posted
Although the National Geographic did not report this,the Forensic specialist in charge of the reconstruction said that Tut-ankh-amun's skull was African,but his nose opening was more like Europeans.
See the following:
Race was "the hardest call." The shape of the cranial cavity indicated an African, while the nose opening suggested narrow nostrils ? a European characteristic. The skull was a North African.
You are right! But I just wish you guys would discuss the cultural part of anthropology as well, not just the physical aspect, although that part is important as well!!
There is much to be said about the Egyptian culture, and I have learned much from Ausar.
Thought Writes:
I agree with you about this Djehuti, but as long as the CONTEXT of Egypt is conceptualized within a Eurocentric framework her secrets and keys will never be unlocked. Egypt was an African "civilization". To truly understand her we must view her within that context. When scientists do not view Egypt within her African context they make mistakes like finding crania with narrow faces and narrow noses and labeling them 'North African Caucasoid'. If Paul Kagame's skull was found a thousand years from now it would be labeled the same way without knowing the CONTEXT of the civilization.
[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 14 May 2005).]
quote:Is this the true face of Tut? This silicone-skinned bust is billed as the most accurate forensic reconstruction ever of ancient Egypt's Pharaoh Tutankhamun
Again I ask exactly how accurate is this reconstruction? Altogether there were three made. When they made the first one they said it was very accurate, but when they made the second one they said it was the most accurate one ever, now they make a third one and say the same thing they said about the last. Yet all three differ in varying degrees?
Were the forensic scientists who did the reconstructions properly double blinded--not knowing that it was Tut's skull, or did they know and so had certain biases and prejudgements of what the reconstruction was suppose to have looked like?!!
And as I've repeated, this new reconstruction looks exactly like an Afro-Puerto Rican friend of mine!
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
and Neo*Geo is right. You would expect these forensic experts to try to make their reconstruction bear some resemblence to the various images the AEs left of him!! Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Hawass also said:[b]“The shape of the face and skull are remarkably similar to a famous image of Tutankhamun as a child where he was shown as the sun god at dawn rising from a lotus blossom."
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 12 May 2005).][/B]
posted
Sorry folks. Sorry again--but on a light note. That nut-brown Tut with torso and diadem looks like MJ(not the hoopster) in the very early days of his transition. In error?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ausar: [B]Although the National Geographic did not report this,the Forensic specialist in charge of the reconstruction said that Tut-ankh-amun's skull was African,but his nose opening was more like Europeans.
Based on the sculptures, they look pretty much Eastern Africans, but the reconstruction of Tut looks more like a mulatto or something similar to a ... well I can't find the words.
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 14 May 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by Mike the Hellene: Sure. Why not give it a shot. This is from the work of a physical anthropologist named Scheele who preached against the use of anthropological characteristics to explain mental characteristics. A very likeable writer, too. He doesn't talk down to anyone and explores all possible avenues.
[b]Caucasoid Sorting Criteria and Characteristics: -head form ranges from short to long -medium or light brown to lily white skin color -hair seldom jet black but can be any lighter shade -form of hair almost never woolly but can be any other form, from straight to wavy to curly to somewhat nappy -eyes never black but can be any lighter shade -facial and body hair medium to very abundant -prognathism is very rare -lips medium to thin, seldom thick or everted -chin is a prominent facial feature -texture of hair seldom coarse, but usually fine -nose usually high and narrow, but never flat at the base -pelvic area in both sexes usually broad -range before colonial age: Europe, Middle East, North Africa, Turkestan
Negroid Sorting Criteria and Characteristics: -squarish frontal skull shape -almost always long-headed, the Negroid is the most long-headed type in the world, probably approaching its greatest cranial length in Nilotics -woolly or frizzy hair form -darkish brown to black hair -medium brown to jet black skin color -dark brown to black eye color -average nasal index is medium broad to very broad, though thinner noses are common in East Africa -considerable projection of face below nose (prognathy) -somewhat projecting incisors -nose appears concave in profile -nose tip usually elevated -nostrils usually thick and flaring -lips usually thick and everted -short facial form -somewhat prominent cheek bones -chin usually round and receding, very seldomly projecting as it does in Caucasoids -head hair short if not intentionally grown out -thin facial and body hair -generally small ears that fit close to the head -lower arms and legs quite long in proportion to the rest of each limb -leg calf usually quite small -heels project prominently -pelvis in both sexes usually narrow -range before colonial age: all of sub-Saharan Africa, minus the Khoisan areas
These sorting criteria and characteristics are used by criminal investigators to determine the race of the dead person from the skull. Because obviously you can't tell skin color from bones, you have to use the characteristics of the skull itself. This is why terms like Caucasoid and Negroid are useful.
[This message has been edited by Mike the Hellene (edited 12 May 2005).][/B]
Mike, have you ever been to Africa? Because if you say no, then you probably won't understand what I'm going to say...I think very few people on this forum understand what I mean when I say Caucasians don't exist, I don't have any root in North America, I don't even care whether the Eskimos built the Pyramids, I don't have to go any further than my building to realize that people outstide Africa are mixed, they all have African phenotypes, I keep trying to identify any original features beside the hair and the color of the skin among non Africans people but I can't find any. As an example, slanted eyes are found among Sans,dolicocephally, small and straight noses (which are different from many Eurasians) are found amoung cattle herder, the nose among Eurasians is usually hooked and much bigger than the nose of cattle herders in the Great Lakes and East Africa, brachicephaly is very common among Eurasians, and the head is like 1/3 bigger in Eurasia. Why model hunters always go to Nairobi to pick up future models, and no one can deny that there is a high proportion of East Africans in the fashion industry.By the way I've heard that a lot of people divorced their wives once they landed in Ethiopia. Guys, instead of posting pictures of Nehanderthal looking people, just go to Africa. Relaxx
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 14 May 2005).]
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 14 May 2005).]
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 14 May 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by Mike the Hellene: Sure. Why not give it a shot. This is from the work of a physical anthropologist named Scheele who preached against the use of anthropological characteristics to explain mental characteristics. A very likeable writer, too. He doesn't talk down to anyone and explores all possible avenues.
[b]Caucasoid Sorting Criteria and Characteristics: -head form ranges from short to long -medium or light brown to lily white skin color -hair seldom jet black but can be any lighter shade -form of hair almost never woolly but can be any other form, from straight to wavy to curly to somewhat nappy -eyes never black but can be any lighter shade -facial and body hair medium to very abundant -prognathism is very rare -lips medium to thin, seldom thick or everted -chin is a prominent facial feature -texture of hair seldom coarse, but usually fine -nose usually high and narrow, but never flat at the base -pelvic area in both sexes usually broad -range before colonial age: Europe, Middle East, North Africa, Turkestan
Negroid Sorting Criteria and Characteristics: -squarish frontal skull shape -almost always long-headed, the Negroid is the most long-headed type in the world, probably approaching its greatest cranial length in Nilotics -woolly or frizzy hair form -darkish brown to black hair -medium brown to jet black skin color -dark brown to black eye color -average nasal index is medium broad to very broad, though thinner noses are common in East Africa -considerable projection of face below nose (prognathy) -somewhat projecting incisors -nose appears concave in profile -nose tip usually elevated -nostrils usually thick and flaring -lips usually thick and everted -short facial form -somewhat prominent cheek bones -chin usually round and receding, very seldomly projecting as it does in Caucasoids -head hair short if not intentionally grown out -thin facial and body hair -generally small ears that fit close to the head -lower arms and legs quite long in proportion to the rest of each limb -leg calf usually quite small -heels project prominently -pelvis in both sexes usually narrow -range before colonial age: all of sub-Saharan Africa, minus the Khoisan areas
These sorting criteria and characteristics are used by criminal investigators to determine the race of the dead person from the skull. Because obviously you can't tell skin color from bones, you have to use the characteristics of the skull itself. This is why terms like Caucasoid and Negroid are useful.
[This message has been edited by Mike the Hellene (edited 12 May 2005).][/B]
Mike, have you ever been to Africa? Because if you say no, then you probably won't understand what I'm going to say...I think very few people on this forum understand what I mean when I say Caucasians don't exist, I don't have any root in North America, I don't even care whether the Eskimos built the Pyramids, I don't have to go any further than my building to realize that people outstide Africa are mixed, they all have African phenotypes, I keep trying to identify any original features beside the hair and the color of the skin among non Africans people but I can't find any. As an example, slanted eyes are found among Sans,dolicocephally, small and straight noses (which are different from many Eurasians) are found amoung cattle herder, the nose among Eurasians is usually hooked and much bigger than the nose of cattle herders in the Great Lakes and East Africa, brachicephaly is very common among Eurasians, and the head is like 1/3 bigger in Eurasia. Why model hunters always go to Nairobi to pick up future models, and no one can deny that there is a high proportion of East Africans in the fashion industry.By the way I've heard that a lot of people divorced their wives once they landed in Ethiopia. Guys, instead of posting pictures of Nehanderthal looking people, just go to Africa. Relaxx
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 14 May 2005).]
You mean other races outside of africa are mixed,but it would be some form of mixture. of course i hear some folks of other races saying they are pure,of course they would not be pure pure.
IT is true that thinner noses are common in east africa today,but broad noses are common as well,in fact most east africans still have broad noses,and the further you go back that was even more of a common or the only trait. north african noses would be on average in the past broad and the futher you go back it was more common until it was the only nose type like east africa way in the past.
posted
The King Tut reconstruction is very accurate, as it was duplicated by another forensic team working independently and without knowledge of who the subject was. It also closely resembles the various ancient portraits of Tut, none of which look remotely Negroid, despite what certain Afronuts may wish.
The results of the research are clear: Tutankhamun was a Caucasoid racial type, resembling North Africans, Middle Easterners and Europeans, but not Sub-Saharan blacks.
quote:Originally posted by Evil Euro: The King Tut reconstruction is very accurate, as it was duplicated by another forensic team working independently and without knowledge of who the subject was.
quote:It also closely resembles the various ancient portraits of Tut, none of which look remotely Negroid, despite what certain Afronuts may wish.
You must have bumped your head!!
quote:The results of the research are clear: Tutankhamun was a Caucasoid racial type, resembling North Africans, Middle Easterners and Europeans, but not Sub-Saharan blacks.
How is it North Africans are closely related to Middle Easterners and Europeans but not to other Africans of "Sub-Sahara"?
North Africans:
Evil, stop living in a fantasy world!
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 15 May 2005).]
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The afrocentrics on this board have been run over by a truck on this Natl Geo project. Its time to give it up and get a day job.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Curiously enough I have seen that nut-brown torsoed TUT in Senegal, Guinea, and Sierra Leone( I have seen a Temne boy who could be Tut's brother). Tut's phenotype would also be fairly common among the Acoli of Uganda, Ethiopia in general, Mombassa(Kenya) and Zanzibar(Tanzania). And these are all so-called "sub-Sahara" spots.
I guess TUT(Toot-an-khamun) is really tooting his horn these days. Tut, Tut!
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: Thought Writes: What we should be challenging is the very notion of 'caucasoid characteristics'. The Racial paradigm has been invalidated by modern genetics.
That's exactly what I'm challenging! Exactly what was so "caucasoid" about Tut's portraits? They all look like features typical of blacks of North and East Africa!
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
That's exactly what I'm challenging! Exactly what was so "caucasoid" about Tut's portraits? They all look like features typical of blacks of North and East Africa!
Thought Writes:
But Djehuti, what is a 'Caucasoid' period? You don't seem to be questioning the notion of the existence of a 'Caucasoid' race, you simply seem to be saying that Tut was not one of them?
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: Thought Writes:
But Djehuti, what is a 'Caucasoid' period? You don't seem to be questioning the notion of the existence of a 'Caucasoid' race, you simply seem to be saying that Tut was not one of them?
I see your point
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
This is not to say that I don't agree with your premise that Tut exhibited features common among eastern African people. But the first step in deconstructing the racial paradigm and hence freeing us from seeing egypt within the subtle context of race is to disavow racial taxonomy.
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: Thought Writes:
This is not to say that I don't agree with your premise that Tut exhibited features common among eastern African people. But the first step in deconstructing the racial paradigm and hence freeing us from seeing egypt within the subtle context of race is to disavow racial taxonomy.
I've always agreed with this, but it seems like sometimes people get attacked for using "everyday" language. It's a little time consuming to always spell things out.
I've always agreed with this, but it seems like sometimes people get attacked for using "everyday" language. It's a little time consuming to always spell things out.
Thought Writes:
Changing a worldview takes hard work. But I am sure you will agree that all things worth-while take a little effort.
quote:Originally posted by mali: VAUGHAN, ONT. – York Regional Police have released drawings of an unidentified woman whose badly burned body was found in an industrial park more than 10 years ago.
A police officer made the gruesome discovery on Sept. 1, 1994, after noticing a fire behind a building on Bradwick Drive near Highway 7 in Vaughan.
When the fire was put out, the body of a young woman was found in the remains of a suitcase. Gasoline and tires had been used to fuel the fire.
On Tuesday, investigators released drawings of a clay reconstruction of the victim's face, along with previously unpublished information that they hope may help someone identify her.
Forensic testing indicates that the victim was likely a dark-skinned Caucasian from a North African country such as Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia or Egypt. Her estimated age was 17 to 18.
She stood five feet, four inches, and had a very slim build, weighing between 85 and 100 pounds. She had dark curly hair, which may have been dyed a reddish colour, and protruding front teeth, which were in good condition.
Police say the victim had suffered broken bones in her back and lower limbs that had been left to heal untreated. As a result, they say she was likely immobile and in constant pain.
posted
I have learned a lot from this forum and I really appreciate the input by both sides of the debate. I do find Evil E to be distasteful but at the same time his statements are what I have been taught most of my life and it has been quite interesting to hear most of them being debunked (note most not all). What is also interesting is that M Hellens thinks that the sides in the debate are the revisionist against the conservatives. However, the classical historians described the Egyptians as Black Africans, even the Bible cleary describes the Egyptians as Black Africans and assigning them to the race of Ham which has to be the racial group that peopled Africa after the flood according to this Jewish bit of literature. So if you are conservative it would seem to me that you must believe that ancient Egypt was at least started by Black Africans (who probably imported Caucausian females: remember the story of Abraham and why he didn't want to tell pharoah that Sarah was his wife - why would Sarah have been so intriguing to the Egyptians that the pharoah would be interested in her so much so that he would be willing to kill Abraham? Why would Abraham think this? Perhaps the Egyptians had a preference for light skin women? A lot of White missionaries have this same concern when they take their White wives into Africa with them. Just speculation but there must have been something unique about Sarah to make her a thing of desire to Egyptians in the mind of Abraham. Such preferences for caucausian women are common among black males and easily explains why Egypt became quickly mixed).
Personally I think the Ancient Egyptians are a mixed people simply due to their location (Gateway location between 3 major people groups: Europeans, Asians and Africans), not to mention the history of conquest; both the Eyptians' conquest of others as well as they themselves being conquered. Consequently the reconstruction of Tut is primarily valid, however, the racial disegnation is hypocritical simply because it is well known that in American society that mixed people of Negroid and Caucausoid ancestry are considered Black. For example: Halle Berry and Alicia Keys are both considered Black even though a bust made of their skull would have similar features as this reconstruction of Tut. The person how made the reconstruction of Tut clearly stated that it was difficult to define the race of Tut due to mixed features (European nose with African cranial shape).
Frankly, if we used this Caucasoid pseudo science to classify people like they did Tut, then 30% of most blacks in America would have to be re-classified as Caucausian. Its all just a matter of where you draw the race line between black and white. For 200 years in America it just wasn't commerically productive to racially reclassify African Americans based on phenotype since that would mean that numerous slaves would have to be freed because they were not negroid. Imagine slave traders being told that they couldn't sell certain African tribes due to their facial features! Truth of the matter is that caucausian looking African's were worth more money during the slave trade.
But as to the spirit of the discussion in this forum, it is absolutely absurd to try to classify East African people as Caucausian. Its even more absurd to state that the OOA (out of africa) migrations somehow began with the so called Non-negroid East African people when the first groups to leave Africa must have been those that became the Australoids (Negritos) since they traveled the furthest from Africa. Or more of Evil E debunked theories;its absurd to claim that the Greeks had primitive negroid throwbacks when he clearly stated that the primitive people of the world were non-negroid since he claims that negroids only came into existance during the Hellocene perdiod. Beside, Angel cleary states negroid traits from Africa (probably Nubia).
Again, special thanks to TopDog, Ausar, Thought2 and others for taking the time to educate those that visit this forum. I cannot say that I am convinced of the arguement for a Black Athens or that Egypt was a predominately Black African civilization (in order to convince me of that a discussion of cultural anthropology would be more useful), however, I am convinced that Black Africans played a far bigger role in shaping our present Western civilization than the hypocritical historians with their divisive double standards, bias racial beliefs and plain bigotry had ever given blacks credit for.
posted
Egypt became really mostly mixed in the medieval and late ancient times.so egypt had mostly unmixed blacks until later on like i said above,but there were large numbers of blacks with some form of mixture at a certain period,and whites and mixed race types but most early egyptians were unmixed black africans until later times. believe me,most black men in egypt married black women and are proud of it,most black men period marry black women and most rather have that way,it is the western media that like to show otherwise .
MOST of the mixing of egypt in later times was the result of rapes and killing of black men in each outside invasion. The arab invasion was the most damaging.
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 17 May 2005).]
The issue with Abraham fearing that the Egyptians would kill him because of his wife, does indicate that the Egyptians themselves were not Eurasian. This is clearl because if the Egyptians were Eurasian then Sarah certainly would not be unique to the Egyptians and Abraham would have no reason to believe she would be soo desireable to them. Certainly a Pharoah would find other desireable Eurasian women in Egypt if the population was indeed of this racial stock. Obviously from Abraham's perspective, he believed that the Egyptians were significantly different than himself and that his wife was of overwhelming beauty compared to the Egyptian women. This may have been egotistical of a Eurasian but it is quite common for them to think this in comparison to Black African women. This seems to be an easy explaination of the story. But lets not forget the White slave trade in Egypt (such as the Slavs) that produced the Mameluke rule (by accident) but also brought in untold numbers of European concubines.
But to go on from there, Egypt conquered vast amounts of territories that would have Caucausian women. So if we talk about raping and killing, lets not forget the story of what Egypt did to the Jews (the killing on children under the age of 2 to keep the population down which naturally resulted in a slave revolt that led to the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt). Besides this factor, light skin females are clearly depicted in AE art as the ideal where as mean are generally depicted as Reddish/Brown. This is true starting in the 20th dynasty. I must admit, before the 20th dynasty females were depicted in the same color as males. As for the Rape of the Nile, this certainly did dramatically change the racial profile of the region and hence why it absurd that Tut was painted using the skin tone of the modern Egyptian when history clearly shows that most modern Egyptians are a best an admixture if not completely foreign to the region. I cannot understand why the bust was not painted using the color that the Egyptians themselves painted Tut as. This completely undermines the credibility of those that did the construction and certainly shows that the work was politically undermined by racial bias (what makes it more absurd is that race is not about skin tone; technically, so why undermine decent work by arbitrarily choosing a skin color that doesn't match known and verifiable depictions of a person). The insanity of racism strikes again.
posted
osirion, well, first we do not even know if abraham and sarah existed as historical people. Secondly , Egyptians were north african causasians, much like the reconstruction of Tut pointed out. the rest of this is nothing more than Afrocentric silliness.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
The issue with Abraham fearing that the Egyptians would kill him because of his wife, does indicate that the Egyptians themselves were not Eurasian. This is clearl because if the Egyptians were Eurasian then Sarah certainly would not be unique to the Egyptians and Abraham would have no reason to believe she would be soo desireable to them. Certainly a Pharoah would find other desireable Eurasian women in Egypt if the population was indeed of this racial stock. Obviously from Abraham's perspective, he believed that the Egyptians were significantly different than himself and that his wife was of overwhelming beauty compared to the Egyptian women. This may have been egotistical of a Eurasian but it is quite common for them to think this in comparison to Black African women. This seems to be an easy explaination of the story. But lets not forget the White slave trade in Egypt (such as the Slavs) that produced the Mameluke rule (by accident) but also brought in untold numbers of European concubines.
Actually I find the whole beauty issue is not so much a matter of racial bias as it is a matter of the "exotica" complex. Many people just find exotic, that is new and different beauty to be attractive! Call it "jungle fever" if you want, but many people find the allure of the exotic appealing.
I believe there is also a story in the Bible about how Moses married and Egyptian woman and his family especially his sister had problems with this. The sister even criticizes Moses not only for marrying a gentile woman but one "so dark" or "black" as she calls her.
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
moses in the bible if someone believe in it i believe married a cushite woman,most likely a medjay or desert nubian from arabia or near it.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: osirion, well, first we do not even know if abraham and sarah existed as historical people. Secondly , Egyptians were north african causasians, much like the reconstruction of Tut pointed out. the rest of this is nothing more than Afrocentric silliness.
Why are you all still debating with this guy? It was proven awhile ago that tut was an Afrikan; long before this situation came up concerning that recent bogus pic of him. believe me when I say the whole world is laughing at the matter as we write!! This guy has already been buried alive so why continue to beat a dead horse?
He has offered absolutely no evidence to support his claims, refuses to answer any ones rebuttal with an academic response, and basically says the same thing over and over again.
No one can add to what has already been given by the intellectuals on this board. Thank you for making a lie out of the devil and I, myself have learned so much.
Posts: 303 | From: Inside my Mind | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Serpent Wizdom: Why are you all still debating with this guy? It was proven awhile ago that tut was an Afrikan; long before this situation came up concerning that recent bogus pic of him. believe me when I say the whole world is laughing at the matter as we write!! This guy has already been buried alive so why continue to beat a dead horse?
He has offered absolutely no evidence to support his claims, refuses to answer any ones rebuttal with an academic response, and basically says the same thing over and over again.
No one can add to what has already been given by the intellectuals on this board. Thank you for making a lie out of the devil and I, myself have learned so much.
Why are you all still debating with this guy? It was proven awhile ago that tut was an Afrikan; long before this situation came up concerning that recent bogus pic of him. believe me when I say the whole world is laughing at the matter as we write!! This guy has already been buried alive so why continue to beat a dead horse?
He has offered absolutely no evidence to support his claims, refuses to answer any ones rebuttal with an academic response, and basically says the same thing over and over again.
No one can add to what has already been given by the intellectuals on this board. Thank you for making a lie out of the devil and I, myself have learned so much.
quote:
He is from Texas, that says a lot...
Yes, it truly does!
[This message has been edited by EGyPT2005 (edited 17 May 2005).]
Posts: 115 | From: South Bend, Indiana, US | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: osirion, well, first we do not even know if abraham and sarah existed as historical people. Secondly , Egyptians were north african causasians, much like the reconstruction of Tut pointed out. the rest of this is nothing more than Afrocentric silliness.
I really actually don't know what you mean about Afrocentric. I think that refers to the idea that the Greeks were Black. If you are referring to my statement about Tut being too light, well, don't you agree that they should have used the same color that the Egyptians used? If not and you think that using modern Egyptian skin tone knowing that the Egyptian region has had a huge influx of Asian and European genes due to conquest, can you explain on what observable facts you maintain your position.
Definition of Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Definition of Prejudice: An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
Definitions put together: An inability to accept facts, regardless of the evidence, due to a bias.
Hor, do you really want to be described based on the above two words? Why shouldn't the bust of Tut have been colored according to the Reddish/Brown that he was depicted by people who actually saw him alive? It is absurd that a guestimate of his color would have been used when the actual color is available. Why would someone guess at the color accept to obfuscate for political reasons?
Think about it! Technically the color wouldn't make his race any different since the classification system we have is flawed with double standards. If Tut is Caucausian then so is Harry Bellafonte.
I suppose you will have only insults to offer in reply. I would actually welcome some actual facts since I am not bias but the race classification doesn't mean much since it is rather arbitrary. What does mean something is culture.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I have learned a lot from this forum and I really appreciate the input by both sides of the debate. I do find Evil E to be distasteful but at the same time his statements are what I have been taught most of my life and it has been quite interesting to hear most of them being debunked (note most not all). What is also interesting is that M Hellens thinks that the sides in the debate are the revisionist against the conservatives. However, the classical historians described the Egyptians as Black Africans, even the Bible cleary describes the Egyptians as Black Africans and assigning them to the race of Ham which has to be the racial group that peopled Africa after the flood according to this Jewish bit of literature. So if you are conservative it would seem to me that you must believe that ancient Egypt was at least started by Black Africans (who probably imported Caucausian females: remember the story of Abraham and why he didn't want to tell pharoah that Sarah was his wife - why would Sarah have been so intriguing to the Egyptians that the pharoah would be interested in her so much so that he would be willing to kill Abraham? Why would Abraham think this? Perhaps the Egyptians had a preference for light skin women? A lot of White missionaries have this same concern when they take their White wives into Africa with them. Just speculation but there must have been something unique about Sarah to make her a thing of desire to Egyptians in the mind of Abraham. Such preferences for caucausian women are common among black males and easily explains why Egypt became quickly mixed).
Personally I think the Ancient Egyptians are a mixed people simply due to their location (Gateway location between 3 major people groups: Europeans, Asians and Africans), not to mention the history of conquest; both the Eyptians' conquest of others as well as they themselves being conquered. Consequently the reconstruction of Tut is primarily valid, however, the racial disegnation is hypocritical simply because it is well known that in American society that mixed people of Negroid and Caucausoid ancestry are considered Black. For example: Halle Berry and Alicia Keys are both considered Black even though a bust made of their skull would have similar features as this reconstruction of Tut. The person how made the reconstruction of Tut clearly stated that it was difficult to define the race of Tut due to mixed features (European nose with African cranial shape).
Frankly, if we used this Caucasoid pseudo science to classify people like they did Tut, then 30% of most blacks in America would have to be re-classified as Caucausian. Its all just a matter of where you draw the race line between black and white. For 200 years in America it just wasn't commerically productive to racially reclassify African Americans based on phenotype since that would mean that numerous slaves would have to be freed because they were not negroid. Imagine slave traders being told that they couldn't sell certain African tribes due to their facial features! Truth of the matter is that caucausian looking African's were worth more money during the slave trade.
But as to the spirit of the discussion in this forum, it is absolutely absurd to try to classify East African people as Caucausian. Its even more absurd to state that the OOA (out of africa) migrations somehow began with the so called Non-negroid East African people when the first groups to leave Africa must have been those that became the Australoids (Negritos) since they traveled the furthest from Africa. Or more of Evil E debunked theories;its absurd to claim that the Greeks had primitive negroid throwbacks when he clearly stated that the primitive people of the world were non-negroid since he claims that negroids only came into existance during the Hellocene perdiod. Beside, Angel cleary states negroid traits from Africa (probably Nubia).
Again, special thanks to TopDog, Ausar, Thought2 and others for taking the time to educate those that visit this forum. I cannot say that I am convinced of the arguement for a Black Athens or that Egypt was a predominately Black African civilization (in order to convince me of that a discussion of cultural anthropology would be more useful), however, I am convinced that Black Africans played a far bigger role in shaping our present Western civilization than the hypocritical historians with their divisive double standards, bias racial beliefs and plain bigotry had ever given blacks credit for.
Im not going to attack you..but why use the bible as reference?????
those stories are quite contradicting... and prove other wise with modern science...
bible...can is in itself what fuels eurocentrics and drives there theories or their hypothesis.....
a key in the development of the bias...
Since the Ham Hypoth...motivation for the west o develop such false beliefs that they were the superior "race"
im not going to attack religions...since the bible is a great start and has great stories to read.....
But its an item that id never recommend for any anthros to determine or base there thoughts on a book thats been around for less the 5kyas!!!!
Its just the subjective ideas that were forced feed to any and every1 that society well western society cant except that Africa was a place for commerce...before they infected her.... and prosperity....
Great african kingdoms that AFRICANS benefited from kilo yrs before Europe can get 1 up together!!!
quote:Originally posted by mali: Im not going to attack you..but why use the bible as reference?????
those stories are quite contradicting... and prove other wise with modern science...
bible...can is in itself what fuels eurocentrics and drives there theories or their hypothesis.....
a key in the development of the bias...
Since the Ham Hypoth...motivation for the west o develop such false beliefs that they were the superior "race"
im not going to attack religions...since the bible is a great start and has great stories to read.....
But its an item that id never recommend for any anthros to determine or base there thoughts on a book thats been around for less the 5kyas!!!!
Its just the subjective ideas that were forced feed to any and every1 that society well western society cant except that Africa was a place for commerce...before they infected her.... and prosperity....
Great african kingdoms that AFRICANS benefited from kilo yrs before Europe can get 1 up together!!!
Can you be specific about your disapproval of the Bible? I only used this bit of literature due to its ancient origins. The Jewish people of the time would have been aware of the race of the Egyptians and have some knowledge to their culture. I am not trying to use it for any scientific purpose other than for its cultural usefulness. Besides, the Ham theory that I have heard contradicts the Bible since the story of the flood basically states that we are all descendents from the survivors on a Ark and consequently the so called Hamitic people are essentially ALL Africans (not the so call mythical lost White race in Africa - so absurd). The only lost White race were the ones brough their as Slaves for sexual reasons and to be mercernaries. I wouldn't call the Greeks, Vandals and Goths, plus the Carthagnians to be lost, or the French, Italians,etc, but my point is that the Bible does actually state that Africa was a black founded land (unless you twist it way out of context and claim that Africans are not descended from the survivors of the Ark which is clearly refuting the meaning of the story). By the way, the curse of Ham is incorrecly used, the curse was actually a prophecy and it applied to the people of Canaan who did become enslaved to the Hebrews (yeah, probably mythlogical story but really good reading).
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic