
^To which Rasol replied.
quote:Vidadavida:
I said but most Egyptians weren't black skinned so they would fall out of this category if using the color "black". Then they ad hoc by saying "dark" which is not the same word as "black".
This is precisely the issue the person you're attacking is trying to get you to understand, and you wonder why he continues to do so - it's because you continue to not get it. "Black" is a euphemism for substantial pigmentation of people as a response to UV radiation in the tropics. It isn't 'race', but it has been known to be used in an ethnic sense socially.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is precisely the issue the person you're attacking is trying to get you to understand, and you wonder why he continues to do so - it's because you continue to not get it. "Black" is a euphemism for substantial pigmentation of people as a response to UV radiation in the tropics. It isn't 'race', but it has been known to be used in an ethnic sense socially.
Says who? How does black=dark!?
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote: This is precisely the issue the person you're attacking is trying to get you to understand, and you wonder why he continues to do so - it's because you continue to not get it. "Black" is a euphemism for substantial pigmentation of people as a response to UV radiation in the tropics. It isn't 'race', but it has been known to be used in an ethnic sense socially.
Says who? How does black=dark!?
Says me, and precisely as I said it above.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote: This is precisely the issue the person you're attacking is trying to get you to understand, and you wonder why he continues to do so - it's because you continue to not get it. "Black" is a euphemism for substantial pigmentation of people as a response to UV radiation in the tropics. It isn't 'race', but it has been known to be used in an ethnic sense socially.
Says who? How does black=dark!?
*Sigh*, you mean to tell me, that you don't know what black means?
a. a member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
b. African-American.
A is highlighted because it is the primary definition - in direct reference to people - in most dictionaries I've seen.
a.): a. a member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
Dark-skinned, NOT black skinned.
If that was indeed the definition, THERE WOULD BE NO PEOPLE WHO COULD DEFINE THEMSELVES AS 'BLACK', as no body on Earth is absolute black, (not reflecting any light).
You could find many individuals close to black, but it would be arguable as there are no clear parameters in any aspect of color; the division from where 'orange' crosses over into 'peach' and 'peach' crosses over into 'red' are ambiguous.
I know right about here, you're wondering, "relevance?" because, some, aparently have an inability to put the rule of 2 + 2 = 4 into context and utilize it when adding.
Basically, since what many defines a color as varies, and is ambiguous,
then where does brown stop and red begin, or blue stop and black begin?
Darker skinned folk are described as blacks, says your dictionary. Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Willing thinker: Darker skinned folk are described as blacks, says your dictionary.
Yes but not everyone defines themselves as such, especially those outside the new world, "white", "black" identity is a 16th century invention. I've already adressed this before.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edited: Nevermind, was replying to the wrong person. LOL. It was meant for Vida, NOT Willing Thinker. Willing thinker has gotten it alright.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is precisely the issue the person you're attacking is trying to get you to understand, and you wonder why he continues to do so - it's because you continue to not get it. "Black" is a euphemism for substantial pigmentation of people as a response to UV radiation in the tropics.
Here is the definition of Black that I ascribe to -
Black - ethnicity - a person belonging to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin. - Merriam Webster.
Of course the Km.t [Blacks] of Ancient Egypt are rightfully included and moreover are one of the earliest known peoples to whom this ethnic construct was applied.
Race is irrelevant to the above.
So why are we discussing it?
Two reasons.
1) Race is the Eurocentric ruse for perverting world history and asserting white supremacy thru pseudo-science.
2) Non whites educated into this dialect - don't see the ruse, share the root assumptions it is based on, and try to argue within the structure of a supremacist discourse.
The Eurocentrists don't concern me much. They are obvious and easy to debunk....as we've seen in this thread.
The Africanists who continue to argue for *race* are of greater concern, but remind me of the Bible's call for compassion:
"Forgive them, for they know not what they do". Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^In other words, the Eurocentrist ruse is to say that these people were NOT DARK because the word came about in the 16th century and is an outdated "racial" concept. Obviously dark skin is not a race and being dark skinned and called black is not racial. However, since they want to deny blackness, they must find a way to argue against it without saying so directly. Hence all sorts of pseudo talk about black being a "race" or not everyone uses it, or but they weren't as dark as. All of which is to get around the fact that people in Africa have various skin complexions within the range of being considered dark. This range of complexion is labelled as black as generic adjective and not a "race". Therefore, it only means one with darker skin and obviously the Egpyptians fell into this category. It doesnt mean American, South American, Somali, Jordanian, Papuan, Hawaiian or anything else, because it is not a NATIONALISTIC adjective. It only defines the physical appearance of the person in terms of overal skin complexion, which the Eurocentrists just dont want to accept as being darker than their so called pure white skin supremacy.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
3. (sometimes initial capital letter) a. pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
South Asian (Indian)
Southeast Asian
Pacific Islander
Australian Aborigines
Unless you do not consider the peoples above to be black despite the complexions they share with indigenous Africans. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^true the top and the bottom pic aren't of blacks@djehuty I know you are asian and think all blacks look the same as I think all asians look the same but its not the case and I know it would be vice versa even though I can't tell a korean from a Jap from a Thai
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*: ^^^true the top and the bottom pic aren't of blacks@djehuty
And why not?! You were shown the definition of 'black' several times. All the pictures show people who fall into that definition, including the top and bottom pictures, do they not?? Do not the Indian woman in the top and the Aboriginal Australian women in the bottom have heavy pigmented, dark skin as dark as indigenous Africans??!!
quote:I know you are asian and think all blacks look the same as I think all asians look the same but its not the case and I know it would be vice versa even though I can't tell a korean from a Jap from a Thai
^ LOL Bad strawman argument and a false one at that! No I do not think all blacks look alike, perhaps that is YOUR views being projected on to me(?). My point was not that all black people looked alike but what makes people 'black'. All the pictures I posted were of black people.
Now explain how any of them are not.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:By the way I would be considered an "uncle Tom" black according to the poster's socio-economic backgrounds on this board so maybe that is why you feel I am "Eurocentric and white" *snickering*
The Americans are crowding this forum...little bit boring...
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Hey I'm American. And it's more like Americans like him make this board a little bit... crazy!
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And still waiting on Vida to answer our questions on why she thinks two of the pictures I posted were not black people.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*: ^^^true the top and the bottom pic aren't of blacks@djehuty
And why not?! You were shown the definition of 'black' several times. All the pictures show people who fall into that definition, including the top and bottom pictures, do they not?? Do not the Indian woman in the top and the Aboriginal Australian women in the bottom have heavy pigmented, dark skin as dark as indigenous Africans??!!
quote:I know you are asian and think all blacks look the same as I think all asians look the same but its not the case and I know it would be vice versa even though I can't tell a korean from a Jap from a Thai
^ LOL Bad strawman argument and a false one at that! No I do not think all blacks look alike, perhaps that is YOUR views being projected on to me(?). My point was not that all black people looked alike but what makes people 'black'. All the pictures I posted were of black people.
Now explain how any of them are not.
You are being offensive you non blacks think blacks look like animals those two are australians and they don't look a damn thing like Africans with those pig noses. They have straight hair aswell. They are Australoids and not Black/negroids.
I have already given my racial categories and they are MUCH less specious as yours. Black does not mean "dark skin" that is freakin ridiculous considering dark would be relative because George Clooney and Hulk Hogan have "dark" skin relative to "white" Europeans as well as Armenians etc.
Go to India and call them black lol and see what they do to you.
"I would never sit on a train next to a Khaffir" - Ghandi
posted
Vida, please cease with your senseless diatribes.
Black as an epithet for skin color means medium do dark brown skinned person. African is a geographic reference noting the continent from which the person derives. Therefore, black African, black American, black Asian and black Australian are ALL valid identifiers that specify the skin color of some of the populations in these places. Black does NOT mean African. Black does NOT mean curly hair. All that is NONSENSE that has NOTHING to do with the complexion of the skin which is denoted by the term black. And black is not a race it is only a phenotype based on the biological adaptation of various populations to UV radiation from the sun.
I think Vida WANTS to live in the fantasy world of "races" distinguished by skin color, hair texture and cranofacial dimensions. Everything being posted points to a desire to distinguish people thusly as if they are different "races". Asian is not a race, Vida and as such Asian phenotypes include dark brown skin, which indeed has nothing to do with Africa, but still makes many Asians and Australians black.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well some Africans, most Europeans, many Asians and many Americans are not black. In places where people have various backgrounds the term does have justification. However, I do understand your point, but my point is that black skin, meaning medium to dark brown skin, exists outside of Africa in populations that are not Africans and therefore the term black is not ONLY an identification for an African, which is purely a geographic reference, but a person with such traits anywhere on earth, at least in the way I am using it.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Black is not ONLY an identification for an African, which is purely a geographic reference, but a person with such traits anywhere on earth, at least in the way I am using it.
posted
To the extent that there are 'outlier' indigenous groups [like the tawny types] in coastal north Africa, particularly those in the western coasts, as a reference to hue contrasts observed in the gradation as one heads to the Mediterranean sea, it is not necessary to mistake 'black African' herein for anything short of descriptive delineation of apparent hue constrast between those who attained their said 'outlier' condition largely from extra-African genel flow [hence, not a natural part of the Saharo-tropical African continuum], and those who fall into the said continuum. But yes, there is the danger of the tendency by sections of the laymen to twist such delineation into something more than what it ought to just be.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
3. (sometimes initial capital letter) a. pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Vida, please cease with your senseless diatribes.
Black as an epithet for skin color means medium do dark brown skinned person. African is a geographic reference noting the continent from which the person derives. Therefore, black African, black American, black Asian and black Australian are ALL valid identifiers that specify the skin color of some of the populations in these places. Black does NOT mean African. Black does NOT mean curly hair. All that is NONSENSE that has NOTHING to do with the complexion of the skin which is denoted by the term black. And black is not a race it is only a phenotype based on the biological adaptation of various populations to UV radiation from the sun.
I think Vida WANTS to live in the fantasy world of "races" distinguished by skin color, hair texture and cranofacial dimensions. Everything being posted points to a desire to distinguish people thusly as if they are different "races". Asian is not a race, Vida and as such Asian phenotypes include dark brown skin, which indeed has nothing to do with Africa, but still makes many Asians and Australians black.
And that is because of the social concept of race(which is funny to me) Black is a specific color. Dark is an adjective. I have no problem calling Africans black, but in the people on this boards concept of "color descriptions" most Africans would not be black. Its extremely silly if you ask me Doug. Indians and Australians are not black.
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
3. (sometimes initial capital letter) a. pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
race
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. 6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race. 7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies. 8. a natural kind of living creature: the race of fishes. 9. any group, class, or kind, esp. of persons: Journalists are an interesting race. 10. the characteristic taste or flavor of wine. –adjective 11. of or pertaining to the races of humankind.
posted
^ Yes, and even the dictionary definition of 'race' does not in any way refute the dictionary meaning of 'black' which is a description of skin color and NOT race.
The fact that you cannot comprehend something so simple ( 'black' is in reference to very dark skin color, while 'race' is a different and specious social concept) only reflects either your own preconcieved bias or that you aren't that intelligent... or both.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Vida. I'm not sure I see your point, actually I *am* sure you don't have one.
And here is why...
By definition 1 and 2, black - a reference to color - is not a race, since it does not denote a distinct lineage, nor do any of your definitions state otherwise.
Definition 3 debunks itself as it defines *supposed* anthropological constructs no longer in technical use
Definition 4 and 5 are for 'ethnicity', not race.
Definition 6 - 'the human race' is for species and not race.
Definition 7 is for subspecies - which is the correct biological definition of race, however there are no subspecies of homo sapiens, therefore there are no distinct races of humans by this definition.
Definition 8 'the race of fishes' - is genus, which is "a group of 2 or more related species". Homo sapiens are only one species so this does not apply to humans either.
Definition 9 10: "Journalists are an interesting race.", flavors of wine, denotes the use of the word race as a trivial catchphrase.
None of these definitions prove the existence of race in humans, or prove that Black is a race.
Moreover by giving 10 different and contradictary definitions - you actually show us that *you* don't have *one*, and therefore after all that cut-&-paste, you still have no definition of race.... so neither do you have a point.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I am a little confused as to the exact definition of blackness. I know it refers to dark skin color, but exactly WHAT skin color? Is Egyptian reddish-brown skin really "black", or does the word describe only the darkest (as in very dark brown) skin?
Posts: 7080 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Honestly, I am a little confused as to the exact definition of blackness.
There isn't one. Because the term is a general reference to dark skinned people, not and 'exacting' reference to a particular skin tone.
No reference to skin tones of ethnic groups have ever been exacting. Skin tone itself is not exacting [what is tanning if not variation in skin tone within one individual?], nor are color references in general 'exacting' whether references skin, flowers, or anything else.
quote:I know it refers to dark skin color, but exactly WHAT skin color?
Based on Kemetian writings, Moorish writings, Kushitic writings, and the writings of other Blacks throughout history I can tell you all about Blacks.
What you can you tell me about Reddish-Browns?
You ask for a color term that is impossibly -exact-, yet you happily juxtapose it with a term that is anything but.
All of the above constitute pristine examples of asking the silly question which can only have a silly answer.
The color Black - which was generally and apostive in ancient times and is generally a slur in modern times - seems to cause total mental breakdown for many 'modern' minds.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Vida. I'm not sure I see your point, actually I *am* sure you don't have one.
And here is why...
By definition 1 and 2, black - a reference to color - is not a race, since it does not denote a distinct lineage, nor do any of your definitions state otherwise.
Definition 3 debunks itself as it defines *supposed* anthropological constructs no longer in technical use
Definition 4 and 5 are for 'ethnicity', not race.
Definition 6 - 'the human race' is for species and not race.
Definition 7 is for subspecies - which is the correct biological definition of race, however there are no subspecies of homo sapiens, therefore there are no distinct races of humans by this definition.
Definition 8 'the race of fishes' - is genus, which is "a group of 2 or more related species". Homo sapiens are only one species so this does not apply to humans either.
Definition 9 10: "Journalists are an interesting race.", flavors of wine, denotes the use of the word race as a trivial catchphrase.
None of these definitions prove the existence of race in humans, or prove that Black is a race.
Moreover by giving 10 different and contradictary definitions - you actually show us that *you* don't have *one*, and therefore after all that cut-&-paste, you still have no definition of race.... so neither do you have a point.
HUH?!?!? I posted from the dictionary just like he did. If you have a problem with it take it up with Websters *shrugs*
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes you posted it as an attempt to SUPPORT your views on "race", did you not? The problem is it doesn't so don't blame it on Webster's, because Webster did not post it.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I definitely believe the ancient Egyptians weren't black or white. At least not at first. I believe they were a different race that probably most resembled people from India but have long since assimilated with other people.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
3) Ancient Egyptians were not Black "Indians" they were Black Africans.
4) Being Africans they closely physically resemble many other Africans including modern day NorthEast Africans, who share a common ancestry, which is distinct from any Indian people.
You are free to believe whatever you like, upi can believe the ancient Egyptians came from Mars, if you want to.
However your beliefs are rooted in wishful thinking.
We are here to relate facts.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Yes you posted it as an attempt to SUPPORT your views on "race", did you not? The problem is it doesn't so don't blame it on Webster's, because Webster did not post it.
posted
No wishful thinking here, just my opinion on what I think they were as a people. I'm not saying my opinion is right because I don't know enough about them to really know for sure. I believe there are only a handful of people that actually know, but they're not telling because of the arguments it will cause.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
Opinions that are contradicted by facts qualify as wishful thinking or bias.
Either bring facts or admit to bias.
Choose one......
I ask the same of you. Give us some unbiased facts instead of wishful thinking. Perhaps the original ancient Egyptians were black. But I doubt that you or most anyone else know for a fact that they were black if in fact they were. History is what it is. Until the ancient Egyptian mummies can be DNA tested succesfully, everyones opinion is just that. I have a feeling that people from both sides(black and white) are going to be dissappointed when the results are known.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I ask the same of you. Give us some unbiased facts
I did. And you did not address them so why are you asking for them again?
quote:rasol wrote:
1) India is not a race.
2) There are Blacks in India.
3) Ancient Egyptians were not Black "Indians" they were Black Africans.
4) Being Africans they closely physically resemble many other Africans including modern day NorthEast Africans, who share a common ancestry, which is distinct from any Indian people.
You ignore the above facts, because they debunk your wishful thinking nonsense rheotoric regarding "Indian race."
Therefore...
quote:Opinions that are contradicted by facts qualify as wishful thinking or bias.
posted
I never said anything about the people of India being a race even though there are groups of people that have become homogenous enough to belong in racial subclasses.
It is you that wants to put a clear defining line between what is black and what isn't. In your wishful thinking you want the Egyptians to be 100% black and they weren't. There was definitely some contrasting differences during the whole history of Egypt. My likening the most ancient of Egyptians to the people of India is merely an opinion just like yours is merely an opinion and not substantiated by hardcore unbiased facts. Anyone can look at most of the mummies and tell they weren't 100% black. I do believe some of them did however have a considerable amount of black African in them over time. I believe King Tut definitely was one of them.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Celt: I never said anything about the people of India being a race even though there are groups of people that have become homogenous enough to belong in racial subclasses.
It is you that wants to put a clear defining line between what is black and what isn't. In your wishful thinking you want the Egyptians to be 100% black and they weren't. There was definitely some contrasting differences during the whole history of Egypt. My likening the most ancient of Egyptians to the people of India is merely an opinion just like yours is merely an opinion and not substantiated by hardcore unbiased facts. Anyone can look at most of the mummies and tell they weren't 100% black. I do believe some of them did however have a considerable amount of black African in them over time. I believe King Tut definitely was one of them.
I am sure the knwoledgeable posters will take this on. But if you read a lot of the post before you make your comments you wouldn't make a fool of yourself. Asking questions or making statements that was discussed over and over again. First - what is 100% black african? The point here(forum) is the view that "some" West African types are the true africans are false. I believe this is what you are calling 100% black african. But I think you would agree that it rediculous to portray AE as fair skinned, blond/red-head, people. Since 95% of painting/statues in the temples etc show themselves as being black/brown and almost 80% have thick lips unlike most Europeans. So I will say since most AE have typical 100% African features.. . . .so maybe they ARE Africans and not what you see on TV, the European. Who whose body is not designed(evolved) to be in that environment. From what little science I know people in these environs typical have very dark skin, black hair, and that part typically have woolly or curly hair. Maybe Dravidians ? I doubt it. Genetics has showed that the migration was moving OUT of Africa.
Another note. The people here talk "facts" and most time cite their sources
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
When there are mummies that do not have negroid type hair, I think you are going to be hard pressed to convince most people but perhaps the least educated of people.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) is not biological in humans, but that I can call them black by way of skin color(?). I said but most Egyptians weren't black skinned so they would fall out of this category if using the color "black". Then they ad hoc by saying "dark" which is not the same word as "black". It was a rediculous argument anyway considering they didn't even understand what I was saying yet I understood them.
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Why everyone else in the Western world of course, and probably the entire world. (exept for YOU apparently)
Printer-friendly view of this topic