Don't waste your time posting Pics to this Simple person. She is now left with posting Pics of blatant Africans to try and claim they are Caucasian. She lost the pic wars before it began.
Simple is just someone you use to show the Facts to the people who read these forums. I know that these people learn alot from the refuting of studies etc. Simple just has her cherrypicked pics and that has already been refuted. I would not post regarding her but because she is just so Simple and Pathetic I really feel sorry for her and hope the brain in her Head makes her realize that no matter how she crys and whines, Egyptians will always be Related to Africans and not Europeans.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just so Simple does not pretend she did not read my Posts Will repost:
Where is the bio-anthropological evidence for this European-like people in Ancient Egypt? How did they migrate to Egypt? When did they migrate to Egypt? Where is the archeological evidence for their settlement? Where is the linguistic evidence for their presence and place of origin? Where is the cultural evidence for their contributions to Ancient Egyptian civilization? Near Eastern Neolithic genetic input in a small oasis of the Egyptian Western Desert http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=001353
Simple use your Brain for once. You have no chance of Winning the Pic wars with Sudaniya.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Energy: I don't know what you see but the picture of the sphinx in 1798 also shows that the nose is not intact, that there is something wrong with it.
I believe the picture drawn in 1798 because it was done by one of Napoleon's men. The French was at war in Egypt at the time and they were the enemy. In the meantime they were heavily into slaving Negroes down south in West Africa. Given this background, why would the French, the enemy of the Africans and negro slavers want to depict the sphinx in an image that glorifies the black man unless the artist was simply giving an honest opinion of what he actually saw?
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus:
The nose is there, they just drew it with a flat nose bridge. The artist probably wanted to draw the Sphinx as he imagined it looked during construction. Notice that there is no body to the Sphinx in that picture. This could not have been a drawing of the Sphinx as it appeared before the artist's eyes.
If the nose was intact in 1798 why would an artist draw it without a nose in 1755?
I never said the nose was intact in the image I produced. In fact from what I can see the nose is not intact, look again, Denon painted a broken off nose in the image of 1798. You on the hand claim it is intact and then proceed to build your argument against your claim, citing that an earlier portrait shows the nose is damaged while claiming Denon's is not?
quote: There's also the matter of documentation by al-Maqrizi that the Sphinx was defaced in 1378.
What exactly did al-Maqrizi say? For example did he mention the extent to which the sphinx was defaced?
quote:As far as why Denon would depict the Sphinx with Broad African features, he likely acknowledged that the Sphinx resembled a Black African. He is not alone. Count Constantin De Volney was outspoken about his realization that the Sphinx was evidence that the Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans.
This comment completely contradicts everything you said so far. If al-Maqrizi claims the sphinx was defaced and you believe what was left was more like the image you produced (an image that incidentally looks more Caucasian than black). The glaring question then is; what was left in the face of the sphinx to make Count Constantin De Volney come to the conclusion that it it was negroid? Do you see the problem? Unless it still retained enough negro features to convince Count Constantin De Volney that it was negroid? If that is the case, then it means Denon's image is the more accurate version and not the image you produced because your image is an European looking Sphinx.
To further support Denons portrait, there is information in what he drew that he could not have just imagined. Do you see the square bands on the crown of the sphinx? Those are typical royal bands (usually made of gold) worn on the head by the Akan royals of West Africa. If Denon was French he may never have encountered any Akan royal to know their regalia so how would he have known to depict the regalia so accurately? To me Denon drew those square bands on the crown of the sphinx, because that is EXACTLY what he must have seen of the Sphinx in reality and that is more reason to see his depiction of the Sphinx as ACCURATE.
Below is an image of a modern male Akan royal wearing the square shaped regalia on his head. Compare it with Denon's portrait and see for yourself the accuracy in what Denon painted.
quote:Originally posted by Energy: I never said the nose was intact in the image I produced. In fact from what I can see the nose is not intact, look again, Denon painted a broken off nose in the image of 1798. You on the hand claim it is intact and then proceed to build your argument against your claim, citing that an earlier portrait shows the nose is damaged while claiming Denon's is not?
You claimed that it hadn't yet been defaced. This is what I assumed you meant by it not being defaced. It still has a nose and doesn't look noticeably damaged to me. That is what I was pointing out.
quote:What exactly did al-Maqrizi say? For example did he mention the extent to which the sphinx was defaced?
He said that the nose and ears were demolished. Details are in the link I provided. The ears are still there as far as I can see but this suggests that the Sphinx was defaced long before the French came into Egypt.
quote:This comment completely contradicts everything you said so far. If al-Maqrizi claims the sphinx was defaced and you believe what was left was more like the image you produced (an image that incidentally looks more Caucasian than black). The glaring question then is; what was left in the face of the sphinx to make Count Constantin De Volney come to the conclusion that it it was negroid? Do you see the problem? Unless it still retained enough negro features to convince Count Constantin De Volney that it was negroid? If that is the case, then it means Denon's image is the more accurate version and not the image you produced because your image is an European looking Sphinx.
How is the image European looking? It depicts the Sphinx with broad cheek bones and a prognathous jaw. The Sphinx still looks Black to many people today so I would certainly believe that this was so in De Volney's time.
Whether you consider the nose to be damaged or not you clearly said that the Sphinx had not been defaced in Denon's picture and I showed you an image depicting the Sphinx defaced which predates that image as well as a source for its defacing long before Denon drew his image.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: [QUOTE] Whether you consider the nose to be damaged or not you clearly said that the Sphinx had not been defaced in Denon's picture and I showed you an image depicting the Sphinx defaced which predates that image as well as a source for its defacing long before Denon drew his image.
Oh I see where the problem is now. I focus on explaining the nose is damaged while you keep saying the Sphinx was defaced.
I think most people including me would take the word, "DEFACED" literally. Which would mean the face was damaged beyond recognition exactly as the Sphinx looks now.
A damaged nose to me does not mean the Sphinx was 'DEFACED.' A damaged nose simply means a damaged nose but the rest of the face is intact. But when the sphinx has been reduced to how it looks now, I would use the word, 'defaced.' It's a question of semantics I suppose.
Posts: 620 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: ]How is the image European looking? It depicts the Sphinx with broad cheek bones and a prognathous jaw. The Sphinx still looks Black to many people today so I would certainly believe that this was so in De Volney's time.
LOL! The following is what you posted. I am a true-blue black man, and I don't see any resemblance to any black person I know in the following image. According to you, the image you posted the Sphinx had broad cheeks? Well we may all see differently because I don't see anything like that at all. Here take a good look, the following is what you posted. Those thin lips certainly shout caucasian to me and nothing about it depicts a black man.
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: The Sphinx is actually depicted with its nose broken off in 1755:
quote:Originally posted by Energy: LOL! The following is what you posted. I am a true-blue black man, and I don't see any resemblance to any black person I know in the following image. According to you, the image you posted the Sphinx had broad cheeks? Well we may all see differently because I don't see anything like that at all. Here take a good look, the following is what you posted. Those thin lips certainly shout caucasian to me and nothing about it depicts a black man.
His lips look thin sure, but Africans have very diverse looks including narrow noses and faces.
If you look at the Sphinx today it looks very similar to this image.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: ]How is the image European looking? It depicts the Sphinx with broad cheek bones and a prognathous jaw. The Sphinx still looks Black to many people today so I would certainly believe that this was so in De Volney's time.
LOL! The following is what you posted. I am a true-blue black man, and I don't see any resemblance to any black person I know in the following image. According to you, the image you posted the Sphinx had broad cheeks? Well we may all see differently because I don't see anything like that at all. Here take a good look, the following is what you posted. Those thin lips certainly shout caucasian to me and nothing about it depicts a black man.
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: The Sphinx is actually depicted with its nose broken off in 1755:
The fallacy in your thinking is that a "black man" has to look a certain way. That is nonsensical given Africa's high genetic diversity. Even the dictionary definition of a 'black person' simply means that in common usage, a 'black person' is a person with black or brown skin. Thin lips in ultra diverse Africa don't "shout Caucasian." That is a model rooted in racism as Keita says below.
Mainstream scientists have moved away increasingly from your stereotypical classifications of what blacks are "supposed" to look like. Africa has the highest genetic diversity in the world, narrows noses, thin lips, curly to straightish hair and even light brown to yellowish skin are all NATIVE to the continent. As S.O.Y Keita notes:
"The living peoples of the African continent are diverse in facial characteristics, stature, skin color, hair form, genetics, and other characteristics. No one set of characteristics is more African than another. Variability is also found in "sub-Saharan" Africa, to which the word "Africa" is sometimes erroneously restricted. There is a problem with definitions. Sometimes Africa is defined using cultural factors, like language, that exclude developments that clearly arose in Africa. For example, sometimes even the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea) is excluded because of geography and language and the fact that some of its peoples have narrow noses and faces.
However, the Horn is at the same latitude as Nigeria, and its languages are African. The latitude of 15 degree passes through Timbuktu, surely in "sub-Saharan Africa," as well as Khartoum in Sudan; both are north of the Horn. Another false idea is that supra-Saharan and Saharan Africa were peopled after the emergence of "Europeans" or Near Easterners by populations coming from outside Africa. Hence, the ancient Egyptians in some writings have been de-Africanized. These ideas, which limit the definition of Africa and Africans, are rooted in racism and earlier, erroneous "scientific" approaches." (S. Keita, "The Diversity of Indigenous Africans," in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko, Editor (1996), pp. 104-105. [10])
As Hiernaux 1975 notes:
[1] Jean Hiernaux, 1975, The People of Africa (Peoples of the World Series)
"The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar association is presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The date of Upper Kenya Capsian C is not precisely known (an earlier phase from Prospect Farm on Eburru Mountain close to Gamble's Cave has been dated to about 8000 BC); but the presence of pottery indicates a rather later date, perhaps around 400 BC. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region.....
"..all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions............. From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia."
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....." [/i]
Jean Hiernaux, The People of Africa (Encore Editions: 1975), pp. 37-204
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: The fallacy in your thinking is that a "black man" has to look a certain way. That is nonsensical given Africa's high genetic diversity.
Its not a fallacy, neither is it nonsensical but rather the reality on the ground. Instead of telling people in Africa how they should see themselves or give them a dictionary description of who they are, why don't you accept what THEY the inhabitants tell you is their identity? Not all dark skin people see themselves as negroid. In Africa to be branded as negroid, you have to have certain physical characteristics to qualify.
For example you have on these pages a guy like Ahmad who is Egyptian and would tell you HE IS NOT BLACK. As a fellow African I know that is how the majority of his people see themselves and that is OK as far as I am concerned. To him he is an Arab. His brown or black Egyptian skin does not make him part of those generally referred to as black or Negroid south of the Sahara. Why? Because even though he may be black, it’s the features that count. So you have a situation whereby in the Arab world many of them may be jet black, yet they do not see themselves as negroid or black. You would find the same mentality among Ethiopians and Somalis. Its all down to features. If the thick lips and broad nose are missing, the African person can be as black as night but would not accept the tag, negroid or black man. In a case like this they would rather identify with their ethnicity rather than be labelled as black.
That I am afraid is the reality on the African continent. That is what counts and not what some academic or dictionary has to say on the matter.
posted
^So according to Energy "black" is actually a referent to dimensions of nose and lips. So we have feet, inches, meters, and now black can be added to the list: all measures of dimension.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Apocalypse: ^So according to Energy "black" is actually a referent to dimensions of nose and lips. So we have feet, inches, meters, and now black can be added to the list: all measures of dimension.
quote:Originally posted by Energy: Originally posted by zarahan: The fallacy in your thinking is that a "black man" has to look a certain way. That is nonsensical given Africa's high genetic diversity. [/qb]
Its not a fallacy, neither is it nonsensical but rather the reality on the ground. Instead of telling people in Africa how they should see themselves or give them a dictionary description of who they are, why don't you accept what THEY the inhabitants tell you is their identity? Not all dark skin people see themselves as negroid. In Africa to be branded as negroid, you have to have certain physical characteristics to qualify.
For example you have on these pages a guy like Ahmad who is Egyptian and would tell you HE IS NOT BLACK. As a fellow African I know that is how the majority of his people see themselves and that is OK as far as I am concerned. To him he is an Arab. His brown or black Egyptian skin does not make him part of those generally referred to as black or Negroid south of the Sahara. Why? Because even though he may be black, it’s the features that count. So you have a situation whereby in the Arab world many of them may be jet black, yet they do not see themselves as negroid or black. You would find the same mentality among Ethiopians and Somalis. Its all down to features. If the thick lips and broad nose are missing, the African person can be as black as night but would not accept the tag, negroid or black man. In a case like this they would rather identify with their ethnicity rather than be labelled as black.
That I am afraid is the reality on the African continent. That is what counts and not what some academic or dictionary has to say on the matter. [/QUOTE]
Zarahan is explaining to you the actual biological diversity of the African continent. How people self-identify is another story.
Most Africans that I know identify with their nationality or tribe rather than race. They do not prescribe to the Negroid construct believing only those with stereotypical features are authentic Africans.
And many Africans who live in America including dark-skinned Egyptians such as Mostafa Hefny identify as Black so don't generalize.
This Ethiopian girl proudly states that she is 100% Black African and does not accept the arguments of people telling her she is not a true Black person.
quote:For example you have on these pages a guy like Ahmad who is Egyptian and would tell you HE IS NOT BLACK. As a fellow African I know that is how the majority of his people see themselves and that is OK as far as I am concerned. To him he is an Arab. His brown or black Egyptian skin does not make him part of those generally referred to as black or Negroid south of the Sahara. Why? Because even though he may be black, it’s the features that count. So you have a situation whereby in the Arab world many of them may be jet black, yet they do not see themselves as negroid or black. You would find the same mentality among Ethiopians and Somalis. Its all down to features. If the thick lips and broad nose are missing, the African person can be as black as night but would not accept the tag, negroid or black man. In a case like this they would rather identify with their ethnicity rather than be labelled as black.
Curiously enough this kind of classification is not seen to apply to people of East Asian(Sinoid) stock. Their noses, lips,and prognathism index vary as much as those of Africa yet it is not a defining issue.
And again, the notion that the lips and noses of those populations mentioned above(Africans of the Horn) are dissimilar from those of other parts of Africa is just wrong. Somalis tend to have lips that often thicker than of other parts of Africa. Same for Ethiopians. Their nasal indices also match populations from other parts of Africa. What may sometimes more or less slightly different though is the "curl of hair".
On the Sphinx: for those obsessed with "lips"--its lips are similar to millions of Africans--and much more pronounced than say those of well-photographed Africans like Mugabe, Kaunda, Mandela, Tutu, Biya, etc.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Lol! The classic line from Pogo may indeed apply here. However, I suspect that we may have a little cyber blackface act, a little minstrel show so to speak. Energy is entertaining if nothing else. We learned from his post above that black is not a color but a measure of nose and lip dimensions - in other word spatial demensions. He also makes a broad claim that Ethiopians and Somalis share his(?) aversion to being called black. He has completely overlooked the fact that, whatever may be its roots etymologically, semantically "ethiopian" has, over the past two and a half millenia, always been understood to mean Black-skinned African. The Amharic-dominated modern nation of Ethiopia choose the name knowing its semantic implications. Much the same can be said for Sudan.
Morpheus and Lamin also devastated his claims in their psots above.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic