A two-day symposium discussing interpretations of ancient Egyot from an African perspective, exploring the ‘African-ness’ of ancient Egyptian culture and ways of presenting Egypt in its African context in museums, literature and the media.
Key note speakers:
Dr Shomarka Keita, affiliated with Howard University and the Smithsonian Institution, USA
Professor Abadayo Folorunso, University of Ibadan, Nigeria
Professor Maulena Karenga, California State University, USA
Dr Sally-Ann Ashton, The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge
Dr Kimani Nehusi, University of East London
Screening of the film, Nubian Spirit: The African legacy of the Nile Valley, by Louis Buckley, with a Q&A session with the director.
Call for papers to be circulated in early May 2009.
Please contact Karen Exell on karen.exell@manchester.ac.uk if you are interested in attending or participating.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is Keita going to pull one of his punk-ass bitch jobs like he did on that other symposium when he was debating the white folks. He basically handed Ancient Egypt from Africa to eurasia (err umm the eurocentrics).
There is a thread about it if anyone wishes to post a link to.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Is Keita going to pull one of his punk-ass bitch jobs like he did on that other symposium when he was debating the white folks. He basically handed Ancient Egypt from Africa to eurasia (err umm the eurocentrics).
There is a thread about it if anyone wishes to post a link to.
Evergreen Writes: I understand what you're getting at. I see it as less of a punk-move and more of an intellectual snobbery. His communication style is not suited for the masses. That's our job to take his scholarly pontifications and distill for the common man.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Is Keita going to pull one of his punk-ass bitch jobs like he did on that other symposium when he was debating the white folks. He basically handed Ancient Egypt from Africa to eurasia (err umm the eurocentrics).
There is a thread about it if anyone wishes to post a link to.
LOL TRUE and was scared like someone was about to rob him when the black students asked if they were "black". Niggas I tell ya, Niggas
--It's only a matter of time Negros, only a matter of time SMH--
Posts: 70 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Is Keita going to pull one of his punk-ass bitch jobs like he did on that other symposium when he was debating the white folks. He basically handed Ancient Egypt from Africa to eurasia (err umm the eurocentrics).
There is a thread about it if anyone wishes to post a link to.
LOL TRUE and was scared like someone was about to rob him when the black students asked if they were "black". Niggas I tell ya, Niggas
--It's only a matter of time Negros, only a matter of time SMH--
Evergreen Writes: Because of Keita's exceptional work we should expect to see Eurocentrists pretending to be Black over the internet to discredit his work and create conflict among us. This trick-knowledge is one of their common behavioral patterns.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Is Keita going to pull one of his punk-ass bitch jobs like he did on that other symposium when he was debating the white folks. He basically handed Ancient Egypt from Africa to eurasia (err umm the eurocentrics).
There is a thread about it if anyone wishes to post a link to.
LOL TRUE and was scared like someone was about to rob him when the black students asked if they were "black". Niggas I tell ya, Niggas
--It's only a matter of time Negros, only a matter of time SMH--
Evergreen Writes: Because of Keita's exceptional work we should expect to see Eurocentrists pretending to be Black over the internet to discredit his work and create conflict among us. This trick-knowledge is one of their common behavioral patterns.
^^I know you aren't directing this towards me?
Posts: 70 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Is Keita going to pull one of his punk-ass bitch jobs like he did on that other symposium when he was debating the white folks. He basically handed Ancient Egypt from Africa to eurasia (err umm the eurocentrics).
There is a thread about it if anyone wishes to post a link to.
LOL TRUE and was scared like someone was about to rob him when the black students asked if they were "black". Niggas I tell ya, Niggas
--It's only a matter of time Negros, only a matter of time SMH--
Evergreen Writes: Because of Keita's exceptional work we should expect to see Eurocentrists pretending to be Black over the internet to discredit his work and create conflict among us. This trick-knowledge is one of their common behavioral patterns.
^^I know you aren't directing this towards me?
Evergreen Writes: Are you attempting to discredit the work of Keita?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Is Keita going to pull one of his punk-ass bitch jobs like he did on that other symposium when he was debating the white folks. He basically handed Ancient Egypt from Africa to eurasia (err umm the eurocentrics).
There is a thread about it if anyone wishes to post a link to.
LOL TRUE and was scared like someone was about to rob him when the black students asked if they were "black". Niggas I tell ya, Niggas
--It's only a matter of time Negros, only a matter of time SMH--
Evergreen Writes: Because of Keita's exceptional work we should expect to see Eurocentrists pretending to be Black over the internet to discredit his work and create conflict among us. This trick-knowledge is one of their common behavioral patterns.
^^I know you aren't directing this towards me?
Evergreen Writes: Are you attempting to discredit the work of Keita?
Not at all, but I don't see why you guys like him when he has never said Egyptians are black which is the sole purpose of Afro American's interest in Egypt
Posts: 70 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The_Killer_Wolofi: [QUOTE]Not at all, but I don't see why you guys like him when he has never said Egyptians are black which is the sole purpose of Afro American's interest in Egypt
Evergreen Writes: You claim that the sole purpose of "Afro American's" interest in Egypt is because it was a Black civilization. This seems to be an assumption on your part. Have you taken a poll of African-Americans and asked them why they were interested in Ancient Egypt? But assuming you are correct, so what? Keita refers to the Ancient Egyptians as indigenous Africans and I refer to them as Blacks. If you read his work you know we are talking about the same thing but his work is directed to a scholarly audience and our work on here is directed to the layman. So what?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: 3-4 October 2009
The Manchester Museum, University of Manchester
Preliminary announcement
A two-day symposium discussing interpretations of ancient Egyot from an African perspective, exploring the ‘African-ness’ of ancient Egyptian culture and ways of presenting Egypt in its African context in museums, literature and the media.
Key note speakers:
Dr Shomarka Keita, affiliated with Howard University and the Smithsonian Institution, USA
Professor Abadayo Folorunso, University of Ibadan, Nigeria
Professor Maulena Karenga, California State University, USA
Dr Sally-Ann Ashton, The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge
Dr Kimani Nehusi, University of East London
Screening of the film, Nubian Spirit: The African legacy of the Nile Valley, by Louis Buckley, with a Q&A session with the director.
Call for papers to be circulated in early May 2009.
Please contact Karen Exell on karen.exell@manchester.ac.uk if you are interested in attending or participating.
quote:Originally posted by The_Killer_Wolofi: [QUOTE]Not at all, but I don't see why you guys like him when he has never said Egyptians are black which is the sole purpose of Afro American's interest in Egypt
Evergreen Writes: You claim that the sole purpose of "Afro American's" interest in Egypt is because it was a Black civilization. This seems to be an assumption on your part. Have you taken a poll of African-Americans and asked them why they were interested in Ancient Egypt? But assuming you are correct, so what? Keita refers to the Ancient Egyptians as indigenous Africans and I refer to them as Blacks. If you read his work you know we are talking about the same thing but his work is directed to a scholarly audience and our work on here is directed to the layman. So what?
Indigenous Africans and "black" is not the same Evergreen he even confirms that North Africans were light skinned light haired light eyed even back in the paleolithic you didn't see the Cambridge video that was posted here?
And the fact that he is Afro American and knows damn well that people use the word "black" why did he run when asked that question by the three black students in the video who were left confused after his answers.
Posts: 70 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The_Killer_Wolofi: [QUOTE]Indigenous Africans and "black" is not the same Evergreen he even confirms that North Africans were light skinned light haired light eyed even back in the paleolithic you didn't see the Cambridge video that was posted here?
Evergreen Writes: Of course indigenous African and Black mean the same thing. Light skin is a relative term. The Khoisan have light skin, yet they are Black people. Again there is great diversity within the indigenous African population as would be expected given the ecological variation and time-depth of human occupation in Africa. The term Black is a North American term and was never used to delimit a specific skin tone.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The_Killer_Wolofi: [QUOTE]Indigenous Africans and "black" is not the same Evergreen he even confirms that North Africans were light skinned light haired light eyed even back in the paleolithic you didn't see the Cambridge video that was posted here?
Evergreen Writes: Of course indigenous African and Black mean the same thing. Light skin is a relative term. The Khoisan have light skin, yet they are Black people. Again there is great diversity within the indigenous African population as would be expected given the ecological variation and time-depth of human occupation in Africa. The term Black is a North American term and was never used to delimit a specific skin tone.
He said light skin light haired like the Kabyle now if you are saying they are black Evergreen you need to redact your definition of black lol.
Posts: 70 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The_Killer_Wolofi: [QUOTE]He said light skin light haired like the Kabyle now if you are saying they are black Evergreen you need to redact your definition of black lol.
Evergreen Writes: I think you're miss-quoting him. Please provide the direct quote your referencing. It shouldn't be to difficult.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope we already discussed this in a thread about the video. I am not Jeeves(whatbox) and will not dig through these threads, but he said EXACTLY what I said and others heard it and commented on it so....
1. North Africans were light skinned, light haired, light eyed like the Kabyle in North African 50,000(paleolithic)and analyzing their DNA they were indeed African.---which prompted the questions by the black students in when did people that looked like Cleopatra enter Egypt.
He even said Meds can be classified as Africans and the black student had a confused look after Keita said this lol...as did I. As a matter of fact I remember you making a reference to his studies in saying you dont believe Kabyles are African so why are you acting brand new all the sudden about Keita's study. I expect more from you Evergreen.
2. Reacquisition of Tropical traits he mentioned about the people of Vuanatu
Posts: 70 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The_Killer_Wolofi: Nope we already discussed this in a thread about the video. I am not Jeeves(whatbox) and will not dig through these threads, but he said EXACTLY what I said and others heard it and commented on it so....
1. North Africans were light skinned, light haired, light eyed like the Kabyle in North African 50,000(paleolithic)and analyzing their DNA they were indeed African.---which prompted the questions by the black students in when did people that looked like Cleopatra enter Egypt.
He even said Meds can be classified as Africans and the black student had a confused look after Keita said this lol...as did I. As a matter of fact I remember you making a reference to his studies in saying you dont believe Kabyles are African so why are you acting brand new all the sudden about Keita's study. I expect more from you Evergreen.
2. Reacquisition of Tropical traits he mentioned about the people of Vuanatu
Evergreen Writes: Well, if you refuse to provide a direct quote so I can answer a question you pose to me then there is no debate as you have refused to provide evidence.
P.S. Kabyle's in all probablity don't have an ancestry in Africa that predates the Iron Age. But again, I think this is an issue of intellectual snobbery on Keita's part. What he is saying is right and exact or at least possible. But what he is not saying is the problem. If you look at his behaviour in this lecture you can see that he has this type of condesending attitude that is not conducive to teaching the common person.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess that as someone who has read and written extensively on the issue of race, Keita and others discount the idea of race as is often used in sociological contexts.
In the U.S. context "black" is term which historically is synonymous with "anyone with recent idigenous African ancestry". In fact, whole legal history in the U.S. was founded on just this notion.
The plaintiff in the landmark Plessy v. Ferguson(1886?) was described as being (sic)"7/8 white". Yet he was considered sic "negro". In South America Plessy would not have been considered just "negro". While in Europe W.E.B. Dubois noted(Autobiography) that he was sometimes taken for Jewish or something like that--while in the U.S. he was invariably seen as "colored". Perhaps, it is confusions like this that genetically informed anthroplogists, who are intellectually honest, want to avoid.
But it should be noted that all this talk about "black-white" began with Europeans and is still actively promoted by them.
But the issue on the ethnicity of the AEs has been long settled. All one has to do is to read all the observations of the European appraisers who wrote on the race of the AEs. Invariably they were described in the same terms that one would describe--to use their invented term--"negroes". It's only when Africans began showing an interest in then topic--following the research of Diop--that the obfuscations and other revisionisms began.
And this is one the things that Diop pointed out: he said that once Africans began agreeing with the European literature that claimed that the AEs were "negroes", it was at that point that the idea of race began to be discounted. Was this a coincidence or otherwise in era when race began to be discounted after the Nazi era in Europe? But yet, race talk perists and is always put into political and sociological practice. What else is the reason for the standard political and sociological talk of "sub-Saharan Africa". Example: Obama is going to Egypt but the Western press and media have not yet said that this would be his first visit to Africa as president.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Point blank he is avoiding the issue. And that reflects no credit on him as a scientist.
If he wants to discuss anthropology devoid of politics then fine, but to avoid making clear definitive statements about populations which he studies is to exercise avoidance. If one is an anthropologist and has years of experience and research under their belt, why can't they describe the physical characteristics of an ancient population based on scientific observation to an audience with no need for obfuscation. Light skin is not an "ancient" phenotype of Homo Sapiens. As an anthropologist he should be able to say that straight out. Likewise he should also be able to say straight out which groups were black and which groups were not without going into generalities in order to avoid making DEFINITIVE statements. All Africans do not look the same and an anthropologist should be able to clearly define the characteristics which distinguish one group of Africans (or any population) from any other. And one of these distinguishing characteristics is skin color. Simply stating that a population is or was "African" is meaningless. He should be able to clearly state his views on the average appearance of African populations over various time frames and different parts of Africa without resorting to tactics of avoidance. That is the whole point isn't it? If I ask him about the populations of the Libyan Desert in 10,000 B.C. he should be able to give me his assessment of their features with the relevant data and analysis. Otherwise what is the value of his anthropological expertise?
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Is Keita going to pull one of his punk-ass bitch jobs like he did on that other symposium when he was debating the white folks. He basically handed Ancient Egypt from Africa to eurasia (err umm the eurocentrics).
There is a thread about it if anyone wishes to post a link to.
Evergreen Writes: I understand what you're getting at. I see it as less of a punk-move and more of an intellectual snobbery. His communication style is not suited for the masses. That's our job to take his scholarly pontifications and distill for the common man.
Keita is a cautious man and has to be. His work has dealt body blows to the eurocentric academy. They are pissed behind the scenes. He has to avoid the label 'Afrocentric' because it would be a trap for his work. Once the label is pinned on him then his work can be discounted and dismissed. That is what the Eurocentrics want- to 'label' him so they can dismiss his work. That is precisely the approach of Stormfront, Dinkenes, Matilda etc, who pull out all stops to discredit him, and no doubt some in the academy.
Keita is no Eurocentric and he is no coward as some seem to make out. In fact he is one of the Euro academy's critics as noted time and time again by his writings. Remember his paper 'Early Nile Valley Farmers from Badari' where he debunked Brace? Or his criticisms of Cavalli-Sforza? His "soul" credentials are solid, and most importantly, rooted in hard data.
Keita is also an academic and is shaped by the ivory tower academic system. To expect him to write for the popular masses is unrealistic. Of course he will seem distant. The man ain't Issac Hayes, and he ain't running for president, and he ain;t no "hip hop" artist. He is working his side of the fence and we are working ours. All Keita has to do is provide the scientific data, and make his work widely available, and we, and others, will do the popularization job. It's a division of labor.
Keita well knows what forums like ES are doing I have no doubt. On the Cambridge video he shied away from the word black, but he also said "if you talk to me of tropical adaptation then we are on biological footing" - or words to that effect. In essence he was saying or using code for "black," but his detractors can't accuse him of 'Afrocentrism'. He also is justifiably leery of being sucked into being a poster boy for an one school of black politics.
He has to maintain his "neutral" stance to remain credible, to not let people try to pigeonhole him. So he is running his own game. He is putting the info out there, and letting the more popular sector, like ES, pick it up and boil it down. So far his strategy has paid off.
Some claim he is not speaking enough to the "common man," but this is a criticism also made of ES sometimes, that for example, there is no accurate but simple breakdown of the whole DNA situation for the man on the street. The standard reply to that is that folks should educate themselves and read more. Well, Keita could say the same thing to complaints about his "distance" from the "street." He is one of the few voices in the academy hammering away at the "empire" with hard data, rather than the usual sociological writings about racism etc... Cut him some slack.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The_Killer_Wolofi: [QUOTE]Not at all, but I don't see why you guys like him when he has never said Egyptians are black which is the sole purpose of Afro American's interest in Egypt
Evergreen Writes: You claim that the sole purpose of "Afro American's" interest in Egypt is because it was a Black civilization. This seems to be an assumption on your part. Have you taken a poll of African-Americans and asked them why they were interested in Ancient Egypt? But assuming you are correct, so what? Keita refers to the Ancient Egyptians as indigenous Africans and I refer to them as Blacks. If you read his work you know we are talking about the same thing but his work is directed to a scholarly audience and our work on here is directed to the layman. So what?
Indigenous Africans and "black" is not the same Evergreen he even confirms that North Africans were light skinned light haired light eyed even back in the paleolithic you didn't see the Cambridge video that was posted here?
And the fact that he is Afro American and knows damn well that people use the word "black" why did he run when asked that question by the three black students in the video who were left confused after his answers.
I don't know why you think that indigenous and black concerning Africans are not the same thing, but I assure you there are. Just like Native American and indigenous with respect to this continent is the same thing.
Further more, Though 'some' of the Africans in the north were light of skin and so forth does not suggest in any damn way that the Egyptian culture sprang from the north at all. Because it didn't....
So they(North) can be as light as it can get and it wont change history. Egypt was and is a black civilization...
Posts: 81 | From: Newark, Nj | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: If he wants to discuss anthropology devoid of politics then fine, but to avoid making clear definitive statements about populations which he studies is to exercise avoidance.
Evergreen Writes: I take issue with this comment. You have gone beyond making judgements on the data he presents in his work to making judgements about his character and intentions. Keita has a body of knowledge that is over two decades old and has drastically improved our understanding of African history. Your comment on his intentions is very subjective and disrespectfull.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Is Keita going to pull one of his punk-ass bitch jobs like he did on that other symposium when he was debating the white folks. He basically handed Ancient Egypt from Africa to eurasia (err umm the eurocentrics).
There is a thread about it if anyone wishes to post a link to.
Evergreen Writes: I understand what you're getting at. I see it as less of a punk-move and more of an intellectual snobbery. His communication style is not suited for the masses. That's our job to take his scholarly pontifications and distill for the common man.
Keita is a cautious man and has to be. His work has dealt body blows to the eurocentric academy. They are pissed behind the scenes. He has to avoid the label 'Afrocentric' because it would be a trap for his work. Once the label is pinned on him then his work can be discounted and dismissed. That is what the Eurocentrics want- to 'label' him so they can dismiss his work. That is precisely the approach of Stormfront, Dinkenes, Matilda etc, who pull out all stops to discredit him, and no doubt some in the academy.
Keita is no Eurocentric and he is no coward as some seem to make out. In fact he is one of the Euro academy's critics as noted time and time again by his writings. Remember his paper 'Early Nile Valley Farmers from Badari' where he debunked Brace? Or his criticisms of Cavalli-Sforza? His "soul" credentials are solid, and most importantly, rooted in hard data.
Keita is also an academic and is shaped by the ivory tower academic system. To expect him to write for the popular masses is unrealistic. Of course he will seem distant. The man ain't Issac Hayes, and he ain't running for president, and he ain;t no "hip hop" artist. He is working his side of the fence and we are working ours. All Keita has to do is provide the scientific data, and make his work widely available, and we, and others, will do the popularization job. It's a division of labor.
Keita well knows what forums like ES are doing I have no doubt. On the Cambridge video he shied away from the word black, but he also said "if you talk to me of tropical adaptation then we are on biological footing" - or words to that effect. In essence he was saying or using code for "black," but his detractors can't accuse him of 'Afrocentrism'. He also is justifiably leery of being sucked into being a poster boy for an one school of black politics.
He has to maintain his "neutral" stance to remain credible, to not let people try to pigeonhole him. So he is running his own game. He is putting the info out there, and letting the more popular sector, like ES, pick it up and boil it down. So far his strategy has paid off.
Some claim he is not speaking enough to the "common man," but this is a criticism also made of ES sometimes, that for example, there is no accurate but simple breakdown of the whole DNA situation for the man on the street. The standard reply to that is that folks should educate themselves and read more. Well, Keita could say the same thing to complaints about his "distance" from the "street." He is one of the few voices in the academy hammering away at the "empire" with hard data, rather than the usual sociological writings about racism etc... Cut him some slack.
Is there evidence that "white Berbers", Kabyle types, existed in North African during the paleolithic? In other words are they "native"?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Point blank he is avoiding the issue. And that reflects no credit on him as a scientist.
If he wants to discuss anthropology devoid of politics then fine, but to avoid making clear definitive statements about populations which he studies is to exercise avoidance. If one is an anthropologist and has years of experience and research under their belt, why can't they describe the physical characteristics of an ancient population based on scientific observation to an audience with no need for obfuscation. Light skin is not an "ancient" phenotype of Homo Sapiens. As an anthropologist he should be able to say that straight out. Likewise he should also be able to say straight out which groups were black and which groups were not without going into generalities in order to avoid making DEFINITIVE statements. All Africans do not look the same and an anthropologist should be able to clearly define the characteristics which distinguish one group of Africans (or any population) from any other. And one of these distinguishing characteristics is skin color. Simply stating that a population is or was "African" is meaningless. He should be able to clearly state his views on the average appearance of African populations over various time frames and different parts of Africa without resorting to tactics of avoidance. That is the whole point isn't it? If I ask him about the populations of the Libyan Desert in 10,000 B.C. he should be able to give me his assessment of their features with the relevant data and analysis. Otherwise what is the value of his anthropological expertise?
Answer
lamin
quote:
It's only when Africans began showing an interest in then topic--following the research of Diop--that the obfuscations and other revisionisms began.
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Is Keita going to pull one of his punk-ass bitch jobs like he did on that other symposium when he was debating the white folks. He basically handed Ancient Egypt from Africa to eurasia (err umm the eurocentrics).
There is a thread about it if anyone wishes to post a link to.
Evergreen Writes: I understand what you're getting at. I see it as less of a punk-move and more of an intellectual snobbery. His communication style is not suited for the masses. That's our job to take his scholarly pontifications and distill for the common man.
Keita is a cautious man and has to be. His work has dealt body blows to the eurocentric academy. They are pissed behind the scenes. He has to avoid the label 'Afrocentric' because it would be a trap for his work. Once the label is pinned on him then his work can be discounted and dismissed. That is what the Eurocentrics want- to 'label' him so they can dismiss his work. That is precisely the approach of Stormfront, Dinkenes, Matilda etc, who pull out all stops to discredit him, and no doubt some in the academy.
Keita is no Eurocentric and he is no coward as some seem to make out. In fact he is one of the Euro academy's critics as noted time and time again by his writings. Remember his paper 'Early Nile Valley Farmers from Badari' where he debunked Brace? Or his criticisms of Cavalli-Sforza? His "soul" credentials are solid, and most importantly, rooted in hard data.
Keita is also an academic and is shaped by the ivory tower academic system. To expect him to write for the popular masses is unrealistic. Of course he will seem distant. The man ain't Issac Hayes, and he ain't running for president, and he ain;t no "hip hop" artist. He is working his side of the fence and we are working ours. All Keita has to do is provide the scientific data, and make his work widely available, and we, and others, will do the popularization job. It's a division of labor.
Keita well knows what forums like ES are doing I have no doubt. On the Cambridge video he shied away from the word black, but he also said "if you talk to me of tropical adaptation then we are on biological footing" - or words to that effect. In essence he was saying or using code for "black," but his detractors can't accuse him of 'Afrocentrism'. He also is justifiably leery of being sucked into being a poster boy for an one school of black politics.
He has to maintain his "neutral" stance to remain credible, to not let people try to pigeonhole him. So he is running his own game. He is putting the info out there, and letting the more popular sector, like ES, pick it up and boil it down. So far his strategy has paid off.
Some claim he is not speaking enough to the "common man," but this is a criticism also made of ES sometimes, that for example, there is no accurate but simple breakdown of the whole DNA situation for the man on the street. The standard reply to that is that folks should educate themselves and read more. Well, Keita could say the same thing to complaints about his "distance" from the "street." He is one of the few voices in the academy hammering away at the "empire" with hard data, rather than the usual sociological writings about racism etc... Cut him some slack.
You also have to remember that there are two types of anthropologists today those who accept the idea of race, and those who use the term "population" to ID races. Keita has chosen the term population to describe groups of people.
Let's all acknowledge that Keita has taken the terminology of the Eurocentrists to illustrate an African origin for the Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: [QUOTE]Is there evidence that "white Berbers", Kabyle types, existed in North African during the paleolithic? In other words are they "native"?
Evergreen Writes: No, of course not. Nor do I believe this is what Keita was implying. There were groups in NW Africa from 60,000 years ago. There is no evidence that lineages from these populations made its way out of the LGM.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]You also have to remember that there are two types of anthropologists today those who accept the idea of race, and those who use the term "population" to ID races. Keita has chosen the term population to describe groups of people.
Let's all acknowledge that Keita has taken the terminology of the Eurocentrists to illustrate an African origin for the Egyptians.
Evergreen Writes: This is not true. But before I can expose the fallacy of this statement let's take a step back and define our terms, Dr. Winters. Since you seem to imply that you are a believer in the concept of biological races please define for us what constitutes a biological race?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting conversation. My pet peeve about Keita's style is essentially the same. He isn't explicit even when the implications as they apply, would allow him to be. He'd be more justified in noting the contradictions of where he comes from. He chooses to stay in alignment steer away from that which is ideal scholarship, but not practicality. Most people will not identify with his explanations and merely see him as being elusive (which he is). This is why he has trouble in his last lecture answering direct questions with clear implications. One flaw is that he'd rather use the term "African" with out further exploring what he means by that, when he clearly seeks to establish a commonality/unity between them (noted by his emphasis on the sharing of PN2 derived lineages, despite variations in phenotype).
Though excepts from certain works seem to better idenitfy his goal and point. It may be that he associates terms like "black", with simply being an extention and modern-day counter-part of "negro", hence:
"Some people have suggested that the terms "Black African" and "Negro" be dropped from the biological lexicon altogether in favor of "Saharo-tropical variant" which subsumes the range of morphologies of great time depth found in Africa'. No serious argument can be made to the position that Egypt was a 'Nilotic-African' culture 'on all levels'." ---S.O.Y. Keita
Maybe he isn't being elusive but simply changing the paradigm. I have no problem either with the above quote but given that I'm not constrained by the pressures of political correctness, I neither have a problem with the designation of "black" which is a social reality and in the context of tropical adaptation, a biological reality, though obviously relative and far from literal.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sundjat quoted: ---------------------------- No serious argument can be made to the position that Egypt was a 'Nilotic-African' culture 'on all levels'." ----------------------------
What does he mean by that?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Is Keita going to pull one of his punk-ass bitch jobs like he did on that other symposium when he was debating the white folks. He basically handed Ancient Egypt from Africa to eurasia (err umm the eurocentrics).
There is a thread about it if anyone wishes to post a link to.
Evergreen Writes: I understand what you're getting at. I see it as less of a punk-move and more of an intellectual snobbery. His communication style is not suited for the masses. That's our job to take his scholarly pontifications and distill for the common man.
Keita is a cautious man and has to be. His work has dealt body blows to the eurocentric academy. They are pissed behind the scenes. He has to avoid the label 'Afrocentric' because it would be a trap for his work. Once the label is pinned on him then his work can be discounted and dismissed. That is what the Eurocentrics want- to 'label' him so they can dismiss his work. That is precisely the approach of Stormfront, Dinkenes, Matilda etc, who pull out all stops to discredit him, and no doubt some in the academy.
Keita is no Eurocentric and he is no coward as some seem to make out. In fact he is one of the Euro academy's critics as noted time and time again by his writings. Remember his paper 'Early Nile Valley Farmers from Badari' where he debunked Brace? Or his criticisms of Cavalli-Sforza? His "soul" credentials are solid, and most importantly, rooted in hard data.
Keita is also an academic and is shaped by the ivory tower academic system. To expect him to write for the popular masses is unrealistic. Of course he will seem distant. The man ain't Issac Hayes, and he ain't running for president, and he ain;t no "hip hop" artist. He is working his side of the fence and we are working ours. All Keita has to do is provide the scientific data, and make his work widely available, and we, and others, will do the popularization job. It's a division of labor.
Keita well knows what forums like ES are doing I have no doubt. On the Cambridge video he shied away from the word black, but he also said "if you talk to me of tropical adaptation then we are on biological footing" - or words to that effect. In essence he was saying or using code for "black," but his detractors can't accuse him of 'Afrocentrism'. He also is justifiably leery of being sucked into being a poster boy for an one school of black politics.
He has to maintain his "neutral" stance to remain credible, to not let people try to pigeonhole him. So he is running his own game. He is putting the info out there, and letting the more popular sector, like ES, pick it up and boil it down. So far his strategy has paid off.
Some claim he is not speaking enough to the "common man," but this is a criticism also made of ES sometimes, that for example, there is no accurate but simple breakdown of the whole DNA situation for the man on the street. The standard reply to that is that folks should educate themselves and read more. Well, Keita could say the same thing to complaints about his "distance" from the "street." He is one of the few voices in the academy hammering away at the "empire" with hard data, rather than the usual sociological writings about racism etc... Cut him some slack.
Like I said, a physical anthropologist deals with just that: the physical features of populations in ancient times. Avoiding words like black in reference to populations of Africa is like a painter avoiding discussing color in paintings. It is a inherent attribute of that which is being described and therefore saying point blank what characteristic was present at any given time in a population is part of what is expected to be in any such study.
If people were segregated based on skull size, then would Keita avoid calling some ancient populations big skulls? Why? Why can he not simply state what skin color would have been most characteristic of certain populations of Africa at various points in time without trying to avoid being specific? Saying that such a population was black or white or somewhere in between is not being Afrocentric or Eurocentric. It is making such statements PURELY based on dogma as opposed to scientific fact and evidence that makes it so. Therefore, if he has solid evidence to support the physical characteristics of a given population being polka dot 10,000 years ago, then he should be able to say that straight out without a bunch of overly complex "technical" speak. Otherwise he risks looking two faced, which is the normal result of scholars ignoring their own findings in order to appear "open minded". In other words you contradict yourself. And many scholars often quoted on this same forum have shown themselves to be quite contradictory when put on stage and in a public forum to discuss things like ancient Egypt. How can this be so if their papers are so straight forward and direct.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Sundjat quoted: ---------------------------- No serious argument can be made to the position that Egypt was a 'Nilotic-African' culture 'on all levels'." ----------------------------
What does he mean by that?
^You mean what does he base it on? Basically the fact that their way of life suggested that during the formative period, they were already adapted to the native flora and fauna of the region which they'd utilized towards their development, as well as their close ties with contiguous and contemporaneous populations such as the A-group Sudanese.
Also see one of his earliest papers laying it out point for point, including ties with more southernly populations.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]You also have to remember that there are two types of anthropologists today those who accept the idea of race, and those who use the term "population" to ID races. Keita has chosen the term population to describe groups of people.
Let's all acknowledge that Keita has taken the terminology of the Eurocentrists to illustrate an African origin for the Egyptians.
Evergreen Writes: This is not true. But before I can expose the fallacy of this statement let's take a step back and define our terms, Dr. Winters. Since you seem to imply that you are a believer in the concept of biological races please define for us what constitutes a biological race?
A biological race :
the specific ancestral morphological signatures and traits shared by a population /human variation evident from craniometric measurements which correspond to geographic patterning in human variation among members of the various geographical populations.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]the specific ancestral morphological signatures and traits shared by a population /human variation evident from craniometric measurements which correspond to geographic patterning in human variation among members of the various geographical populations.
Evergreen Writes: Since there were several ancestral morphological signatures and traits shared found in early Upper Paleolithic Africa does that mean there were several distinct "races" in Africa before modern humans migrated out of Africa?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Who are the 'Nilotic-Africans'? And why is he focusing only on them? The boy sounds like he is trying to appease the euorcentists. Isn't what he's saying one of their patented theft ploys?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^If you read the paper I'd recommended above, conversely you'd actually interpret him as arguing in favor of a pan-African cultural origin for the AEs..
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The_Killer_Wolofi: Nope we already discussed this in a thread about the video. I am not Jeeves(whatbox) and will not dig through these threads, but he said EXACTLY what I said and others heard it and commented on it so....
1. North Africans were light skinned, light haired, light eyed like the Kabyle in North African 50,000(paleolithic)and analyzing their DNA they were indeed African.---which prompted the questions by the black students in when did people that looked like Cleopatra enter Egypt.
He even said Meds can be classified as Africans and the black student had a confused look after Keita said this lol...as did I. As a matter of fact I remember you making a reference to his studies in saying you dont believe Kabyles are African so why are you acting brand new all the sudden about Keita's study. I expect more from you Evergreen.
2. Reacquisition of Tropical traits he mentioned about the people of Vuanatu
Evergreen Writes: Well, if you refuse to provide a direct quote so I can answer a question you pose to me then there is no debate as you have refused to provide evidence.
P.S. Kabyle's in all probablity don't have an ancestry in Africa that predates the Iron Age. But again, I think this is an issue of intellectual snobbery on Keita's part. What he is saying is right and exact or at least possible. But what he is not saying is the problem. If you look at his behaviour in this lecture you can see that he has this type of condesending attitude that is not conducive to teaching the common person.
I wasn't expecting this kind of response lol. What do you mean by intellectual snobbery and what do you feel he should have said? Are you with Keita or against him I am a little confused about your position?
Posts: 70 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The_Killer_Wolofi: [QUOTE]I wasn't expecting this kind of response lol. What do you mean by intellectual snobbery and what do you feel he should have said? Are you with Keita or against him I am a little confused about your position?
Evergreen Writes: You may be a little confused because of your approach. I am not approaching this from an emotive standpoint and hence I am neither for or against Keita. To your first question - what I mean is Keita is being purposefully subjective as a teaching strategy. He is trying to pull analytical and critical thinking out of his audience at Cambridge. At one point he says something to the effect of "we have PhD's and Cambridge students in the audience, right". It is obvious that he is trying to be thought provoking. It's just not working. He needs to be able to break these things down for the simplest minded student. He is a great researcher, scholar and writer. He is not to hot as a teacher or communicator.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Sundjat quoted: ---------------------------- No serious argument can be made to the position that Egypt was a 'Nilotic-African' culture 'on all levels'." ----------------------------
What does he mean by that?
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID LOL!!!! IF IT'S NOT NIOLITIC AFRICAN WHAT IS IT?
Posts: 70 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The_Killer_Wolofi: [QUOTE]I wasn't expecting this kind of response lol. What do you mean by intellectual snobbery and what do you feel he should have said? Are you with Keita or against him I am a little confused about your position?
Evergreen Writes: You may be a little confused because of your approach. I am not approaching this from an emotive standpoint and hence I am neither for or against Keita. To your first question - what I mean is Keita is being purposefully subjective as a teaching strategy. He is trying to pull analytical and critical thinking out of his audience at Cambridge. At one point he says something to the effect of "we have PhD's and Cambridge students in the audience, right". It is obvious that he is trying to be thought provoking. It's just not working. He needs to be able to break these things down for the simplest minded student. He is a great researcher, scholar and writer. He is not to hot as a teacher or communicator.
Ok, I'm with you but the three black students(which I don't find to be a coincidence) that were asking questions were trying to get direct answers and he shirked from them. They were as specific as anyone can ask that doesn't have much knowledge in anthropology/bio-genetics.
I mean come on Evergreen bio-genetics and anthropology are NOT comprehensive studies that people are just going to pick up the first or even second time they hear them and he even said "you have to wrap your mind around it" over and over so he knows whats up and yet he still played word games.
They asked if they were "negros" or "blacks" and were even keen enough to say "ok, when did people that looked like Cleopatra come into Egypt" which was a great opportunity for him to say what they were and he said that Meds could be considered African?!?! <---the last one was the worst one because you know damn well he knew where the student was going with that and these aren't ghetto negros they are Cambridge students.
Posts: 70 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The_Killer_Wolofi: [QUOTE]Ok, I'm with you but the three black students(which I don't find to be a coincidence) that were asking questions were trying to get direct answers and he shirked from them. They were as specific as anyone can ask that doesn't have much knowledge in anthropology/bio-genetics.
Evergreen Writes: We have no disagreement that Keita should have responded more directly. However, I take issue with the suggestion that Keita was trying to hide the Blackness of the ancient Egyptians. He was trying to be "intellectually coy" and hence this is why I said he was being an intellectual snob. He wasn't trying to hide something, he was "showing off".
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Sundjat quoted: ---------------------------- No serious argument can be made to the position that Egypt was a 'Nilotic-African' culture 'on all levels'." ----------------------------
What does he mean by that?
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID LOL!!!! IF IT'S NOT NIOLITIC AFRICAN WHAT IS IT?
Dear Wiggu U. valedictorian hopeful...
"Nilotic" Africans are associated with the "elongated" type mainly in East Africa an dobviously, were not the ONLY type of African found in AE. This would leave out what I've heard Nilotes call "Kushites", which are horn of Africa people, who obviously also were present in AE along with still other groups.
Hope this helps in your future wigga studies
Posts: 455 | From: Tharsis Montes | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evergreen Writes: We have no disagreement that Keita should have responded more directly. However, I take issue with the suggestion that Keita was trying to hide the Blackness of the ancient Egyptians. He was trying to be "intellectually coy" and hence this is why I said he was being an intellectual snob. He wasn't trying to hide something, he was "showing off".
^^ I agree that Keita could be more simplistic in his approach, and some could contend that he was showing off, but as he points out in the video, skin color has its problems in making rigid group definitions. He says there are light skinned people in South america for example that are actually genetically more "African" than darker skinned people next to them. He also warns against rigid typological thinking. As an example he notes that if the narrow-nosed ancient remains found in Gamble's Cave Kenya were given to a modern forensic pathologist they would be deemed 'Caucasian', whereas their tropical limb ratios show that they come not from some "migrating whites" but are native to the region.
In his work Keita again and again emphasizes the need for a BALANCED PACKAGE of analysis- skin color, limb ratios, dental, DNA, etc etc. Using this balanced package, he has sucessfully debunked and/or critiqued several attempts to pigeonhole or de-Africanize the Nile Valley peoples, and indeed African peoples as a whole. When dental studies claimed a "caucasoid link" for example, he showed that said "inflowing caucasoids" were not supported by historical data. When others seek to pigeonhole "true" Africans as limited to certain DNA, he pulls into the broad package approach to show how the PN2 clade unites numerous Africans including berbers. In the video he specifically talks about the PN2 clade and how it ties 70% of the continent together. Also note at the end of vid 5 what he says to his questioner on the ancient Egyptians: "In terms of their skin color, they would have been dark." How much more plainly can the man say it?
As for Keita's comment about the Egyptians not being Nilo-African "on all levels" that is accurate. There were other cultural elements in the mix within ancient Egypt- such as that provided by peoples of the Sahara- along with the issue of the Afro Asiatic languages. For Keita to go out on a limb proclaiming a bold 'Nilo-African' theory without looking at the TOTAL picture would have undermined not only his credibility but that of the entire project of restoring a balanced picture on the peoples of Africa, including the Nile Valley.
The whole field Keita works in is a shifting, fluctating one at times. We would all like quick, simple answers and declarations, but the ground is too treacherous for that. Putting all our eggs into the DNA or cranio-facial basket for example can be a recipe for major defeat. What can be done as Keita emphasizes in his writings, is to build up a strong BALANCED PACKAGE of evidence across the board. This approach does not lend itself to simple one-dimensional answers, but it is the safest, most defensible approach to demonstrating the true diversity of the African peoples.
S.O.Y. Keita - The Bio Cultural Origins of Egypt - Part 5
Note towards the end of video 5 and the start of video 6 how he rejects the term Negro, refusing to play along with the Eurocentric stereotypical model, but also note how he mentions something more scientifically defensible- that of tropical adapted limb ratios. It is a perfect example of how the balanced package approach works. In the case of the narrow nosed East Africans, the limb ratios debunk the claim of "invading Caucasoids". They also serve to call into question claims of a "Caucasoid" northern Egypt. His use of the example of the PN2 clade also shows how the package approach works, for it undermines attempts to arbitrarily dice up African peoples based on manipulated definitions of alleged 'Eurasian' DNA versus "Sub-Saharan" DNA.
Keita would have us think in terms of a mixed battlegroup, not a single one-shot weapon or one-dimensional type army, It can be likened to the Kongo warrior hosts of yore, who balanced their forces with archers, heavy infantry, light infantry, and different echelons of advance, reserve, central and wing units. This is what is needed at the present time. Such forces are more complicated to position and control, but based on the battleground faced, where well financed teams of geneticists are working hard to pigeonhole African peoples and maintain the old racial models and stereotypes, it is the best approach, tactically, strategically and scientifically.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: [b]Keita would have us think in terms of a mixed battlegroup, not a single one-shot weapon or one-dimensional type army, It can be likened to the Kongo warrior hosts of yore, who balanced their forces with archers, heavy infantry, light infantry, and different echelons of advance, reserve, central and wing units. This is what is needed at the present time. Such forces are more complicated to position and control, but based on the battleground faced, where well financed teams of geneticists are working hard to pigeonhole African peoples and maintain the old racial models and stereotypes, it is the best approach, tactically, strategically and scientifically.
^^ Well said.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
but keita is a nigger is the only one who talks about pn2 clade the pn2 clade is way to broad to show relationship if thats the case than the balkan many antolians and the berbers would have been negros while in the reality they are not becuse e1b1b1 is caucasian in hios morphology and facil feuters and is hage is 30,000 to many water in the river and i should say clean water e3b1c1
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: but keita is a nigger is the only one who talks about pn2 clade the pn2 clade is way to broad to show relationship if thats the case than the balkan many antolians and the berbers would have been negros while in the reality they are not becuse e1b1b1 is caucasian in hios morphology and facil feuters and is hage is 30,000 to many water in the river and i should say clean water e3b1c1
Evergreen Writes: e3b1c1, you're so funny. At it again I see. The fact that Mediterranean Europeans descend in part from mesolithic tropical Africans seems to have you all wound up emotionally.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
no you are the funny between us tropical african are you kidding me europeans belong to -e-v13 which originated in western asia not in tropical africa you ediot as i talled you you are related to native americans genetically so r1b or r1a are not the real european stock as i said haplogroup I are the real europeans e3b1c1
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: no you are the funny between us tropical african are you kidding me europeans belong to -e-v13 which originated in western asia not in tropical africa
Of course E-V13 originated in West Asia (or the Balkans). Here is what modern science tells us about the West Asians during this timeframe...
Anthroologist C. Loring Brace:
The late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
but e-v13 is very rare in the near east now days i dont see how the hell v13 is conected to the natufian sample from israel? most middle eastern woh belong to e1b1b1 are m78-v22 and e1b1b1c1-m34 not v13 this european clade the greeks and the romans were v13 they gave civilization to r1b mother fuckers like you e3b1c1
posted
As these neolthic populations spread up the Danube the cranio-facial traits that distiguished the incoming neolithic folks from the indigenous mesolithic Europeans spread as well.
Boule, M. & Vallois, H.V. (1957). Fossil Men.
In Brittany, as well as in Switzerland and in the north of Italy, there lived in the Polished Stone period, in the Bronze Age and during the early Iron Age, a certain number of individuals who differed in certain characters from their contemporaries’, in particular in the dolichocephalic character of their skull, in possessing a prognathism that was sometimes extreme, and a large grooved nose. This is a matter of partial atavism which in certain cases, as in the Neolithic Breton skull from Conguel, may attain to complete atavism. Two Neolithic individuals from Chamblandes in Switzerland are Negroid not only as regards their skulls but also in the proportions of their limbs. Several Ligurian and Lombard tombs of the Metal Ages have also yielded evidences of a Negroid element.
Since the publication of Verneau’s memoir, discoveries of other Negroid skeletons in Neolithic levels in Illyria and the Balkans have been announced.Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: but e-v13 is very rare in the near east now days i dont see how the hell v13 is conected to the natufian sample from israel?
I would agree. I think that the sublineage E-V13 derived from ancestral E-M78* somewhere between Anatolia and the Balkans. The connection between the Natufians and the early neolithic populations in the Balkans and Anatolia is found in the spread of the African derived ancestral lineage E-M78* and the commonality of tropical African phenetic traits found around the Mediterranean during this time frame.
Biological Relations of Egyptians and Eastern Mediterranean Populations during pre-Dynastic and Dynastic Times
J. Lawrence Angel Journal of Human Evolutiom 1972 1, Pg 307
"Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....".Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic