posted
Why keep responding to useless non-benificial, stagnant troll threads that unintelligently state things like 'X aren't black' or arbitrarily pre-suppose "American use of one drop rule make them reckon Egypt was black"? (Does anyone consider James Watson black?)
Their thoughtlessly contrived concepts of blackness and strawman (<- distractionary & substance lacking) accusations only serve to distract from a number of things. For starters, these two:
1.) The AE had melanin levels and distal vs. proximal limb segment proportions more tropical, if not as tropical as anyone alive today (let alone anyone alive called 'black').
Notice the hair and the differentiated physical features on the soldiers, indicative of the work's realism.
Unless those are wigs, which I doubt the AE wore in combat.
Most shaved their heads, but in morning, or in times of wore grew their hair, I thought.
In either case, we do have at least this and another instance I know of of a Kemetian without a wig or hair piece showing off his non artificial hair:
AE wigs:
Other interesting pics:
In conclusion, yes .. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that there were many black people in Kemet.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Which Charles Watson do you mean, dear? I'm up yonder in Holland, dunno all these Americans.
Nice going! Like you I do not like this, forever debating things which were settled hundreds of years ago. I'm all for progress.
The Eurocentrist have dreamed up some crazy distinction between Africans: the South of Sahara (SSA) and the North of Sahara (NSA). The NSA are 'good' the SSA are 'bad' because they are supposed to be 'prognastic' and have 'frizzled hair.' So they are declared 'ugly.' I use the name Classical Africans. Diop showed that the narrow skulled, narrow nosed and lips type is just a variation found all over Africa, and they are not some superior elite among the more broad skulled Africans. These people themselves are horrified by the idea that they are considered Caucasians.
As I have pointed out in my other threads this Classical African type, the 'bad' one, was just what Europeans used obsessively in their art: The Moor (1300-1900). Almost always a Classical African.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
It all comes down to definition. He obviously has no Black identity and does not look Black. So White it is. But according to the onedroprule if you had a great-great-great grandparent who was Black, you were 1/64 Black, and would qualify as Black.
Perhaps this is how in Europe the new rich people demanded to be accepted as part of the Nobility by proofing that some old, old, old ancestor was considered a Noble by his peers. Perhaps maintaining some mansion or a grand farmstead. There is a lot of literature on this, also proofing how some people cheated, payed off people, in order to get ennobled. Producing fake portraits bought at auction, having them altered, adding family arms and such, to proof a noble background.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Why I call this thread a distractionary 'troll thread':
* The initial thesis relies on strawmen: pre-conceived notions of what African Americans are, and what they consider 'black'.
quote:Originally posted by What Box:
In this thread the oblivious communicate as if African Americans don't understand that black is a social label.
Afro Americans are aware.
A number of parents will have a young child say "but look I'm/their brown" in confusion.
In fact, some of my lighter brethren will express that they're "black, but not black", the latter emphasized highlighting the relativity of the concept (as their skin color is not black like ... say ... that of the ancient "Egyptians" posted above (; ).
Even [what we call] 'yellow' skinned people have been called 'white' (whether jokingly or in ridicule).
You could here "[Leroy Jackson's] black, just light skinned" and again will call white skinned African Americans .. "white".
etc.
Now, back to ancient Kemet and its people...
Imhotep:
Make-up box:
Sports:
Sebek, god:
Kemmou were tropically adapted Africans with lineages that find their origin in 'sub-saharan' Africa and people who ultimately get to 'Egypt' via the Nile's bases in equatorial/sub-equatorial Uganda/Tanzania and the Ethiopian highlands, and via what is now the Sahara desert.
IF one was truly interested in analyzing skin tone from a biological point of view (melanin levels), they should note a few things.
For one, color is subjective; shades and hues are relative - there is a question of where some begins and where others end.
There are many genes that, working in consort, affect melanin levels. Looking at these genes may (or may not) help one determine ancestry (or genetic affinity) all that well.
As far as actual melanin in the Ancient Egyptians go, using data to compare AE to modern "black Africans" isn't a bad idea:
quote:Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues
A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2
Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13
"Materials and methods In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately 1550_/1080 BC).....The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."
Side note: We know the word "Negroid" to be a misnomer in anthropology, however, the raw data and implications are the same. Same with this next citation:
"The nature of the body plan was also investigated by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices for these samples with values obtained from the literature. No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; (data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations." - Sonia Zakrzewski (2003)
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Why keep responding to useless non-benificial, stagnant troll threads that arbitrarily state things like 'X aren't black' or unintelligently pre-suppose that "American use of one drop rule make them reckon Egypt was black"?
Evergreen Writes:
Typically people respond to these types of threads because they lack the technical knowledge of how to define the melanin levels indigenous to Africa.
There seems to be a range of melanin that is restricted to Africa and tropical Asia. Furthermore the melanin levels indigenous to tropical Asia seem to have been inheirited by immigrants during the original out-of-Africa migration and did not evolve insitu in tropical Asia.
Define this range and the non-sense ends.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Agreed, but only if the people you are speaking of are intelligent enough to understand.
Currently on ES, this is often not the case.
I would also suggest that it is a mistake to try to reduce ethnic reference to color to any 'objectified' concept.
The way I end the nonsense of mongrel-centrist salassin is by demanding that he 'objectively/scientifically' define his concept of mixed: 'he doesn't have one'.
The way I destroy another another anti-Black poster who calls himself and 'afro-jew', is to demand that he objectively define jew. [does there exist 'pure jew' with 'no' gentile blood? if not, then what right does anyone have to use the term jew].
The way I destroy Amr1's Arabization brainwash babblings is by forcing him to objectively define Arab, and then explain why Arabs still refer to 'him' as Abeed, and what exactly does Abeed mean to him, and to other pseudo-Arabs like him?
I have noticed that these trolls always run away from me, and seek certain other posters whom they feel are weak, and can be baited.
Black as and ethnic reference literally speaks for itself.
That is - *it is one of the single most commonly used ethnic references* referring to dark skinned peoples in the history of the world.
It is still relevant because of this.
It is hated and reviled by white supremacists, confused mongrels, and self hating Africans....because of this.
There is thread after thread devoted TO Black, and not TO *any other ethnic concept*..... because of this.
Therefore all the threads meant to 'deny' Blackness by whatever sophistry are ultimately self defeating.
Though the people who start such threads are typically quite stupid, and don't grasp this. [post]
Black -> always was, still is, and always will be. [long after the last brainwashed self hating Afro-Arab has destroyed themselves - in the name of Allah..... see current Sudan]
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Which is why you will never see the following threads.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
it won't happen again.
Printer-friendly view of this topic