Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Somalis are sub-Saharan Africans.
Amarna royal DNA is predominantly modern Upper Egyptian and Sudani, peoples who are not in sub-Saharan Africa.
Black is not limited to Africans. Black is not limited to sub-Saharans.
Black is not the new way to say American negroes and their ancestors except for those ignorant of history
Black is not defined by a people who were ashamed to use that word 50 years ago preferring to be negroes and colored people while others world wide used black. But now American negroes, johnny come latelies, want to usurp the term and make pretend to be the only blacks in the world.
posted
It's not that they believe they're the only blacks. But they're pretty fixated on Sub Saharan Africa as black. Part of its yes Afrocentrism (despite what gains it did offer black Africans), ignorance of OOA diversity and listening to Europeans who say they haven't applied ideas of blackness outside of SSA (despite all evidence otherwise).
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Afrocentricity got nothing to do with black North Americans stealing the black descriptor as their own exclusive identity and denying any other non-related people their natural and centuries old usage of black.
Recorded African centered usage of the black descriptor for non West Africans non subSaharan Africans non Africans is old as the 8th century southeast Africans known as the Zanj and included just about everybody east of and at the same latitude as Africa (starting at roughly 10 degrees north).
Peoples of Australia and further east accepted black and used black when African descended North Americans used black to insult each other, often answered by a straight razor.
Now, since Say It Loud I'm Black and I'm Proud y'all want to monopolize an identity you were ashamed of. Go ask your grand and great grandparents some of whom still reject the term black.
posted
Afrocentrism is very relevant. African CENTERED means just that, centering on Africa over other places. Just like EUROcentrism focuses on Europe over other areas. Most AA have no clue about say, a Torres Strait Islander, because they're not AFRICAN. You don't have to look at this and assume I'm saying Afrocentrism was VOID of offering black Africans any gains, but it wasn't flawless in it's approach when reflecting upon the mindsets it created in America.
Let us be honest: in America at least, Sub Saharan Africans are believed to be "more black" than everyone else. That's not an exclusively American problem either, although I don't know to the extent an African centered perspective impacted other places. And even if there is SOME acknowledgement of OOA having similar features or treatment, guess what many start doing? Trying to say Olmecs and other people with "black features" were more recent African migrants. Even if for instance you had a person with black Native American ancestry along with black African ancestry, they would always be "less black" than the blacks with the most African ancestry because many AA don't realize that some OOA peoples were ever treated as blacks. Why don't they know this? Because many in the Afrocentric movement didn't know themselves or didn't think it to be important to discuss non Africans. Honestly, there'd be no reason for all this research to be sliding under the rug to talk about AE and SSA if SSA weren't treated like the end all for blacks when they're not.
quote: Afrocentricity got nothing to do with black North Americans stealing the black descriptor as their own exclusive identity and denying any other non-related people their natural and centuries old usage of black...
...Recorded African centered usage of the black descriptor for non West Africans non subSaharan Africans non Africans is old as the 8th century southeast Africans known as the Zanj and included just about everybody east of and at the same latitude as Africa (starting at roughly 10 degrees north).
AA aren't denying the ability for other blacks to use "black" in the social contexts they created before colonialism. At least not by ignoring (and leaving spaces for) irrelevant criteria and concepts on matters of organized discrimination embedded in white institutions. People who are literally black will likely be discriminated against in such a system true, but it's not limited to literal blackness.
To give you a picture, it's like someone saying they want to "get lit" or "slay" and everyone ignores the person in the room whose still talking about knives and fires. No one's "stealing" their ability to talk about fires and knives, but it's irrelevant to the conversation and will likely be ignored.
Inwardly many of you do understand this too. That's why when people like Black Crystal point out the Egyptians noticed they weren't LITERALLY black like Nubians and would probably not have literally described themselves as black, no one said anything when it was explained Tariq gets shit for being black despite not being literally black in color. No one was giving hell about not using "African" definitions, because it was fairly obvious it has nothing to do with "race" as a systemic and imperialistic construct. If we relied on Egyptians to be literally black in color to call them black, the debate would be over because generally speaking they weren't.
quote: Now, since Say It Loud I'm Black and I'm Proud y'all want to monopolize an identity you were ashamed of. Go ask your grand and great grandparents some of whom still reject the term black.
Whether someone says "negro" or "black" the words mean the exact SAME thing. Saying you prefer a more Latin word to say it over a more germanic word doesn't change that in both instances the color black is being used to describe racial identity.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Instead of private misunderstandings touted as Afrocentric/African-centered one can learn what Afrocentric really is by reading degree holders say the discipline is by perusing the
posted
I need to know how it's a misunderstanding that many trying to push Afrocentrism in the U.S DON'T focus on non Africans when talking about black history. And even if academics don't do this, to what extent has that had any impact on average people that don't read academic journals? None. Go to the U.S and talk about a Batek, Torres Strait Islander or Adamanese. They won't know what the hell you're talking about.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
If the English word negro means black why is there no negro crayon no negro horse no negro shoelaces but there is a black crayon a black horse black shoelaces?
In English negro was coined to describe enslaved Africans originating from West Africa and later made into an extreme facial type supposedly possessed by the West African sources of English colony enslaved Africans.
Such was greater Guinea. Why was Papua dubbed New Guinea?
Who are your references? From what sources are you building up on? What is your foundation?
You can reject what previous generations of black scholars have to offer but you will never invalidate it nor replace it nor cover it over.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
You don't know what Afrocentricism is.
Again, you can learn from people who hold a degree in the academic field by perusing the
Encyclopedia of Black Studies
Knuckleheads racialists homophobes supremacists misogynists and the like is what the white mainstream media taught you to believe are Afrocentric.
The Afrocentric paradigm was introduced academically at Temple University in the 1980's for one.
We don't expect 'intellectualism' from the person on the street yet a many one of them know of the Andamans and others from reading Rogers' Sex and Race v1 if they ever did any basic self study.
But are we to limit our knowledge to basic street level now on ES? If so a lot of posts in this thread are irrelevant.
Does your person on the street know what a social construct is? Full genome or STR ancient Egypt DNA is? What elongated features are?
I thought we were dealing on the level of folks with at least rudimentary Africana learnings
But please don't let me spoil your fun. I only wanted to express my simple opinion but had to keep posting to expand on replies to what I said about black in post 50 at top of this pg.
I will shut up now unless replies call for me to expand or clarify.
posted
Unless there's a specific head of a movement, a movement yes, has to kind of be understood by the sum of it's parts. I'll put the shoe on the other foot to hopefully show what I'm saying: The "inellectual" arm of the white supremacist movement will deny their movement to be violent and exploitative. Some will even that they "just want to be allowed pride or to make sure they don't go extinct." But that doesn't match the movements behavioral violence and historical subjugation of black people. It doesn't change that the white pride movement has historically gone beyond discussing white achievement, and disparages other races as sub human. So the followers pushing the movement do not hold to the rhetoric pushed the intellectuals offer the general public. Whether these so-called intellectuals are being deceitful or not is irrelevant.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] If the English word negro means black why is there no negro crayon no negro horse no negro shoelaces but there is a black crayon a black horse black shoelaces?
Just a second. Negro is not an English word. Negro a Latin word that was borrowed by English speakers to describe blacks (and is still used in Latin speaking countries). Arguing a word is no longer popular (because it has socially been considered offensive and too close to the N-word slur) doesn't prove it meant some other color. The color black was the most common stereotype to negatively depict blacks during a time they used "negro" hence blackface and all the jet black racial caricatures. and jokes involving items that were specifically black like this "n**** milk" "joke"
Why make a baby drink ink instead of milk. Because the baby's status is associated with...
There's no confusion as to what color Negro means despite it's modern lack of use. If you asked an AA what color that represents they would say black.
quote:In English negro was coined to describe enslaved Africans originating from West Africa and later made into an extreme facial type supposedly possessed by the West African sources of English colony enslaved Africans.
But why does it describing Africans mean that the word negro doesn't mean black? It WAS a common color for the imported slaves (hence the stereotype) but not ALL "negroes" were literally that color. the word black also expressed European culture's negative attitudes that were traditionally associated with the color as well. So even for people not literally black, the color became associated with their status.
quote:Such was greater Guinea. Why was Papua dubbed New Guinea?
Again that's another example of using the word BLACK even if not everyone living there is literally black. Just because they use Latin word to say it, doesn't mean the color means something else.
quote:Who are your references? From what sources are you building up on? What is your foundation?
That the word negro means black instead of some other color? A dictionary? Negro has meant black long before slavery. When has Negro meant any color but the color black? And how many of the African groups that AA "stole" the word from even used the English word black to describe themselves?
Whether negro means black to you or not, it doesn't change the main point: That the word black when AA use it is talking about something completely different from a literal descriptor. It has been used to stereotype very dark skin, but it expanded to apply to people much lighter early in the history of systemic racism. People aren't obligated to discuss the word "race" if it has NO systemic and global impact. Not if the word race is being used in a conversation to SPECIFICALLY talk about that system of hate and discrimination. Just the same, a person isn't BAD for refusing to engage in a conversation with someone who talks about knives and fires whenever they say "lit" or "slay." It's TWO different conversations, one is entirely irrelevant to the other.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
You avoided this
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: If the English word negro means black why is there no negro crayon no negro horse no negro shoelaces but there is a black crayon a black horse black shoelaces?
In English negro was coined to describe enslaved Africans.
If you like let's continue in Kemet where we can fully express ourselves w/o reprimand or having to tip toe around.
quote:If the English word negro means black why is there no negro crayon
The words are used interchangeably, but it has lost favor like other words in the past have. Black also sounds less like the n-word than negro and many believe the slur to be a corruption of the word negro.
quote:If you like let's continue in Kemet where we can fully express ourselves w/o reprimand or having to tip toe around.
Sure start the thread if you like.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
If I may propose an answer, European anthropologists would have called the above--just on appearance--Polynesian. Such types are found in places like Samoa and Tahiti.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The word "negro" is a Spanish word meaning "black" since the first slave traders were came from Spain.
The Latin word for black is "niger"--not negro. For the French, the chosen word was "noir" or more pejoratively "negre".
For the Romans, word for people with very dark pigmentation was "Subfusculus". Later blacks were known as "black-a-Moor" or "tawny-Moor" as in Shakespeare's "Othello the Moor". Also used for blacks in premodern times was the "Ethiopian".
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looking back in history, it's useful to note that anthropologists such as Ripley and Coon wrote books titled "The Races of Europe". They argued that there were 3 races in Europe--Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean.
Add to that the claim that there was a Slavic race and a Hebrew race to refer to Jews. The Nazi argued that the Slavic race was an inferior and the superior race the Ayran race.
Thus racial taxonomies may indeed carry a constructivist content.
Even today, the claim that there are just 3 races--Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid--is patently nonsensical. Yet people are still stupidly brainwashed into these categories.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Some Egyptsearch members say "black" should mean color alone, thus we have a simple definition not exclusive to people of recent African descent
black person a black person is anyone with a brown skin tone that is not higher than 6
and in assessing this their skin tone is is their natural skin tone not one reliant on tanning by the conditions they are in
*keep in mind crayons and other objects are not color classified this way, since various browns are named
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: [QB] The matter has already been settled by an image of an Egyptian which currently dominates the Egyptian skyline, an image which was ancient to the Ancient Egyptians themselves.
why are you comparing a sculpture with a broken off nose to a person?
Even if it had a nose, would it make a difference?
posted
Its not that our ancestors were ashamed of the term "Black" (and as far as I know no African Americans denied that we were a "Black" or colored people) its just that at those times AA didnt have access to primary sources and historical resources to know what black entailed prior to the Slave Trade. If anythin it was African Americans who pioneered an idea of Pan-Africanism and Black world wide culture while you Africans were in Africa enslaving and killing each other and licking the sandals of the Invader Arab and Turks, trying all sort of ways to Link yourselves to Non African religious figures and exaggerated "Bidane" Arab Heritages.
To this day its Africans from the North African Berbers and Bidanes who are a shade lighter than the SSA they despise to the Jet black Somali, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Jan-Ja-weed Arabs and Northern Sudanis who proclaim proudly they are not black and at times not even African. The People pushing Afrocentrism and Pan-Africanism are mainly Black Americans while many Africans look at us like we are crazy for upholding such an idea.
No AA in their right mind would say folks like Aboriginal Australians, Dravidians etc many whom are DARKER than majority of us are "Non Black"....they're just no African American and many of those people dont associate nor like AA anyway. Further Most AA would include folks like Bidane, Saharan Berbers, Southern Egyptians etc as black.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Afrocentricity got nothing to do with black North Americans stealing the black descriptor as their own exclusive identity and denying any other non-related people their natural and centuries old usage of black.
Recorded African centered usage of the black descriptor for non West Africans non subSaharan Africans non Africans is old as the 8th century southeast Africans known as the Zanj and included just about everybody east of and at the same latitude as Africa (starting at roughly 10 degrees north).
Peoples of Australia and further east accepted black and used black when African descended North Americans used black to insult each other, often answered by a straight razor.
Now, since Say It Loud I'm Black and I'm Proud y'all want to monopolize an identity you were ashamed of. Go ask your grand and great grandparents some of whom still reject the term black.
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 questioner: Difference for what? I don't know why you omitted it.
[/QB]
look at this Domingo character he's got a video with the side view and it looks African. Then here he has a frontal view and it looks like a European! That is supposed to be a match. I thought you might pick up on this if I separated that front view
Then you look at the two side views where he's comparing to Khafre yet in the left non-Khafre view he has speculated the nose to be a different shape. That could have been how it was or it could have been like Khafre's nose or some other shape.
Yes it does make a difference, to answer your original question
There were pharaohs that had a profile like his left reconstruction and there were other pharaohs who had a profile like Khafre The ancient Egyptians had a wide variety of facial features
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: Difference for what? I don't know why you omitted it.
look at this Domingo character he's got a video with the side view and it looks African. Then here he has a frontal view and it looks like a European! That is supposed to be a match. I thought you might pick up on this if I separated that front view
Then you look at the two side views where he's comparing to Khafre yet in the left non-Khafre view he has speculated the nose to be a different shape. That could have been how it was or it could have been like Khafre's nose or some other shape.
Yes it does make a difference, to answer your original question [/QB]
"Then here he has a frontal view and it looks like a European!" the lioness How does it look like a "European"?
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: How does it look like a "European"?
wouldn't you say this view looks more like a South European than an African? If not more Middle Eastern than African?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
the nostrils are too small, the nose is too boxy and squarish. I don't think it matches the side view. In the side view the bottom plane of the nose is also tilted more upward. The distance between the nose and lips tends to be greater in Africans and it's greater in the side view. So while there is some crossover between Africans and Europeans or Middle Easterners, that front view doesn't strike me as "yes that looks particularity African". It's just my opinion but the impression I get is that front view looks 30% African at most
Try this, print out the picture. Cut off with a scissors any outline of the headcloth and beard or edit the image that way.
Then show the picture to various people and ask them "what ethnicity do they think the person is." with no other clues or nothing suggestive in you tone one way or the other Ask five or more people and see what they say
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: the nostrils are too small, the nose is too boxy and squarish. I don't think it matches the side view. In the side view the bottom plane of the nose is also tilted more upward. The distance between the nose and lips tends to be greater in Africans and it's greater in the side view. So while there is some crossover between Africans and Europeans or Middle Easterners, that front view doesn't strike me as "yes that looks particularity African". It's just my opinion but the impression I get is that front view looks 30% African at most
Try this, print out the picture. Cut off with a scissors any outline of the headcloth and beard or edit the image that way.
Then show the picture to various people and ask them "what ethnicity do they think the person is." with no other clues or nothing suggestive in you tone one way or the other Ask five or more people and see what they say
The lips are a dead give away for its African origin.(The upper lip is too pronounced to be European) Many Africans have a nose like the one depicted above. (perhaps the white and light color of the eyes is confusing you)
posted
Oshun, I appreciate your question. I believe that Iamin gave some great thoughts and pictorial evidence to support his answer. Thank you both!
Posts: 46 | From: Berkeley Ca | Registered: Aug 2018
| IP: Logged |
You fail to understand that phenotypical variation is one of the characteristics of African populations. The only near constant would be the African hair form.
The sketch of the Sphinx above is not accurate. This is just another instance of the bad habit that Europeans have of portraying the AEs not as they were but "whitened" up a bit.
The sketch of that Sphinx is off because the actual Sphinx has a broader and shorter face with high cheekbones.
Prognathism is found in Africa but also on East Asia. But even so, it's less than 15% in Africa.
posted
@Fourty2Tribes. I wouldn't include the Canaanites. Plenty depictions of them are dark-skinned. And the Arabs got progressively lighter over the past millenia also.
At least, that's what I've gotten from past threads.
Posts: 24 | From: Jamaica | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure there were melinated people among all the invaders, even the brits. Its a matter of percentage. The same is true genetically. Most of the genetic markers and haplos were probably already in Egypt. Invaders brought a different mix of much of the same.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: [QB] But here's how the Africans(AEs and Nubians) depicted themselves compared to the invaders.
lamin do you know how to post an image?
above Rameses smiting invaders, a Nubian, Syrian and Libyan
This is how ancient Egypt portrayed themselves, as can be seen in the Book of Gates rendition; with text that reads RMTYW (Remetu, ie Egyptians) although the garb is NHSW (Nehesi, ie 'Nubian').
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: [QB] But here's how the Africans(AEs and Nubians) depicted themselves compared to the invaders.
lamin do you know how to post an image?
above Rameses smiting invaders, a Nubian, Syrian and Libyan
This is how ancient Egypt portrayed themselves, as can be seen in the Book of Gates rendition; with text that reads RMTYW (Remetu, ie Egyptians) although the garb is NHSW (Nehesi, ie 'Nubian').
so this is not how the Egyptians^ portrayed themselves?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: This is how ancient Egypt portrayed themselves, as can be seen in the Book of Gates rendition; with text that reads RMTYW (Remetu, ie Egyptians) although the garb is NHSW (Nehesi, ie 'Nubian').
Has it occurred to anyone that they might be Egyptianized Kushites? As in, ethnically Kushite dudes who assimilated into the Egyptian nationality?
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Man and Men of Men are different concepts.
The given Gate of Teka Hra scene 30 of Rmtyw are Egyptians. Compare profiles with the Nhsw of same tomb chamber.
Most importantly, this is a one-off edition differing from the usual red-black complexion.
Can't totally discount the possibility they're "nationalized". Consider their Nhsy attire. Was this tomb's Pharaoh particularly intertwined with Nubia/Kush? I mean wives, ministers, architectural projects, diplomacies, etc.
One thing though. Here we see very Nehesy looking Rt Rmt. Where are Aamu or Temehu looking Rt Rmt in any authentic painting of this very same scene?
Lemme amplify the Ramesses Egyptian and Nehesian Denkmaeler facs. I'll add the Merenptah Egyptian up front for comparison. Compare and contrast foreheads, eyes, ears, nose slopes, lips, and chins.
Tomb photos posted like a decade ago are low def. Left Egyptian. Right Nehesian. Below 3 Nehesians. Courtesy of Manu Ampim. ben Jochannan has b&w photos of all four peoples. They're on pp 391-2 of the Blackman of the Nile and his Family oversize edition. He conjectures the Rt Rmt are Rameses III's relatives.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic