posted
The above reposted, of course, since it got deleted. No doubt in my mind that it was Carlos Oliver Coke who demanded it be taken down. Note Carlos Oliver Coke's sudden change in tune from defending his behavior (albeit deceivingly) to posting an old Dutch forum thread which he thought reflected poorly on me.
Typical Carlos Oliver Coke tactic: slight of hand, evasions, deflections and other desperate acts whenever his lies and deceptions are brought to light for everyone to see.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) Publicly Carlos Oliver Coke boasts about commendations he gets by deceiving PhDs, but Carlos Oliver Coke knows nothing about the population history of Africa, let alone Nile Valley Africa, his obsession.
Simple stuff goes over Carlos Oliver Coke's head: 4-11-2013 The site's looking good BTW. Although the discussions often go over my head, it feels like you've got traction here. --Carlos Oliver Coke
Carlos Oliver Coke had to be schooled on the evolutionary specifics of terms like ‘ortochnathous’, which, as you can see below, he was struggling with: 21-11-2013 Also, is it true that populations are becoming increasingly orthagonous [sic] due to evolution? --Carlos Oliver Coke
Carlos Oliver Coke learned that he had botched certain technical terms he was parroting through conversation, when he saw others apply these terms correctly: 21-11-2013 *sorry, ortochnathous! --Carlos Oliver Coke
The people who know Carlos Oliver Coke, know he’s not the 'prodigy' he pretends to be in his private conversations with his so-called “PhDs”. Attempts to puff his chest in public and boasts about his fake accomplishments aside, Carlos Oliver Coke isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, to put it lightly:
4-11-2013 People might not have the same level of knowledge on genetics and anatomy that you guys have though […] however, he agreed that much of what gets discussed is difficult to take in. Is there a way we can get round this? --Carlos Oliver Coke
Despite his public façade, Carlos Oliver Coke doesn’t know anything about (North) African prehistory: 20-10-2013 BTW he said something about the population of North Africa/Egypt originally being Mechtoid? Ibero-Mauresian? Names I've heard of but never quite assimilated. He mentioned that the Kalahari bushmen are the closest existing population. Your views as always would be great. --Carlos Oliver Coke
Carlos Oliver Coke had to be schooled on basically everything. 29-10-2013 What is principal component analysis? --Carlos Oliver Coke
Carlos Oliver Coke had to be schooled on African ethnic groups and that there isn't such a thing as a Galla Somali: 29-10-2013 [I'm] Googling some images for Galla Somali --Carlos Oliver Coke
Carlos Oliver Coke had to be schooled on that Africans don't have a monopoly on tropical adaptations: 30-10-2013 I should ask [X] about the limb lengths - Anglo used to say that anthropologists don't pay it any regard, which is bs. Lioness argues that it can't be used to disprove Eurasian influence. --Carlos Oliver Coke
I then schooled him on what tropical adaptations are. The 50 year old weirdo now goes by the corny "Tropicals Redacted" alias, but, judging by how he still treats "black" as specific to Africa and the contexts in which he brings up limb data, he's still struggling to come to grips with the fact that tropical adaptations are not Africa-specific. The below is just an example of Carlos Oliver Coke being schooled and his inability to extrapolate and generalize ideas on his own, such as the fact that 'black' has little evolutionary value. Simply telling him that something is so doesn't work with him; you have to hold his hands and take him to all the contexts where something holds true. Either that or you risk that he later spazzes out and throws a tantrum because he realizes the deeper implications of what you told him:
30-10-2013 OK. So large scale immigration from non-tropically adapted groups would have altered the limb lengths of the Egyptians - but there must also be Eurasians with tropical limb lengths. Is that right? --Carlos Oliver Coke
Despite occasions where you can see Carlos Oliver Coke pontificate in public, Carlos Oliver Coke doesn't know any prehistoric history about any region, really: 30-10-2013 so, as far as the Arabian peninsula is concerned, the migration went the other way? --Carlos Oliver Coke
Carlos Oliver Coke had to be schooled on population genetics: 25-11-2013 Regarding genetics, can you help with something? One of the arguments I've read against a black African Egypt is that the modern Egyptian population has 'J' haplotypes(???), which surrounding Arab populations don't. This is meant to prove that the genetic impact following the Arab conquest wasn't that great. --Carlos Oliver Coke
Carlos Oliver Coke doesn't understand even mildly technical anthro texts without having someone there to spoon-feed him: 25-11-2013 There's a new post here which may be related to the issue, but I can't deduce to enough from it to be sure. Hope this makes sense? --Carlos Oliver Coke
Carlos Oliver Coke is always timid when you explain something to him that most people would consider 'basic': Hope this is the right question - 1- Do we know what the genetic presence of J1 is in modern Egypt compared to modern Near East populations? [...] Ok. Is it possible to detect J1 when doing DNA tests on Egyptian mummies? If so, do you know if any has been detected? Do you know the percentage for J1 presence in Palestine/ the Near East? So 73% of the population in Khartoum carries J1. Is that correct? --Carlos Oliver Coke
Of course, it’s never a problem to not know something. But Carlos Oliver Coke lies in public and takes credit for what he didn’t do. Also, Carlos Oliver Coke doesn’t know when the shut up and accept that he’s dead wrong, both in conversations with academics and the people who supported him. This is when you open yourself up to getting exposed for how little you know. More on this later.
2) Did I mention that Carlos Oliver Coke was channeling other people's views and their familiarity with the literature the entire time, passing them off as his own?
In his initial (failed) attempts to uncover academic racism, Carlos Oliver Coke was getting schooled and taking notes all the time, which he lies about in public: 30-10-2013 Thanks. I'm pleased that a record of our conversations get recorded here so I can refer to this. --Carlos Oliver Coke
21-11-2013 Thanks, I'm going to use this. I'll dig out the Hiernaux quote, too. --Carlos Oliver Coke
21-11-2013 Unfortunately, I don't have anything on this for the royal mummies, or any mummies. Have you come across anything? --Carlos Oliver Coke
However, I don't know how to intelligently articulate a response that will draw his attention to the recurring alleles. I don't want to blow it! Do you reckon that just by sending him the links, he'll be able to deduce that himself? --Carlos Oliver Coke
Carlos Oliver Coke on 20-10-2013: Quick question: would you mind if my contribution to this site is to continue privately relaying back to you any correspondence I have with the mainstream experts? I don't have the knowledge to contribute anything really to the main discussion board, and I'm more comfortable in this sort of behind the scenes role. This OK? --Carlos Oliver Coke
I'm thankful for your listening to me when I've gone up against the 'experts' - others on ES seemed strangely indifferent regarding Kemp - and for being able to quickly turn around excellent, persuasive answers. --Carlos Oliver Coke
Thanks again for your help in all this - I wouldn't have been able to pursue it without your support - I'm particularly impressed by how incisive and balanced your arguments were, and your remarkable turn around time. --Carlos Oliver Coke
3) Since Carlos Oliver Coke was engaging in debates with professors using other people’s views, he was checking in with me all the time to either make sure he wasn't going to say something embarrassing, because he had no frame of reference to interpret the answers he was getting or because he didn't know the gravity of some of the common errors his correspondents were making:
Thanks for that. Slightly concerned. Do you think [X] should have known that about the various populations that have been labelled 'mechtoid'? --Carlos Oliver Coke
29-10-2013 22:45 I'll ask about the different Mecthoid groups. I'm amazed by the complexity of the subject of the peopling of Africa, but sense that I'll need to get a handle on it to prevent being blindsided. --Carlos Oliver Coke
4) Carlos Oliver Coke behind the scenes shaking in his boots that certain pharaohs weren't 'black' enough to his eyes. But in public he swears that they all would have been regarded as unequivocally black:
29-10-2013 Whilst remembering the caveats around stereotyping and the fact of diversity, does the image strike you as African? --Carlos Oliver Coke
Here Carlos Oliver Coke admits to being thrown off by what he thought was the racial ambiguity of Egyptian pharaohs who approximate the modal phenotype of the dynastic Upper Egyptian. I wonder how this will sit with the academics he’s talking to, who have been subjected to his gossiping rants about academics who have said similar things.
29-10-2013: I find the image of Amenhotep I on page 2 really striking; I've got to admit that I'm thrown by the images of Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III on p.6 and p.7. --Carlos Oliver Coke
29-10-2013: The ones that didn't immediately 'appeal' to me as African were the pictures of Thutmose IV; as I've mentioned before, Amenhotep III; I have to agree that the photos of Seti I didn'y come across as immediately African --Carlos Oliver Coke
After I criticized Carlos Oliver Coke’s amateurish reliance on eyeballing and introduced him to the concept of multivariate analysis, it triggered his awareness of his ignorance re: how ancient Egyptian royalties fit in multivariate analysis. Mind you, this timid and illiterate newbie is the same person who, in public, boldly dictates to others that they should see the AE in a certain modern racial classification, or else...
29-10-2013 OK. Don't suppose we have anything like that which shows where any of the above mummies fit? --Carlos Oliver Coke
5) Even all the way back in 2013, I was persistent in telling Carlos Oliver Coke that, visually speaking, indigenous North Africans aren't necessarily going to look visibly "black" in the eyes of modern day westerners. But, being the confused psycho that Carlos Oliver Coke is, he later accused me of flip flopping when it dawned on him how threatening this concept is to his worldview:
29-10-2013 Quick thing I want to discuss with you. Be careful to not get too hung up on eyeballing; there are some things that are better left up to statistical analysis. You're on the right path but you should always keep in mind that our eyeballing and [X]'s views are just that: views. This thing we're doing now--looking at the material is basically what contributed to the whole Egypt=white thing --Swenet
7-11-2013 One more thing. Some white people and lay people in general do seem to harbour the belief that Egyptians were originally a sister populations to the Nubians, while not necessarily thinking of either as black. I think this association between both populations harkens back to the bible, and Genesis 10:6 in particular. --Swenet
At one point, Carlos Oliver Coke got emotional because of a citation he had found wherein a previous generation of anthropologists claimed that, despite having tropical limb proportions, the AE weren’t “negroes” because they contrasted themselves with Africans more to the south. In my response I didn't have the same visceral reaction as Carlos Oliver Coke; instead, I said it this view was part of a larger pattern in the West. I told Carlos Oliver Coke that I had little confidence that western lay people in general would independently come to the conclusion that dynastic Egyptians and certain southern Sudanese-looking folk on the monuments (e.g. Tomb of Huy), are both equally African in principle.
[...] though I think that's what most white folks [would conclude] anyway --Swenet
6) Carlos Oliver Coke the creepy psycho stalker:
What's weird though is that I remembered that ethelwulf@hotmail.co.uk e-mail address from the summer of 2012 when I read of his political ambitions at the student room. I googled or yahood the thread and although the page is inaccessible, you can get into the cache. I then thought maybe someone read that thread, then mocked up an account using the above e-mail address and his name...I then tried it and it wouldn't let me because the address was already in use. --Carlos Oliver Coke [...] I tried to open a Hotmail.co.uk account with the following address: Ethelwulf@hotmail.co.uk..it said something about it not being available. --Carlos Oliver Coke
7) Carlos Oliver Coke the paranoid, ranting, gossiping psycho
Written in a private conversation by Carlos Oliver Coke on 17-10-2013:
And again, he could only have done this with ES management on side. Why do I suspect Lioness Is involved here? And for some reason, Zaharan --Carlos Oliver Coke
[list] 7-12-2013 But as well as this, I'm thinking about Ausrar's role. I really suspect he's being dishonest. --Carlos Oliver Coke
7-12-2013 If that's the case, then I also suspect that Ausar has fucked with my accounts. --Carlos Oliver Coke
7-12-2013 If Ausar's responsible for hacking my account and impersonating me, then that's fucking illegal. --Carlos Oliver Coke
Note below another example of Carlos Oliver Coke's mangled reasoning. He's calling requests for Ausar to remove threads with personal information (which Carlos Oliver Coke kept creating), "having sympathy for racists". The real Ausar has always deleted personal information and drawn the line at certain points he had announced beforehand. These were red lines everyone agreed upon. Only repeat offenders like Carlos Oliver Coke would object to such moderation.
7-12-2013 OK. I'm glad I was wrong about Ausar hacking my account - although I'm not happy that he's sympathetic to racists. --Carlos Oliver Coke
Carlos Oliver Coke gossiping about forum posters: 31-12-2013 I wasn't convinced that Kemp had done a good job, and [Beyoku] became insistent. I stood my ground and from what I remember he eventually stopped responding. I've noticed a couple of comments aimed at me on the main ES forum - I started a thread about admixture in Lower Egypt and [Beyoku] asked whether I wanted the information for my own personal education or to go off and argue with Euronuts. Brandon jumped in and said that whilst he doesn't seek out Eurocentrics anymore, he thought it cowardly not to engage with them. Had Brandon not intervened, I would have trashed [Beyoku]. --Carlos Oliver Coke
4-11-2013 One of the many examples of Carlos Oliver Coke admitting that he gossips about ES posters and professors, like an estrogen-driven preteen:
People might not have the same level of knowledge on genetics and anatomy that you guys have though – [x] knows of ES (we've speculated regarding the activities of a certain prolific poster) --Carlos Oliver Coke
12-12-2013 This is the same person (name removed) mentioned above of whom Carlos Oliver Coke implicates in his gossiping about Egyptsearch. I guess it's really true that gossipers gossip not only about the outside world, but also about each other:
Did I ever tell you about the time I caught the train back from Cambridge with [X]? He asked me to look over a piece of his work, so I did, asking various questions as I read through. In a quoted a passage with used the word 'parietal' and when I asked him what it meant, he said he didn't know. I think that's one of the reasons why I'm doing this course - people don't always seem to have a grasp of the basics. --Carlos Oliver Coke
8) Carlos Oliver Coke, the creepy who derives pleasure from getting people to do his bidding under the thread of slandering them.
I think he's been going around the internet trying to clean up after himself. He's contacted me because he suspects that I've still got lots of **** on him. What's interesting was that in that summer 2012 thread, I asked him to admit that the AEs were black then...he'd offered me a deal where he'd leave AE if I stopped pursuing him. However, when he read my terms, he said words to the effect of 'Hell no, no way'. Of course, that was before we got all that info on him! --Carlos Oliver Coke
Anyway, I got what I wanted - his public exposure, an end to his crap on ES, and an admission (even if coerced!) that the AEs were black Africans. --Carlos Oliver Coke
However, [professor Barry Kemp] currently writing the latest edition of his book, and I've been trying to influence it - if he doesn't amend the more controversial aspects of it then I'll have wasted my time. But...if that happens, then I'll revisit the idea of posting our correspondence. --Swenet
9) Carlos Oliver Coke the needy commie loon, obsessed with racists and evangelizing about a “black Egypt”. Privately he doesn't even believe in this, but he needs this for his commie utopia where every professor with a different view (different view=racist in his worldview) is converted to his "black Egypt" fetish. Carlos Oliver Coke has a bizarre, tenacious obsession with insisting on using other people and their emails, views and opinions to win debates and spread this false messiah gospel:
Not sure. Part of me thinks that [Anglo’s] knowledge could be used as an additional source of technical analysis. Previously he used his reading to argue against an African Egypt, and I'm now wondering if he could be tapped as one more voice providing evidence for. It would make a dramatic story - the hard core, repentant internet racist, who once argued that the Ancient Egyptians were white, now provides evidence to say that they were Black. --Carlos Oliver Coke
Anglo doesn't have any additional knowledge - for me, his participation would be more symbolic, a sign to the other (internet) racists on where the Egypt debate is going. --Carlos Oliver Coke
posted
I believe I've said it before, but I shall repeat it again: our buddy Carlos got himself too worked up over converting other academics to his worldview. If he simply wanted to influence the public image of ancient Egypt, all he'd have to do is write his own damn book on the subject, wherein he'd state his own damn conclusions after citing his own damn research, instead of worrying what orthodox Egyptologists think. His entire crusade to manipulate the establishment into stating his own conclusions for him is an exercise in futility even without the ethical problems. He just reeks of an insecure social-justice wannabe.
posted
Not only that. It's also futile because competent anthropologists have abandoned the simplistic biblical race origin narrative (i.e. white, red, black) he's trying to reintroduce, a long time ago. They're removing the old racial connotations in a lot of terminology (e.g. from the old "Hamito-Semitic" to the geographic Afro-Asiatic). They're not going to go back because some illiterate nobody tries to intimidate and chastise them for their privately held views. The only people who are going to buy into his deceptions are politically correct academics whose ignorance can easily be exploited because they don't know any better (unlike Carlos Oliver Coke, who has been warned again and again).
Mota's genome is a recent example in a long line of findings that show it's not a contradiction for unadmixed indigenous Africans to be closer to coastal North Africans (with substantial admixture) than to certain Sub-Saharan African groups. Along with all the other times I pummeled Carlos Oliver Coke views until he went into hiding or ran away in tears, Mota's genome is just another epic sledgehammer blow to Carlos Oliver Coke's commie activist agenda.
Even if all these scientific setbacks didn't spell trouble, Carlos Oliver Coke's commie agenda would still be futile as he'd be left with the embarrassing fact that he's cringingly incompetent and untalented in this area. He has no progress to show for all his efforts and schooling. As I mentioned earlier, Carlos Oliver Coke doesn't seem to learn: he just parrots what you tell him like a journalist reading from a teleprompter. He can't extrapolate what you tell him to other relevant areas, i.e. true learning. All he does is search for confirmation for feel-good kumbaya views he wants to believe and then he adopts it, like a flunky looking for approval. When questioned, he simply refers back to the approval of the person or PhD he parroted (remember that embarrassing gaffe involving his use of Djehuti's posts?).
No matter how much Carlos Oliver Coke tries to hole himself up in his little comfort zone bubble of yes-men "PhDs", eventually he's going to become the loony laughing stock of all the people he pissed off and tried to slander.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Typical Carlos Oliver Coke deception below. Oldest trick in the book. Running X-rays or reconstructions of certain AE personalities by certain academics and leaving out crucial information.
Ask yourself why Carlos Oliver Coke insisted so long on using X-rays in his conversation with academics, instead of actual images of the same well-preserved mummies. Or why he picked out the ones he was most comfortable with. X-rays in profile view lend themselves better to his direct and indirect attempts to hide the fact that he felt that certain pharaohs looked racially ambiguous. Carlos Oliver Coke tries to do a similar thing in the thread he created, below. He tries to goad his audience in a certain direction with his suggestive article, knowing full well that afros were just one among many hair textures in ancient Egypt. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=007248;p=1#000000
It isn't until he's called out for something he already knew that he starts giving the information he was initially withholding with his suggestive article:
quote: Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke:
quote: Originally posted by lioness: Could you run a fine-toothed comb through stereotypical Afro-type hair?
Can't remember which of the following I've heard this could signify - -a change in the gene pool -used to extract lice -purely symobolic
Yeah, memory tends to get fuzzy when you're called out for your bs.
Carlos Oliver Coke's conversations with academics are fraught with these subtle deceptions and omissions.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I’ve had the chance to read through Anson’s 24-page promo material for his business/business idea. What I don’t understand is why, on the last page, under the question Who Am I? , and a photo of himself, Anson says to the reader/potential customer:
“My name is Willy Emblem, and I’m the founder of XXXXXXXXXXXXX.......”
Of course, ‘Willy Emblem’ is NOT his real name, so not entirely sure why he’d give one that's so completely different.
Maybe in this thread he could post the page referred to.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote: I believe I've said it before, but I shall repeat it again: our buddy Carlos got himself too worked up over converting other academics to his worldview. If he simply wanted to influence the public image of ancient Egypt, all he'd have to do is write his own damn book on the subject, wherein he'd state his own damn conclusions after citing his own damn research, instead of worrying what orthodox Egyptologists think. His entire crusade to manipulate the establishment into stating his own conclusions for him is an exercise in futility even without the ethical problems. He just reeks of an insecure social-justice wannabe.
But Brandon Pilcher previously sent me an unsolicited PM where he suggested:
22/10/2014
quote: I was thinking back to all the recent conservations about Barry Kemp and his belief in African substructure, and I wanted to ask you this: has Barry Kemp, in all your various correspondences with him, ever characterized ancient Nubian people as black?
Whatever made be said about how Egypto-Nubians relate to other dark-skinned African people, we are in agreement that Nubians and Egyptians weren't really as different as popular misconception holds. To use Swenet's vocabulary, they would have been part of the same population substructure. Given Kemp's emphasis on African diversity when it comes to assigning the Egyptians to a "black" category, he really ought to do the same with the Nubians if he wanted to stay consistent.
If he doesn't, you could easily set up a trap where he's forced to reconcile his belief in Nubian blackness with his claim that African diversity precludes blackness from being a useful category for Egyptians. Have you considered this?
Have you (again) forgotten this^ Brandon?
More time wasted --with idiots-- on this site that I can't get back.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do realize people can change their minds over the course of a year, don't you, O Pinnocchio Pepsi? Just because I used to think you were all right doesn't mean I do now. Especially not after I have a fuller picture of your SJW mischief.
Why don't you run over to a place like tumblr? I'm sure it'll be a better hugbox for you...as long as you avoid the wrong triggers, of course.
posted
I use whatever pseudonym on the internet I please. I don't answer to anyone for what I do, when I do it and how I do it. He now tries to get me to answer for using pseudonyms. What the hell!??? Are you kidding me? How bizarre. This is just like that time he asked another adult poster on Egyptsearh whether their "mom condones their online posts". SMH. Then people act surprised I use insults when he says the retarded stuff that comes out his mouth.
This is Carlos Oliver Coke's mental problem. He's too senile to correctly size up situations and people, which gets him into trouble all the time.
1) He tried to make Kemp and his other correspondents out to be racists and failed due to his mental problems
2) He posted a completely irrelevant Dutch thread in which I featured, to make me out to look "ungrateful for dismissing professional advice and feedback" (read: repeated insults with a racially prejudiced undertone and off topic comments) I supposedly asked for. Carlos Oliver Coke's narrative of what happened in that thread completely misses the mark. Carlos Oliver Coke keeps finding himself in these situations where he think he's found something to use in one of his defamation campaigns, but it later turns out to be something completely different from what he thought happened. But, as is typically the case with Carlos Oliver Coke, he never admits that he was wrong; instead, he will typically double down (see the example with Kemp I mentioned earlier) and continue his confused rants. Like I said, Carlos Oliver Coke has mental problems.
3) When he got into trouble (for refusing to admit that he was wrong) with the people who supported him, he started spazzing out and tried to use Djehuti's posts in a desperate attempt to win the argument using what he mistakenly thought was an example of Djehuty doing the same thing he was criticized for. This is typical Carlos Oliver Coke behavior that I've described many times: he always hides behind other people when questioned, because he's too incompetent to stand his own ground. Due to his mental problems, Carlos Oliver Coke failed to grasp that Djehuti's posts were completely different from his. When it was pointed out to him, he dug in even deeper and further insulted the people who were supporting him
4) During the same laughable event, he tried to use old posts of mine to argue the same point, but failed. He completely ignored much more recent private comments I had made to him which negated his attempts to get me to appear to contradict myself. Later, he left embarrassed of the melodrama he had created, saying something along the lines of "if only Egyptsearch knows what you secretly adhere to", not knowing that it actually was a common sentiment among the more capable ES members. Months later, still utterly clueless about how much of a joke he was turning himself into, he continued this bizarre rant against me online. Every time he tried he got shut down immediately and was shown to be a confused lunatic. But that doesn't mean that Carlos Oliver Coke wouldn't resurface months later -- or in the future -- and try again. Another example highlighting Carlos Oliver Coke's mental problems
5) Not too long ago I PM'ed Carlos Oliver Coke after he started talking to me in public at least twice (after I had stopped talking to him). One of these public conversations involved Carlos Oliver Coke talking to me when I was criticizing ES' moderator in real-time while he was committing abuses. Not tolerating any criticism, this mod deleted my public comments. Since I couldn't talk in public (my posts were deleted all the time) I then tried to continue the deleted conversation privately, as I was curious to see if Carlos Oliver Coke would be honest enough to admit that this mod (whom Carlos Oliver Coke has used several times behind the scenes, to nefariously arrange for incriminating and embarrassing posts about him to be deleted) was abusive. Never mind that Carlos Oliver Coke came to me and he started this topic himself and that I had asked the same question in public before it got deleted. When I tried to privately carry on this exact same conversation, he starting a bizarre, utterly paranoid rant about me secretly conspiring to use his PMs against him and tried to frame the conversation (which he had started himself) as "unsolicited mail". Again, this is all due to Carlos Oliver Coke's advanced mental problems.
6) Carlos Oliver Coke strangely insists that facebook groups have a section dedicated to profile photos. He needs this fantasy to be true so that he can falsely accuse me of "spreading personal material from the fb group", so he can feel better about his own breaches of privacy and confidentiality. Carlos Oliver Coke says he remembers this vividly, but everyone who knows how facebook groups work knows that Carlos Oliver Coke is crazy if he believes this to be true (in fact, you can become a member of a random facebook group today, just to verify that no such section exists). Even the person in question admitted that the material in question was publicly available by googling his known aliases. As usual, Carlos Oliver Coke doubles down and continues dragging people into fantasy world and utterly bizarre allegations. Again, vividly exemplified here: Carlos Oliver Coke has mental problems.
[list]7) Carlos Oliver Coke accuses certain academics of downplaying Greco-Roman texts that portray the ancient Egyptians as being a population with African characteristics. While this is true (with some caveats), Carlos Oliver Coke also makes the serious allegation that said academics "consistently mistranslate" said texts and tamper with them. The so-called 'evidence' Carlos Oliver Coke presented to 'prove' this claim, didn't hold up to basic scrutiny and was immediately falsified by lioness. Of course, typical of Carlos Oliver Coke, he then tries to double down and deflect, but never retracts the false "racism" allegations he keeps inventing and making up. Yet another example of how crazy and paranoid Carlos Oliver Coke is.
I could go on and on. And I'll probably make a more comprehensive post detailing this better so everyone can see what I mean when I say that Carlos Oliver Coke is batsh!t crazy.
Instead of defending the allegations I'm bringing to him here, the psycho is digging into completely irrelevant areas of my online activities, which normal people would consider harmless and even wise considering security.
Note that, if I wanted, I could post about Carlos Oliver Coke's personal life (for instance, the fact that he's a member of a political party that's filled with anti-intellectuals and commmies, his laughable short stint in low level politics and a lot more embarrassing stuff). He seems to think that, because I've so far refrained from posting such information, I must not know about it.
This is all the more evidence for people to see that Carlos Oliver Coke is a rotten psycho who gets some sick kick out of committing breaches of confidence and confidentiality all the time, which, as people could see from the other thread, he's strangely in denial about.
Carlos Oliver Coke's bizarre infatuation with my business ventures only shows that he has nothing on me in regards to the topic under discussion. Which is strange, as one would think that Carlos Oliver Coke would have all sorts of incriminating evidence against me from our many conversations to support the claims he's making about my character.
Carlos Oliver Coke's irrelevant departures into personal life paint a good portrait of his creepiness and mental problems for the people googling him as well as his employer(s), if I decide to take it there.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're a professor and you've been contacted by someone named Carlos Oliver Coke, and you're doing a background check on him, answer this feral lunatic at your own risk. He's known to lie pathologically, has severe mental problems (judging by his utterly bizarre behavior) and will not hestitate to publish your private email conversations and slander your name if you exercise your right to have your own opinions and views.
Here is more of Carlos Oliver Coke's extreme mental impairedness in action. He makes a drama online about my use of pseudonyms in my private activities (which are completely irrelevant here), but he apparently has a couple pseudonyms, or "false names" as he calls it, himself. Below, you can see him addressing me using the 'Croll Duncan' moniker:
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: What was that about using a false name
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: Of course, ‘Willy Emblem’ is NOT his real name
^Note also the point I've been making about Carlos Oliver Coke many times. In the screenshot above you can see him admit to getting help debating professors he can't debate on his own (something he has vehemently denied and lied about in the past, even bluffing and daring me to bring it to court). If Carlos Oliver Coke writes you, he probably has someone else in his ear (someone whom he has manipulated into thinking you're potentially a 'racist') instructing him on what to say in his conversations with you and how to interpret your answers.
Again, engage this double dealing, two-faced, rabid lunatic at your own risk.
I had no intention of posting any of his other names, although it was certainly fair game. But this psycho is forcing my hand. SMH.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're a professor in some way active in the area of ancient Egypt, and you've been contacted by someone named Carlos Oliver Coke or Croll Duncan, heads up. Note that he may operate under a different name now that the truth has come out.
As someone familiar with Carlos Oliver Coke's commie views and bizarre reasoning, I've had the chance to witness first-hand the bizarre, paranoid rationale that goes into Carlos Oliver Coke's decision to secretly persecute a professor for being a so-called "racist".
All it takes for Carlos Oliver Coke to brand a professor a hypocrite and racist is a refusal to submit to his demand to stretch the western, racial use of 'black' to an African population generally not considered 'black' in the West. For example, the bio-anthropologist (G. Billy) cited below applies the term 'black' ("noire") rigidly to equatorial West/Central Africans, but not to other dark skinned African populations in North Africa and along the African side of the Red Sea.
quote:Il apparaît que les populations actuelles d'Egypte et du Soudan sont peu influencées par celles d'Afrique Noire Equatoriale, mais sont en relation étroite avec les populations côtières d'Ethiopie et de la péninsule arabique à un degré moindre.
However, it's clear from this professor's writings that he considers these populations and their phenotypes African in principle. For example, here:
quote:Elles se traduisent par un gradient de concentration d'éléments plus grands, à têtes et faces plus étroites en passant de la forêt à la savane et à la steppe. Leur interprétation en a été donnée comme une adaptation morphologique aux différents climats.
Here are some of Carlos Oliver Coke's two-faced pretext rationalizations as to why he persecutes academics for being racist ("racist" is the race card Carlos Oliver Coke uses on any 'white' person who refuses to use the term 'black' in a way that gels with his commie agenda).
(Carlos Oliver Coke wrote the below after I advised him to stop his obsessive focus on “black” during the time he came to me for guidance.)
quote:"I wasn't going to adapt the term 'black' because that lies at the crux of the debate. They're more comfortable with the term 'indigenous', or 'a people of Africa', but have a visceral, inconsistent reaction to what most everyday people would readily intuit by reading the evidence/discussion; that the AEs were 'black'." --Carlos Oliver Coke
(Carlos Oliver Coke wrote the below when his underlying hidden agenda for using 'black' was noticed for the first time.)
quote:"Courtesy of that guy Salassin, who recorded their conversation, Keita says something like: Shomarka doesn't call you black, only himself, that's political. (The exact quote is somewhere below.) My point is that he obviously knows what the score is regarding the racial backgrounds of the Egyptians, but comes across as aloof, and at the same time timid - he even tried to advise Sally-Ann Ashton against using 'black' as a racial descriptor when referencing the Egyptians." --Carlos Oliver Coke
quote:"I'd actually invite them to engage in their semantics [Carlos considers confirming to the western use of 'black' "semantics"] because it foregrounds their hypocrisy and racism" --Carlos Oliver Coke
These comments are pretexts because Carlos Oliver Coke is secretly in agreement with the people he's persecuting (i.e. Carlos Oliver Coke believes that approximations of the modal dynastic Egyptian phenotype often look racially ambiguous, using western racial standards).
But Carlos Oliver Coke is not only confused and in denial in regards to what he says about the visual appearance of the modal dynastic Egyptian; the same denial and confusion also seems to surface when it comes to what lay people in the West consider 'black' to mean.
Googling various general, non-suggestive phrases with the 'black' adjective (e.g. ‘black muslim’) mostly yields search results on African Americans and people thought to be related to/resemble West/Central Africans. This is telling because, if Carlos Oliver Coke’s made up claim above were true (that it’d be a self-evident thing for people in the West to consider dark skinned North Africans “black”) these google search results should be filled with dark brown skinned populations from the Horn, the Sahara and North Africa. In other words, places where most dark skinned Africans in the Muslim world live/have historically lived.
West/Central African and African American muslims are a lesser known minority compared to other dark brown skinned people in the muslim world. Yet, public perception associates 'black muslim' with communities of West/Central African descent who tend to keep to themselves and aren't very widely covered.
Of course, Carlos Oliver Coke doesn’t care about real world facts. The Egyptologist Barry Kemp tried to explain the western use of 'black' to him and he didn’t listen. His tutor in his anthropology classes tried to explain this to him and he didn’t listen. I told him this around the time I was schooling him and he didn’t listen.
Carlos Oliver Coke himself even cites examples of public perception about who is considered “black”, confirming what the people he’s been at odds with have been saying all along, but his epic denial is just too ingrained for him to remove the voluntary wool from his eyes and see the light:
quote:“Kind of like the young Afro Caribbean man I referenced in the programme on UK 'ethnic minority' tensions; the Somalis are black, but they're not black.“ --Carlos Oliver Coke
^Fully aware of the rigid and selective western use of ‘black’ in one moment, in the next, Carlos Oliver Coke will flip flop, look you dead in the eye and tell you that Africans falling outside this rigid use would also be regarded as ‘black’ in the West. You’d almost think that these flip flops are Carlos alternating between his many multiple personalities in mid-conversation.
To ensure that Carlos Oliver Coke doesn't have to be reminded anymore of these uncomfortable realities, Carlos Oliver Coke has filled his support circle with ignorant politically correct yes-men who tell him everything he wants to hear. Carlos Oliver Coke is deceiving many of them about certain facts I've told Carlos about, that would cause them to have more sympathy with academics like Barry Kemp. As a result of not having any competent people around, his email discussions have gotten more dumbed down and petty as time progressed.
Only a matter of time before Carlos Oliver Coke’s gossipy tell-all book comes out before everyone can see how low on substance it will be and how paranoid, race-obsessed and crazy Carlos Oliver Coke is.
“Does the Sphinx look black”?
“But the Liverpool museum says they were ‘black’”
“If I bombard an academic with lengthy polemic emails filled with “were they black” type questions and they refuse to answer and cut off communications, its evidence that they’re racist”
"If an academic refuses to use 'black' in a way that matches my hidden agenda, it forgrounds their hypocrisy and racism"
posted
Soooo..could a potential solution to this dilemma be to drop the racial term "black" entirely along with all its miserable baggage(not denying its social reality but speaking purely to its utility in discussions like this) and just stuck with dark-skinned indigenous Africans?
I never really went for the "African look" or "true negro" way of argument due to Africans innate diversity on their own, so not really sure what "black features" would be outside of the stereotypes applied to African Americans(Afros, broad noses, thick lips, which doesn't even apply to all African Americans anyway).
EDIT: Though there's also some peoples tendency to use Black and African as synonymous terms(you can see this in the field of African art which still sometimes makes a dichotomy between "African"(i.e. "Black Africa"/SSA) art and North African Art(which is sometimes just lumped in with "Middle Eastern" Art)if that's what he's going for I can see why he may try to cling to that term but posting peoples confidential emails and stuff trying to force them to adopt similar usage is silly.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The problem is a lack of black academics
So, your solution is to simply add more muscle to this senseless rope tugging match? Interesting suggestion.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just like other continents, Africa has lost most of its ancient diversity. Written history and descriptions of populations with the sole purpose of objectively mapping human diversity and cultures post-date these extinction and assimilation events. As a result, wrong ideas about the quintessential inhabitants of regions and continents have become the basis for our inferences about the origins of populations.
Thanks to bio-anthropology and genetics, we're only now starting to rediscover scraps of this lost diversity, but perception-wise, the damage is already done.
Today, we use racial language inherited from a period in which people had colonial views and agendas. Foreigners came to Africa and perceptions were formed based on then-prevalent demographic specifics.
Example: all the regions that favor micro-evolutions and specializations that differ from the ones we see in and near Africa's tropical rainforests, are almost all in or near admixture zones in North and East Africa. This can lead someone to think that African variations can be explained using just admixture between various types in and outside of Africa. Of course, assumptions like this have dominated anthropology for a long time.
In terms of getting an accurate picture of Africa's historic human diversity, it also doesn't help that Africa was and still is dominated by the speakers of just one language family (Niger-Kordofanian). This is a very recent demographic state of affairs (i.e. it was mostly caused by the Bantu migrations, which is recent history) and it has therefore skewed perceptions about Africa's historical diversity and who best exemplifies Africans and 'the blacks'.
This has made it so that the speakers of one large language family have become identified with an entire continent, while other equally indigenous groups were seen as atypical from that perceived norm. Thus, we see Brace say that Bernal's suggestion that the ancient Egyptians were African is "misleading" because he has hangups about what it means to be African.
We're now stuck with old language based on this perceived norm and we're still at a too early stage to have developed appropriate language. Scholars like Keita try to make the best of it with terminology like "Saharo-Tropical variants". He's trying to move the field in a more productive direction, but in the excerpt I cited above, you can see the thanks he gets from ungrateful buffoons like Carlos Oliver Coke who confuse this for a weakness on Keita's part.
Illiterate crackpots like Carlos Oliver Coke come from left field, knowing absolutely nothing about the subject, and think they can start calling people racists based on flimsy evidence and lecturing well-intentioned professors.
No matter how many times you point out to them the stupidity in what they're doing, they're too stuck on stupid to compute the notion that retroactively trying to fit all the extinct and living African populations who were unaccounted for in the old racial language, into said old racial language, doesn't work. This old language was never meant to be considerate to Africans and their best interests.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Soooo..could a potential solution to this dilemma be to drop the racial term "black" entirely along with all its miserable baggage
I have dropped it myself for reasons that include what you just mentioned. But if people want to continue to use the term in serious anthro discussions as a catchall and invite the mess it evokes, more power to them. That's exactly what many of them will do because, in my experience, most people in this community are here with an activist agenda with anthropology only serving to legitimize their pre-existing agenda.
Unlike Carlos Oliver Coke, I don't suggest imposing terminology on people and blackmailing and punishing them if they refuse.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Soooo..could a potential solution to this dilemma be to drop the racial term "black" entirely along with all its miserable baggage(not denying its social reality but speaking purely to its utility in discussions like this) and just stuck with dark-skinned indigenous Africans?
I never really went for the "African look" or "true negro" way of argument due to Africans innate diversity on their own, so not really sure what "black features" would be outside of the stereotypes applied to African Americans(Afros, broad noses, thick lips, which doesn't even apply to all African Americans anyway).
EDIT: Though there's also some peoples tendency to use Black and African as synonymous terms(you can see this in the field of African art which still sometimes makes a dichotomy between "African"(i.e. "Black Africa"/SSA) art and North African Art(which is sometimes just lumped in with "Middle Eastern" Art)if that's what he's going for I can see why he may try to cling to that term but posting peoples confidential emails and stuff trying to force them to adopt similar usage is silly.
I myself have come around to the same conclusion, namely that color adjectives like "black" (which were never literally accurate to begin with) cause more trouble than they're worth. My best guess is that "black" stuck around to distinguish native Africans from descendents of later colonists. But then how many Arabs in North Africa, or Europeans in South Africa, really want to be labelled simply African alongside the natives?
Posts: 7090 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, there is casual colloquial talk which might never go away. A good example is "the sun rises in the East and sets in the West"--which is not true even when taken literally. Scientifically, it is just nonsense.
Similarly for the term "black" when used in sociological "racial" talk.
But when persons are seen visually one can easily determine their geographic "racial" affinity. One casual test would be to google all the football teams in Africa and examine them visually. One can usually tell which members of which teams show strong phenotypical affinities with each other.
Given that there are no pure in-bred large population groups then all that one can go are a mixture of phhenotypical and genotypical affinities.
But just for the sake of curiousity how might one categorise the items in the following? Generic Ancient Egyptians?
quote:Originally posted by Lamin: But just for the sake of curiousity how might one categorise the items in the following? Generic Ancient Egyptians?
I think the sculpture with the flattish nose and smooth surface (i.e. not the one with the more porous surface, which I have a harder time assigning) is consistent with a range of looks that can be called something like 'Boreafrasan' or 'Austral-Egyptian'. That is, the group dynastic Egypt seems to have inherited its language from and which is most prevalent in Upper Egyptian cemeteries after the period of Wengrow's primary pastoral community and before the first kings.
How would you describe her?
As you know, whatever term one applies to this general phenotype, it should be used as a parallel to comparative terms we already use to draw links, like 'Khoisan', 'Cushitic', 'Maghrebi', 'Middle Eastern', etc. Or you risk that some clumsy screw up like Carlos Oliver Coke will just screw it up in some other way and blame your posts in panic when someone calls them out for getting it completely wrong. Thin line between loose labels and typology.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
No need to split hairs on this. The appropriate term is "generic African" as found all over Africa. Simple. All of the sculptures easily fit into the phenotypical range one sees in West Africa.
Amusing how the Western onlookers seem so dismayed. I remember some years ago I went to visit an "Akhenaten and Nefertiti" museum show. I distinctly heard a Western visitor comment after gazing at some of the pieces "degenerate". That more or less sums it up--an inability by many Westerners to say that the AE were indigenous and generic Africans.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the sculpture with the flattish nose and smooth surface (i.e. not the one with the more porous surface, which I have a harder time assigning)
What difference does it make? They were all sisters with the same parents. This is very common in Africa: siblings often look different--pigmentation and physiognomic traits. Though in the case of the Amarna Princesses, they have almost identical physiognomic traits.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Splitting hairs? Look at your post. You were steering in a certain direction (i.e. that Africans picked out of a crowd or football team can often be assigned to their region with a reasonable accuracy). You then ask me a question in that context. I answer it by saying the lineage/region I would place that sculpture in, and because you don't like the answer you shift the goalpost on me. Of course it's consistent with Africans. Where did I say otherwise? Lol.
Also, you say that they're sisters. They're not people. They're stylized sculptures and, in answering your question, I treated them as such (i.e. individual cases).
quote:Originally posted by lamin: All of the sculptures easily fit into the phenotypical range one sees in West Africa.
That's like saying the sculptures of Romans fit into the phenotypical range of Pashtun and Punjabis. What is your point? Sure. There is going to be some overlap to the naked eye if you stare hard enough. But do you honestly think people can't tell a real-life Italian apart from a Punjabi in most cases?
Try your sleight of hand elsewhere.
quote:That more or less sums it up--an inability by many Westerners to say that the AE were indigenous and generic Africans.
"Generic Africans". Without copping out, please elaborate. Lol. I really hope that doesn't mean what I think it means. And I don't care what western museum goers think. Take your complaints about what those westerners think to the ancient Egypt subforum where you can lament that 24/7 and have an entire audience to bask in it with you. That's not what this thread is about. If you make allegations of racism here against certain professors, you back it up. Their, or the West's refusal to use 'black' the way you want them to is not racism.
quote:Though in the case of the Amarna Princesses, they have almost identical physiognomic traits.
Again, you're not looking at people, but wooden sculptures. The significance? You don't know what the sisters looked like or whether the resemblance between the sculptures is based on realism or an artifact of the artistic convention or something about the artist's signature style. If you bring ancient Egyptian art in the discussion, don't start making specific inferences about the portrayed subjects. It makes no sense, whatsoever.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Shouldn't be that hard to prove that I'm wrong. The Arabs, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and Chinese all have early written records on African populations.
Ancient Egyptians had their monuments and sharply distinguished between themselves and the Africans that looked like them on the one hand and Africans who didn't look like them on the other hand. The way medieval Arabs reserved the term Zanj for certain Africans and excluded all other dark skinned Africans also resembles today's rigid use of 'black' in the West. The way certain Greek texts compare certain "snub-nosed" Aethiopians to South Indians and Egyptians to pre-Indo-Aryan North Indians captures that exact same difference.
Is the whole world racist for making this distinction? Or is it just that you're sensitive and salty about the fact that certain patterns and linguistic, morphological and cultural fault lines between and within African meta populations are are going to naturally catch the attention of ethnographers?
Why don't you go back to the ancient Egypt subforum you crawled out of. You're clearly in way over your head.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ancient Greek Ptolemy (150 AD) in 'The Geography' on whom he considers 'black' (in terms of skin color, but also in terms of overall phenotype, judging by his use of "pure Aithiopians" in addition to saying that they were "black in color") among eastern and central Saharan populations. He's writing from Lower Egypt, so that's how "on our side of the equator" should be interpreted:
quote:For in the correspondingly situated places on our side of the equator, that is those on the Summer Tropic, people do not yet have the color of the Aithiopians, and there are no rhinoceros and elephants; but in places not much to the south of these, moderately black people are to be found, such as those who live in the "Thirty Schoinoi" [region in lower Nubia] outside of Soene. Of the same type, too, are the people of Garame, whom Marinos also says (and indeed, for this very reason) live neither right on the Summer Tropic nor to the north, but entirely to the south of it. But in places around Meroe people are already quite black in color, and are at last pure Aithiopians, and the habitat of the elephants and more wonderful animals is there.
So, the Nubians near the Egyptian border and Garamantes are described as "moderately black" and the Nubians[?] around Meroe are considered "fully black". Is Ptolemy a "racist"? "Unreasonably unwilling to admit [insert concocted lie, touted as fact]"? Having a "visceral reaction"? Suffering from "mental illness"? Lol. No matter the crazy claims you think you've seen here, always expect the unexpected.
The faked outrage and complaints over long-settled issues like this and attempts to put stigmas on accepting widely recognized subsets of African variations, immediately exposes those who use ancient history as a crutch for their hidden agendas. But go ahead. By all means, put your neediness and insecurities on display.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
LOL. You need to get around more. First those Armana princesses were REAL young girls sculpted realistically in the REALISM style of the Armarna period. One would think that you would know that. "Armarna" art was a distinct type of art of the 18th Dynasty, known for its {b] realistic[/b] portrayal of individuals.
I say must get around some more--especially in Africa. In Africa--just as the Egyptians portrayed them--there are very dark Africans but also many brown and yellow ones found in the general populations. I imagine that you are in the U.S., well just look at CNN sometimes. There is a well known female broadcaster from West Africa whose name is Aisha Sesay. She is brown in pigmentation with almost tiny features. There is also Femi Oke of Al Jazeera. She is yellow in colour. There is also Folly Bah of Al Jazeera, also yellow in pigmentation. They are all West Africans and generic too. There are millions like that. So do try to get around some more.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
OK, you cite Ptolemy. There is nothing racist in what he wrote. Sudanese and Senegambians tend to be very dark--as you find in India, very dark people and some very light ones--but in general most Africans are dark brown but large percentages are brown in colour--with yellow ones seen here and there.
Now cite Herodotus who actually saw the Egyptians. He described them as "black skinned and woolly haired". Do you agree as you agree with your Ptolemy quote? And Aristotle's point that being too black as an Egyptian or Nubian means that you are a coward. Or too white--as in the case of women. He also wrote that the best colour is the intermediate tawny colour of lions. Do you agree with Aristotle as you agree with Ptolemy?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
My views on ancient Egyptian phenotypical variation are well known. It's not about whether I think Ptolemy is right or wrong or whether I think Herodotus is right or wrong. I have little interest in discussing in this thread your interpretation of Greek texts or mine (I don't recall expressing agreement with Ptolemy, and, contrary to what you're insinuating, Ptolemy lived in Egypt). What I'm trying to convey here is that there is nothing racist in and of itself about placing various groups with an acknowledged local origin, within clades.
When you go to the Middle East you're advised to not mistake Kurds and other Iranic peoples for Arabs. When you go to Timbuktu and you ask the Tuareg where they fit in terms of population affinity, they might tell you a lot of things, but they're not likely to put themselves in the same lineage as Africans to the south. Only certain people here get in their feelings when this happens in Africa, even though no one denied anyone's Africanity.
This is common everywhere and I'm not going to waste any more time debating common, well-established practices. My audience for this thread is common sense folk and people in the academic world.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
My views on ancient Egyptian phenotypical variation are well known. It's not about whether I think Ptolemy is right or wrong or whether I think Herodotus is right or wrong. I have little interest in discussing in this thread your interpretation of Greek texts or mine (I don't recall expressing agreement with Ptolemy, and, contrary to what you're insinuating, Ptolemy lived in Egypt). What I'm trying to convey here is that there is nothing racist in and of itself about placing various groups with an acknowledged local origin, within clades.
When you go to the Middle East you're advised to not mistake Kurds and other Iranic peoples for Arabs. When you go to Timbuktu and you ask the Tuareg where they fit in terms of population affinity, they might tell you a lot of things, but they're not likely to put themselves in the same lineage as Africans to the south. Only certain people here get in their feelings when this happens in Africa, even though no one denied anyone's Africanity.
This is common everywhere and I'm not going to waste any more time debating common, well-established practices. My audience for this thread is common sense folk and people in the academic world.
Any sensible person agrees with this.
Ancient Egyptians like Kushites, Zulu, Wolof, Ancient Greeks, French, German, English are all their own people with both differences and similarities between each others like any 2 groups of humans.
But then why does a racist idiot like you tries to say Ancient Egyptians were genetically closer to Europeans than sub-Saharan Africans even if, for example, Ramses III is determined to be E1b1a or that they are considered indigenous Africans not migrants from Eurasia by archaeologists? On one hand, you try to say Ancient Egyptians were their own people, which is true, on the other hand you try to link them with Eurasians.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet before you answer this I think its important to always begin with the newer group first in an "are closer to" statement,
That clarifies things.
therefore saying a) "Eurasians are closer to ancient Egyptians that sub-Saharan Africans are" may or may not be true but it's an improvement over >
b) "Ancient Egyptians are closer to Europeans"'
The problem is that who you say something is 'closer to' it implies that that "closer to" thing came first. So then it makes sense to have the older thing last
Please think about this carefully, the differenent implication in those two statements
For instance if saying a boy is closer in his appearance to his father than to his mother it is a more proper statement then to say the father is closer in appearance to his son than his mother is, it may be true but it is an awkward implication. The who came first thing is very relevant here, the implication
"Basal Eurasian" is a bad term in my opinion. Either the person came from Eurasia or they did not. It's better to say "Future Eurasian African" it sounds awkward yet its more clear for sure
_______________________
Amun-Ra, name calling is inflamatory. I do it myself, but only when somebody else does it to me first
If someone thinks the Egyptians were primarily Eurasian it doesn't necessarily make them racist. That may just be honestly mistaken. It's racist when they know otherwise but say something other than what they believe -and you cant' mind read people and be able to tell that
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Suppose some white academic come sout and says, "according to American contemporary definition, the Egyptians were black"
Then other researchers will say to him publically "so what is the definition of black precisely?"
So if he then does define it, this is what we want ???
For some white person to define black precisely and then say who is and who isn't black ???
You don't have to "suppose"- some already say just that,including Mary Lefkowitz, or mainstream Egyptologists like Tyson-Smith.
And many white people have already "defined" black time and time again, usually in a distorted way that denies or downplays African diversity- hence the well known "true negro" stereotype. One key issue in the field is avoiding or rejecting such stereotypical definitions by whites, or whomever.
the problem is lack of black academics ^^But there are already credible black academics in place like Keita that reject the above stereotyped and distorted definitions.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [
the problem is lack of black academics ^^But there are already credible black academics in place like Keita that reject the above stereotyped and distorted white definitions. [/QB]
What are the proper terms to describe the ancestry of modern Tunisians and Moroccans?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lioness: Swenet before you answer this
But what makes you think 1) I'm going to answer a slippery wack-a-mole who is actively trying to open new discussions while on the run from numerous old discussions he ran away from and 2) I don't recall ever having made such a sweeping unqualified claim. It was always in reference to certain dynastic descendants of certain Upper Palaeolithic Saharan populations, who, BTW, also inhabit SSA in some cases. So, the claim attributed to me is false on all levels.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lioness: The problem is that who you say something is 'closer to' it implies that that "closer to" thing came first. So then it makes sense to have the older thing last
On second thought, you know what? Your post lets me know you understand the idea I've been trying to articulate and that you're not mindlessly taking that liar's bait as certain others have been doing in the past. Appreciate that.
quote:What are the proper terms to describe the ancestry of modern Tunisians and Moroccans?
That's a naive question. They vary in phenotype just as Brazilians do. Some are indigenous African, others are hybrids of settler Arabs, while others may be of primarily Roman, Vandal and European ancestry.
But you should know by now that Y-halogroup and MtDNA analysis has sorted that one out by now.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What are the proper terms to describe the ancestry of modern Tunisians and Moroccans?
That's a naive question.
Is it? Explain to me how terms your prefer ("generic African") are appropriate to describe the indigenous ancestry of Maghrebis. You can't get Maghrebi ancestry by mixing Eurasians with Sub-Saharan Africans. Therefore, this question, as well as the common reluctance to use old racial langauge ("black") on their native ancestry component, can imply legitimate concerns.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is "indigenous African" the part you mean I missed? Ok. Explain what you mean with "indigenous African". Because I think it's just code for "generic African". Let's see if your description covers it.
EDIT: Why you feel it's a naive thing to ask. Because a relatively tiny minority of coastal Maghrebis differ somewhat from the average coastal Maghrebi, it invalidates the question?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you're a professor and you've been contacted by someone named Carlos Oliver Coke, and you're doing a background check on him, answer this feral lunatic at your own risk. He's known to lie pathologically, has severe mental problems (judging by his utterly bizarre behavior) and will not hestitate to publish your private email conversations and slander your name if you exercise your right to have your own opinions and views.
Here is more of Carlos Oliver Coke's extreme mental impairedness in action. He makes a drama online about my use of pseudonyms in my private activities (which are completely irrelevant here), but he apparently has a couple pseudonyms, or "false names" as he calls it, himself. Below, you can see him addressing me using the 'Croll Duncan' moniker:
You should be a tabloid journalist. Your overwrought,neurotic, exaggerated use of the language makes you look idiotic. The people in the Higherlevel thread owned you on that thread, calling you out for your silly recourse to the word 'slander'.
In my correspondence with Egyptologists I use my own name. Croll Duncan is an e-mail address I created specifically to deal with you because I wasn't sure about you. (My instinctive feeling was spot on.) Then my account got hacked/name revealed on this site.But so what.
Now. Let's get to the bottom of the more weighty issue of why, in your business dealings, you've used a name that's not your own.
Sidney Anson, why did you do this?
“Who am I?
[Photo of Sidney Anson]
My name is Willy Emblem, and I’m the founder of XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXX, and the developer of the XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX system. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at Willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com . or, if you prefer, by contacting me on my website: www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com
Willy Emblem”
Maybe you can explain whether introducing yourself to potential clients under a different name is acceptable practice?
What do you think the other people who participated in your disastrous Higherlevel debut would make of that?
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote: sometimes one notices a Swenet [Sidney Anson] postion on an early page in a thread that in a later page of the same thread he takes the opposite position and pretends he had been saying that all along (just sayin.)
quote: For Swenet validity depends only on his idea of reality or the word of his pals (as long as they don't cross him).
But let's not drift from the question I posed to you, Sidney Anson,on why you use a different name in your business dealings.Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me know when you're done, so I can continue adding to this thread.
And BTW, as people who have have engaged with me in private can testify, I have always recommended that folks of a FB group I helped set up with others, protect their identity, whether it was me suggesting to consider removing profile pictures/pictures of their children to registering with a dummy account.
People here will remember that I suggested to most/many of them to consider creating 1) dummy facebook accounts and 2) dummy email accounts (emails were required to send invitations via email) when I engaged with them beyond Egyptsearch.
My point? As a rule, I don't use my real name on the internet and always advice others not to do the same in my online dealings with them, even when I consider what I do to be safe in principle. Simply basic online security practices. But it's comical that people apparently think I'm high-profile enough to obsess over my mundane online activities and security measures.
An example of how I typically advice people to take care of their personal information. I said this in public, and often also reminded people about it when they PM'd me for access to the aforementioned facebook account:
quote:Remember, this is a private group. No one who isn't given access can access this group. If you already own a Facebook account but prefer to not use your personal info in this Facebook group, you can make your participation in this group as private as you want to. Just create a dummy account or restrict your Facebook account access. Note: Truthcentric, Beyoku, you guys are already in this Facebook group with your name and images out so if you want to make changes, now is the time to do so. Jari, Sundiata, Calabooz, and Ausar, you guys are already in this Facebook group, just use your login info.
posted
On page 24 of Anson's promotional material, it reads:
“Who am I?
[Photo of Sidney Anson]
My name is Willy Emblem, and I’m the founder of XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXX, and the developer of the XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX system. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at Willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com . or, if you prefer, by contacting me on my website: www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com
Willy Emblem”
Again, his name isn’t Willy Emblem. An alternative business e-mail address, which he once used in correspondence with me, contained his real name.
So why give me his real name but not his customers?
Despite the use of a different name in his promotional material, and his ill-fated debut on the Higherlevel forum (April 2013)Anson told me in Facebook correspondence that he was seeking to hire a telemarketer, presumably to promote and sell his product. Anson still has access to my correspondence with him, so can readily post confirmation in this thread.
Sidney Anson says:
quote:I almost NEvER use my name online. Again, simply basic online practices.
So wait, you're going into business and use a name that's not your own? How does that work?
How many people would feel confident buying a product from someone who used a name other than their own?
I’m taking a casual look into the ethics and legalities of attempting to trade/actually trading under a different name.
Again, why did you use a name other than your real name in your promotional material?
Info on Sidney Anson/Willy Emblem's high jinx on Dutch-language business forum, Higherlevel, where he manages to offend and bug the sh1t out of the very people he sought advice from...behind the link, scroll down to post dated 3rd Dec 2015: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009318
Here's the original Higherlevel thread in Dutch (for best results use google translate):
quote:Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke: I’m taking a casual look into the ethics and legalities of attempting to trade/actually trading under a different name.
"I'm taking a look into the ethics and legalities".
Lol. Mentally impaired fruitbasket. He actually suggested it would be illegal for me to not want my personal name and activities permanently on the internet. See the post below about Carlos Oliver Coke's cognitive dysfunction being behind his tendency to completely misdiagnose people and situations:
It's hilarious to see someone insist on 1) shooting themselves in the foot, 2) digging their own grave, 3) volunteering to lay down in it, and all the while being absolutely convinced that, 4) they're making others look bad and not themselves.
To the people contacted by Carlos Oliver Coke in the academic world who are tuning into this thread while Carlos Oliver Coke is going full-fledged mental for everyone to see: do you see what I've been saying about Carlos Oliver Coke's unlawful practices, including the posting of personal and confidential information?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic