posted
I find it interesting that the Egyptians, perhaps the greatest people in mans history; have had foreign rulership forced on them for over 2,500 years.
They are a captive people in their own land, and have been for over 2,500 years. Yet nobody has anything to say about it.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: It is frequently stated that the Egyptian indices, crural in the case of Stringer and Gamble, pertain to modern Egyptians (as well).
The study being cited describes predynastic Egyptians, not modern ones.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: I find it interesting that the Egyptians, perhaps the greatest people in mans history; have had foreign rulership forced on them for over 2,500 years.
They are a captive people in their own land, and have been for over 2,500 years. Yet nobody has anything to say about it.
We talk about it all the time. The Civilization known as Khemet has been destroyed. Egypt as a country has gone through many cultural changes.
What mainstream Egyptologists and Western historians seem to ignore and some of them want to ignore is the evidence for changes in demographic that came along with the culture.
I consider the denial of the bio-cultural roots and Africanity of Ancient Egypt tantamount to saying that Aztec Civilization was a Latino culture and that the people who live in Mexico today were unaffected by the invasion of the Spaniards who changed culture, language and to a degree population genetics.
Any serious discussion of "race" and history especially concerning "Black" history has to begin with the true history of African people and the attempt at cultural denial by the Eurocentric Western establishment.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: I consider the denial of the bio-cultural roots and Africanity of Ancient Egypt tantamount to saying that Aztec Civilization was a Latino culture and that the people who live in Mexico today were unaffected by the invasion of the Spaniards who changed culture, language and to a degree population genetics.
It's even more ridiculous, actually, especially when you consider that Mexico has much more habitable space and has been occupied by lighter-skinned people for a much shorter time than Egypt.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
What mainstream Egyptologists and Western historians seem to ignore and some of them want to ignore is the evidence for changes in demographic that came along with the culture.
I consider the denial of the bio-cultural roots and Africanity of Ancient Egypt tantamount to saying that Aztec Civilization was a Latino culture and that the people who live in Mexico today were unaffected by the invasion of the Spaniards who changed culture, language and to a degree population genetics.
Any serious discussion of "race" and history especially concerning "Black" history has to begin with the true history of African people and the attempt at cultural denial by the Eurocentric Western establishment. [/QB]
__Libyan
Does a Libyan of the type like this one have "Africanity" ?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny that you should bring that up. Apparently the actress "Eva Longoria" was very disappointed when she found out - by DNA testing - the she was NOT an "Aztec Princess". She just ASSUMED that because she was Mexican, she was therefore related to the original people of Mexico. Ya, just like the Turks in Egypt.
Of course, if she had bothered to look at images of the Aztec, she would have seen immediately, that was NOT the case.
How silly - I see no resemblance.
Too bad the Turks in Egypt don't do the same side-by-side test, perhaps then they too would stop their nonsense.
posted
Yes. Libya is an African country. I'm not so sure however that the Ancient Libyans depicted on Egyptian temple walls have physical characteristics that evolved exclusively in Africa especially given the mtDNA evidence that many North Africans have maternal lineages in common with Europeans.
So did their light skin evolve in Africa or was it introduced there through gene flow? I don't know but I lean towards the gene flow argument. Their culture and language however has an African root.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
What mainstream Egyptologists and Western historians seem to ignore and some of them want to ignore is the evidence for changes in demographic that came along with the culture.
I consider the denial of the bio-cultural roots and Africanity of Ancient Egypt tantamount to saying that Aztec Civilization was a Latino culture and that the people who live in Mexico today were unaffected by the invasion of the Spaniards who changed culture, language and to a degree population genetics.
Any serious discussion of "race" and history especially concerning "Black" history has to begin with the true history of African people and the attempt at cultural denial by the Eurocentric Western establishment.
__Libyan
Does a Libyan of the type like this one have "Africanity" ?
Lioness - Actually if you used "REAL" artifacts instead of "FAKE" artifacts, your question would be VERY EASY to answer!
Would you care to re-ask your question, using this "REAL" artifact?
There is no evidence whatsoever that questions the authenticity of this artifact. In fact the depiction of this Libyan reflects several table of nations depiction and other paintings, wars with the Libyans etc. on tomb walls. If you find a different artifact that you think looks different that doesn't mean it erases all the others you don't like. It just paints a picture of a multiplicity of phenotypes and the Libyans known for being nomadic are widely varied. stop the bull
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: It is frequently stated that the Egyptian indices, crural in the case of Stringer and Gamble, pertain to modern Egyptians (as well).
The study being cited describes predynastic Egyptians, not modern ones.
Can you post the specifics, simply saying that in a discussion won't squash the lies, you know.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: A cautionary tale for the ladies.
When THIS ________________ REALLY ________ looks like _____________ THIS.
He WILL eventually find out!
News Headline - Eva Longoria Not Blameless For Marriage Collapse.
How true!
BTW, Longoria's ancestry is 70% European, 27% Asian/Amerindian, and 3% West SSA. She is also a distant cousin to Yo-Yo Ma who is 100% Chinese descent - Posts: 644 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: Actually nevermind I read that wrong. He's talking about the SAME study. The quote from Racial Awareness is actually in the study but I get the feeling that he is quoting them out of context because why would they release a paper refuting their own results? That makes no sense.
I recommend people read it in full to uncover the context.
I was confused because as soon as I entered this thread and checked, I saw that the guy was clearly referring to something the authors wrote in the same study, and after reading the study, in context, it kind of does seem like they dismissed their own findings. They found something, but were given a false-positive due to fungal contamination.
Also, I don't see this as them "disputing" their own results, they simply reported what they'd found and by the end of the same section, they summarized their findings and found the results to be inconclusive. At least that's what it looks like to me. You're still acting as if you haven't read it yourself?
*Not sure this study should be quoted anymore (at least for polemic purposes). Both quotes may have been parsed and out of context.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The issue is resolved. Both Melanin findings are valid, and both pertain to different regions.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: AND INDEED THE SO-CALLED "INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS" HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MELANIN CONTENT OF THE SKIN - IT CONCERNS AN ANALYSIS OF THE PLACENTA. The skin showed clear melanin content identifying the samples as tropical African.
The authors looked at --Skin - pg 9 --Placenta -pg 10 --Meniscus - pg 10 and 11
It is in the placenta, that the tissues they analyzed had problems and thus yielded inconclusive results. "Racial Awareness" or "Reality" - maybe call that "unreality" lied in trying to imply that the "inconclusive results" were from the skin. It was not skin but placenta. Once again our "biodiversity" moles resort to outright lying and distortion, and yet again, they stand:
posted
^Good work by Zarahan. That said, even if the authors observed said phenomenon [in this case, epidermal melanin] and then went onto deny it, this would not falsify the findings, but rather, question the authors' denial. Under such a hypothetical scenario, willful confusion/denial is nothing new in the field of science, where authors seem to be in denial of their own findings, and attempt to circumvent the material findings. To give an example, consider the following...
Predynastic Egyptian stature and physical proportions
Abstract:
An attempt has been made to estimate male and female Egyptian stature from long bone length using Trotter & Gleser negro stature formulae, previous work by the authors having shown that these rather than white formulae give more consistent results with male dynastic material. Evidence is presented that the tibia length should include the spine in the later (1958) formulae and should exclude it in the earlier (1952) formulae. It is also shown that better results are obtained if the constants in the stature formulae are modified so as to conform more exactly with the basic data published by Trotter & Gleser. When consistency has been achieved in this way, predynastic proportions are founded to be such that distal segments of the limbs are even longer in relation to the proximal segments than they are in modern negroes. Such proportions are termed "super-negroid".
Introduction:
...Robins (1983) and Robins & Shute (1983) have shown that more consistent results are obtained from ancient Egyptian male skeletons if Trotter & Gleser formulae for negro are used, rather than those for whites which have always been applied in the past. This does not mean that ancient Egyptians were negroes; indeed, in their art they clearly distinguished between their own facial features and skin colour and those of people from further south. It does, however, suggest that their physical proportions were more like modern negroes than those of modern whites, with limbs that were relatively long compared with the trunk, and distal segments that were long compared with the proximal segments. If ancient Egyptian males had what may be termed negroid proportions, it seems reasonable that females did likewise. - Robins, 1986.
To this, I wrote elsewhere:
Robins tells us that test results place them anatomically with "negroes", and yet, she seeks to moot this quantifiable fact with some subjective personal interpretation of what ancient Egyptian art supposedly communicates. In other words, her answer to defying the tangible results of a scientific test, was to turn to some intangible subjective personal opinion about Egyptian art; the two are worlds apart. It is akin to saying DNA revelation can be refuted by someone's subjective opinion about what some art may or may not be communicating, as a substitute for counter quantifiable DNA evidence. Furthermore, there is nothing moot about a finding that has been reproduced time and again, as for example, attested to Zakrzewski's reaffirmation. As for the supposition made about the ancient Egyptian female proportions as it relates to their male counterparts, this too had been confirmed in Zakrzewski's work.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: In other words, her answer to defying the tangible results of a scientific test, was to turn to some intangible subjective personal opinion about Egyptian art; the two are worlds apart.
Sounds like lioness a.k.a. lyinass.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: ^ The issue is resolved. Both Melanin findings are valid, and both pertain to different regions.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: AND INDEED THE SO-CALLED "INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS" HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MELANIN CONTENT OF THE SKIN - IT CONCERNS AN ANALYSIS OF THE PLACENTA. The skin showed clear melanin content identifying the samples as tropical African.
The authors looked at --Skin - pg 9 --Placenta -pg 10 --Meniscus - pg 10 and 11
It is in the placenta, that the tissues they analyzed had problems and thus yielded inconclusive results. "Racial Awareness" or "Reality" - maybe call that "unreality" lied in trying to imply that the "inconclusive results" were from the skin. It was not skin but placenta. Once again our "biodiversity" moles resort to outright lying and distortion, and yet again, they stand:
[/QB]
Sorry, I did not catch this. I see that Zarahan is on point now that I double check. Nice. I guess that I see how "racial reality" confused this by simply scanning the document (like I did) instead of thoroughly reading it. Of course in his case, it benefits him to find any resemblance of something that obscures the implications, or like you guys say, he knew and just outright lied. Either way, the guy is horrible.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
[/QB]![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I guess that I see how "racial reality" confused this by simply scanning the document (like I did) instead of thoroughly reading it. Of course in his case, it benefits him to find any resemblance of something that obscures the implications, or like you guys say, he knew and just outright lied. Either way, the guy is horrible.
Printer-friendly view of this topic