posted
If we as Historians, Anthropologists and Biologists(and this goes out to only serious educated posters) advocate that there is one race, and that so called "Negro" features don't exist then why do we claim Egypt was "Black". Im mean are we not using our Western notion of Black and imposing it on A. Egypt??
Is there another Term we can use that properly establishes Egypts African and Southerly origins with out seeming to use a double standard.
Opinions?? How do yall(Only Serious intelligent posters) feel, explain to me how I am wrong?? I think if some of us get up in Arms about using Negro when we should also not use black because in all the years I have been here all the debates stem down to one commong factor what WE consider to be "Black" which has variation to what the establishment considers "black" which is "Negro".
I mean are we not fighting a circular battle??
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This same problem was posed to the National Black Police Association (United Kingdom).
In UK if white person starts an organisation for whites only it is considered racist. Yet the National Black Police Association (United Kingdom) is a black organisation that only accepts blacks. Whites cannot join as members.
When accused of racism (only by the BNP might i add) the ''National Black Police Association (United Kingdom)'' has responded:
''The definition of "Black" does not refer to skin colour. The emphasis is on the common experience and determination of people of African, African-Caribbean and Asian origin.''
So there you have it 'black egypt' was not black racially only it was 'black' in the sense of a common experience and determination of people of African, African-Caribbean and Asian origin. Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ausar if anyone responds to the above poster or Rahotep please delete this thread. Non Prophet is O.K as he is less of a troll than the former two thanks Ausar..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many Africans from places like the Sahara/Sahel, the Horn, North Sudan, and Upper Egypt who would be described as black by many here actually do not necessarily view themselves as such in their own societies. Often they describe themselves as ‘reds’ (or variants thereof) and have other descriptions for darker people south of them.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only term I can think of besides 'black' to described the ancient Egyptians is African--dark-skinned native Africans that is.
Posts: 98 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really advocate for us calling them anything. At all. In fact.
But in general, as in today, since I thought this thread was going to be about it as a social construct in general -> why is black at all used?
Well, it's a social construct. People just use it. It's part ethnonym and can discribe physical appearance (and with emphasis extreme physical appearance, as in Wesley Snipes). Hope that helps. In a non-Western sense there are someplaces where the people look hardly black and have called themselves such and then there's the heart of Africa where people who would be called black here (in the U.S.) are not called it.
Back on the Kemetian question though, is there a term, etc.
Well, I don't think the name for the continent even existed back then and a number of cultures or at least two cultures, the Nile River Valley and Greco-Roman cultures, held ethno-cultural conceps that transcended Africa and Asia: the Greek Aethiopia and the Egyptian Kemetian vs. Deshretian thing both said f**k the "African" border. Also, the word Africa is just a geographic term, a title for a piece of land (and the Egyptians knew the difference between a piece of land and a real nation or city), wasn't Africa and Eurasia all connected at one point anywho?
When I'm talking about this advanced civilization though my opinions would stay the same about no matter what label is used, so I really couldn't give a f**k. Also, if you did give a hoot, in saying like that Rome was Nordic or something, and the other side saying that it hugged the Mediterranean Sea, it's like there are so likely to be exceptions to any rule with how un-isolated these civilizations were that the best you could do if you were butt horny for either gay scenario would be to just let the opposite of your arguement fly so folks could see how bad it fits. Even with nations as multiethic as Rome/Greece I would not advocate a "multi-cultural" approach even, what I'm saying here is that no approach wins hands down because they're all attempts to picture paint not to mention people are always free to paint pictures themselves at whatever you're both looking at whether it's their artwork or other stuffs.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
What you seem to be doing is equating black soley with Negroid, hence you see a discrepency involved.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: advocate that there is one race, and that so called "Negro" features don't exist
Not sure anyone says these features don't exist.
What to understand here is that the lumping of all indigenous Africans under one label of Negroid is the fallacious part, while the features do exist, but are simply one of the variations within indigenous Africans.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Im mean are we not using our Western notion of Black and imposing it on A. Egypt??
Not really, as you note the wests idea of black is only "Negroid", when in reality there are blacks in Africa who do not fit the Negroid profile, you know this, so black does not simply = Negroid.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
See thats my whole point. Also don't forget Africans even in the diaspora have "Reds". In America a Red Bone is "Black" but def. not seen as the same as a Dark Skinned person. this is probably different than Africans who have not interacted with Europeans and Hispanics etc as much so they don't see "Reds" as just as Black as a Dark Skinned person.
This seems to exist all over Africa and even Egyptians themselves showed African "Reds" and "blacks"
Abbysinia even had this same notion of Reds and Blacks...
Good point.
quote:Originally posted by Manu: Many Africans from places like the Sahara/Sahel, the Horn, North Sudan, and Upper Egypt who would be described as black by many here actually do not necessarily view themselves as such in their own societies. Often they describe themselves as ‘reds’ (or variants thereof) and have other descriptions for darker people south of them.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally prefer Tropically adapted but it may be too scientific for the average lay person. Plus I have heard that Tropically adapted people are not always what we would consider black. Some claim the Modern Egyptians in the Delta and the Light Skinned Berbers are Tropical Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Khufu: The only term I can think of besides 'black' to described the ancient Egyptians is African--dark-skinned native Africans that is.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) you keep claiming there is 'diversity' in blacks.
When I speak of diversity I am speaking of phenotypic and genetic diversity which is way higher in Africa than elsewhere, this has been confirmed over and over.
From Larry Angel onto A. Manica et al...
We know;
quote: Lead researcher, Dr Andrea Manica from the University's Department of Zoology, explained: "The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate. Our genetic research shows the further modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population.
"However, some have used skull data to argue that modern humans originated in multiple spots around the world. We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area in Sub-saharan Africa."
The research team found that genetic diversity decreased in populations the further away from Africa they were. - a result of 'bottlenecks' or events that temporarily reduced populations during human migration. They then studied an exceptionally large sample of human skulls.
Taking a set of measurements across all the skulls the team ***showed that not only was variation highest amongst the sample from south eastern Africa but that it did decrease at the same rate as the genetic data the further the skull was away from Africa.***
To ensure the validity of their single origin evidence the researchers attempted to use their data to find non-African origins for modern humans. Research Dr Francois Balloux explains: "To test the alternative theory for the origin of modern humans we tried to find an additional, non-African origin. We found this just did not work. Our findings show that humans originated in a single area in Sub-Saharan Africa."
posted
Physical diversity is only found in the white race. A typical white family has blondes, redheads and brunettes and a range of eyes colours.
Blacks in contrast are wooly black haired and dark eyed.
Therefore to claim black africans are physically diverse is retarded.
All blacks look the same. This was demonstrated by mike and others where they claimed red and blonde hair and all the other diverse hair colours in whites are ''albino traits only''.
You must hate looking in the mirror knowing your race all looks the same?
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): @ Jari
What you seem to be doing is equating black soley with Negroid, hence you see a discrepency involved.
I will admit that my O.P does seem that way but let me explain my self better. I don't think black equals negro, I consider black to be any Dark skinned native of Africa.
However what I am saying is that the word black has always been equated with Negro. When we use "Black" Most people think Negro. Now I realize that its fallacious with all the evidence proving African diversity but many people will still equate Negro with black.
I will use an example, the word "Gay" originally meant Happy but now no serious person would say they are "Gay"(Happy) without conjuring up the image of Homosexuality. The same can be kinda said about "Black" it seems we are fighting a circular battle.
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): @ JariWhat to understand here is that the lumping of all indigenous Africans under one label of Negroid is the fallacious part, while the features do exist, but are simply one of the variations within indigenous Africans.
I agree 100%
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): Not really, as you note the wests idea of black is only "Negroid", when in reality there are blacks in Africa who do not fit the Negroid profile, you know this, so black does not simply = Negroid.
This is what I mean, so if black=negriod in the Western sense and in the minds of majority of Western peoples are we not fighting a never ending battle using "Black" and at the same time claiming black are diverse. Im just asking, I mean like I said I agree 100% that Africans are diverse and that black does not mean Negriod but many people don't see it that way.
On a side note I have was asked by a professor if I thought the Egyptians were "black" and I said "Yes" to which he replied that I owed him "Slavery Reparations" because "my people" held his people(The Jews) as slaves. If any lay person asked me if I believe the A. Egyptians were Black I would say yes.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: See thats my whole point. Also don't forget Africans even in the diaspora have "Reds". In America a Red Bone is "Black" but def. not seen as the same as a Dark Skinned person. this is probably different than Africans who have not interacted with Europeans and Hispanics etc as much so they don't see "Reds" as just as Black as a Dark Skinned person.
This seems to exist all over Africa and even Egyptians themselves showed African "Reds" and "blacks"
Abbysinia even had this same notion of Reds and Blacks...
Good point.
Right. There are people they painted medium skinned / brown and called "red" and just like Native Americans got called red, rednecks git called red and Near Eastern examples of calling whites "red".
So even if originally in part in reference to physicall appearance, it's subjective, though, the Nehesy wearing red wigs makes me wonder about those, but then I wouldn't be surprised because at different times there were different groups who were enemies and so probably considered aliens -- let's not forget that at one time the Medjay were part of the Nine (9) Bows and also it was learned that the Hyksos had had Nehesy espionage help.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
dark-skinned native Africans that is ========
AFROCENTRIC NUTTERS DEBUNKED -
BLONDE HAIRED WHITE NATIVES OF NORTH AFRICA
The Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax (4th century BC) described fair haired Libyans (Geograohi Graeci Minores, Vol. 1, p. 88, Col. B).
The poet Callimachus in the 3rd century BC described blonde haired Libyan women (Hymn II to Apollo, 85).
The Roman author Lucan (61 AD) wrote of auburn haired, white skinned Libyans (Pharsalia, 10. 155).
Procopius wrote of a native North African tribe who were ''white in body and fair haired'' (History of the Wars, xiii. 26-29).
Pausanias also recorded Berber deities with blue eyes (1. 14. 6).
Antaeus the Libyan giant who Herakles slew, is depicted on Greek pottery as pale skinned and red-golden haired.
========
So where are these straight red or blonde haired, white skinned negroids?
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: A typical white family has blondes, redheads and brunettes and a range of eyes colours.
Your mum mustve been one busy lady with the milk, mail and delivery man to have all those different hair and eye colors...lol
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: However what I am saying is that the word black has always been equated with Negro.
So this means you must stop using the term when you know better?
Of course not.
As people become more educated on the subject this thinking will have no other choice but to cease, or else they'll be blatantly ignoring bio-anthropological data.
If one chooses not to accept the bio- anthropolgical data that's on them, but you know better.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I will use an example, the word "Gay" originally meant Happy but now no serious person would say they are "Gay"(Happy) without conjuring up the image of Homosexuality. The same can be kinda said about "Black" it seems we are fighting a circular battle.
What you're describing here is preferential identification.
Who wants to be identified with who and what not..
There is no battle, the bio-anthro data speaks for itself and has won a long time ago.
We know who's black and who is not.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): Not really, as you note the wests idea of black is only "Negroid", when in reality there are blacks in Africa who do not fit the Negroid profile, you know this, so black does not simply = Negroid.
This is what I mean, so if black=negriod in the Western sense and in the minds of majority of Western peoples are we not fighting a never ending battle using "Black" and at the same time claiming black are diverse. Im just asking, I mean like I said I agree 100% that Africans are diverse and that black does not mean Negriod but many people don't see it that way.
What you seem to be doing is trying to pander to others emotions, instead of going with what you know is right.
Like I said, so what if people want to be ignorant to the facts readily available, it's their problem not yours.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: This is what I mean, so if black=negriod in the Western sense
Actually the Western sense of the word is very broad and leaves much room for variation.
It is the continental archityping idea you refer to.
Really though, and simply, if folks would expect an area that much larger than the whole of North America to all look alike, or exactly the same - while we have people of various phenotype all on similar latitude: Native Americans, Chinese, French - then that's their dumbas fault.
Even using the name of the continent in general and as if to put some emphasis somewhere can be lackluster to me, and although pan-Africanism is a thing and if I recall two early pan-Africanists were Nasser and Nkrumah (Egypt and Nigeria), not everyone on the continent agrees -- different peoples don't get along, and are like **** that idea.
That is all.
quote:Ausar if anyone responds to the above poster or Rahotep please delete this thread. Non Prophet is O.K as he is less of a troll than the former two thanks Ausar..
posted
Of course it is, and as long as YOU continue to confuse perception with reality, then you will continue to become stuck in the contradiction. All humans share identical inventories of biological subsystems and components.
The only real delta between humans is hue, which is in itself, a social construct created to define what we see, without actually understanding exactly what it is we are actually seeing. Thus, we define optic interpretation of energies within a specific range while exhibiting specific characteristics as; Blue, Green, Red, etc. Hue is solely based on optical perception of specific wavelengths of radiation being absorbed and emitted to the observer's optic perception of reflected radiation(s). Therefore, the social construct called RACE is solely based on hue (black, red, yellow), or non-hue (white) based on MELANIN filtered, optic perceptions of band shifted radiation.
The above being absolute, shows the world being comprised of two forms of humans; Original Hued (Majority), and Derived Hue-less (Minority).
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree partly with what Jari says, but what I don’t get about what you say Jari, is that ‘’Negro’’ somehow conflicts with the idea that there is only one human race. I get the feeling that you’re buying a little too much into what that retard Lioness is saying. What I will say is that the terms have multiple applications that are highly inconsistent, ie both black and white can mean different things and include different groups, depending on who you ask, just like Negro and Caucasian can mean different things and include different groups, depending on who you ask. You are right when you say Negro doesn't exist as a concrete thing, since it has never been defined and/or strictly followed. If you want to know which terms to use to refer to different African groups you can look up Keita and Hiernaux, they have conjured up plenty of terms that I consider relatively free of problems. Saharo-tropical variants, Elongated types, Broad featured types, Tropical groups, Equatorial Africans, Coastal North African type(s), just to name a few.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
If we as Historians, Anthropologists and Biologists(and this goes out to only serious educated posters) advocate that there is one race, and that so called "Negro" features don't exist then why do we claim Egypt was "Black". Im mean are we not using our Western notion of Black and imposing it on A. Egypt??
Nope, because the idea of considerably pigmented folks being referred to as "black" is not a 'Western notion' of Blacks. The traditional "Western notion" is to attach cranio-facial archetypes to these sort of words.
quote: Some claim the Modern Egyptians in the Delta and the Light Skinned Berbers are Tropical Africans.
Who are these "some", and why do they say this?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: [QB] Physical diversity is only found in the white race. A typical white family has blondes, redheads and brunettes and a range of eyes colours.
Blacks in contrast are wooly black haired and dark eyed.
Therefore to claim black africans are physically diverse is retarded.
All blacks look the same.
This is profoundly stupid. Physical diversity is not solely determined by hair type, eye and skin color. It is also largely determined by body type and facial features. These are less superficial and more structural. You cannot see this because your perception is very weak. You act like the only way you can tell two people apart is if one person has red hair and the other blond. The retardation is on you.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: the idea of considerably pigmented folks being referred to as "black" is not a 'Western notion' of Blacks.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I stand by my statement that the South African Bushmen are not black. They are subtropically rather than fully tropically adapted as evidenced by their limb proportions and relatively light skin. Have a problem with that?
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ We know who's black and who is not.
If one chooses not to accept the bio- anthropolgical data that's on them, but you know better.
posted
changes noted, edited you said those words but they were taken out of context with a misleading result, my mistake
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have retracted the strong language used against you, since you made said "change". You shouldn't be going around even quoting people totally out of context, and then accusing them of flip flopping. Even the quotation you have above for me, is still out of context, but I'll give it a pass, because anyone reading this thread should be able to see the original one on top.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
People, notice how docile "The Explorer" is to whites. No referencing them as slaves or other slave related insults that we have all seen him hurl at people whom he considers "Black Africans".
Why is this "Explorer"?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just call them what they were, "Egyptians." How hard is that? Very hard when one has a racial agenda.
Posts: 1340 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are we willing to stop using the term White when referring to Western Eurasians for one will not work without the other,and then you have ancients who apply the term black to themselves the "Kemites were one such folk regardless of their actual individual complexion. another is Sumerians and Babylonians with Saggigga and Salmat respectively regardless of their features.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black isn't only about skin color. There is more to notice. It's clear people that shared the commonality of adversity have united with this identity under the banner. Black is sometimes more recognized as a matter of perception and mental state more so than a reality. In the case of attributing the black identity to the Ancient Egyptians, this is because of the evident affinity they share with the indigenous people of Africa or whose ancestors are indigenous to Africa bearing our identity. This is reflected along multiple lines of evidence to the point that it is nothing but faithful and appropriate to designate the black identity to this civilization and its people.
Posts: 535 | From: From the Darkest of the Abyss | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Are we willing to stop using the term White when referring to Western Eurasians?
What a ridiculous idea. You will look like Pentecostal Christians holding hands in public and praying out loud to Jesus. Only difference is in your case you're not making things up.
'White' as far as most people understand it relates to skin color and nothing else. Though they use the term 'race', most people don't have a clue (besides nationality and hair-type) what other characteristics might add to meaning of the 'Race' idea. The irony here being that nationality and hair-type are not characterics that can be used to identify a person's "original" identity (the instinctive definition of Race really has to do with Origin). Most people's thinking is very surface level, they won't get it.
Posts: 525 | From: Terra | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^You know what, I've noticed that too that white is basically just phenotype but then again their are some folks who otherwise would be included in white and would say I'm not white I'm Jewish, etc, I've even heard the rediculous sounding I'm not white I'm Irish, but I've seen others of ethnies the same as those that deflected the 'wHite' label described as white and hold no objections like "I'm white. Alright, I'm white, that's great. No biggy."
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Sumerians and Babylonians with Saggigga and Salmat respectively regardless of their features.
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): this means you must stop using the term when you know better?
Of course not.
Well I use the term because it is much more easy to say black than a more scientific term like Tropical Adapted. When I say black it is much easier for people to know what I mean.
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): As people become more educated on the subject this thinking will have no other choice but to cease, or else they'll be blatantly ignoring bio-anthropological data.
I hope so, but think about it even Keita does'nt use the word. I always guessed it was because of the very same reasons, that becuase the average Lay person associates Black with one type of African feature its not worth having to explain African Diversity everytime he uses the word. From what I gather about Keita he believes what most here believe that Africans are very diverse.
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): If one chooses not to accept the bio- anthropolgical data that's on them, but you know better.
What you're describing here is preferential identification.
Who wants to be identified with who and what not..
There is no battle, the bio-anthro data speaks for itself and has won a long time ago.
We know who's black and who is not.
I guess the best thing to do is to get the info out via scribd, facebook and Youtube. As far as I can tell mainstream Biogists, Historians et al are not doing anything direct to change the status quo, most either avoid using black or use 19th-20th century racial classifications for Africans.
I guess it is up to us.
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): What you seem to be doing is trying to pander to others emotions, instead of going with what you know is right.
Like I said, so what if people want to be ignorant to the facts readily available, it's their problem not yours.
Trust me Im not Pandering to anyone. People who come here read the same Data and studies we do an continue to use Caucasian and Negro to segregate Africans are lower than trash, they are not my concern. My questions are just that questions, something for us to ponder and consider Im not attacking or saying we should abandon using black but that we should realize alot of the debates stem down to what is "black".
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I finished this thread I proof read my post an realized It sounded like somethings Lioness says. PLEASE PLEASE don't think I came to this because of Lioness. What she does is go to the extreem by trying to say that Indians and Tanned Europeans can be included as black and try to claim tanned Europeans fit the Reddish Brown Egyptian skin tone. Im not advocating such stupidity, my questions arose from what your latter post says that black seems to differ from person to person.
I agree with you post you seem to get where I am at...
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I agree partly with what Jari says, but what I don’t get about what you say Jari, is that ‘’Negro’’ somehow conflicts with the idea that there is only one human race. I get the feeling that you’re buying a little too much into what that retard Lioness is saying. What I will say is that the terms have multiple applications that are highly inconsistent, ie both black and white can mean different things and include different groups, depending on who you ask, just like Negro and Caucasian can mean different things and include different groups, depending on who you ask. You are right when you say Negro doesn't exist as a concrete thing, since it has never been defined and/or strictly followed. If you want to know which terms to use to refer to different African groups you can look up Keita and Hiernaux, they have conjured up plenty of terms that I consider relatively free of problems. Saharo-tropical variants, Elongated types, Broad featured types, Tropical groups, Equatorial Africans, Coastal North African type(s), just to name a few.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Nope, because the idea of considerably pigmented folks being referred to as "black" is not a 'Western notion' of Blacks. The traditional "Western notion" is to attach cranio-facial archetypes to these sort of words.
Ok!! So then when you use black its about skin color, so darkskinned folks not native to Africa and more related to non Africans like Australian Aboriginals be considered black to you.
Anyway I agree that facial features to describe black is fallacious, but when we use black most people associate it with facial features and Negro. This means for example when we say the Egyptians were black some think Negro when in reality we mean they fit into the diversity of Africans not that they were Negro.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: [QB] Who are these "some", and why do they say this?
Mathilda seems to advocate that Modern Egyptians and we all know she means the Delta Phenotype are Tropically adapted.
When Salsassin released his interview with Keita I had a conversation with him and he claims that the Light Berbers are tropically adapted. Even Keita said in a video here that the "Blond Blue Eyed" Berbers could have evolved in Africa. I would have to look at the video again to get his exact words but what I get from him is that the Light Berbers could have evolved in Africa.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
People, a sure indication of a liar and/or a loon who doesn't know what he's talking about, is that they run from questions or demands for evidential substantiation.
We're waiting -Just Call Me Jari-..............
What is "dark-skinned"?
Is an Ethiopian whose skin is yellow colored, black?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: If we as Historians, Anthropologists and Biologists(and this goes out to only serious educated posters) advocate that there is one race, and that so called "Negro" features don't exist then why do we claim Egypt was "Black". Im mean are we not using our Western notion of Black and imposing it on A. Egypt??
Is there another Term we can use that properly establishes Egypts African and Southerly origins with out seeming to use a double standard.
Opinions?? How do yall(Only Serious intelligent posters) feel, explain to me how I am wrong?? I think if some of us get up in Arms about using Negro when we should also not use black because in all the years I have been here all the debates stem down to one commong factor what WE consider to be "Black" which has variation to what the establishment considers "black" which is "Negro".
I mean are we not fighting a circular battle??
The AEs need not be referred to as "Black" as much as it should be emphasized that their closest relatives are in fact groups who westerners traditionally referred to as Black. This exposes the hypocrisy. Quite literally, they were native Africans in the same sense that Aztecs were Native Americans, but we don't jump around calling the Aztecs "red people" and defending their "redness". There is a more refined way of making the same point, as I did in a recent paper, by inextricably tying them bio-culturally to the majority of the African continent.
Evidence speaks for its self, so if it can be shown that there were close similarities in language, culture, and skeletal structure between AEs and Africans traditionally classed as "Blacks", then people will be forced to either impose onto them this identity or do away with the term completely while acknowledging the relationship. The latter occurs as people realize that "Black" and "Ancient Egyptian" is a false dichotomy, which is the main reason some still insist on referring to them as "Black" (because other, more southernly Africans are still referred to as such by a majority of scholars, media, and lay persons without hesitation or fear of ridicule).
^I do not criticize those who wish to refer to the AEs as Black within the realm of social constructs if it is simply meant to address the underlying relationships as noted, or meant to undermine that false dichotomy. As soon as there is no false dichotomy, the term "Black" as applied wouldn't be useful (in other words, Eurocentric propaganda gives Afrocentrists fuel; it is a reactionary response to call them Black).
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Good point on the EThiopians that are yellow skinned.
BUT
None of the women in your pic is "Yellow". I think these people are closer to the yellow that we see in the Pics of Old Kingdom Egypt and East Africans in general:
^2nd women
Hopefully you can add some real yellow Africans to your collage to show the difference and that Yellow is built into Black Africans like the Khoisan, Tigre, Amhara etc.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Hopefully you can add some real yellow Africans to your collage to show the difference and that Yellow is built into Black Africans like the Khoisan, Tigre, Amhara etc.
Peace
Indeed, you'd be amazed at how many "intelligent" people aren't aware of this little tidbit. Just recently in my South African history class we were discussing the San and my professor gave a description of their physical appearance, and once she mentioned that they were traditionally described as "yellowish-brown" in complexion, a hand immediately flew up from a student asking where these light-skinned Africans/San came from and how'd they get all the way to South Africa. Of course my professor is a historian and also has an accent, so she bumbled in trying to explain it from an anthropological perspective to which I had to interject and school my compatriot on how diversity works.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: The AEs need not be referred to as "Black" as much as it should be emphasized that their closest relatives are in fact groups who westerners traditionally referred to as Black. This exposes the hypocrisy. Quite literally, they were native Africans in the same sense that Aztecs were Native Americans, but we don't jump around calling the Aztecs "red people" and defending their "redness".
This is what Im sort of driving at.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: There is a more refined way of making the same point, as I did in a recent paper, by inextricably tying them bio-culturally to the majority of the African continent.
I agree I notice all that trolls can come here and argue all day over what is black and what is not in reguards to Egypt but they always avoid and run from the Bio-anthro studies that link Egypt to Africans over Eurasians.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Evidence speaks for its self, so if it can be shown that there were close similarities in language, culture, and skeletal structure between AEs and Africans traditionally classed as "Blacks", then people will be forced to either impose onto them this identity or do away with the term completely while acknowledging the relationship. The latter occurs as people realize that "Black" and "Ancient Egyptian" is a false dichotomy, which is the main reason some still insist on referring to them as "Black" (because other, more southernly Africans are still referred to as such by a majority of scholars, media, and lay persons without hesitation or fear of ridicule). ^I do not criticize those who wish to refer to the AEs as Black within the realm of social constructs if it is simply meant to address the underlying relationships as noted, or meant to undermine that false dichotomy. As soon as there is no false dichotomy, the term "Black" as applied wouldn't be useful (in other words, Eurocentric propaganda gives Afrocentrists fuel--it is a reactionary response to call them Black).
Im not trying to criticize fellow members who use black to describe Egypt and other Africans. I think they have given valid points on this topic. For example when someone such as Mind or explorer uses black I know what they are referreing to. Im just bringing up something I noticed in some recent debates...What I consider black is different than what others consider black no matter how much I shoe that Africans have variation. This is why I have stopped engaging trolls there is no point in debating willfull idiots but I also notice that the Average Lay person equates black with negro.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Big ups King I will add your suggestions..thanks!!
quote:Originally posted by KING: -Just Call Me Jari-
Good point on the EThiopians that are yellow skinned.
BUT
None of the women in your pic is "Yellow". I think these people are closer to the yellow that we see in the Pics of Old Kingdom Egypt and East Africans in general:
^2nd women
Hopefully you can add some real yellow Africans to your collage to show the difference and that Yellow is built into Black Africans like the Khoisan, Tigre, Amhara etc.
Peace
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
^^These pics also debunks people like Rahotep who believe that Ancient Egyptian women painted yellow, meant that it could not be "Black" Women.. It shows there is light skinned Africans without admixture.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: What I consider black is different than what others consider black no matter how much I shoe that Africans have variation. This is why I have stopped engaging trolls there is no point in debating willfull idiots but I also notice that the Average Lay person equates black with negro.
^Agreed. Therein lies the problem as people will use different markers to establish identity, hence such terms are never objective. What every literate person with a brain can agree on is the data (how they interpret it is up to them).
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The American definition of "black" is pretty damn schizo. There is definitely the widespread idea of "black facial features" which is the "True Negro" concept Jari is referring to, but on the other hand Northeast Africans and even people with only partial tropical African ancestry are classified as "black" by most Americans.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: The AEs need not be referred to as "Black" as much as it should be emphasized that their closest relatives are in fact groups who westerners traditionally referred to as Black.
I concur with this. People have no right to call Northeast Africans in general or biracial people like Barack Obama or Halle Berry "black" if they're not willing to do the same for the Egyptians. If you insist on sorting people into racial categories, at least be consistent about it.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox: ^You know what, I've noticed that too that white is basically just phenotype but then again their are some folks who otherwise would be included in white and would say I'm not white I'm Jewish, etc, I've even heard the rediculous sounding I'm not white I'm Irish, but I've seen others of ethnies the same as those that deflected the 'wHite' label described as white and hold no objections like "I'm white. Alright, I'm white, that's great. No biggy."
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: If we as Historians, Anthropologists and Biologists(and this goes out to only serious educated posters) advocate that there is one race, and that so called "Negro" features don't exist then why do we claim Egypt was "Black". Im mean are we not using our Western notion of Black and imposing it on A. Egypt??
Is there another Term we can use that properly establishes Egypts African and Southerly origins with out seeming to use a double standard.
Opinions?? How do yall(Only Serious intelligent posters) feel, explain to me how I am wrong?? I think if some of us get up in Arms about using Negro when we should also not use black because in all the years I have been here all the debates stem down to one commong factor what WE consider to be "Black" which has variation to what the establishment considers "black" which is "Negro".
I mean are we not fighting a circular battle??
Well, the founders were several tribes from the Sahara/ Sahel. So Sahellians/ Saharans is the fairest term, the implication is that simple. The Sahel/ Sahara is also the bridge which connects all Africans.
I dislike term forced upon us by westerners / Europeans, so I understand your complainment.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic