quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Blonde hair is an Indo-European marker. Note that in Britain, the only places where you get blondes are in the areas the IE Saxons or Norse were concentrated (limited to the eastern coasts). The areas not impacted by Indo-Europeans (the most of UK) are brunette haired.
LOL at this feminine dude redefining the discussion, and making it about Indo European speakers, instead of ''Nordids''. Answer the question ho': does the presence of blond hair in Northwest Africa, or anywhere else, for that matter, necessitate the migration of a ''Nordid'' population?
IE languages were spread by Aryans of a single racial type:
''Indo-European languages were, at one time, associated with a single, if composite, racial type, and that [...] racial type was an ancestral Nordic." (Coon, 1939)
This racial type was Nordid - depigmentated (blonde, light eyed, white skinned), and sub-dolichocephalic (the Aryans were not broad-headed). The evidence for this is in the literature you are clearly ignorant of, and there is so much of this as discussed by Day (2001). Taking for example India -
quote:Indra is described as blonde (harikesa) in the Rig-Veda. For example John. V. Day in his Indo-European Origins (2001) notes: ''For many, Indra's fair hair and beard point to Aryans or Aryan warriors themselves have fair hair''. On page 115, Day further discusses the relation of Thor to Indra, listing numerous similarities.
In his Indogermanische religionsgeschichte, Friedrich Cornelius (1942) was one of the first scholars to notice that both Thor and Indra both have fair red beards. In the Mahabharata, Indra is described as having a reddish beard (xii. 329. 14.i-ii). Indra's fair beard has been compared to Thor's, furthermore in Old Norse dyja means to ''shake beard'', while in Vedic Sanskrit dhu also means to ''shake'' (Schroder, 1967).
Day provides the following references for a more detailed discussion, ''Indra does resemble the Germanic god Thor, who has a red beard'' cf. Cornelius 1942: 64; Giintert 1934: 77; Schrader 1917-29, I: 633; Schroeder 1923: 180; Vertemont 1997: A4; Winn 1995: 107.
Indra is furthjer described as having destroyed the Dasyans and ''protected the Aryan colour." (III. 34. 9). Obviously therefore he was light skinned and associated with the Nordid racial type (depigmentated, fair haired).
Pantanjali (fl. 150 BC) describes the hair of the Brahmins as golden (Mahabhashya, ii. 2. 6).
''Ethnographic investigations show that the Indo-Aryan type described in the Hindu epics — a tall, fair-complexioned, long-headed race, with narrow, prominent noses'' (Havell, 1918)
Blonde hair was taken into Africa by the same Indo-European (Aryan) Nordids.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Brooke – I’m originally from South Central Los Angeles. I’m Black, Indian and French!
Dumb motherfack, why are you running and hiding? You claimed Brooke Bailey had a white French grandfather or father. She says nothing of the sort above. French background can be French SPEAKING as in Haiti or parts of Louisiana, or parts of the Caribbean. You also had no problem calling African Americans like her "black" when you were bashing them. But all of a sudden she becomes "non-black" when exposing your hypocrisy. That's why I used her specifically to set you up. When asked for proof of these alleged "white" parents you run and hide like a punk. Multiple posts can't hide your incompetence and lying. Where is the proof?
^^ What's taking you so long to provide proof hypocrite fag boy?
Anglo-Hypocrite bellowed: This girl is French and Native American admixed.
Stupid muthafacka. According to your own racialist definitions, Bailey would be "negroid" or "negroid admixed" - in other words black- black both by social construct definitions, and unmistakably by visual phenotype. But your white "role models" including your "Nordids" are themselves "admixed", 1/3 African and 2/3s Asian. Your "Mediterranids" like Greks themselves show a significant proportion of "sub Saharan" DNA. You lose again wanker boy.
Furthermore your hypocrisy is again exposed. In earlier posts, you lament "black criminals" - African-Americans who are your "admixed negroids." You have no problem calling African-Americans "black" when you can bash them as "criminals." But when it comes to African diversity, you then hypocritically switch, and define the same African-AMericans as "non-black."
Tropical Africans are not static entities. are not confined to tropical zones. This is one of the central problems with Eurocentric models- they want to present and use a static, stereotyped picture of tropical Africans as somehow huddled next to some environmental "apartheid" line- whether it be the Sahara or the equator. Some recap points to consider:
8-point recap
1-- The climatic zones of Africa are a moving target historically. The Sahara was once a lush greenbelt for example. Africans live within ALL these zones and adapt to and change with them, just like other humans elsewhere, but they STILL remain African.
2--Tropical Africans range throughout the continent. They are not conveniently confined behind some artificial climatic Jim Crow barrier as credible mainstream scholars repeatedly show.
3-- The data on the peoples of the Nile Valley clearly show ancient Egypt was fundamentally populated by tropically adapted Africans.
4-- The cultural and material data, from religion to pottery, to art, show close links between Egyptians an other tropical Africans.
5-- Limb proportions studies repeatedly show the same physically.
6--Tropical environments have numerous micro- climates, from hot deserts, to cold, cool mountains, to cold jungle, yes jungle plateaus. Tropical Africans again, are not static. They inhabit all these environments WITHIN the tropic zone. Thus narrow noses on the cold slopes, in the thin air of East African mountains are nothing special, and don't need any "race mix" or "wandering Caucasoid" migrations to explain why.
7--Tropical Africans are the most diverse people in the world, and are not bound by mere environmental factors to explain how they look. Broad nosed, tightly curly-haired peoples appear on cold mountain slopes, while narrow nosed, looser-haired peoples show up on West African savannahs and in deserts. As the cradle of modern humanity, the African genetic pool is the base. Thus native peoples in Africa without say a heavy limb proportion index are not necessarily from elsewhere outside Africa. The genetic diversity of Africa, and the environmental diversity (including tropical zone micro-climes or interzones) covers a wide range.
8-- The tropical zone is right adjacent to the sub-tropical zone, with substantial overlap. In fact the Tropic ZOne cuts through part of Southern Egypt. The notion that tropical people from the Sudan cannot walk 100 miles across the artificial climatic line of the Tropic of Cancer into the Nile Valley, and that somehow "wandering Caucasoids" from 900 miles distant are needed to explain a narrow nose, is still part of the Eurocentric mindset, and fulfills the racial agendas of that mindset.
8-- Finally tropical adaptations are deeply embedded in humans, much more so than mere skin color, nose shape or hair texture. This means that when such adaptations are found, you can be sure that the people are indeed related to those from tropic zones. This is why ancient Egyptians cluster with Black Americans on limb proportion measures- both peoples are tropically derived. Again keep in mind that a slice of SOuthern Egypt is within the tropical climate zone.
^^The above model Brooke Bailey is "non-black" when it comes to African diversity, but if some "African American can be labeled a "criminal" then they and she suddenly become "black" again..
^^Chock full of basal epithelial cells packed with melanin... When she can be labeled a criminal she becomes "black" but used to expose Euroccentric hypocrisy as Diop notes she suddenly becomes "non-black" according to racist hypocritesPosts: 5906 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zaharan, the fact you can't admit you made a mistake says a lot about your character.
Brooke Bailey in an interview admits being mixed:
quote:Brooke Bailey Interviews with HennyWiz @ WizDailyDose
Hennywiz – Where are you originally from and what’s you ethnic background?
Brooke – I’m originally from South Central Los Angeles. I’m Black, Indian and French!
The question being asked was about her ethnic background. Someone who merely speaks French in the Caribbean, is not ethnically French you simpleton. Furthermore she claims to be Native American ('Indian') as well.
Are Amerindians now ''black'' you troll?
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Brooke Bailey is listed as mixed race: Black, Amerindian and French (white).
Are these black male hiphop fans liars as well?
Its common knowledge Brooke Bailey is mixed, she stars in hiphop videos and everyone accepts the reality she is mixed. All for you that is - a very lame internet troll. You are the *only* person online claiming stuff no one else does - only for a reaction.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:''Indo-European languages were, at one time, associated with a single, if composite, racial type, and that [...] racial type was an ancestral Nordic." (Coon, 1939)
You didn't answer the question ho': does the presence of blond hair in Northwest Africa, necessitate that that blonde person is ''Nordid''?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wouldnt be impossible to find a west African that looks like her. Cassi, African Americans can be mixed, that doesnt mean they have to be heavily mixed. She can have french ancestors but that doesnt mean she has a lot of French ancestry. And no one is really looking at her for any characteristics typically associated with Europeans. Men look at her for her breasts, curves and ASS. Black women don't need to be mixed with Europeans to have that.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Zaharan, the fact you can't admit you made a mistake says a lot about your character.
Brooke Bailey in an interview admits being mixed:
quote:Brooke Bailey Interviews with HennyWiz @ WizDailyDose
Hennywiz – Where are you originally from and what’s you ethnic background?
Brooke – I’m originally from South Central Los Angeles. I’m Black, Indian and French!
The question being asked was about her ethnic background. Someone who merely speaks French in the Caribbean, is not ethnically French you simpleton. Furthermore she claims to be Native American ('Indian') as well.
Are Amerindians now ''black'' you troll?
Bitch, don't try to run from your exposure. SHe is from LA and she says her background is French. This does not at all mean that she has a white French ancestor. This is the 3rd time I ask you for proof of your bold claim as to these white ancestors bich. What's taking you so long? ANd "Native American" background is minor in African Americans. There is some, but it is minor overall- less than that 5- 10% according to credible geneticists like Rick Kittles. Her Native American ancestry may add up to little more than a distant grandmother who has a minor percentage (as shown by KIttles). http://www.africanancestry.com/blog/2012/07/proudly-african-and-native-american-really/
Your hypocrisy is exposed. WHen you are bashing African Americans as criminals or "ugly" you do not hesitate to call them "black." Now when Bailey illustrates your hypocrisy, you are trying to make out that she is "non black". Hypocritical bich... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RECAP
^^According to racist hypocrite Anglo Buffoon she is "black" when being bashed as a low iq criminal African American, but suddenly becomes "non-black" with white parents when used to illustrate Diop's observation on Eurocentric hypocrisy. The hypocrite says women like her are "black" as an illustration of "ugly black women." But when the punk ass bich's hypocrisy is exposed he quickly wants to redefine her as "non black." ------------------
^Racist hypocrite, you have no problem bashing African Americans like Bailey and calling her black if you can bash African-Americans as criminals and such, but now that her picture appears illustrating Diop's take on Eurocentric hypocrisy, all of a sudden you are calling her "non black". You had no problem in earlier posts in bashing women who looked quite similar to Bailey as "ugly negroids". Now all of a sudden you want to switch and say she ain't black no longer? Punk ass bich..
And you yourself in earlier posts had no problem stating that most black americans had a small portion of ancestry from non-Africans. Yet you still called them black. Now all of a sudden your hypocrisy is exposed, you quickly and conveniently switch to calling them non-black? lmao... Doofus! Don't you realize you have been set up -- a perfect illustration of the hypocrisy Diop was talking about.
And who says Brook Bailey has white French parents? Show us where she says her parents or grandparents are white. And who says the French background she refers to is from white France at all and not referring to say a French SPEAKING ancestor from the Caribbean? There are places out there that speak French doofus, like Haiti, and there are black people elsewhere that speak French with minimal white French ancestry. DUH.. Someone saying "French background" without specifics is meaningless. But in any case you earlier bashed women like Bailey as "ugly". Now you are trying to backtrack.
And don't forget your precious whites are themselves a mixed mongrel breed which you keep running away from. If minor percentages of white or Indian blood make African Amerians "non black" then percentages of "sub-Saharan" African DNA in GReeks, Italians and other Europeans also make them "non white". Be consistent bitch. Apply your race model consistently across the board.
Hybrid wanker....
Posts: 5906 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Anglo Wanker Boy was challenged on this before and he ran away like the punk coward he is. The idiot gives a Wikipedia "reference" to back up his claim but the very same "supporting reference" he gives states that multi-regionalists acknowledge that hominid species came from Africa in the first place. Their argument is for continuity and distinct development in separate locations AFTER the initial OOA exit putting hominins in different places. This approach STILL recognizes and acknowledges hominin OOA.
Wanker boy desperately "self-assesses" for yet another "supporting" reference..
Quote from Anglo-Idiot's "supporting" reference:
This species arose in Africa two million years ago as H. erectus and then spread out over the world, developing adaptations to regional conditions. Some populations became isolated for periods of time, developing in different directions, but through continuous interbreeding, replacement, genetic drift and selection, adaptations that were an advantage anywhere on earth would spread, keeping the development of the species in the same overall direction while maintaining adaptations to regional factors. By these mechanisms, surviving local varieties of the species evolved into modern humans, retaining some regional adaptations but with many features common to all regions.[10]
^^Note they say that their founding population Homo Erectus came from Africa. In short, the ANglo-idiot's own "supporting" reference contradicts his claim. What a pathetic fool.
Posts: 5906 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You folks do realize that Homo Erectus was a 48 chromosome ape right?
You do realize that Neanderthal was a 48 chromosome ape more distant to homo sapiens than a Gorilla or a Chimpanzee right? LOL
You see folks we have let these reprobates fool us because they are the devils making the rules! the ignorant monkeys decided to include apes like Homo erectus and Neanderthal in the homo genus making you believe that they were human. These reprobatesd then excluded Chimpanzees and Gorillas from the Homo genus because Chimpanzees and Gorillas were evolved enough to still be around on the planet and are clearly not human.
However Chimps and Gorillas are MORE human and intelligent than Neanderthal, which is why Neanderthal is genetically more distant from UNMIXED homo sapiens than a damn Chimp or Gorilla! Hahahahaha!
Posts: 3642 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:''Indo-European languages were, at one time, associated with a single, if composite, racial type, and that [...] racial type was an ancestral Nordic." (Coon, 1939)
You didn't answer the question ho': does the presence of blond hair in Northwest Africa, necessitate that that blonde person is ''Nordid''?
LOL. Angho's endless cycle of popping sh!t and running when faced with impending spanking continues.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are you guys arguing with Anglo-Idiot over that Brook Baily chick??! Yes she has some Euro-ancestry, but then again there are many Euros with African ancestry as well, especially Mediterraneans like the Greeks specifically. Note how hypocrite Anglo-Idiot still claims them as 'white'!
Regardless, Anglo-Idiot claims many folks in rural Sub-Sahara as 'mixed' despite NO evidence of such being the case whatsoever!!
Lastly, what the hell does ANY of this have to do with the topic below??! For example, short mitochondrial DNA sequences have been recovered from the remains of a liver found in a canopic jar belonging to Nekht-Ankh, a priest of the Middle Kingdom.77 These sequences when compared to the sequences recovered from the Delta population (Lower Egypt), it were found to be identical to four of the modern Egyptian mitochondrial lineages. Preliminary results from PCR on the Nile Delta population in the late 1980s found that “small subsets of modern Egyptian mitochondrial DNA lineages are closely related to Sub-Saharan African lineages.”..
It's obvious Anglo-Idiot is only nit-picking the ancestry of a hip-hop video vixen as a distraction to desperately dodge the findings of the research above.
Of course he has the option of lying and claiming these Sub-Saharan lineages to be "Caucasoid", but hey... Posts: 26348 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^While I agree with the Bailey comment, ES isn't what it has been. Its no use treating the garbage site ES has grown into like some sort of elite forum where topics should be followed rigorously.
Why try to build something up when, for all you know, the owner of ES could be shutting it down tomorrow?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:''Indo-European languages were, at one time, associated with a single, if composite, racial type, and that [...] racial type was an ancestral Nordic." (Coon, 1939)
You didn't answer the question ho': does the presence of blond hair in Northwest Africa, necessitate that that blonde person is ''Nordid''?
LOL. Angho's endless cycle of popping sh!t and running when faced with impending spanking continues.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: For everyone wondering why I described her the way I did, look at this piece, from her conclusion:
quote:In conclusion, it is evident that “race” as understood today in terms of skin color was not a key identity marker for the ancient Egyptian. Furthermore, “the first to call special attention to the Nubian’s [Nehesi] blackness were people [the Greeks] living outside Africa.”204 In addition, the division of mankind into races as understood in the modern sense began with F. Bernier in the seventeenth century of our era.205Thus the Afrocentric insistence on the ancient Egyptians as a black race proves anachronistic and limited because the ancient Egyptian did not conceptualize himself or herself in this way.
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not the Ancient Egyptians saw themselves as part of the same lineage as people to the South, how is it okay for her to be talking about the blackness of Napatan Nubians, yet, a few lines later, complain it is anachronistic to refer to Egyptians as such?
The last time I checked, the ancient Egyptians and ancient Sudanese were contemporary, and so, it would have to be anachronistic to refer to Sudanese as 'black' as well.
The fact that she doesn't treat Napatans the same as the ancient Egyptians, shows there are other motives for shying away from calling them, or at least them, sans the nationalized Asiatics and Mediterraneans, black.
Her thesis is in fact full with nagging complaints from herself and Egyptologists about why its problematic to refer to people as either black or white in a biological sense, yadi yadi yadi, only to reveal the triviality of such pretended 'expert posturing' by calling Napatan and Meroitic Nubians black several lines later.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I'm not sure if the reddish brown hue of Egyptian males had to do with concepts of the blood of life so much as the average complexion
It has been mentioned before by Egyptologists that the red paint may have had a youthful connotation to it, and there are several murals that confirm this, such as this one:
You don't see it in this repro, but the original image of this mural is similar to these scenes:
in the sense that the two figures who are doing the shooting are depicted lighter skinned (reddish), while the instructing figures behind them are depicted darker skinned (brown proper).
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LOL I'm sure if these lineages were 'Near Eastern' or even European, we would not only know which specific lineages these were but we would NEVER heard the end of these findings.
Well, whatever continental origin one believes this lineage has, it is another slap in the face of those who hold that the Ancient Egyptians are identical to the moderns.
Nekht Ankh
Swenet - I agree with you totally. This lady is definitely pandering to somebody. What would she be bringing up "afrocentrics" for if she weren't. Who the heck is considered AFrocentric in modern academics. Is she speaking about Keita or somebody!
Her statement about being ancient Egyptians not considering themselves "racially" "black" doesn't even make sense since nobody else in Africa did either. Of course ancient Egyptians didn't have any black panther movement if that's what she's suggesting "afrocentrics" are implying. And neither did any other AFrican.
Did they consider themselves of inner AFrican origin now that's another matter.
Sounds like typical colonial African claptrap meant to impress the administrators. Too bad she's living in the wrong era though.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Sweetnet - I agree with you totally. This lady is definitely pandering to somebody. What would she be bringing up "afrocentrics" for if she weren't. Who the heck is considered AFrocentric in modern academics.
posted
Dana brings up a good point, namely, that, for an entire population to sharply distinguish themselves by their skin color, from other ethnic groups, we'd expect strong social incentives to do so, such as large losses of cultural and ethnic identity during slavery (which pushed enslaved African Americans, who originally hailed from all over the Western coast of Africa, to identify themselves as part the new identity we call 'African American').
Indeed, it has been observed by many diasporal Africans that many mainland Africans, who, of course, preserved all their ethnic and cultural heritage, feel nothing for the idea of being assigned ethnic affinity diasporal groups, simply because they share the same skin color.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Of course! Which means the author's claims are nothing more than a huge strawman!
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Sweetnet - I agree with you totally. This lady is definitely pandering to somebody. What would she be bringing up "afrocentrics" for if she weren't. Who the heck is considered Afrocentric in modern academics.
you
LOL Even if that's so, it does even approach to balance the scale of academia being predominantly Eurocentric from time immemorial but of course your lyinass has no issue at all with the Eurocentrism. Posts: 26348 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it helps, I can confirm that my people, the Nguni, Mbo or Lala if you like(Zulu, Xhosa, Swati, Ndebele, Angoni), from South Africa to Zambia, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Tanzinia and wherever we are found we describe(d) ourselves as "abantu abansundu" which literally means "people who are BROWN". However, it differs with each individual, when we say someone is WHITE we mean that they are light, such people are the Khoisan (described as white/yellow). Folk such as Euros are considered RED to us. I have found this general thought pattern to be true of many Africans and Arabs. My thoughts are that when the AEgyptians described someone as boeng fair they meant what any average African would mean. Euros are RED.
Posts: 49 | From: South Africa | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Thanks for the insight. I bet even they don't base their ethnic identity on what you say they perceive to be their color (like modern African Americans do. e.g., ''black churches'', ''black businesses'', ''black colleges'', etc). Its just them noting where they think they fit along the human color spectrum.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed it also explains the ridiculous antics of past European anthropologists when classifying some Africans as "true blacks" while others as brown Mediterranean or Hamitic race. Posts: 26348 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ausar Amen8: If it helps, I can confirm that my people, the Nguni, Mbo or Lala if you like(Zulu, Xhosa, Swati, Ndebele, Angoni), from South Africa to Zambia, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Tanzinia and wherever we are found we describe(d) ourselves as "abantu abansundu" which literally means "people who are BROWN". However, it differs with each individual, when we say someone is WHITE we mean that they are light, such people are the Khoisan (described as white/yellow). Folk such as Euros are considered RED to us. I have found this general thought pattern to be true of many Africans and Arabs. My thoughts are that when the AEgyptians described someone as boeng fair they meant what any average African would mean. Euros are RED.
This is very interesting to hear that peoples of modern southern Africa land the early pre-Turkish blacks of Arabia use the terms brown, white, and red in the same way. I am sure this goes back to very ancient times when ARabia still part of "Ethiopia" i.e. black AFrica. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: For everyone wondering why I described her the way I did, look at this piece, from her conclusion:
quote:In conclusion, it is evident that “race” as understood today in terms of skin color was not a key identity marker for the ancient Egyptian. Furthermore, “the first to call special attention to the Nubian’s [Nehesi] blackness were people [the Greeks] living outside Africa.”204 In addition, the division of mankind into races as understood in the modern sense began with F. Bernier in the seventeenth century of our era.205Thus the Afrocentric insistence on the ancient Egyptians as a black race proves anachronistic and limited because the ancient Egyptian did not conceptualize himself or herself in this way.
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not the Ancient Egyptians saw themselves as part of the same lineage as people to the South, how is it okay for her to be talking about the blackness of Napatan Nubians, yet, a few lines later, complain it is anachronistic to refer to Egyptians as such?
The last time I checked, the ancient Egyptians and ancient Sudanese were contemporary, and so, it would have to be anachronistic to refer to Sudanese as 'black' as well.
The fact that she doesn't treat Napatans the same as the ancient Egyptians, shows there are other motives for shying away from calling them, or at least them, sans the nationalized Asiatics and Mediterraneans, black.
Her thesis is in fact full with nagging complaints from herself and Egyptologists about why its problematic to refer to people as either black or white in a biological sense, yadi yadi yadi, only to reveal the triviality of such pretended 'expert posturing' by calling Napatan and Meroitic Nubians black several lines later.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I'm not sure if the reddish brown hue of Egyptian males had to do with concepts of the blood of life so much as the average complexion
It has been mentioned before by Egyptologists that the red paint may have had a youthful connotation to it, and there are several murals that confirm this, such as this one:
You don't see it in this repro, but the original image of this mural is similar to these scenes:
in the sense that the two figures who are doing the shooting are depicted lighter skinned (reddish), while the instructing figures behind them are depicted darker skinned (brown proper).
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LOL I'm sure if these lineages were 'Near Eastern' or even European, we would not only know which specific lineages these were but we would NEVER heard the end of these findings.
Well, whatever continental origin one believes this lineage has, it is another slap in the face of those who hold that the Ancient Egyptians are identical to the moderns.
Nekht Ankh
Swenet - I agree with you totally. This lady is definitely pandering to somebody. What would she be bringing up "afrocentrics" for if she weren't. Who the heck is considered AFrocentric in modern academics. Is she speaking about Keita or somebody!
Her statement about being ancient Egyptians not considering themselves "racially" "black" doesn't even make sense since nobody else in Africa did either. Of course ancient Egyptians didn't have any black panther movement if that's what she's suggesting "afrocentrics" are implying. And neither did any other AFrican.
Did they consider themselves of inner AFrican origin now that's another matter.
Sounds like typical colonial African claptrap meant to impress the administrators. Too bad she's living in the wrong era though.
That nonsense argument as a basis for a so-called "scientific" paper on ancient Egypt is what makes Egyptology basically pseudoscience. You get people with no degree in "hard" sciences like Anthropology and Biology or even Chemistry but yet they want to make arguments from a position of authority and have you accept it at face value. What on earth can an art major tell you about the biology and anthropology of the ancient Egyptian population? Nothing. Plain and simple. Therefore, instead of just admitting that she has no qualifications, she must create a straw man argument about "Afrocentrics" as somehow the reason why we should not talk about the "racial characteristics of the ancient Egyptians. But who is it that created the whole concept of "race science" and "racial characteristics"? Last I checked it was white European scientists and most specifically those engaged in the study of ancient Egyptian mummies. These people were not Afrocentrics. Therefore, the whole idea that "racial characteristics" in a discussion about ancient Egyptians came about as a result of "Afrocentrics" is a lie. And that is the bottom line. The whole point of the straw man argument is to basically say don't question our dogma on the skin color of the ancient Egyptians as not being like that of other indigenous, non foreign derived Africans. As if the whole science of anthropology is not precisely about reconstructing the features and phenotypes of ancient populations from physical remains. It is basically an argument to authority that non biologists and anthropologists (in this case an art major) can make any statements they want about the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptian population with little to no actual facts or evidence to back it up. And that all falls in line with the fact that Egyptology was created from its inception to push the idea of a white Egypt, meaning an ancient Egyptian population with features and phenotypes closer to Europeans than to Africans labeled as black. It has nothing to do with scientific fact and everything to do with racism coming from the white folks who founded the whole study of Egypt to begin with.
Only retards would let idiot fools with a history of going around the world spreading the ideology of race and race hatred based on physical characteristics to label those who suffered under oppression because of such ideologies as racist. It is offensive and basically shouldn't be tolerated.
Her whole thesis is meaningless. The only population on earth to define themselves by "racial characteristics" is guess who? Exactly, white Europeans who lived 2,000 years after the glory days of ancient Egypt. To pretend that because ancient Egyptians didn't have the concept of race similar to that practiced in modern Europe, that means that they somehow did not share features and physical characteristics with other Africans across the continent is the biggest crock of bull shyte ever invented and is basically all that is left as a defense of Eurocentric dogma. Did the ancient Chinese have a concept of "race" similar to modern Europeans? Does that mean that they therefore did not have features and characteristics similar to other Asians? Does that mean we shouldn't study those features and characteristics and/or how they changed? Of course not. Ancient Egypt was a nation and the first nation as we know it. Their self identity had nothing to do with "race" in the sense of the modern European empires and nations that have arisen in the last 500 years. There was nothing like a Hitler in the ancient world let alone ancient Egypt. Therefore, an obsession with physical characteristics and exclusion based on "racial" characteristics has nothing to do with any ancient society let alone ancient Egypt.
But that does not change the fact that ancient societies had populations with various features and phenotypes that were part of the consciousness of the peoples of those societies. The ancient Egyptians knew what they looked like and what features were common among themselves and other neighboring people and went to great lengths to document those features, which makes them among the first anthropologists. This nonsense about ancient Egyptians not being aware of themselves in a culture that was intensely self aware is simply Eurocentric bull shyte dying a painful death. The only reason they make that argument is to pretend that the features and differences they documented between themselves and other populations don't count in our understanding of the ancient Egyptian population, unless we buy into the Eurocentric interpretation of that self identity as reinforcing a Eurocentric point of view.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
And neither did any other AFrican. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic