quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: He laughs at you Afronuts! distances himself from you wackos and your ancient "Black" Egypt claim!; puts to rest the question of AEian phoenotype. RFLOL!!
Originally posted by Just call me Jari: Look at this man is he "Arab"...I think not, he is a native Egyptian. We have to remember that Egypt was a Nation of many tribes united under one flag, so not one Phenotype was present..We have Dark, Light, and in between in Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: ^Afrocentrists got more of an issue with AE than Eurocentrists. Im trippin right now over how you clowns are scrambling for cover LOL!!! Ancient Egypt was NOT Black (LOL)! GAME OVER!
I don't see how since AE is IN Africa. Yet it is Eurocentrists that label it as "caucasian" etc. anything but African.
quote: Egypt aint black - Keita.
GAME OVER
I think I will make a requests to Salsassin that he asks Keita to mention EgyptSearch by name and tell you coon monkeys to pull the plug on your life support LOL!!!
Hey, moron! Keita NEVER referred to ANY people as 'black' because he feels it is a political charged label. As such, he would not call Congolese black any more than Egyptians even though they looked like this:
So STOP DISTORTING KEITA'S WORDS.
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, as some posters mentioned, it is very obvious that Jaimie (Salsass) was leading Keita along. Of course Keita is too smart to care for his words still ring accurately.
When it comes to Egypt, Keita's point is very clear and concise: that Egypt being part of Africa has populations that are continuous with the rest of Africa both to the south with the rest of east Africa as well as to the west. You cannot separate Africa into 'North' and Sub-Sahara and say the populations of both regions are totally different and unrelated. It is not possible. Keita has stated this over and over again, but the Euronuts can't get it!
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: I gotta say though it was very interesting esp. with reguards to the R1b that Racist(Keita's words) like to say was "European" and the Chadic being closer to Berbers than Egyptians..very interesting.
LOL Indeed. I remember a time when Euronuts tried to claim the E clade as Eurasian because it was found in populations living in the regions of Eurasia adjacent to Africa-- Southwest Asia and Europe. Yet it hasn't occurred to these fools that E is predominant in Africa and has the most diversity in Africa. So when all studies verified that E is African origin, they now are claiming that R groups found in Africa are of Eurasian origin even though they predominate in West and Central Africa! Really, it doesn't take an expert like Keita to tell you that a paleolithic clade in that part of Africa means that it is also African!
quote: LMAO, so this Clips totally destroys the Caucasian Ethiopian theory in more ways than one, Keita is saying that the Variation ON BOTH SIDES OF THE RED SEA was the Same and did not change the populations too much..LMAO Destroying the Caucasian Ethiopians and East African non-sense.
Indeed. It really takes into account everything that Dana Marniche and Tariq Berry have been saying about the presence of blacks in Arabia and that these blacks are closely related and no different from those of Africa!
Hamitic Hypothesis and all Caca-zoid nonsensePosts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Please post where I said his phenotype was not present amoung the Siwans?? Here let me help you, here is what I posted..
Guess what majority of the Berbers of Siwa look like this
a Basic understanding of reading comprehension would help, your I.Q is showing.(Skeptics Words)...Your strawman is dismissed.
Jari's hilarious, a split personality:
Show me where anything I said contradicts my views. You are to stupid to understand what I am saying, and given your troll spin tactics you can't understand.
Siwans
Nubians
Egyptians
You're dismissed.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Anymore than your that one selective pic of a hairy Arab mixed Egyptian man can change what most Fellahin look like.
jari do you agree with this? Djehuti, like Wally mentioned, has a hairy arm therefore he is in part the result of invasions of Egypt by foreigners?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Sorry liar, but one select picture of a fair-skinned boy cannot save you from how the MAJORITY of Siwa people look like!
Anymore than your that one selective pic of a hairy Arab mixed Egyptian man can change what most Fellahin look like.
LMAO, Just call her Lyin'ass.com..She does not comprehend the meaning of "Majority". Stupid Bird brained lying'ass Dunce.
Nice Images D.J here is some DNA results..
The mitochondrial DNA variation of 295 Berber-speakers from Morocco (Asni, Bouhria and Figuig) and the Egyptian oasis of Siwa was evaluated by sequencing a portion of the control region (including HVS-I and part of HVS-II) and surveying haplogroup-specific coding region markers. Our findings show that the Berber mitochondrial pool is characterized by an overall high frequency of Western Eurasian haplogroups, a somehow lower frequency of sub-Saharan L lineages, and a significant (but differential) presence of North African haplogroups U6 and M1, thus occupying an intermediate position between European and sub-Saharan populations in PCA analysis. A clear and significant genetic differentiation between the Berbers from Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers was also observed. The first are related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. We conclude that the origins and maternal diversity of Berber populations are old and complex, and these communities bear genetic characteristics resulting from various events of gene flow with surrounding and migrating populations.
^^^^^^^^^^ Im Done with her, you can have her Bird Brained carcass!!
Just call her lyin'ass of the morning, angel Just touch my cheek before you leave me Oh my baby Just call her lyin'ass of the morning, angel Then slowly turn away from mePosts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Wally suggested this was not an indigenous Egyptian because his arm is hairy
Originally posted by Just call me Jari: Who is Wally to pass Judgement, that man is an Upper Egyptian Fellahin, has Medium Brown skin etc. Looks Egyptian to me, again not all Egyptians were Charcoal colored.
also you have no respect for the great animals of Africa, your pictures are disusting
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
He also says that people say that R1 was a back migration to Africa which he calls False because you don't have R1 in Egypt in somalia and very little R1 in AfroAsiatic countries but you have it in Chad but not in Berber and that Berber and Chad are more related to each other then Berber is to Egypt.
I agree with the general premise that labeling hg R as "Eurasian" is simplistic, if not misleading, esp. when one digs into the phylogenetic details of that lineage. However, hg R1 does in fact appear in Egypt, albeit in low frequencies. In fact, rare upstream hg R*, the ancestor of hg R1, occurs here (Egypt). He is right about the rarity of the clade in other Afrisan-speaking areas, especially in the African Horn, where one would expect the clade to have penetrated, from nearby regions across the Red sea, which in turn would have attained in from north of the Arabian peninsula.
I must say though, that imo, the interview reflects more poorly on Keita than the "Salsassin" character. One might argue that he was being generous to waste his time on a personality like that; however, as a scholar, Keita should not have allowed his interviewer, regardless of who that person is, to pigeonhole him into commenting or responding to "alleged" claims by unnamed personalities placed under a banner, which in this case is supposedly the "Afrocentrists". He could have politely refused to comment on it, on the grounds that he doesn't know who specifically is making the alleged arguments, instead of allowing himself to be arguing against fictitious characters based on what some interviewer purports to have happened. He should have forced his interviewer to give him specifics on the claims made, and importantly, specifically by whom...otherwise, as just witnessed here, Keita ends up looking like an unwitting tool for someone's dogma. Generally, scholars in academia refrain from directly addressing the "alleged" claimants, whom they don't know about or have heard, and instead just directly point out what they see as the case, based on certain underlying objective bases, and clearly laying out those objective underpinnings that drew them to their conclusions. By objecting to use the term "black", an observant one would have to take it that it was done so with the desire to be seen as being as "objective" and politically correct as possible; yet, by speaking out against alleged "Afrocentric" claims that have not been specifically directed to a specific individual (claimant), not a pseudonym, and instead relying on a "they said" hearsay, he was allowing his objectivity posturing to be chipped away, because such hearsay doesn't allow one to adjudge or one to discern the authenticity of claims contained in the hearsay, or whether even the supposed claimants were simply made up to elicit some desired response on the part of the hearsay messenger (in this case, the interwiewer/"Salsassin").
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
You speak nothing but the TRUTH. Keita should of known better then to allow Salsa to steer him in these directions. Sadly Salsa did not ask Keita if he believed that AE was tropically adapted which would of proven them as being indeginous Black Africans. What I want to know is if there is more to what Keita said in the 3 hour segment. Only time will tell.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well, anyone who frequents this site should know by now that whatever the interview's misgivings, on Keita's end, he is consistent about not using terms like "black", "negro", etc...because these are often associated with typological ideas by their advocates that are subjective, and in many cases, scientifically inaccurate. So, that matter is really not making news here. Naturally, "Salsassin" would not ask anything that defeats his dogma, which is why I referred to his interview as dogma. Unfortunately, Keita allowed himself to be caught up in it; he could have sought to offset Salsassin's dogmatic-leaning by holding his feet to the fire. How? By pressing him on the specifics I noted above about both the claimant(s) and the claim, and pressing him on what he meant by terms like say, "black", as he (Salsassin) understood it. From that point on, he could proceeded to present his take on the word. It has to be remembered, he was confronted with this word in his Cambridge video streaming, wherein again, he refused to use it. However, in one of his earlier writings, he used the word in quotation marks, saying something along the lines of...[paraphrasing here] "that if the word (black) meant so and so,...then yes, there were so and so people who would have been considered "black"". If memory serves me correctly, he was making that assessment with regards to northern coastal Africans, particularly "Berber"-speaking populations. See, I thought he handled that appropriately at the time, and could have done something similar in this interview, but this would have been contingent on him pressing "Salsassin" on what he understood by the term "black".
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
keita says his new study is coming out soon, do you think the vids destroy the view that non africans from the "near east" came and domesticated the cattle in africa. from what you heard in the 3 vids?
Posts: 142 | From: england sw | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Ignoring the trash above me, I agree with Explorer. Keita failed in cutting the leash that Jaimie put around his neck. Again, this is the ONLY thing I don't like about Keita-- that he is not straight forward as she should be due to fear of political incorrectness. 'Black' may be subjective, but it is nowhere near as subjective and as FALSE as say "caucasoid". He should have stated that by today's standards YES the Egyptians were indeed black as many of their pristine descendants today in rural Egypt are.
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Ignoring the trash above me, I agree with Explorer. Keita failed in cutting the leash that Jaimie put around his neck. Again, this is the ONLY thing I don't like about Keita-- that he is not straight forward as she should be due to fear of political incorrectness. 'Black' may be subjective, but it is nowhere near as subjective and as FALSE as say "caucasoid". He should have stated that by today's standards YES the Egyptians were indeed black as many of their pristine descendants today in rural Egypt are.
so you advocate the terms "black" and "white" as scientific?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Focus on context. Straight up, Keita doesn't use the terms like "black", "white", "negro", "caucasoid", "negroid", et al. He has made it a policy of his own. Like I noted earlier, even in his earlier papers, these terms are often cited in quotation-marks, generally citing the context used by previous authors, wherein he would proceed onto make his commentary on them.
Jaime's interview, as I observed above, comes from a fairly dogmatic-angle right off the bat. For instance, as observed by others earlier, he opens up the interview with saying that many people generally describe Keita as an "Afrocentrist", closing the claim with a cynical chuckle. This is where even Keita asks him for the identity of the claimants, noting that he doesn't keep up with internet forum discussions and things being said about him, and by whom; he was off to a good start by asking so, and this is what he should have insisted on doing for the remainder of his exchange with this Salsassin character, particularly in the third segment wherein he purports to make a suggestion for "Afrocentrics" to zero in on PN2 clade distributions outside the continent. Naturally, "Salsassin" purposefully avoids answering Keita's query about the identity. The Salsassin character proceeds with relaying his hearsay "Afrocentric" claims to Keita, and I noticed, that in the first segment Keita was fairly silent and just chuckling through it all, as though he was trying to refrain commentary on hearsay. What "Salsassin" was doing is not only hearsay, but also using an interrogative method that is called "leading" in legal quarters; in other words, framing a statement--with a definite assumption and conclusion already in it--as though it were a question, and then compelling the respondent to chime in on it. "Salsassin" also tactfully slips in the word "light" skin color when talking about KhoiSans, in his effort to make an environmental and bio-evolutionary link to the situation in coastal northern Africa. By doing so, as he has done on this forum, with regards to Norton's paper and the tropical African "Sandawi", on which he got intellectually trashed for his ideological inconsistencies, he can turn around and say that "light" skin is not "black". He tries in vain to equate "light" skin with "white", without having to actually say the latter directly, and knowing fully well that Keita isn't psychologically far out there so as to mistake KhoiSan for "whites" instead of "blacks", were he to proscribe to such terms. Being "light" and being "black" isn't necessarily mutually exclusive of each other. The word "light" is also a vague subjective term, and lacks scientific usefulness without additional specificities attaching meaning to the word. It is simply a relative term. All in all, I agree with observers who reckon that Keita was most likely trying to plug his coming publication to any audience that "Salsassin" gets for his postings, as well trying to be polite by not refusing to comment and/or press him hard for what amounts to mostly hearsay claims that Keita himself (as he in fact openly acknowledges) cannot independently verify the veracity of. The interview itself doesn't dent anything or reveal anything further than what has already been noted/promoted here by long-standing visitors to this site like myself. As a matter of fact, it reinforces them. This interview is anything but a success to "Salsassin". The most he can do with it, is bragging rights--i.e. about being able to set up an interview with Keita, and possibly pumping up a personal ego thereof; nothing more or less.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: ^Dejehuti is bitching that Keita bunked the whole idea that ancient Egyptians were "Black."
Come clean already AMR1, I am on to you and Sammy Aka Lioness..Why not do your job an moderate already you lazy Arab. BTW, your psudo Haitian alias "Gigantic" is pathetic and racist to boot, Trying to act like such a Low I.Q person and making him a Black Haitian, you racist A-rab be yourself we all know NO ONE is THAT stupid so stop pretending already.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed, these PATHETIC LOSERS keep ignoring the fact that Keita does not even use the label 'black' OR 'white' in the first place!! Therefore, him not calling Egyptians black doesn't mean they were not!
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed, these PATHETIC LOSERS keep ignoring the fact that Keita does not even use the label 'black' OR 'white' in the first place!! Therefore, him not calling Egyptians black doesn't mean they were not!
would you be in the loser camp since you use the word "black" and "white" all the time while Keita doesn't?
By the was I was thinking, the following could be a very rough question for you. Are you black or white? You might say one or the other. You might say neither. I really don't know what you would answer but it is a fair question because you use the word "black" a million times around here. The thing that I think would be interesting is if you say "neither" and then I say than how would you describe yourself given that you describe people using color terms as a description. You have set up the premise, that color terms can be used to describe people. So on that basis I ask you what is your color? It's only fair you call people "black" or "white" all the time so what would you be. Mike or jari, or many others would tell you in a heartbeat what they think they (are assuming that these non-Keita terms you use are relevant). But I have a feeling you wouldn't touch this question with a ten foot pole.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
This video where Keita talks about African clades in Greece and the Balkans or the African origin of "Mediterranean" type as somehow a victory for Salsassin?
LOL!
Keita makes it clear. Africa is mommy and daddy and by that, it means it is the home of most human diversity.
So I don't see how anyone could claim that this is a "victory" over Afrocentrics, when everything he says clearly that North Africa was primarily indigenous Africans since the beginning. LOL!
But of course some idiots would like to make a claim that this supports the notion that ANY person identified as a "Berber" today is a PURE example of populations in North Africa since the beginning of the human presence there.
Sorry, no he doesn't even entertain that nonsense.
Posts: 8899 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed, that is what makes it even more embarassing for the euronuts. They don't realize that Keita supports everything we say here!
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: would you be in the loser camp since you use the word "black" and "white" all the time while Keita doesn't?
No because unlike Confirmed Untruth, I don't make any desperate attempts to distort Keita's words to fit my agenda. A tactic YOU are guilty of all the time.
Because of the heavy political connotations, Keita does not like to use the color labels 'black' or 'white' on other peoples because he does not want to appear bias; however he DOES label himself as 'black'! I have shown you many portraits of ancient Egyptians complexions darker than him, yet you refuse to acknowledge them as 'black'. No matter because Keita did say once that if one were to use modern color dialectics then yes the Egyptians would be considered 'black'.
So YOU too are in the pathetic loser camp!
quote:By the was I was thinking, the following could be a very rough question for you. Are you black or white? You might say one or the other. You might say neither. I really don't know what you would answer but it is a fair question because you use the word "black" a million times around here. The thing that I think would be interesting is if you say "neither" and then I say than how would you describe yourself given that you describe people using color terms as a description. You have set up the premise, that color terms can be used to describe people. So on that basis I ask you what is your color? It's only fair you call people "black" or "white" all the time so what would you be. Mike or jari, or many others would tell you in a heartbeat what they think they (are assuming that these non-Keita terms you use are relevant). But I have a feeling you wouldn't touch this question with a ten foot pole.
LOL Involving me personally won't change anything. I am ASIAN, but if I were to go by color I would be considered 'brown'. But again that doesn't change anything, because you cannot change the color dialects of the Western world or the entire world at large because YOU are blackphobic.
Face it, baby the Egyptians as indigenous Africans were indeed black. B|tch all you want about it, but it won't do any good.
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bump this S@^T UP
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I discovered this phone conversation with Keita that Salsassin uploaded and responded to him.
The first thing to consider as many have pointed out is that Keita does NOT discuss the skin color of the Ancient Egyptians at any point during their conversation nor does Salsassin ask him about it directly. When he said that Afrocentrists were distorting his research and claiming he said the Ancient Egyptians were Black Keita agreed that he did not but that is because Keita never uses racial terminology to describe populations.
I emailed Keita myself and asked him directly what color most Ancient Egyptians were and this is what he said:
No one can say exactly what colour they were, but one might reasonably say that the typical Upper Egyptian to Nubian color would have been the modal colour in most of the country.
This is very important because this is consistent with what many Egyptsearch posters have been saying all along. Notice Keita did say they would have looked the same as they do today or that Southern Egyptians were dark and Northern Egyptians were light as Salsassin would have it. He says point blank that it is reasonable to say that ranged from the typical Upper Egyptian to Nubian color (which is medium to dark brown).
That right there is the death blow to people who want to interpret Keita's research as being against what is being said here.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even though King Tut's leaked DNA excerpt shows he might be European, I don't really give much about connecting DNA discoveries to ancient civilizations because the evaluations all rely heavily on other sciences like Anthropology, and the correct analysis of migrations.
Mainstream Science says civilizations began in China/Sumeria/Egypt/India, and totally disregards that all these civilizations and many others like native Indians (US), Norse (EDDA), and African Mythology (eg. Zulu Shaman) all have VERY similar lore about former great ages.
Heck, the Mahabharata even talks about Airships, Explosions like the sun that make the waters bitter and all people die, the Bible talks about fallen Angels having Sex with earthly women... I think real history is stranger than fiction.
Posts: 223 | From: Germania | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since Keita says this: No one can say exactly what colour they were, but one might reasonably say that the typical Upper Egyptian to Nubian color would have been the modal colour in most of the country.
Doesn't the bolded part of the statement negate the first?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really, he said "no one can say **exactly** what colour they were, but one **might** reasonably say that the..." Being cautious is his signature style.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keita tries to please Afrocentric morons, as you can see in various of his retarded presentations, while at the same time he tries not to make too much of a fool of himself to still stay accepted in high science circles.
Everybody has an agenda. Keita works on undermining the concept of race, but everybody can see that the difference between people is not only the color of their skin.
Posts: 223 | From: Germania | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ So says the moron who claims the ancient Egyptians were "caucasians"! LOL
Keita works to undermine race because 'race' does NOT exist as a scientific entity. But of course you are too ignorant to know this just like your are too ignorant to know that the so-called leak that Tut has European DNA is FALSE and is based on nothing more than a control sample that came from white American, or did you even read all the valid posts from this thread??
Anyway here is how Tut and his people looked like:
Welcome to reality.
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Evidently. But...why not simply state ''but one might reasonably say that the typical Upper Egyptian to Nubian color would have been the modal colour in most of the country.''
Can you agree that nearly everyone on this site says Ancient Egyptians were dark skinned? If so then will those same people say ''no one can say for sure''?
I sure don't envy the man. He may be walking a taut line within the establishment and not wanting to ruffle feathers.
If one looks at how he phrases it it seems to me he's protecting two camps, the establishment and the Afrocentric scholars. I had the same impression when his views were aired a year ago on this site.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So says the moron who claims the ancient Egyptians were "caucasians"! LOL
Keita works to undermine race because 'race' does NOT exist as a scientific entity. But of course you are too ignorant to know this
You people don't have to post a shitload of images, that everybody knows already, each time you want to undermine that Egypt is BLACK, which I wont agree with anyway, no matter how often you post Queen Tiy's ugly bust.
David Duke has a nice video about this topic - yes I know everybody hates him - but what he says makes more sense than globalist funded science that wants to turn every human into the same grey consumer mass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU4cvmk44MQ
I'm sure many African Americans would also prefer to live in their own self-governed society, have their own schools that advocate their individual racial strengths, and respect the way of life they want to live.
Posts: 223 | From: Germania | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: anguishofbeing:
" Being cautious is his signature style.''
Evidently. But...why not simply state ''but one might reasonably say that the typical Upper Egyptian to Nubian color would have been the modal colour in most of the country.''
Can you agree that nearly everyone on this site says Ancient Egyptians were dark skinned? If so then will those same people say ''no one can say for sure''?
I sure don't envy the man. He may be walking a taut line within the establishment and not wanting to ruffle feathers.
If one looks at how he phrases it it seems to me he's protecting two camps, the establishment and the Afrocentric scholars. I had the same impression when his views were aired a year ago on this site.
Having read a large amount of his literature and had a few email exchanges with him this is what I believe he meant. Keita is likely saying that there is no scientific method to determine EXACTLY what color they were but that based on the evidence available we can suggest a reasonable range in skin color that they probably had.
We have to bare in mind that Keita's research on the subject is meant to assess the biological affinities of the Ancient Egyptians not what skin color they had. I've never seen a paper from Keita where he cites melanin dosage tests on Ancient Egyptian mummies. I actually asked him about this but he stopped replying to my emails.
What's important to recognize is that Keita draws the same conclusion from the research that most of us do in regards to skin color even though he answers the question cautiously. He is not of the opinion that the modern Egyptian population is reflective of what the Ancient Egyptians looked like. He believes that during the Dynastic period the Upper Egyptian to Nubian complexion was dominant.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So says the moron who claims the ancient Egyptians were "caucasians"! LOL
Keita works to undermine race because 'race' does NOT exist as a scientific entity. But of course you are too ignorant to know this
You people don't have to post a shitload of images, that everybody knows already, each time you want to undermine that Egypt is BLACK, which I wont agree with anyway, no matter how often you post Queen Tiy's ugly bust.
David Duke has a nice video about this topic - yes I know everybody hates him - but what he says makes more sense than globalist funded science that wants to turn every human into the same grey consumer mass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU4cvmk44MQ
I'm sure many African Americans would also prefer to live in their own self-governed society, have their own schools that advocate their individual racial strengths, and respect the way of life they want to live.
Duke is such a snake oil salesman.
He starts with a strawman that modern scientists maintain that race is only skin deep then in typical racialist fashion points out one evident biological difference between populations (physiological variation leading to differences in athletic potential) and proceed to point out the discredited research of Rushton on racial differences in brain size and structure.
He then talks about how wonderful it is to respect human differences leaving out the fact that the research he quotes is obviously racist and socially harmful to human progress.
I'm actually working on getting a video debate uploaded to Youtube with Rushton where he gets his ass kicked in a debate with an evolutionary biologist named Joseph L Graves (who interestingly enough is an African-American who maintains that there are no biological races).
This racist pseudoscience needs to be debunked at every turn.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question about the skincolor of Egyptians is irrelevant anyway. A Caucasian is a Caucasian, no matter if he's white or dark brown. Why dont you ask Keita if they were "black men" or "negroes" or whatever you wanna call the 'race' (which doesnt exist according to keita).
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: I'm actually working on getting a video debate uploaded to Youtube with Rushton where he gets his ass kicked in a debate with an evolutionary biologist named Joseph L Graves (who interestingly enough is an African-American who maintains that there are no biological races).
This racist pseudoscience needs to be debunked at every turn.
why dont you get a video debate with David Duke and some other guy you like. That would be more interesting to see... if Duke gets destroyed or the other one (or none if both manage to stand their ground well).
Posts: 223 | From: Germania | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by viola75: What is a caucasian???
obviously there are a few groups of different people on the planet. I dont care how you call them. white-black-asian-... what do you suggest we use?
Posts: 223 | From: Germania | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheHorsenation: The question about the skincolor of Egyptians is irrelevant anyway. A Caucasian is a Caucasian, no matter if he's white or dark brown. Why dont you ask Keita if they were "black men" or "negroes" or whatever you wanna call the 'race' (which doesnt exist according to keita).
Caucasian is an outdated anthropological term with no scientific value.
I didn't ask Keita if they were "Black men" or "Negroes" because I know he doesn't use that sort of terminology. At the end of the day we want to know what the Ancient Egyptians looked like. What sort of physical traits did they have.
Anyone who can read knows that Keita maintains that the Ancient Egyptians were biologically African. What is less obvious is what it means to be biologically African and what the Ancient Egyptians actually looked like. I think I asked him the right question and he gave me an appropriate answer.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
Djehuti, posts the same tired cherry picked picture spam all the time. It actually does a disservice to the Afrocentric movement. The selection shows either the darker shade of brown or the lips and are relatively full and nose relatively flat with wide nostrils.
There better tactic from a more sophisticated Afrocentric approach is to post major earlier dynasty artifacts (especially pharaohs) of which there are many that are a relatively lighter shade of brown and with thinner lips and noses and maintain that they were 100% African.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheHorsenation: The question about the skincolor of Egyptians is irrelevant anyway. A Caucasian is a Caucasian, no matter if he's white or dark brown. Why dont you ask Keita if they were "black men" or "negroes" or whatever you wanna call the 'race' (which doesnt exist according to keita).
Caucasian is an outdated anthropological term with no scientific value.
I didn't ask Keita if they were "Black men" or "Negroes" because I know he doesn't use that sort of terminology. At the end of the day we want to know what the Ancient Egyptians looked like. What sort of physical traits did they have.
Anyone who can read knows that Keita maintains that the Ancient Egyptians were biologically African. What is less obvious is what it means to be biologically African and what the Ancient Egyptians actually looked like. I think I asked him the right question and he gave me an appropriate answer.
No, you were certainly far from objective in your questions Jaime. I took the task of emailing Keita to clarify seome things but I haven't gotten a reply, maybe I was given the wrong email address perhaps.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: No, you were certainly far from objective in your questions Jaime. I took the task of emailing Keita to clarify seome things but I haven't gotten a reply, maybe I was given the wrong email address perhaps.
I can give you the email address I used to contact him. He stopped replying to me after a few exchanges though. I'm surprised that he took the time to do a lengthy phone interview with Salsassin.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: No, you were certainly far from objective in your questions Jaime. I took the task of emailing Keita to clarify seome things but I haven't gotten a reply, maybe I was given the wrong email address perhaps.
I can give you the email address I used to contact him. He stopped replying to me after a few exchanges though. I'm surprised that he took the time to do a lengthy phone interview with Salsassin.
I'm not saying you didn't raise any valid points but it is most certainly not true that "Afrocentrists" believe Africans look only one way, in fact on my board and in my own posts I have argued against that. I have always argued that Africans are Africans and there are many different variants of Africans and that none of them have a more privileged position phenotypically over the other.
If can just PM me his email.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic