quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]Again, the distinction may be subtle, but they are important.
Thought Writes:
We have strayed far from the original topic. What we have established is that the word Kemet refers SPECIFICALLY to the darkest of colors. We have furthermore established that the English word Black (in reference to humans) refers to a wide range of UNSPECIFICALLY melanin defined dark skinned people. The related concept has less to do with skin color than biological heritage in the English speaking world. Hence the AE meaning and modern English language meaning are similar, yet different and hence NOT directly transferable in meaning.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Do you still consider the San people of Africa to be Black?
Yes I do.
Thought Writes:
Do you not see the inconsistency in theory by dividing Indonesians up into Black and non-Black Indonesians based on melanin level, yet not applying this same rule to Africans?
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
A. Localization is the process of adapting content or products to meet the linguistic, cultural, and technical requirements of a specific target market.
Q. What is the definition of internationalization? How does it relate to localization?
A. Internationalization is the practice of building or modifying software to support multiple languages, character sets, currencies and other cultural or regional conventions, ideally from a single code base. In a general sense, the word also refers to equivalent activities for online content, such as document design and content development.
In general, internationalization activities are performed during the product development cycle, as a precursor to localization.
Q. What is the definition of translation?
A. Translation is the process of converting written text or spoken words from one human language to another. It requires that the full meaning of the source material be accurately rendered into the target language, with special attention paid to cultural nuance and style.
Q. What is the difference between translation and localization?
A. Translation is only one of the activities in localization; in addition to translation, a localization project includes many other tasks such as project management, software engineering, testing, and desktop publishing. Localization also implies "adaptation" to a specific market.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you not see the inconsistency in theory by dividing Indonesians up into Black and non-Black Indonesians based on melanin level
I didn't.
quote:yet not applying this same rule to Africans?
Incorrect, please consider carefully your own words: Do you still consider the San people of Africa to be Black?
Do you see where your analogy is faulty?
Your question was in regards to the San, but you altered the premise when you asked a question with regards to Africans, and Indonesians.
My answer is actually consistent whether applied to Indonesians or Africans, some are Black, and some aren't. And I didn't divide them thusly - it's your question that does the dividing.
It's your analogy that is inconsistent.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Incorrect. Scientists can already accurately date DNA haplogroup mutation rates.
You are incorrect. If the science is so exact why do they always say this or that dates to between 40,000-70,000 years ago instead of some specific date? They never provide specific dates because they are just speculating on when this or that mutation appeared. Archaeological dating is more exact it can provide you with reliable dates that often can be correlated with textual evidence. quote: Correct, but non have any recent genetic links with Africans let alone the Nile Valley.
This is incorrect the linguistic and blood typing supports a connection with recent African populations. Winters quote:Yet we can use textual, archaeological and skeletal evidence to support a migration of people from Africa to India. In the sub-continent of India, there were several main groups. The earliest inhabitants of India were the Negritos, and this was followed by the Proto-Australoid, the Mongoloid and the so-called mediterranean type which represent the ancient Egyptians and Kushites.
Dejehuti quote: Invalid 'racial' classifications. Case in point would be Egyptians and Kushites being classified as 'mediterranean caucasoids'!
Again Dejehuti you are wrong.Poe (1997), Keita (1993,1996), Carlson and Gerven (1979)and MacGaffey (1970) have made it clear that these people were Africans or Negroes with so-called 'caucasian features' resulting from genetic drift and microevolution (Keita, 1996; Poe, 1997). Carlson,D. and Van Gerven,D.P. (1979). Diffussion, biological determinism and bioculdtural adaptation in the Nubian corridor,American Anthropologist, 81, 561-580. Keita,S.O.Y. (1993). Studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships, History in Africa, 20, 129-131. Keita,S.O.Y.& Kittles,R.A. (1997). The persistence of racial thinking and the myth of racial divergence, American Anthropologist, 99 (3), 534-544. MacGaffey,W.(1970). Comcepts of race in Northeast Africa. In J.D. Fage and R.A. Oliver, Papers in African Prehistory (pp.99-115), Camridge: Cambridge University Press.
Winters quote:The Proto-Australoid race, Mongoloid race and Africoid/ Mediterranean skeletal remains were all found at Harappan sites. The speech of this group of Austroloids is believed to be Austric, a specimen of this language survives in the Munda speech.(Thapar 1972,p.26) The Africoid/Mediterranean group is associated with Dravidian culture.
Dejehuti quote:Outdated theories. India was settled in 2 main waves. The first was through the southern route that went across to Australia and the second was by a northern route from Central Asia and which was also the source lineage of peoples in East Asia, Europe, and Native Americans. There were probably other more recent migrations from Central Asia but non specifically identifiable as Indo-European and certainly non from the Nile Valley.
This is incorrect. You know that there is no evidence of a Central Asian migration into India. In fact the original migrants into America were blacks who were the first to occupy the Americas. Several types of blacks entered the Americas including the Anu or negrito type and the Proto-Saharan variety of blacks. Up until recently it was believed that the first humans crossed the Bering Strait 12,000 B.P., to enter the North American continent.(Begley 1991, p.15) This view was never accepted by physical anthropologists who have found skeletal remains far older than 12,000 B.P. Today archaeologists have found sites from Canada to Chile that range between 20,000 and 40,000 years old. There are numerous sites in North and South America which are over 35,000 years old. These sites are the Old Crow Basin (c.38,000 B.C.) in Canada; Orogrande Cave (c.36,000 B.C.) in the United States; and Pedra Furada (c.45,000 B.C.) Given the fact that the earliest dates for habitation of the American continent occur below Canada in South America is highly suggestive of the fact that the earliest settlers on the American continents came from Africa before the Ice melted at the Bering Strait and moved northward as the ice melted.
The appearance of pebble tools at Monte verde in Chile (c.32,000 B.P), and rock paintings at Pedra Furada in Brazil (c.22,000 B.P.) and mastodont hunting in Venezuela and Colombia (c.13,000 B.P.), have led some researchers to believe that the Americas was first settled from South America. C. Vance Haynes noted that: "If people have been in South America for over 30,000 years, or even 20,000 years, why are there so few sites?....One possible answer is that they were so few in number; another is that South America was somehow initially populated from directions other than north until Clovis appeared". P.S. Martin and R. G. Klein after discussing the evidence of mastodont hunting in Venezuela 13,000 years ago observed that : "The thought that the fossil record of South America is much richer in evidence of early archaeological as- sociations than many believed is indeed provocative.... Have the earliest hunters been overlooked in North America? Or did the hunters somehow reach South America first"? The early presence of sites in South America suggest that these people probably came from Africa. This would explain the affinities between African languages and the Amerind family of languages. In very ancient times the American continent was inhabited by Asian and African blacks. The oldest skeletal remains found in the Americas are of blacks. Marquez (1956,p.179) observed that "it is [good] to report that long ago the youthful America was also a Negro continent." Dr. Dixon (1923) noted that as early as 70,000 B.C., Austroloid and later negritos crossed the Bering Strait to reach the New World. And Lanning (1963) noted that "there was a possible movement of negritos from Ecuador into the Piura Valley, north of Chicama and Viru" in early times. In the 1970’s in Brazil an interesting skull of a girl was found. This skull was reconstructed and dated back to 12,000 BC. Dr. Walter Neves professor of biological anthropology at the University of Sao Paolo, after reconstructing the “Luzia” skull found that this personage was either an African or Pacific island type Black . areas. . Warwick Bray,"The Paleoindian debate". Nature 332, (10 March) 1988, p.107. . Ibid, p.107; "Man's New World arrival Pushed back", Chicago Tribune, (9 May 1991) Sec.1A, p.40;and A.L. Bryan, "Points of Order". Natural History , (June 1987) pp.7-11. . Bryan, p.11. . C.V. Haynes,Jr.,"Geofacts and Fanny". Natural History ,(February 1988)pp.4-12:12. . P.S. Martin and R.G.Klein (eds.),Quarternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution, (Tucson:University of Arizona Press,1989) p.111. . M.Ruhlen,"Voices from the Past". Natural History, (March 1987) pp.6-10:10; J.H. Greenberg,Language in the Americas. Stanford:Stanford University Press,1987. Neves W.A . and Pucciarelli H.M. 1991. "Morphological Affinities of the First Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains". Journal of Human Evolution 21:261-273 Powell J.F. and Neves W.A . 1999. "Craniofacial morphology of the first Americans: pattern and process in thepeopling of the New World". Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 42:153-188 Neves W.A ., Powell J.F. and Ozolins E.G. 1999. "Extra-continental morphological affinities of Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: A multivariate analysis with progressive numbers of variables. Homo 50:263-268 Neves W.A ., Powell J.F. and Ozolins E.G. 1999. "Extra-continental morphological affinities of Palli-Aike, Southern Chile". Interciencia 24:258-263
Winters quote:The Negritos founded the earliest culture in the Indus Valley at Mehrgarh in 6000 B.C. They had domesticated goats and sheep and grew cereals.
Djehuti quote: Again, speculative. We don't know for sure which peoples began Neolithic culture.
Please provide citations that indicate that early Indian civilization spread from the Middle East to India. Moreover even if the civilization came to India from the Middle East it was carried by Blacks of African origin.The founders of civilization in South West Asia were the Anu people, archaeologists call Natufians. By 13,000 BC, according to J.D. Clark ("The origins of domestication in Ethiopia", Fifth Panafrican Congress of prehistory and quaternary Studies, Nairobi,1977) the Natufians were collecting grasses which later became domesticated crops in Southwest Asia. In Palestine the Natufians established intensive grass collection. The Natufians used the Ibero-Maurusian tool industry (see F. Wendorf, The History of Nubia, Dallas,1968, pp.941-46). These Natufians , according to Christopher Ehret ( "On the antiquity of agriculture in Ethiopia", Jour. of African History 20, [1979], p.161) were small stature folk who spread agriculture throughout Nubia into the Red Sea. The Natufians took the Ibero-Maurusian tools into Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. The Natufians practiced evulsion of the incisors the same as Bantu people and inhabitants of the Saharan fringes. The modern civilizations of the Middle East were created by the Natufians.Since the Natufians came from Nubia, they can not be classified as Europeans, as you claim in your post. If they took civilization to India as you allege, this would have put Nubians in India based on the evidence.
Winters quote:But India was never extensively urbanized before 2400 B.C. The antecedents of the Harappan culture are village sites of the Baluchistan hills, the Nal culture and the Makran coast to the West of the Indus delta. The ancient inhabitants of the Indus Valley were the Nubian Dravidian speakers. Today Brahui, Malto and Kurukh are Dravidian languages spoken in the Indus area.
Dejhuti quote: The Dravidians were not Nubians!
If they were not Nubians or Kushites how do you explain their use of the same pottery and the genetic relationship between the languages spoken by the Dravidian people and other peoples who formerly belonged to the C-Group i.e., West Atlantic speakers and Mande for example.
Winters quote:B.B. Lal (1963) and Indian Egyptologist has shown conclusively that the Dravidians originated in the Saharan area 5000 years ago. He claims they came from Kush, in the Fertile African Crescent and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty in the 3rd millennium B.C. (Lal 1963) The Dravidians used a common black-and-red pottery, which spread from Nubia, through modern Ethiopia, Arabia, Iran into India as a result of the Proto-Saharan dispersal. The Nubian Dravidians were one of the cattle herding groups that made up the C-Group culture of Nubia Kush. Thundy has observed that: "If Kashi the holy place (alias Varanasi) is a Dravidian word, the name was bestowed on the place by the Dravidians after their homeland of Nubia, Upper Egypt,which is called Kush and Kashi in the Semitic languages". He added that: "...I view the common myth[of Isis and Osiris in Egypt and Kannaki and Kovalan in India] only as supporting the widely held theory that the Dravidians of India came from the Mediterranean region, particularly from Nubia, for ethnically and linguistically, the peoples of the two regions are strikingly similar". There is physical evidence which suggest an African origin for the Dravidians. The Dravidians live in South India. The Dravidian ethnic group includes the Tamil, Kurukh,Malayalam, Kananda (Kanarese), Tulu, Telugu and etc. The ancient Indo-Aryan writings make it clear that the Indians were dark-skinned (varna) and had flat noses. (Durant 1935, p.396) This fact is supported by the Ali Tiraavitar (Old Dravidians) who are black as their African brothers with a difference in hair texture. In ancient Tamil poems they are described as mamai (black). In addition, the ancient Dravidians practiced a matriarchal system in Kerala and South Kanara. In addition among the ali tiravitar, the system of inheritance passes from the uncle to his nephews, instead of to his sons (maru makkal Tayam) as in Africa. And in both South India and the Western Sudan of Africa, the dead were buried in terra cotta jars. Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263), platyrrhine nasal index (Aravaanan 1980,pp.25-27), stature (31-32) and blood type (Aravaanan 1980,34-35). Aravaanan (1980,p.40) also presented much evidence for analogous African and Dravidian cultural features including the chipping of incisor teeth and the use of the lost wax process to make bronze works of arts (Aravaanan 1980,p.41). The Original homeland of the Dravidian speaking people was the Saharan zone of Middle Africa. We call the ancestors of the Dravidians the Proto/Saharans. The homeland of the Proto/Saharans was the Libyan and Sudanese deserts. It was in this region between 90006000 BC, that the elements of Proto/Dravidian culture were created.(Winters 1985) The Proto-Saharans claimed descent from the Maa or Fish Confederation. The Maa Confederation includes the Egyptians, Elamites, Dravidians, Manding, and Sumerians. In honor of this great ancestor Maa, they worshipped a god called :Amun, Amon or Amma. In addition to pay homage to Ma, the descendants of the Proto-Saharans use the term Ma, to denote greatness or highness, e.g., Manding:Maga, and Dravidian:Ma. Other Proto-Saharan tribes claimed direct descent from the great Maa, founder of the Fish Confederation. For example, the Manding call themselves Ma-nde (the children of Maa) and the Sumerian called themselves Mah-Gar-ri ( exalted God's children). Ethically the Proto-Dravidians were round-headed Mediterraneans of the ancient variety. Around 7000 BC, Mediterraneans of a fairly tall stature not devoid of negroid characteristics appear in the Sahara at Capsa (now called Cafsa). (Desanges 1981:424-25) These Mediterraneans are called Capsians. This group flourished in an area extending from the western most borders of north Africa, into the southern Sahara. Skeletons of the Mediterranean type have been found throughout Middle Africa, Southeast Asia, Mesopotamia, the IndoPakistan region and even Central Asia. It is no secret that the founders of ancient Egypt, Elam, Sumer and the Indus Valley were all of the Mediterranean type. In the ancient inscriptions many ProtoSaharans were called KUSHITES. These Kushites were also called Saka, Kushana, Kutians, Kus and Qus. (Lacouperie 1886:2829; Winters 1982) In the primary center of Proto-Dravidian settlement in Middle Africa, they used a common black-and-red ware (BRW) and herded cattle, sheep and goats. They also possessed wheat and millet. (Winters 1985a) This supports Kohl's (1988:596) hypothesis that millet was introduced into Inner Asia from Africa. The Dravidians migrated out of the Sahara, due to population pressure and the search for sources of new metal reserves. Dravidian languages are predominately spoken southern India and Sri Lanka. There are around 125 million Dravidian speakers. These languages are genetically related to African languages. COMMON INDO-AFRICAN TERMS ENGLISH DRAVIDIAN SENEGALESE MANDING MOTHER AMMA AMA,MEEN MA FATHER APPAN,ABBA AMPA,BAABA BA PREGNANCY BASARU BIIR BARA SKIN URI NGURU,GURI GURU BLOOD NETTARU DERET DYERI KING MANNAN MAANSA,OMAAD MANSA GRAND BIIRA BUUR BA SALIVA TUPPAL TUUDDE TU CULTIVATE BEY ,MBEY BE BOAT KULAM GAAL KULU FEATHER SOOGE SIIGE SI, SIGI MOUNTAIN KUNRU TUUD KURU ROCK KALLU XEER KULU STREAM KOLLI KAL KOLI
The Dravidians are remnants of the ancient Black population who occupied most of ancient Asia and Europe. Menges (1966), using linguistic data "assumed an earlier habitat of the Dravidians far to the northwest on the plateau of Iran...an area extending still a little bit more to the north into what has become Turkistan". This view is now confirmed by archaeological evidence of an Indus culture in Inner Asia. (Brentjes 1983; Winters 1990) The Dravidians settled in Asia between 3000-2800 BC. (Winters 1985) From here the Dravidians spread into Central Asia, China, South and Southwest Asia. It was probably from Iran that bronze working radiated into Central and Southeast Asia. (Winters 1985b) The epicenter for the Dravidian dispersals in Asia was Iran. The motivation behind Dravidian dispersals was agropastoralism in the region and the search for new sources of metals for trade with Mesopotamia, the Indus valley and beyond. (Winters 1985a,1985b) This would explain the close relationship between Dravidian and Elamite on the one hand, and Dravidian, Manding , and Elamite on the other. (Winters 1985c,1989b) The Elamites lived in the Fars and the Bakhtiar valleys. This mountain area was named Elimaid in ancient times. The Elamites called themselves:Khatan. The capital city of the Elamites Susa ,was called: Khuz by the IndoEuropean speakers, and Kussi by the Elamites. The Chinese called the Elamites Kashti. The Armenians called the eastern Parthia: Kushana. The major Kushite group from Mesopotamia to northern India were the Kassites. The Kassites, who occupied the central Zagros were called Kashshu. This name agrees with Kaska, the name of the Hattians. P.N. Chopra,in The History of South India, noted that the Kassite language bears unmistakable affinity to the Dravidian group of languages. Similar pottery was used in West Asia. The pottery from Susa in Iran and Eridu in Mesopotamia of the fifth millennium BC are identical. Between 3700 and 3100 BC, Elam was under the influence of Uruk, as indicated by the shared art found at these sites during this period. By the end of the 4th millennium BC , we see the beginnings of distinctive Elamite culture in the western Fars, at the Kur Valley. Here at TeliMalyan we see the first ProtoElamite tablets written in the ProtoSaharan script. Other Proto-Elamite writings soon appear at Susa. The authors of the ProtoElamite tablets were of ProtoSaharan origin. Malyan and Susa soon became the kingdoms of Anshan and Susa. These ProtoElamites soon spread to Tepe Sialk and Tepe Yahya which was reoccupied after being abandoned earlier due to ecological decay. The Proto-Saharans in Elam shared the same culture as their cousins in Egypt, Sumer, Elam and the Indus Valley. Vessels from the IVBI workshop at Tepe Yahya (c.21001700 BC), have a uniform shape and design. Vessels sharing this style are distributed from Soviet Uzbekistan, to the Indus Valley. In addition, as mentioned earlier we find common arrowheads at sites in the Indus Valley ,Iran, Egypt, Minoan Crete and early Heladic Greece. The evidence presented above makes it clear that archaeological, linguistic and skeletal evidence indicate that most Dravidian speaking Indians probably came from Middle Africa. There were some Dravidian speaking Indians who came to India from East Africa via Kumarinadu, but this is another story.
Dejehuti quote: The rest is insubstanstial and circumstial at best. That there are similarities between Harappan culture and Nile Valley culuture is apparent but to attribute this to a recent common origin is faulty scholarship. The linguistic evidence presented was so weak it was ridiculous. One can find similar typological words between Finish and Harapan or Indonesian and Nubian. A few words similar in phonology will not do alone. The 2 predominant language phyla of the Nile Valley are Nilo-Saharan and Afrasian, but Dravidian possess no genetic relation to either or to any language spoken in Africa for that matter.
Dejehuti how can you make this claim when I present evidence that these civilization had common Intercultural designs that have been confirmed by Kohl. These resemblances can not be based on coincidence they are systematic and indicate a migration of the Dravidians from Africa to India.
Dejehuti quote: The same could be said with all the cultural aspects listed.
This quote has no foundation . The evidence of common languages, artifacts , millet and culture indicate the peoples are related. Please present citations and evidence specifically disputing the points I have made above. This evidence was found by Dravidians, not Afrocentrists. Where's the beef??
Dejehuti quote: [b]The initial settlement of South Asia, between 40,000 and 70,000 years ago[b], was most likely over the southern route from Africa because haplogroup M, which is the most frequent mtDNA component in India,...
How can you prove this point with archaeological evidence, instead of hypothetical DNA evidence?? I have presented evidence from linguistics, skeletons and archaeology supporting a recent entrance of Blacks from Africa to India, even if we push the migration of the Nubian Natufians from the Middle East into India, we see a recent Black migration into the area. Here is my evidence of a recent migration of Blacks from Nubia to India. What evidence do you have supporting the mtDNA evidence ?????
Clyde Winters
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
And how does this **precise** Black color relate to the **RANGE** of Black people in Ancient Egypt?
What "precise" color are "Black" Americans?
quote:Thought: Does it mean that all of the people who were not that **precise** color were not really considered Egyptian because they were not dark enough?
Likewise, could the same be asked about people who call themselves "blacks" in America? LOL. this is getting bizarre.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
And how does this **precise** Black color relate to the **RANGE** of Black people in Ancient Egypt?
What "precise" color are "Black" Americans?
Thought Writes:
You do realize that you are validating my position? There is no "precise" color that delimits "Black" Americans, hence that is why the WORD and CONCEPT of Blackness as utilized has more to do with heritage and less to do with melanin level. If Kemet means Black LITEARLLY the modern SUBJECTIVE ethnic concept of Blackness cannot be directly translated into Ancient Egyptian to mean the SAME thing. Similar concepts, yes. Same concept, no. The term Kemet and its many derivatives have deeper cosmological meanings that most likely have been inappropriatly translated by Eurocentric scholars. I am NOT suggesting that there is no correlation between the idea of darkness and dark people in relation to this word and its derivatives. But the simplistic TRANSLATION of one word and concept into a very different culture is wanting.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ lol. no supercar didn't validate 'your position', you are simply attacking a strawman argument that no one ever made via non-sequiturs.
quote:If Kemet means Black LITEARLLY
No if, that is literally and exactly what it means.
quote: the modern SUBJECTIVE ethnic concept of Blackness
All ethnic concepts are subjective, another strawman, virtually all physical descriptions are also subjective. Truly your argument here is a sophistry which has no bearing on the linguistics.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ lol. no supercar didn't validate 'your position', you are simply attacking a strawman argument that no one ever made via non-sequiturs.
Thought Writes:
Rasol,
Do you acknowledge that -
1) The concept of ethnic Blackness as expressed in relation to the modern English word Black relates to a SUBJECTIVE range of phenotypic AND cultural factors?
Do you believe that -
2) The Ancient Egyptians used the EXACT same concept 5,000 years ago?
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1) Do you acknowledge that - The concept of ethnic Blackness as expressed in relation to the modern English word Black relates to a SUBJECTIVE range of phenotypic AND cultural factors?
No.
Now please list these EXACT SUBJECTIVE FACTORS, as you were asked to earlier by Supercar I believe.
I have no idea of what they are, so I can't address them.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1) Do you acknowledge that - The concept of ethnic Blackness as expressed in relation to the modern English word Black relates to a SUBJECTIVE range of phenotypic AND cultural factors?
No.
Now please list these EXACT SUBJECTIVE FACTORS, as you were asked to earlier by Supercar I believe.
I have no idea of what they are, so I can't address them.
Indeed, the idea of ancient Egyptians calling their nation Kmt, goes beyond the mere issue of skin color, much less the notion of having a precise 'measure' of melanin [LOl. if they knew what that meant] content of skin, so as to determine who should be part of Kmt. 'Kem' was also the embodiment of 'sacredness'. Does this change the literal meaning of 'kem/km', of course not, i.e., it is 'black' itself that is 'sacred'. As the "Black" Americans call themselves such, despite various melanin levels exhibited by its 'members', so was there a sense of 'patriotism' or better yet, 'nationalism', attached to 'Kmt'.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ lol. no supercar didn't validate 'your position', you are simply attacking a strawman argument that no one ever made via non-sequiturs.
You can say that again!
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1) Do you acknowledge that - The concept of ethnic Blackness as expressed in relation to the modern English word Black relates to a SUBJECTIVE range of phenotypic AND cultural factors?
No.
Now please list these EXACT SUBJECTIVE FACTORS, as you were asked to earlier by Supercar I believe.
I have no idea of what they are, so I can't address them.
Thought Writes:
The SUBJECTIVITY of the modern English concept of Blackness is based on the fact that there is no OBJECTIVE level of melanin, no OBJECTIVE cranial form, no OBJECTIVE hair texture, no OBJECTIVE nasal form that DISTINGUISHES Blacks as a seperate RACE. Blacks are distinguished as an ethnicity. The basis of this distinction is phenotype, genetic heritage and cultural heritage in symbiosis. Not skin color isolate.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Indeed, the idea of ancient Egyptians calling their nation Kmt, goes beyond the mere issue of skin color, much less the notion of having a precise 'measure' of melanin [LOl. if they knew what that meant] content of skin, so as to determine who should be part of Kmt. 'Kem' was also the embodiment of 'sacredness'. Does this change the literal meaning of 'kem/km', of course not, i.e., it is 'black' itself that is 'sacred'.
Thought Writes:
How does the comment above contradict my statement below. Read carefully and think deeply before you speak...
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: The term Kemet and its many derivatives have deeper cosmological meanings that most likely have been inappropriatly translated by Eurocentric scholars. I am NOT suggesting that there is no correlation between the idea of darkness and dark people in relation to this word and its derivatives. But the simplistic TRANSLATION of one word and concept into a very different culture is wanting.
posted
^ I don't agree with *any* of that, and can barely make sense out of it.
What is clear however is that you didn't answer my question....
quote:Now please list these EXACT SUBJECTIVE FACTORS?
We know that most all ethnic concepts and physical references are subjective.
You state that Black is somehow qualified by 'specific' subjective factors: yet you can't name them. Since you can't name them, 'they' lend no support for your argument.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: [QB] Thought Writes:
Subjective factors that delineate the ONLY concept of Blackness as it relates to ethnicity:
1) Range of melanin level
2) Range of limb ratios
3) Range of hair textures
4) Range of cranial forms
5) Range nasal forms
6) Recent cultural association with Africa
You didn't answer the question.
I asked for a list of exact subjectives that define Black.
What you did is list generalities that apply to most every human being on earth, and according to which, all people would be black.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for Mr. Winters, I do not deny that the Dravidians of India are black, however what YOU seem to miss is just because a person is black and shares phenotypical similarities to Africans does NOT make that person of recent African descent.
Many people in New Guinea resemble West Africans yet they are genetically closer to Japanese than they are to any African!
The same can be said about culture. I do not deny that there are cultural similarities, yet such similarities are a long way from having direct connections. And again, the linguistic evidence is lousy and doesn't hold up to real linguistics. Whatever linguistic similarities are purely typological and not genetic.
Posts: 26300 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: I asked for a list of specific subjectives that define Black.
Thought Writes:
And my point is your request is non-sensical. Subjectivity is implicitly NON-SPECIFIC. Hence, taking a subjective concept and attempting to transport it back through time and space is invalid.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thought & Rasol, I hope you guys know the absurdity in arguing over the definitions of 'black' and what 'black' is??
Posts: 26300 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Indeed, the idea of ancient Egyptians calling their nation Kmt, goes beyond the mere issue of skin color, much less the notion of having a precise 'measure' of melanin [LOl. if they knew what that meant] content of skin, so as to determine who should be part of Kmt. 'Kem' was also the embodiment of 'sacredness'. Does this change the literal meaning of 'kem/km', of course not, i.e., it is 'black' itself that is 'sacred'.
Thought Writes:
How does the comment above contradict my statement below. Read carefully and think deeply before you speak...
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: The term Kemet and its many derivatives have deeper cosmological meanings that most likely have been inappropriatly translated by Eurocentric scholars. I am NOT suggesting that there is no correlation between the idea of darkness and dark people in relation to this word and its derivatives. But the simplistic TRANSLATION of one word and concept into a very different culture is wanting.
The one who needs to do some serious reading before speaking, actually is yourself. For instance, Was my statement supposed to be a contradiction? That was the conclusion YOU reached...unless, of course, you saw something in it, that you felt contradicted your position. My comment was pretty self-explanatory. I have accepted that the term "Km" can be translated into the term "black" in English. I have come to terms that the ancient Egyptians used "kem" in reference to people, and indeed, their nation. I don't need to know what level of melanin they thought was appropriate, so as to determine who can be a Kemetian or not. I just know that they used the term, i.e., 'Kem' and its derivatives, and that its literal meaning in all those terms is 'black', period.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And my point is your request is non-sensical. Subjectivity is implicitly NON-SPECIFIC.
Incorrect.
One of the meanings of subjective is -> personal. One the meanings of specific is -> unique. The concepts of personal and unique are not mutually exclusive.
Moreover, it is possible to be specific with regards to subjectives.
I have already shown you specifically how this is done, but once more:
Blacks, Km.t[rm.t] - a person belonging to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin. - AHD, 2000, Champollion.
It is specifically a reference to peoples subjectively determined to have dark skin color. It specifically does *not* mention any of the generalities that you list.
There is a reason for this.
The stuff in your list is largely irrelevant to the definition.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Blacks, Km.t[rm.t] - a person belonging to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin. - AHD, 200, Champollion.
It is specifically a reference to peoples subjectively determined to have dark skin color.
Thought Writes:
Hence one of my original questions:
How dark did the skin have to be in Ancient Egypt to be considered a Km.t?
Were the "Asiatics" dark enough to be considered Km.t?
How about the modern Khosian speakers?
Is there a statistically significant difference in melanin levels between the ancient "Asiatics" and modern Khoisan?
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How dark did the skin have to be in Ancient Egypt to be considered a Km.t?
This is a very good question, and of course we don't know, we don't know in Km.t or moden Egypt, or USA, or India, or anywhere. Nor does the term Blacks require us to know, or even agree.
quote: Were the "Asiatics" dark enough to be considered Km.t?
This is another interesting question. We know that the Egyptians generally referred to themselves as Blacks, sometimes inclusive of populations from Ta-Seti, Nubia, in contrast they generally referred to Asiatics as reds.
This was the point of my reference to the Zulu and San.
It is actually a repeated theme in African culture when skin color of different ethnenes vary, to denote them as Black and Red. Black Egyptians and Red Asiatics, Black Wolof and Red Fulani, Black Nubians and Red Nubians, Black Zulu and Red San.
This is a cultural and linguistic reference to skin color.
One of the points i'm trying to make, is that it is a mistake to try to qualify ethnicity objectively.
Ethnicity has no objective meaning. Ethnicity is finally cultural, not biological.
The notion that ethnicity is biology is one of the root assumptions of race-science.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic