Will Smith will take on the role of the pharaoh Taharqa for Columbia’s “The Last Pharaoh” – which will be written by Randall Wallace (“Braveheart”). Taharqa was the pharaoh who fought against Assyrian invaders in ancient Egypt.
Variety reports that Smith will also produce the film with James Lassiter and Ken Stovitz for Overbrook Entertainment. The film has reportedly been a dream project for Smith, and the actor took the story to Wallace.
The film will follow Taharqa’s war with Assyrian leader Esarhaddon in 677 B.C.
Smith is set to return to the screen in Columbia’s "Seven Pounds" – which reteams the actor with his "Pursuit of Happyness" director Gabriele Muccino. The film is produced by Overbrook with Escape Artists.
posted
Personally, Will Smith doesn't look much a Kushite to me if you know what I mean but a good actor nontheless. Although I'm worried about how the Egyptians will be depicted. I won't be surprised if this turns out to be a National Geographic fantasy re-enactment of black Kushites but Arab or pseudo-Arab 'caucasian' Egyptians. Also, even though Will Smith is a good actor that last movie he made, 'Hancock' was awful and if I didn't know any better I'd say he is suffering from the Scientologist's curse that Tom Cruise is suffering from if you know what I mean!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
And Hancock was a damn good flick. It about time super heroes were depicted as flawed.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Will Smith doesn't look much a Kushite to me if you know what I mean but a good actor nontheless.
No strike against you, but it seems that every time an opportunity like this becomes available, people seem to always emphasis trivialities, like "is his skin dark enough", or "is his features broad enough". I don't see any evidence for this statement Djehuti. I'm sure a great many of Kushites were of a darker complexion, but as seen in the example of the tomb of Huey, I don't have any objections to the notion that many Kushites would have looked similar to Will Smith.
I'm personally not worried about how Egyptians are portrayed since they describe Taharqa as an Egyptian! I'm sure given the plot overview, they wouldn't be too keen on confusing viewers by showing a pharaoh who looked drastically different from the general population, regardless if historically, Taharqa is known as a "Kushite" (whom already had a blood relation with Egyptians anyways), since there needs to be a contrast made with the Assyrians. I'm sure the Egyptians won't look more like the Assyrians than they do thier Pharaoh.
-------------------- mr.writer.asa@gmail.com Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Will Smith doesn't look much a Kushite to me if you know what I mean but a good actor nontheless.
^^^Indeed I agree and was going to say the same thing, aren't Nubians portrayed as stereotypically "blacker" than Egyptians, while the Egyptians would have been around Will Smith's complexion? Besides Will is most likely mixed anyway. Being that he is an A.A. and lighter skinned. I can also say I'm happy about it, since Will Smith could actually pass for an Egyptian, they're basically showing Egyptians and Nubians to be the same to me. Which they were.
Albeit as Sundjata said, some Nubians being depicted as a lighter brown is true also.
^^^^Taharqa?
Anyway they're both African, meaning, Egyptians and Nubians, and that's what matters, just as long as in the movie they don't have Arabs playing Egyptians. Or say black Pharaohs conquered Ancient Egypt like the erroneous NatGeo magazine. Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ BS to you too. Ancient Egyptians generally looked like modern day Ethiopians
Nubians looked like the stereotypical Black person. But thats the point - its a stereotype and not what Black people really look like - great diversity there.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ BS to you too. Ancient Egyptians generally looked like modern day Ethiopians
And I thought by now you would know that modern day Ethiopians vary in looks from the typical narrow features to broad features.
quote:Nubians looked like the stereotypical Black person. But thats the point - its a stereotype and not what Black people really look like - great diversity there.
'Nubians' are not a single group but consist of many ethnic entities that said, you can't stereotype any look about them!
Seriously, Osirion you can't be calling out b.s. on anybody, or is this another attempt at being facetious again? Then again you did say 'Hancock' was good.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: ^^^Indeed I agree and was going to say the same thing, aren't Nubians portrayed as stereotypically "blacker" than Egyptians, while the Egyptians would have been around Will Smith's complexion? Besides Will is most likely mixed anyway. Being that he is an A.A. and lighter skinned. I can also say I'm happy about it, since Will Smith could actually pass for an Egyptian, they're basically showing Egyptians and Nubians to be the same to me. Which they were.
Albeit as Sundjata said, some Nubians being depicted as a lighter brown is true also.
^^^^Taharqa?
Anyway they're both African, meaning, Egyptians and Nubians, and that's what matters, just as long as in the movie they don't have Arabs playing Egyptians. Or say black Pharaohs conquered Ancient Egypt like the erroneous NatGeo magazine.
My point exactly! I'm glad somebody understood!
But hey, this is Hollywood we are talking about so let's be glad they chose Will Smith and not 'The Rock' or Vin Deisel for godsakes!
That said, again I don't trust any movie made nowadays if the starring actors are scientologists.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nubians looked like the stereotypical Black person. But thats the point - its a stereotype and not what Black people really look like - great diversity there.
Lmao one word to describe your post
con·tra·dic·tion
the act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition. 2. assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial. 3. a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous. 4. direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency. 5. a contradictory act, fact, etc.
quote: Nubians looked like the stereotypical Black person.
and then you say
quote:its a stereotype and not what Black people really look like - great diversity there.
^^^^ Surely some idiocy at work there huh?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Indeed I agree and was going to say the same thing, aren't Nubians portrayed as stereotypically "blacker" than Egyptians, while the Egyptians would have been around Will Smith's complexion? Besides Will is most likely mixed anyway. Being that he is an A.A. and lighter skinned.
If this isn't some of the nutties stuff posted. So you believe that Will Smith is mixed? Newsflash einstein, both of his parents are African American.
Its obvious that you believe in the "True Negro" race myth. Established by racist anthropologist and geneticist in order to steal African history and culture.
Only the mentally sick would follow the above belief.
You see people, this Knowledgeiskey718 character (who is possibly a sockpuppet of ...) believes that True Negroes exist and that they are the world's slaves.
In Knowledgeiskey718's mind:
1. True Negroes exist 2. True Negroes have been and are nothing but slaves 3. Will Smith doesn't look like a True Negro 4. Since Will Smith doesn't look like a True Negro, he must be mixed. Because no one in Africa that has either Will Smith's look or skin color was ever brought over from Africa as a slave.
You see, this freakishly deranged train of thought believes that no Moroccans, Ethiopians, Sudanese, Libyans, Algerians, Somalis were ever brought over as slaves since they are not true negroes.
Exactly the type of deranged mentality that one would expect from someone who admires the sforza clown.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: ^ BS to you too. Ancient Egyptians generally looked like modern day Ethiopians
No the Ancient Egyptians looked like the people of Sudan and the indigenous people of Egypt.
Your warped fantasy of Ancient Egyptians being Ethiopians, who are nowhere near Egypt and certainly not closer to Egypt than the Sudanese and the Egyptians themselves has been debunked.
You seriously need to take a break from your fantasies.
quote: Nubians looked like the stereotypical Black person.
What does a stereotypical black person look like?
I'll repeat. You seriously need to take a break from your fantasies.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps Knowledgeiskey718 can explain why he has such a pathological hatred for people that he considers true negroes.
The fact that there is historical factual evidence that people from England to Germany to Turkey to Iran to West Asians (the so called Middle East) to Indians (India) to non-"True Negro"(his term people not mine) Africans were shipped all across the globe including the Americas as slaves from the 1400s to early 1900s. Yet he engages in historical apartheid in much the same manner as some amateur from one of the race loon forums, speaks volumes of a mentality that has gone horribly astray.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: ^^^Indeed I agree and was going to say the same thing, aren't Nubians portrayed as stereotypically "blacker" than Egyptians, while the Egyptians would have been around Will Smith's complexion?
The above is really insane not to mention sick.
People you can tell when someone has been brainwashed because they always speak in terms of "stereotypical".
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:If this isn't some of the nutties stuff posted. So you believe that Will Smith is mixed? Newsflash einstein, both of his parents are African American.
Its obvious that you believe in the "True Negro" race myth. Established by racist anthropologist and geneticist in order to steal African history and culture.
Argyle argyle, when will you learn? I suppose not today or ever. Ridiculous notions of ME believing in a True Negro" is indeed the most illogical nonsensical erroneously propagated bullshit on ever put forward on this board, but then again, it's you argyle. So what can I expect?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Personally, Will Smith doesn't look much a Kushite to me if you know what I mean but a good actor nontheless. Although I'm worried about how the Egyptians will be depicted. I won't be surprised if this turns out to be a National Geographic fantasy re-enactment of black Kushites but Arab or pseudo-Arab 'caucasian' Egyptians. Also, even though Will Smith is a good actor that last movie he made, 'Hancock' was awful and if I didn't know any better I'd say he is suffering from the Scientologist's curse that Tom Cruise is suffering from if you know what I mean!
Sorry, I know its sound a bit uneducated but when I picture the Kushites I see Dark black to Brown skinned Africans and Egyptians as Browinish, Red and Yellow skinned Africans. The Ancient egyptians dipicted themselves as such....Will Smith could easily fit as Eithr Egyptian or Kushite....but I think that Dijmon Houson is the immidiate picture of a Hollywood Taraqo I personally think Will Smith would better suit Nub-Maat-Re....Amunhotep the 3rd http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8553/baard029pt.jpgPosts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps Knowledgeiskey718 can explain why he has such a pathological hatred for people that he considers true negroes.
Perhaps you should stop projecting and bullshitting around this forum and provide something of relevance.
projecting One entry found.
project[2,verb]
to attribute (one's own ideas, feelings, or characteristics) to other people or to objects
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow one thing just stuck me...LOL in the picture of the "Procession of the Kushites" from the tomb of Huy....The fourth Nubian from t the left doesn't have the "stereotypical features the Eurocentrics say the Nubians were depicted if im not mistaken the Artist shows that particular man with a pointy nose and little prothagism and with his brown skin he could easily pass as Egyptian.....This proves the closest ethnic group to Egyptians both modern and Ancient were the Nubians!!!
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:This proves the closest ethnic group to Egyptians both modern and Ancient were the Nubians!!!
Well, exactly. This is already known, and the notion of distinguishing between Nubians and Egyptians is illogical being that they're both Africans/Egyptians and share genetic lineages as well as phenotypes. Albeit phenotype can not be correlated to a specific haplotype. Being that many West and Central Africans carrying E1b1a, can also exhibit profiles attributed to outside admixture or the erroneous E3b "caucasoid" notion.
^^^^Are these Nubians blonde, red haired as well?
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:It's about the flawed concept of Nubian dynasty, which I don't think you are defending, and which is, after all...the title of the thread.
Indeed, I think I understand what you're saying. The separation of Ancient Egyptians and Nubians is more of a Eurocentric ruse than actual truth. We can see the Badarians match up with Mesolithic Nubians, and many Egyptian profiles could easily be considered "Nubian". As we can see from the X-Ray Atlas of The Royal Mummies.
James Harris and Edward Wente:
In summation, the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens whose mummies have been recovered bear strong similarity to either contemporary Nubians, as with the XVII and XVIII dynasties, or with Mesolithic-Holocene Nubians, as with the XVIV and XX dynasties. The former dynasties seem to have a strong southern affinity , while the latter possessed evidence of mixing with modern Mediterranean types and also, possibly, with remnants of the old Tasian and Natufian populations. From the few sample available from the XXI Dynasty, there may have been a new infusion from the south at this period.
while the latter possessed evidence of mixing with modern Mediterranean types
^^^Since many Crania are falsely considered "Mediterranean" I am pretty skeptical about the notion of them mixing with "Mediterranean". Could basically just be another group of Indigenous Africans.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:This proves the closest ethnic group to Egyptians both modern and Ancient were the Nubians!!!
Well, exactly. This is already known, and the notion of distinguishing between Nubians and Egyptians is illogical being that they're both Africans/Egyptians and share genetic lineages as well as phenotypes. Albeit phenotype can not be correlated to a specific haplotype. Being that many West and Central Africans carrying E1b1a, can also exhibit profiles attributed to outside admixture or the erroneous E3b "caucasoid" notion.
^^^^Are these Nubians blonde, red haired as well?
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:It's about the flawed concept of Nubian dynasty, which I don't think you are defending, and which is, after all...the title of the thread.
Indeed, I think I understand what you're saying. The separation of Ancient Egyptians and Nubians is more of a Eurocentric ruse than actual truth. We can see the Badarians match up with Mesolithic Nubians, and many Egyptian profiles could easily be considered "Nubian". As we can see from the X-Ray Atlas of The Royal Mummies.
James Harris and Edward Wente:
In summation, the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens whose mummies have been recovered bear strong similarity to either contemporary Nubians, as with the XVII and XVIII dynasties, or with Mesolithic-Holocene Nubians, as with the XVIV and XX dynasties. The former dynasties seem to have a strong southern affinity , while the latter possessed evidence of mixing with modern Mediterranean types and also, possibly, with remnants of the old Tasian and Natufian populations. From the few sample available from the XXI Dynasty, there may have been a new infusion from the south at this period.
while the latter possessed evidence of mixing with modern Mediterranean types
^^^Since many Crania are falsely considered "Mediterranean" I am pretty skeptical about the notion of them mixing with "Mediterranean". Could basically just be another group of Indigenous Africans.
Its just sad how the Best books on the Kushites are titled or include the title "Black" Pharaoh despite the fact that some of the prolific and Important Pharaohs of Egypt( Dojser, Menes, Amunhotep 3, Senrusret, Sesotris were depicted as BLACK with Full Lips and Broad features.....
Compare the Egyptian to the Kushites.. Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:This proves the closest ethnic group to Egyptians both modern and Ancient were the Nubians!!!
Well, exactly. This is already known, and the notion of distinguishing between Nubians and Egyptians is illogical being that they're both Africans/Egyptians and share genetic lineages as well as phenotypes. Albeit phenotype can not be correlated to a specific haplotype. Being that many West and Central Africans carrying E1b1a, can also exhibit profiles attributed to outside admixture or the erroneous E3b "caucasoid" notion.
^^^^Are these Nubians blonde, red haired as well?
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:It's about the flawed concept of Nubian dynasty, which I don't think you are defending, and which is, after all...the title of the thread.
Indeed, I think I understand what you're saying. The separation of Ancient Egyptians and Nubians is more of a Eurocentric ruse than actual truth. We can see the Badarians match up with Mesolithic Nubians, and many Egyptian profiles could easily be considered "Nubian". As we can see from the X-Ray Atlas of The Royal Mummies.
James Harris and Edward Wente:
In summation, the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens whose mummies have been recovered bear strong similarity to either contemporary Nubians, as with the XVII and XVIII dynasties, or with Mesolithic-Holocene Nubians, as with the XVIV and XX dynasties. The former dynasties seem to have a strong southern affinity , while the latter possessed evidence of mixing with modern Mediterranean types and also, possibly, with remnants of the old Tasian and Natufian populations. From the few sample available from the XXI Dynasty, there may have been a new infusion from the south at this period.
while the latter possessed evidence of mixing with modern Mediterranean types
^^^Since many Crania are falsely considered "Mediterranean" I am pretty skeptical about the notion of them mixing with "Mediterranean". Could basically just be another group of Indigenous Africans.
Its just sad how the Best books on the Kushites are titled or include the title "Black" Pharaoh despite the fact that some of the prolific and Important Pharaohs of Egypt( Dojser, Menes, Amunhotep 3, Senrusret, Sesotris were depicted as BLACK with Full Lips and Broad features.....
Compare the Egyptian to the Kushites..
Some of the Kushites are shown lighter than the Pharaoh(Ramses).
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Important Pharaohs of Egypt( Dojser, Menes, Amunhotep 3, Senrusret, Sesotris were depicted as BLACK with Full Lips and Broad features.....
As did most of the Egyptians in general.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Statue of Queen Ahmose-Nefertari, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, reign of Ahmose, ca. 1550–1525 B.C. Egyptian
Sculptor's model of the head of Akhenaten, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, reign of Akhenaten, ca. 1349–1336 B.C. Egyptian
Relief of Queen Nefertiti, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, ca. 1352–1336 B.C.
Head of Amenhotep III, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, reign of Amenhotep III, ca. 1390–1352 B.C. Egyptian
Head of Tutankhamun, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, reign of Tutankhamun, ca. 1336–1327 B.C. Egyptian
Head of Queen Tiye, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, ca. 1388–1340 B.C. Egyptian
Head of Amenmesse, New Kingdom, Dynasty 19, reign of Amenmesse, ca. 1203–1200 B.C. Egyptian
Osirid figure of Merneptah, New Kingdom, Dynasty 19, reign of Merneptah, ca. 1213–1203 B.C. Egyptian
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:How different is an African American from a Jamaican? Or an Oromo from Somali?
Of course there could have been different African people who would provide a sort of distinction, but the point is they were African.
Note how the supposed "Negroid" presence in Egypt is always explained by a Southern intrusion, but also note this is because some Ancient Egyptians fit a orthogonal profile, which many indigenous Africans fit. Elongated Africans adapted to a hot/dry climate exhibit these keen features. So in actuality, the differences, and examples that are presented between populations (upper and lower Egypt), is actually because many Africans exhibit different profiles, there is NO true Negro. Anthropologist falsely classify Elongated Africans as a Mediterranean type, which is absolutely false., and this is why Ancient Egyptians are falsely classified as such(Mediterraneans).
The point that needs to be taken is, the Ancient Egyptians exhibited super tropically adapted limbs and there was absolutely NO distinction or confusion or change about this, tropically adapted Egyptians is a fact. Arabs and Europeans are NOT tropically adapted. Plain and simple.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Argyle argyle, when will you learn? I suppose not today or ever. Ridiculous notions of ME believing in a True Negro" is indeed the most illogical nonsensical erroneously propagated bullshit on ever put forward on this board, but then again, it's you argyle. So what can I expect?
People notice that he runs, ducks, and hides from the questions that I asked. The above is not an answer.
Rather his response is a tepid attempt at denial because he knows that his intra African racism has been exposed.
By denying and not providing answers, Knowledgeiskey718 is waving the white flag of intellectual surrender.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by argtroll on the Kabyle Berber thread,
quote: You see folks this type of emotional response is the result of one being challenged and not expecting to be challenged. This guy thought that he could actually get away with posting unsubstantiated personal opinion and is now thrashing like a tranquilized man in a straight jacket as a result.
In other words Knowledgeiskey718's response is the equivalent of waving the white flag of intellectual defeat.
Notice he says the same things all the time. Notice after I gave him an intellectual virtual slap he stood quiet, but still has nerve to reply to me. My response to him.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Knowledgeiskey718
Well, here's why. We know man originated in East Africa. Afrasan Language also originated in East Africa, as well as E3b. We know there was no migration from the middle east(no evidence for it). It was actually a migration from East Africa, into the Near East, and also into North Africa. Bringing along with them E3b and the Afrasan language and agriculture etc.. North Africans have become admixed since the Neolithic, White pale skin, is NOT indigenous to Africa.
------ Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story
"Anthropologists have generally assumed that the first modern humans to arrive in Europe some 45,000 years ago had the dark skin of their African origins, but soon acquired the paler skin needed to admit sunlight for vitamin D synthesis.
The finding of five skin genes selected 6,600 years ago could imply that Europeans acquired their pale skin much more recently. Or, the selected genes may have been a reinforcement of a process established earlier, Dr. Pritchard said.
The five genes show no sign of selective pressure in East Asians. "
------
Christopher Ehret
"Furthermore, the archaeology of northern Africa DOES NOT SUPPORT demic diffusion of farming from the Near East. The evidence presented by Wetterstrom indicates that early African farmers in the Fayum initially INCORPORATED Near Eastern domesticates INTO an INDIGENOUS foraging strategy, and only OVER TIME developed a dependence on horticulture. This is inconsistent with in-migrating farming settlers, who would have brought a more ABRUPT change in subsistence strategy. The same archaeological pattern occurs west of Egypt, where domestic animals and, later, grains were GRADUALLY adopted after 8000 yr B.P. into the established pre-agricultural Capsian culture, present across the northern Sahara since 10,000 yr B.P. From this continuity, it has been argued that the pre-food-production Capsian peoples spoke languages ancestral to the Berber and/or Chadic branches of Afroasiatic, placing the proto-Afroasiatic period distinctly before 10,000 yr B.P."
A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA variation In North Africa.
Arredi et al 2004
"Thus, although Moroccan Y lineages WERE interpreted as having a predominantly Upper Paleolithic origin from East Africa (Bosch et al. 2001), according to our TMRCA estimates, NO POPULATIONS within North African samples analyzed here have a substantial Paleolithic contribution."
"Under the hypothesis of a neolithic demic expansion from the Middle East, the likely origin of E3b in East Africa could indicate a local contribution to the North African neolithic transition (Barker 2003) or an earlier migration into the Fertile Crescent, preceeding the expansion back into Africa.
-------
Of course Nebel et al. has clearly demonstrated that Haplogroup J in North Africa MAINLY date from the Arab invasion and NOT the neolithic period. Hence the East to West Neolithic migration Arredi et al. mentions is really the expansion of saharan cattle herders/ceramic makers from the Sudanese Nile Valley into the Central sahara during the Early Holocene. As the sahara dessicated, the central saharans migrated into the Maghreb, West Africa and back to the Nile.
So now that we know, these original North Africans, were Indigenous Africans, who migrated from sub-Saharan East Africa, into North Africa and the Near East, if you say the original North Africans didn't resemble East Africans before becoming mixed, then what did they look like genius??? E3b is one of the dominant Y haplogroups in North Africa. There is no one basic look for an East African, the physical and genetic diversity is enormous, and won't allow it, and you can find almost every feature from around the world in these INDIGENOUS AFRICANS!! We know Berber was spoken before 10,000 B.P. The pale skin is a recent adaptation, which evolved in Europe, NOT AFRICA, around 6,600kya. We know, many North Africans are mixed with outside, West Asian and European lineages...... Anything else TROLL??!!
Matter of fact, any evidence to the contrary? I really hope so, being that you had the audacity to reply towards me.
^^^Indeed he never had a rebuttal, instead he goes around trolling.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Personally, Will Smith doesn't look much a Kushite to me if you know what I mean but a good actor nontheless. Although I'm worried about how the Egyptians will be depicted. I won't be surprised if this turns out to be a National Geographic fantasy re-enactment of black Kushites but Arab or pseudo-Arab 'caucasian' Egyptians. Also, even though Will Smith is a good actor that last movie he made, 'Hancock' was awful and if I didn't know any better I'd say he is suffering from the Scientologist's curse that Tom Cruise is suffering from if you know what I mean!
I wish people would stop this. Hollywood is not going to go out of their way to find someone who looks EXACTLY Kushitic. Most people just know the Kushites as BLACK...which is what Will Smith is. Someone posted a picture of Djimon Honsou...he may be African, but Will Smith is about the only person in Hollywood that could get this made. The last few movies he's been in have been GOLD. Trust me, the fat cats wouldn't give this the green light if they didn't think it would make any money.
I want to see how they handle the Israel thing.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Personally, Will Smith doesn't look much a Kushite to me if you know what I mean but a good actor nontheless. Although I'm worried about how the Egyptians will be depicted. I won't be surprised if this turns out to be a National Geographic fantasy re-enactment of black Kushites but Arab or pseudo-Arab 'caucasian' Egyptians. Also, even though Will Smith is a good actor that last movie he made, 'Hancock' was awful and if I didn't know any better I'd say he is suffering from the Scientologist's curse that Tom Cruise is suffering from if you know what I mean!
I wish people would stop this. Hollywood is not going to go out of their way to find someone who looks EXACTLY Kushitic. Most people just know the Kushites as BLACK...which is what Will Smith is. Someone posted a picture of Djimon Honsou...he may be African, but Will Smith is about the only person in Hollywood that could get this made. The last few movies he's been in have been GOLD. Trust me, the fat cats wouldn't give this the green light if they didn't think it would make any money.
To me, it seems even some of the veteran posters are susceptible to a ture negro false dichotmoy between the Egyptians and Kushites, hence the criticism of a "Will SMith" playing the role of a Kushite by way of asserting that "Nubians were generally portrayed darker" than Egyptians, even in the face of evidence to the contrary that not all were. Parts of this discussion doesn't make sense, frankly. Djehuti's post above doesn't make much sense and his point misses me.
@Knowledge..
How do you know that WIll SMith is mixed? What percentage of his blood line is non-African, and as a matter of relevance I will ask you the same about Taharqa.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Besides Will is most likely mixed anyway. Being that he is an A.A. and lighter skinned. I can also say I'm happy about it, since Will Smith could actually pass for an Egyptian, they're basically showing Egyptians and Nubians to be the same to me. Which they were.
Originally posted by Sundjata
quote: How do you know that WIll SMith is mixed? What percentage of his blood line is non-African
You're right. I don't know if Will Smith is mixed, and I never said he was. I said he most likely is mixed, does NOT mean I am saying he has an immediate white ancestor, NO. Nor am I saying he is no longer African, which would be retarded. Many African Americans have Native American and European bloodlines that go back 100's of years, this is undeniable. So me saying he is likely to be mixed because he is an A.A and is lighter skinned, because we know A.A's have Native American and European ancestry as well. What's the problem????
Don't let this troll argyle fool you into thinking someone believes in a "true-negro", because it seems that's where you're comment stemmed from.
quote: and as a matter of relevance I will ask you the same about Taharqa.
See that's the thing. Taharqa, along with all other Egyptians as well, WERE indigenous African people, with no outside lineages, and no possibility of it either, as we know the possibility is there for an A.A. Get it? Got it? Good!
----------
Some of my posts on Egyptians and Nubians
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:How different is an African American from a Jamaican? Or an Oromo from Somali?
Of course there could have been different African people who would provide a sort of distinction, but the point is they were African.
Note how the supposed "Negroid" presence in Egypt is always explained by a Southern intrusion, but also note this is because some Ancient Egyptians fit a orthogonal profile, which many indigenous Africans fit. Elongated Africans adapted to a hot/dry climate exhibit these keen features. So in actuality, the differences, and examples that are presented between populations (upper and lower Egypt), is actually because many Africans exhibit different profiles, there is NO true Negro. Anthropologist falsely classify Elongated Africans as a Mediterranean type, which is absolutely false., and this is why Ancient Egyptians are falsely classified as such(Mediterraneans).
The point that needs to be taken is, the Ancient Egyptians exhibited super tropically adapted limbs and there was absolutely NO distinction or confusion or change about this, tropically adapted Egyptians is a fact. Arabs and Europeans are NOT tropically adapted. Plain and simple.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:This proves the closest ethnic group to Egyptians both modern and Ancient were the Nubians!!!
Well, exactly. This is already known, and the notion of distinguishing between Nubians and Egyptians is illogical being that they're both Africans/Egyptians and share genetic lineages as well as phenotypes. Albeit phenotype can not be correlated to a specific haplotype. Being that many West and Central Africans carrying E1b1a, can also exhibit profiles attributed to outside admixture or the erroneous E3b "caucasoid" notion.
^^^^Are these Nubians blonde, red haired as well?
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:It's about the flawed concept of Nubian dynasty, which I don't think you are defending, and which is, after all...the title of the thread.
Indeed, I think I understand what you're saying. The separation of Ancient Egyptians and Nubians is more of a Eurocentric ruse than actual truth. We can see the Badarians match up with Mesolithic Nubians, and many Egyptian profiles could easily be considered "Nubian". As we can see from the X-Ray Atlas of The Royal Mummies.
James Harris and Edward Wente:
In summation, the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens whose mummies have been recovered bear strong similarity to either contemporary Nubians, as with the XVII and XVIII dynasties, or with Mesolithic-Holocene Nubians, as with the XVIV and XX dynasties. The former dynasties seem to have a strong southern affinity , while the latter possessed evidence of mixing with modern Mediterranean types and also, possibly, with remnants of the old Tasian and Natufian populations. From the few sample available from the XXI Dynasty, there may have been a new infusion from the south at this period.
while the latter possessed evidence of mixing with modern Mediterranean types
^^^Since many Crania are falsely considered "Mediterranean" I am pretty skeptical about the notion of them mixing with "Mediterranean". Could basically just be another group of Indigenous Africans.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:To me, it seems even some of the veteran posters are susceptible to a ture negro false dichotmoy between the Egyptians and Kushites, hence the criticism of a "Will SMith" playing the role of a Kushite by way of asserting that "Nubians were generally portrayed darker" than Egyptians, even in the face of evidence to the contrary that not all were. Parts of this discussion doesn't make sense, frankly. Djehuti's post above doesn't make much sense and his point misses me.
^ I think thats unfair to say.
Its clear that the kushites, were in fact, probably darker on average than the average egyptian, but it does'nt make either more of a "true negro" than the other. It has nothing to do with "negroness", which is a red-herring. The sudanese are simply closer to the equator and hence usually darker.
It would be far more accurate to cast hounsou as a taharqa than it would be will smith. However both are still black.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:To me, it seems even some of the veteran posters are susceptible to a ture negro false dichotmoy between the Egyptians and Kushites, hence the criticism of a "Will SMith" playing the role of a Kushite by way of asserting that "Nubians were generally portrayed darker" than Egyptians, even in the face of evidence to the contrary that not all were. Parts of this discussion doesn't make sense, frankly. Djehuti's post above doesn't make much sense and his point misses me.
^ I think thats unfair to say.
Its clear that the kushites, were in fact, probably darker on average than the average egyptian, but it does'nt make either more of a "true negro" than the other. It has nothing to do with "negroness", which is a red-herring. The sudanese are simply closer to the equator and hence usually darker.
It would be far more accurate to cast hounsou as a taharqa than it would be will smith. However both are still black.
I wouldn't say it's unfair since admixture was arbitrary attributed to WIll Smith, hence, this transposes to the Egyptians since it is claimed that WIll SMith (a so-called mixed Negro) would be better represented as Egyptian. Kushites are not so drastically close to the equator that the complexion seen on Will Smith should be non-existent there. As seen in the tomb of huey, I have no idea why that would be an argument. Africans aren't static or phenotypically predictable. Usually that is common knowledge on this board. I don't get it.. The complaints are petty as hell to me.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey:
You're right. I don't know if Will Smith is mixed, and I never said he was. I said he most likely is mixed, does NOT mean I am saying he has an immediate white ancestor, NO. Nor am I saying he is no longer African, which would be retarded. Many African Americans have Native American and European bloodlines that go back 100's of years, this is undeniable. So me saying he is likely to be mixed because he is an A.A and is lighter skinned, because we know A.A's have Native American and European ancestry as well. What's the problem????
Would you not say that this is highly speculative and hence, does little to advance the position that this individual indeed IS mixed? Because SOME other people are mixed, he "likely" is? Umm.. Most likely as in, a high percentage of likelyhood or low percentage of likelyhood? Is it 50% likely that he is 50% mixed?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will Smith is a light skinned black man. He is much lighter than the average central Sudanese. Kush was in central Sudan. Therefore, Will Smith is not the best suited to play the pharaoh Tarharqa. Period.
Sudanese dark on the left, medium on the right and Will: Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Tell that to the Kushites portrayed in the tomb of Huey. Posting pictures of some random modern man in Central Sudan is just picture spam. You are good with pictures Doug, but right now if they aren't photos/depictions of ancient Kushites, then they are irrelevant. The tomb of huey depicts individuals approaching the complexion of Will Smith. Sudanese and northeast Africans aren't monolithic, period. No ammount of simplification and generalizing will obscure this reality. One shade too light, one shade too dark, who gives a crap?! He is black. Prove he is mixed or admit that those making an issue out of it simply make no sense.
ALso, show me a portrait of Taharqa, affirming that he was so "Blackish", compared to Will SMith. Some of you 90% of the time scholars kill me with your 10% race purist nonsense. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't talk to wall paintings and I hope you don't either. The point is that the people of Sudan are not on average as LIGHT as Will Smith. So tell THEM he is a PERFECT example of an ancient Kushite. Sorry, but many of them would LAUGH at you. Sudanese are some of the DARKEST people on average in Africa and everyone knows it, including the ancient Egyptians. It is a patently ABSURDLY STUPID statement to claim that modern Sudanese do not have similar features to the images of the Kushites in Ancient Egyptian tombs. AND only a RETARD would argue whether an African American is CLOSER to the Kushites than a Sudanese. So what is the point? Are you living in fantasy land and ready for HOLLYWOOD to give you your reality. Hollywood is FANTASY BABY. If you want to see what ancient Kushites looked like, then the BEST place to go IS SUDAN and nowhere else. People quibbling over this are RETARDED because movies are not about HISTORICAL ACCURACY and nobody should treat this as anything more than movie magic. The fact that some are SO CONCERNED about it shows how much POWER HOLLYWOOD has over the minds of those who should know better. F*CK hollywood. It is a business and they don't care one bit about historical truth. In fact it is an agent of propaganda and those FOOLS who believe in it and rely on it for their "reality" deserve to B.S. that they get.
This isn't about Will Smith, it is about SUDAN. Sudanese in Sudan around the region of ancient Kush are NOT on average as light as Will Smith. And the colors on the ancient Egyptian tombs only show that some Kushites were very dark and others weren't, just like in Sudan today. There is nothing to change that fact. Will Smith is on average much lighter than the AVERAGE person from Sudan, who IS the closest to the ancient Kushites.
All your wailing and antics are simply childish. In fact, compared to the darkest Sudanese, even Damon Honsou is relatively light. You need to learn something about the actual people of Sudan before posting your gibberish, which has no bearing on the FACTS. Will Smith is NOT Sudanese and is a light skinned African AMERICAN. The two are not one and the same, even if they are both black peoples.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Or just grab a Modern Nubian to play the part and have will smith as a co-star. I just hope they dont paint him black like Forrest Whitaker playing Edi Amin. That would suck big time. The story would be great though. And it would be a HISTORICAL movie on Ancient Sudan.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kush was in central Sudan and not "Nubia". Nubia was in the North of Sudan into Southern Egypt. Kush was around the 4th cataract in central Sudan.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I (or anyone who's seen many Egyptians and Sudanese) definitely don't buy the arguement that he doesn't have the features for the role.
As far as Kemetians in their own art go:
Standard:
Sometimes they weren't always portrayed in the same hue. Generally, you could say they portrayed themselves in a dark brown color.
For instance, in some of their art, you see them with a reddish tint, in other art, you don't:
Eurocentrists love to go hysterical over pronounced features in one group of Nehesyprisoners, yet you will find alot of distinct Egyptian features as well:
posted
Also, it's funny that many people haphazardly state that the darkest shades are always reserved for the Southerners, when this isn't the case.
Kemetian people:
Southerners (Kemetians on the right):
Also: Notice "Ancient Egypt's" [Kemet's] women are often painted with a yellowish tint? Sometimes, women are depicted in a medium brown tone, sometimes, a light brown tone, and other times, dark tones.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I don't talk to wall paintings and I hope you don't either. The point is that the people of Sudan are not on average as LIGHT as Will Smith. So tell THEM he is a PERFECT example of an ancient Kushite. Sorry, but many of them would LAUGH at you. Sudanese are some of the DARKEST people on average in Africa and everyone knows it, including the ancient Egyptians. It is a patently ABSURDLY STUPID statement to claim that modern Sudanese do not have similar features to the images of the Kushites in Ancient Egyptian tombs. AND only a RETARD would argue whether an African American is CLOSER to the Kushites than a Sudanese. So what is the point? Are you living in fantasy land and ready for HOLLYWOOD to give you your reality. Hollywood is FANTASY BABY. If you want to see what ancient Kushites looked like, then the BEST place to go IS SUDAN and nowhere else. People quibbling over this are RETARDED because movies are not about HISTORICAL ACCURACY and nobody should treat this as anything more than movie magic. The fact that some are SO CONCERNED about it shows how much POWER HOLLYWOOD has over the minds of those who should know better. F*CK hollywood. It is a business and they don't care one bit about historical truth. In fact it is an agent of propaganda and those FOOLS who believe in it and rely on it for their "reality" deserve to B.S. that they get.
This isn't about Will Smith, it is about SUDAN. Sudanese in Sudan around the region of ancient Kush are NOT on average as light as Will Smith. And the colors on the ancient Egyptian tombs only show that some Kushites were very dark and others weren't, just like in Sudan today. There is nothing to change that fact. Will Smith is on average much lighter than the AVERAGE person from Sudan, who IS the closest to the ancient Kushites.
All your wailing and antics are simply childish. In fact, compared to the darkest Sudanese, even Damon Honsou is relatively light. You need to learn something about the actual people of Sudan before posting your gibberish, which has no bearing on the FACTS. Will Smith is NOT Sudanese and is a light skinned African AMERICAN. The two are not one and the same, even if they are both black peoples.
Relatively lighter [than the darkest side of the spectrum] Brown skin as a non-average doesn't equate such as being an outliner. What evidence do you have that it would have been rare or "unlikely" that an ancient northeast African Kushite would hold this complexion? What complexion was Taharqa then? Why work with hypotheticals? It's also funny how you don't talk to wall paintings, but you speak for them, ala "they'd laugh at you" (of course assuming that they'd chase your ridiculous straw man). Only a "RETARD" would imply that *any* modern population or individual can be a"perfect" representation of what *any* ancient population looked like overall, physically. Only a "RETARD" would post pictures of ancient and modern Sudanese who exhibit various brown complexions, then turn around and make the generalized, half true claim that "Sudanese are among the darkest people in the world", which is true, but means nothing considering in context, the indigenous bioethnic diversity also present there (you have no point). Only a mentally deluded junky will attribute such a hideously misplaced claim such as "modern Sudanese do not have similar features to the images of the Kushites in Ancient Egyptian tombs" (wtf?) to someone who never made it. And ONLY a spaced out loon will call his own self a retard, by stating: "only a RETARD would argue whether an African American is CLOSER to the Kushites than a Sudanese". Hence, you are the only one who "argues" this.
Disregarding the rest of your misdirected mumbo jumbo/straw man infested babble, I guess I should make clear my point.
It seems to me Doug, that some individuals above all else, do possess a unique and valued understanding about issues and topics relevant to Africana studies discourse, yet on occasion can seem about as misguidedly ignorant, petty, and racially obsessed as those they most often criticize. It seems remarkably apparent to me the inherent prejudice expressed, ala in the fashion of Spike Lee's "School Daze". Of course Will Smith isn't Sudanese. He's an American actor playing in an American movie, and is physically a Black man. He's playing a character. A role. An African man playing another African. Why you can't comprehend that is beyond me and not my problem. As stated, again, show me a portrait of Taharqa presenting him as someone "too black" to be played by another black man. A true monolithic negro of sorts.
If you're mad though that a modern Sudanese man wasn't casted in an American film, then just say that. Otherwise you seem like a race baiting, skin color obsessed weirdo.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: Whats ur beef with scientology? lol
Actually, I don't have any problem with 'scientology' even though it is nothing more than a crazy cult started by a bad science fiction writer. Rather, I am weary of the fact that Scientologist actors, especially the most famous in Hollywood have been making flop movies lately-- from Tom Cruise to Will Smith with that 'Hancock'. Now I don't know if this is purely coincidence or if thier religion is somehow screwing up their Hollywood careers.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh and to gArgoyle, I predicted you would make more than just the usual couple of posts with petty comments in this thread. Considering, that the topic is more trivial and non scholarly or scientific.
But as usual, you come with more false accusations end empty rhetoric. You accuse Knowledge of using the "true Negroid" stereotype on Will Smith even though that is not so. Just Because both of Will Smith's parents are African American does not mean he has no mixed ancestry. Since as many as 30% of African Americans do possess some non-African ancestry. Even those that are very dark in complexion and look stereotypically "negroid" could have either white or Native American ancestry, let alone lighter skinned ones.
But I don't expect a neurotic white Brit who trolls this forum with your male lovers to understand.
But we all know your M.O. you are the member of the apres-scee gang that criticizes and mocks other forum members based on nothing more than false accusations and a dumb sense of humor. You contribute nothing but snide and stupid remarks. You say Knowledge or others are racist when you and lovers are the only racist ones here, I remember you even calling my ethnicity out since it is the only thing you can do.
The fact that you brought up racial notions like "negroid" as a way for Europeans to appropriate things is hilarious considering that you are a white European who used racial/ethnic slurs.
But regardless, we are talking about actors looking historically like the people they were portraying.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Personally, Will Smith doesn't look much a Kushite to me
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: show me a portrait of Taharqa presenting him as someone "too black" to be played by another black man. A true monolithic negro of sorts.
If you're mad though that a modern Sudanese man wasn't casted in an American film, then just say that. Otherwise you seem like a race baiting, skin color obsessed weirdo.
Mary is stupid and Doug is just anal.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Ah, another member of the apres-scee gang. The anti-jewish bigot. By the way, you are one of the last people to be calling others anal if you know what I mean.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Mary, why doesn't Will look like a Kushite? Is it because he's a "true negro" or is it because Kushites were "true Negros"? Oh how I love your brand of Africana! LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Personally, Will Smith doesn't look much a Kushite to me if you know what I mean but a good actor nontheless. Although I'm worried about how the Egyptians will be depicted. I won't be surprised if this turns out to be a National Geographic fantasy re-enactment of black Kushites but Arab or pseudo-Arab 'caucasian' Egyptians. Also, even though Will Smith is a good actor that last movie he made, 'Hancock' was awful and if I didn't know any better I'd say he is suffering from the Scientologist's curse that Tom Cruise is suffering from if you know what I mean!
I wish people would stop this. Hollywood is not going to go out of their way to find someone who looks EXACTLY Kushitic. Most people just know the Kushites as BLACK...which is what Will Smith is. Someone posted a picture of Djimon Honsou...he may be African, but Will Smith is about the only person in Hollywood that could get this made. The last few movies he's been in have been GOLD. Trust me, the fat cats wouldn't give this the green light if they didn't think it would make any money.
To me, it seems even some of the veteran posters are susceptible to a ture negro false dichotmoy between the Egyptians and Kushites, hence the criticism of a "Will SMith" playing the role of a Kushite by way of asserting that "Nubians were generally portrayed darker" than Egyptians, even in the face of evidence to the contrary that not all were. Parts of this discussion doesn't make sense, frankly. Djehuti's post above doesn't make much sense and his point misses me.
@Knowledge..
How do you know that WIll SMith is mixed? What percentage of his blood line is non-African, and as a matter of relevance I will ask you the same about Taharqa.
It has nothing at all to do with True Negro. I'm pointing out a FACT that Will Smith is Black and I think it's stupid that people argue that he's not "Black enough." Hollywood doesn't give a damn about that. There are PLENTY of Blacks in America that are much lighter-skinned than Will Smith. Smith is not the darkest brotha, but MANY Blacks in America (who this film no doubt is being made for...and the Western world as a whole) ARE his complexion. I'm slightly darker than he is, but there are some in my family with his complexion.
My point is, we're finally getting a respectable movie on an African Empire and people don't even act happy. Just want to criticize.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
--------------------------------- Since as many as 30% of African Americans do possess some non-African ancestry. Even those that are very dark in complexion and look stereotypically "negroid" could have either white or Native American ancestry, let alone lighter skinned ones. ---------------------------------
Who the hell made you an authority on African Americans? This is absolutely laughable that someone from the Phillopeeenes is trying to be an authority on another group of people.
You better get out of here with your whacked out fantasies and worry about the Phillopeenes who seem to have been sodomized by every one from African Americans to white Americans to Japanese to Chinese to the Spanish to the Arabs.
Good grief look at the above list of people.
Just because for whatever reason your people couldn't stand up and resist everyone on the planet having there way with them doesn't give you the right to project your peoples sorry ancestrial state on other groups.
posted
"Since as many as 30% of African Americans do possess some non-African ancestry"
How this number miraculously jumped from 20% to 30% is beyond me, but I will say that the above point is lost on me. Besides, how is this any different than Eurocentric claims that East Africans are 40% non-African?
-------------------- mr.writer.asa@gmail.com Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: "Since as many as 30% of African Americans do possess some non-African ancestry"
How this number miraculously jumped from 20% to 30% is beyond me, but I will say that the above point is lost on me.
Genes, peoples, and languages
L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
A classic example of gene replacement are Black Americans (not represented in the tree of Fig. 3, which includes only aboriginal people), who notoriously have a lighter skin color than Black Africans, their ancestors. This is especially true in the northern States. Genetic analysis shows that African Americans have on average 30% of their gene pool from European (White American) genes (28). This partial replacement took place over about 300 years of contact, and it is calculated that, if it was constant in time, there must have been about 3% of mixed unions per generation. Laws assured that the child of mixed parentage would be considered Black. Only individuals with a very low proportion of Black ancestry (or of skin color) would be able to “pass” as White. With gene flow continuing at that same rate, only about 30% of the original gene constitution would remain on average after 1,000 years since the beginning, and about 9% after 2,000 years (1).
quote: Besides, how is this any different than Eurocentric claims that East Africans are 40% non-African?
It completely debunks it, because African Americans that they love call "Negroid" actually have this admixture and not too sure any AA's possess a profile that is known from Elongated Africans who are erroneously explained through outside admixture. If this was the case, then lightskin African Americans should look like Elongated Africans.
Perfect example is Paul Kagame who isn't an E1b1b carrier, but rather an E1b1a, he is a Tutsi and most closely related to the Hutu.
Besides aren't the studies where East Africans being mixed is only certain tribes of certain countries? And most are wrong since M1 and U6 was falsely classified as Eurasian?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Hey Mary, why doesn't Will look like a Kushite? Is it because he's a "true negro" or is it because Kushites were "true Negros"? Oh how I love your brand of Africana! LOL
Neither, since there is no such thing as "true negro" in the first place. Also I'm not an Africanist, I'm just into history and culture in general thankyou. But your ass is definitely not into Africana, but rather hide behind it as a cover for your anti-jewish bigotry!
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Who the hell made you an authority on African Americans? This is absolutely laughable that someone from the Phillopeeenes is trying to be an authority on another group of people.
I never said I was an authority on African Americans, but unlike you I am an American born in the states and am not from the Philippines, nit wit! And what I said about African Americans is a statistical American genetic fact, you twit.
quote:You better get out of here with your whacked out fantasies and worry about the Phillopeenes who seem to have been sodomized by every one from African Americans to white Americans to Japanese to Chinese to the Spanish to the Arabs.
Good grief look at the above list of people.
Just because for whatever reason your people couldn't stand up and resist everyone on the planet having there way with them doesn't give you the right to project your peoples sorry ancestrial state on other groups.
`_`
What you say makes no sense. The Philippines was conquered once by the Spanish which lost to the Americas from which they gained independence. The Japanese shortly occupied the Philippines during WWII but they did so with many other Asian nations including Korea, China, etc. There was no Chinese or Arab conquest! LOL
And you are the last person to talk about fantasies of sodomy!
Why don't you and your boyfriend Akoben stop sexually harassing me and leave this forum so you can 'carry on' together. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
A classic example of gene replacement are Black Americans (not represented in the tree of Fig. 3, which includes only aboriginal people), who notoriously have a lighter skin color than Black Africans, their ancestors. This is especially true in the northern States. Genetic analysis shows that African Americans have on average 30% of their gene pool from European (White American) genes (28). This partial replacement took place over about 300 years of contact, and it is calculated that, if it was constant in time, there must have been about 3% of mixed unions per generation. Laws assured that the child of mixed parentage would be considered Black. Only individuals with a very low proportion of Black ancestry (or of skin color) would be able to “pass” as White. With gene flow continuing at that same rate, only about 30% of the original gene constitution would remain on average after 1,000 years since the beginning, and about 9% after 2,000 years (1).
Correct. Which is another reason why the concept of 'race' is spurious. You can't tell a persons ancestry soley by their looks. This is also the reason why the so-called 'purity' of whites not only in America but in Europe and other parts of the world is in question. Admixtue works both ways.
quote:It completely debunks it, because African Americans that they love call "Negroid" actually have this admixture and not too sure any AA's possess a profile that is known from Elongated Africans who are erroneously explained through outside admixture. If this was the case, then lightskin African Americans should look like Elongated Africans.
Perfect example is Paul Kagame who isn't an E1b1b carrier, but rather an E1b1a, he is a Tutsi and most closely related to the Hutu.
That's because again, lineage does not correlate with phenotype.
quote:Besides aren't the studies where East Africans being mixed is only certain tribes of certain countries? And most are wrong since M1 and U6 was falsely classified as Eurasian?
Actually the studies that emphasize admixture among Ethiopians are those based on paternal lineages. There are West Asian J lineages among some Ethiopians, specifically among Abyssians like Amhara and Tigre where they reach a frequency of 40%. But Amhara and Tigre do not represent most Ethiopians, let alone all of Ethiopia. The predominant ethnic group of Ethiopia are the Oromo and even excluding them E3b still accounts for most of Ethiopia's paternal lineages.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic