posted
It seems like most people here only care about Egyptian race and other aspects of Egypt which are directly or indirectly related to their biological makeup. No wonder the "whiteys" are always gonna be the greatest contributers in Egyptology and provide with the information they want so you can continue to argue about the Egyptian race.
Look here another forum concerning Ancient Egypt i just found, http://forum.egyptiandreams.co.uk/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=ea4edecd44ec0d941a5dc24f5cc1e0ea these people here are interested genuinly about Pharaonic Egypt, they barely ever discuss social contructs such as "race", they are real passionate about Ancient Egypt and its people, Religion, culture etc. Its these people who will take over Egyptology later and become the next generation experts on Egypt and controll the information flow, maybe then you'll still be debating and arguing with the information they release. Fix up god damn it, this race thing has gone to far, same ol day in and day out, and then waiting for the next guy to appear and release the same old debate and arguments, and waiting for the next again.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
U got a bunch of Foriegners in here at Egyptsearch and all u have is cultural clash and people like talking about it but u are right its about time to change.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree Yonis, yet I disagree. I absolutely agree that we ought to focus in on the social, cultural, religious, etc., legacy of Ancient Egypt. But I do believe that ethnicity and/or race should be part of the discussion. But I don't think it ought to be the overarching theme. Shoot man, I really wanted to get deep into the Muslims of the MODERN Egyptian past who studied Hierglyphs(in another thread), but we have been very distracted with a bunch of.........trolls(lol). Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the website you posted they discuss the ''race'' of the ancient Egyptians as well. Look at some of the older posts. I will agree that their forum is as focused on ancient Egyptian topics as ''racial'' topics.
The problem is ''racial origins controversey'' of the ancient Egyptians brings in much more excitment than other aspects. Plus such topics have always been apart of Egyptology. Just read the publications of older Egyptologist and even anthropologist. The whole debate is one part 19th century racial science mixed with 1 part Egyptomania or America racism.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Younis does have a point with the primary focus of this forum having little balance regards to other areas of ancient Egypt. Certainly their ethnic origins is important but there is more to their civilization than the following.
Most of the people debating the ethnic origins of the ancient Egyptians seem to either know little or have little interest in other areas of ancient Egypt.
Don't take my post as a dicouragment of such debate but I only ask for balance on other subjects.
Let me just say I don't know how long I will host ancient Egypt and Egyptology section of Egyptsearch. The future is not definite for this website so it might not be around.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most of the people debating the ethnic origins of the ancient Egyptians seem to either know little or have little interest in other areas of ancient Egypt.
To correct this you have to teach them.
Same with Egyptian dreams -> a site where they claim king tut's mummy has dark skin because the chemicals they used on it turned it black after he died.
Thus they routinely post fake white iconography of king tut which looks nothing like any of his actual iconography - but that's ok - at least they are not color-stuck.
Why debate when you can lie, and then permit no debate?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They sound a little bit naive, I checked it, there is no hard science...They sound like people who idealize Ancient Egypt and have some other fantasies...good for them...but it's not a serious forum scientifically speaking...by the way some use the terms Negroids and Caucasians blindly...Yonis why don't you invite them over here for some reality check...
posted
the culture is indigienous african, the first settlers came from the south, are you disputing this? if yes tell me why. what were the colour of the people who came from the south.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
im not surprised to see black people with white bloodlines? menes.tuthmosis 111 and djoser. Are these pharoahs nubian . its yes or no. answer please
Posts: 164 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
They attempt to ignore the issue altogether:
quote:I've not been around for a while (I'm busy and still am) but this should never have gone this far.
I've locked this topic for obvious reasons. There are plenty of other message boards around the 'net to discuss the colour of ones skin (if that is what you wish to discuss) but I won't allow it on my board.
Thread Locked.
Anyone found discussing skin colour in future will receive an instant ban - no warning.
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
In debate strategy where there are two sides to a debate:
1) status quo
2) subversive
It is in the interest of the those who support the status quo to 'ignore' the issue.
To acknowledge the issue is to aid and abet the destruction of the status quo.
And analogy can be found in the strategim of apartheid regime in South Africa which ignored the issue of it's desinfranchised Black majority, for as long as it could.
posted
^^Indeed. There is alot more to talk about in regards to the Egyptians other than their 'race', but unfortunately some folks are too hung up on that subject and due to personal issues concerning the subject of 'race'.
As Rasol says, there are some folks who can't handle the FACTS and take either course of debating endlessly their incorrect views of the Egyptian 'race' or do the opposite and forbid debate at all because they know they will end up losing!
Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To revive an ancient thread: The admin of Egyptian Dreams made this statement about race discussions on that site
quote:Posts regarding the racial origins of the ancient Egyptians, i.e. were they black - were they white, are not welcome here and will likely be locked or deleted.
Why?
Because they always end up bringing out the lunatics, fringe theorists and general nut cases and invariably end up in racist flame wars. In an ideal world it would be great to have a civilised discussion about the origins of the ancient Egyptian race. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world.
posted
^ It's rather unfortunate. I'm one of those folks who'd rather discuss the culture of Ancient Egypt rather than 'race' but the whole racial issue has been enflamed by both sides-- the Eurocentric and Afrocentrics. Suffice to say Egypt is in Africa and there has never been any controversy or debate about the race of the ancient Greeks despite their cultural and genetic influence from Southwest Asia.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL Did I hit a nerve? My statement is is clear and was referring to the hypocrisy of the 'race' debate when it comes to Egyptians but not Greeks.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL Did I hit a nerve? My statement is is clear and was referring to the hypocrisy of the 'race' debate when it comes to Egyptians but not Greeks.
No nerves hit you said Greeks have cultural and genetic influence from Southwest Asia. I hadn't heard about that
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You mean all the years you've been on this forum and you've never seen the threads or discussions on the ancient Greeks' mixed ancestry from Neolithic forebears to Chalcolithic and Bronze Age immigrants?
From Brace 2004: The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa.
And from F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). 'Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements' Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564: A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004) following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998). This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005), in concordance with a process of demic diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).
This is also reflected in genetics as cited by Europeans themselves.
Yet it's funny how nobody makes a racial issue about Greeks and other southern Europeans the way they do for Egyptians and other North Africans.
Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ It's rather unfortunate. I'm one of those folks who'd rather discuss the culture of Ancient Egypt rather than 'race' but the whole racial issue has been enflamed by both sides-- the Eurocentric and Afrocentrics. Suffice to say Egypt is in Africa and there has never been any controversy or debate about the race of the ancient Greeks despite their cultural and genetic influence from Southwest Asia.
^^^^^^^^ BS whataboutism
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Seriously though, the majority of the bio-anthropological and anthropometric studies I've seen on ancient peoples are on the Egyptians. I've seldom seen any on the Greeks. Don't you think that's rather odd? Now I will say that in the past couple of decades a lot of genetic information has come out on the ancient Greeks, actually a lot more than Egyptians which is ironic due to the latter having a hell of a lot more preserved remains (mummies) but the Egyptian authorities seem to have restricted genetic studies to only a few samples and even the results released have been limited.
By the way, China has made some progress on their end with ancient Chinese remains both anthropometric and genetic studies.
Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: By the way, China has made some progress on their end with ancient Chinese remains both anthropometric and genetic studies.
I know about some aDNA research on Paleolithic remains like Tianyuan Man and the Red Deer Cave specimens, but what about later Chinese remains? I doubt it probable, but it would be funny if (for example) Shang Dynasty Chinese turned out to have a somewhat different genetic makeup from modern ethnic Chinese.
posted
An interesting question is why is the racial composition of ancient Egypt discussed so much here and all over the Internet? And mostly by people who are not Egyptians themselves? Why these heated debates? Why is it considered important? Should it not just be a purely academic question? How does the racial composition of ancient Egypt affect people outside Egypt?
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no mystery to the debates at all. For one thing, the strands of racism and distortion in anthropology and archaeology in the past and even today in some places too often offer a distorted picture of the region, denying or minimizing Ancient Egypt as an African civilization, and as African peoples. These are distortions of actual evidence and in scholarship. As such they need correction. Such distortions for example in past times manipulated or excluded samples that appeared "too negro" or reclassified them as something else. Other scholarship invoked mysterious "wandering Caucasoids" to explain away indigenous cultural development and peopling. The list is long, and is just plain bad science and scholarship.
Trying to "spin" such issues as mere "political" or "heated" debates only helps perpetuate bad scholarship, and is also a tactic to AVOID sustentative discussion of the data at hand. The website owner above "bans" discussions because such discussions would actually expose some of the BS said owner or posters are pushing.
Many academics have in recent decades done excellent work in presenting a more balanced, less distorted picture, but their work is oft denied or twisted by a vociferous community of white/modern Egyptian racists or denialists deliberately distorting an objective discussion of the field. On the flip side are various extreme Afrocen distorters who posit an AE where everybody seems to be linked to Nigerians or Ghanaians. Both sides deserve scrutiny, as do various trolls creating dishonest "debates" over generally settled facts. Another related tactic is to go on "forum" sites and post tangential "questions" such as "was Cleopatra or Socrates black?" The intention if course is to trivialize issues and in due course various "replies" appear on cue. Again, the aim is to divert attention from substantive evidence and issues, so all can be trivialized or caricatured as "political." Its a neat way of avoiding any real discussion or engagement, while APPEARING to "discuss."
And mostly by people who are not Egyptians themselves?
The same question can be asked of the study of AE in general. Why do white people spend so much time on AE, and why have they looted and plundered massive amounts of treasures and artifacts of Ancient Egypt? Why is it so important to them, seeing that they are not Egyptian? And why has their anthro and archeo in too many places distorted the actual culture and history of the indigenous peoples? Why, white people? Why?
Should it not just be a purely academic question?
Actually there has been plenty of "academics" in the picture and a central issue is of distorted "academic" work in the field. And keep in mind that the bio-history, ethnicity of AEs are a valid subject of academic inquiry, just as the ethnicity of the peopling of England is a valid subject.
A problem arose when some white academics first made "race" of the AEs and the region an obsession, even to the extent of excluding data deeded "too negro."
How does the racial composition of ancient Egypt affect people outside Egypt?
Actually it has had plenty of effects, centering chiefly on some influential whites distorting the culture and history of the indigenous peoples, and using that distortion to build on racist disparagements of Africa and Africans. A central tactic of such disparagement is to deny or downplay the full diversity of African culture, biology and civilization.
And the same question should be asked in reverse: How does the fact of Ancient Egypt as and African civilization developed by African peoples affect people inside Egypt?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Are you guys gonna discuss Egyptian race until 2010
It seems like most people here only care about Egyptian race and other aspects of Egypt which are directly or indirectly related to their biological makeup. No wonder the "whiteys" are always gonna be the greatest contributers in Egyptology and provide with the information they want so you can continue to argue about the Egyptian race.
well you said that in 2006, 17 years ago. It's an American thing, race talk is a form of competitive sport
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Are you guys gonna discuss Egyptian race until 2010
It seems like most people here only care about Egyptian race and other aspects of Egypt which are directly or indirectly related to their biological makeup. No wonder the "whiteys" are always gonna be the greatest contributers in Egyptology and provide with the information they want so you can continue to argue about the Egyptian race.
well you said that in 2006, 17 years ago. It's an American thing, race talk is a form of competitive sport
You should know
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is still a bit weird that a lot of foreigners, who have nothing to do with Egypt, continue to discuss ancient Egyptians eventual race, and if modern Egyptians descend directly from ancient Egyptians or not.
That should be a thing for Egyptians to judge. Hopefully in the future Egyptians themselves will manage their own heritage without interference from black or white foreigners.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: well you said that in 2006, 17 years ago. It's an American thing, race talk is a form of competitive sport
Seems so. Here where I live there are also people interested in ancient Egypt, but the race issue regarding ancient Egyptians is not much discussed here.
When I google on Swedish web sites about race in ancient Egypt I get a lot of pages about different dog breeds in Egypt. When I google English speaking sites about race and "Ancient Egypt" I get more than 3 million hits.
The first one is Wikipedia´s article about "Ancient Egyptian race controversy".
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It is still a bit weird that a lot of foreigners, who have nothing to do with Egypt, continue to discuss ancient Egyptians eventual race, and if modern Egyptians descend directly from ancient Egyptians or not.
That should be a thing for Egyptians to judge. Hopefully in the future Egyptians themselves will manage their own heritage without interference from black or white foreigners.
Aren't you the guy who came here to argue about the race of ancient Native Americans? You could have invited actual Natives to post in those discussions instead of claiming to speak on their behalf.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It is still a bit weird that a lot of foreigners, who have nothing to do with Egypt, continue to discuss ancient Egyptians eventual race, and if modern Egyptians descend directly from ancient Egyptians or not.
That should be a thing for Egyptians to judge. Hopefully in the future Egyptians themselves will manage their own heritage without interference from black or white foreigners.
Aren't you the guy who came here to argue about the race of ancient Native Americans? You could have invited actual Natives to post in those discussions instead of claiming to speak on their behalf.
I have actually participated in discussions in groups on social media that were owned and administered by Native Americans, and I told them about Egyptsearch. But they mostly preferred to discuss these issues in their own groups on social media. They seem not have thought that Egyptsearch was a significant platform enough to discuss on. And when it concerned such advocates for historical distortions as for example Clyde Winters they debated him already on other platforms. But they did not mind me talking about those issues also on Egyptsearch.
In my case I discussed the issues about Native Americans because I know some Native Americans and support them in their struggle. I do not know how many of the people here who know any Egyptians or have some connections with them. I even heard some African Americans claim that they are more related with the ancient Egyptians than todays Egyptians.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Are you guys gonna discuss Egyptian race until 2010
It seems like most people here only care about Egyptian race and other aspects of Egypt which are directly or indirectly related to their biological makeup. No wonder the "whiteys" are always gonna be the greatest contributers in Egyptology and provide with the information they want so you can continue to argue about the Egyptian race.
well you said that in 2006, 17 years ago. It's an American thing, race talk is a form of competitive sport
Sure. America is obsessed with race and has been so since its beginning, even writing its Constitution with a racially based "three-fifth's" clause. But some Arabist types of modern day Egypt are also as obsessed with race as many white people in America, which is why any suggestion that gasp! AE was an African civilization meets with such horror and denial. Oh no! Roll ominous music... And which is why they attack and disrespect "black Africans" from other countries. At the same time these hypocrites lecture Americans bout being "too concerned" with race. Seriously?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The three-fifths compromise was not motivated by racism. It was based on representation in the House of Representatives which was determined by a states population size. It was something implemented under racist conditions, slaves were not allowed to vote but it was not law motivated by racism, the 3/5 compromise was not intended to send a message that black people were less human. As an example in 1790 Massachusetts had a population of 378,787 with zero slaves. Virginia had a population of 747,610, but 292,627 residents were slaves total 1,040,237
Without the three-fifths compromise, Massachusetts would have been allotted a similar number of congressional representatives, even though Virginia had over twice the population. Southern states wanted slaves counted to get more representatives in Congress. So the compromise, to get Northern states to agree, would be that slaves were counted 3 for every 5. The American Revolutionary War started over issues of unfair representation in government. Slogans like “no taxation without representation” inflamed the colonists against the British. So the Southern states used their slave population to political advantage even though black people counted vote anywhere. You could say it was indirectly motivated by the desire of Southern States to continuing slavery for economic reasons and they thus wanted more Congressmen to to argue on their behalf. Northern state delegates argued that only voters should count, while southern state delegates argued that every person should count, regardless of their ability to vote. This is not to says there wasn't plenty of racism going on at the same time but without the context people assume the motivation of the compromise was to say black people were less human. The motivation was to use a head count to their advantage The Southern states would have preferred 5 of 5 slaves counted as population to get more Congress seats.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't say three-fifths was motivated by racism, I said "racially based" - and of course 99% of those at issue were black. But it is true as you say there was plenty of racism around in that era.
Speaking of racism, there is plenty in Egypt, as various African-Americans and Africans sometimes find out to their cost.
The Root: Race And Racism Divide Egypt February 7, 201110:11 AM ET SUNNI M. KHALID
FROM The Root
Egyptian anti-government demonstrators protesting in Cairo's Tahrir Square. Though protests are currently shaking the country, some argue that eventually Egypt will have to contend with another problem — racism against sub-Saharan Africans.
Sunni M. Khalid is the managing news editor at WYPR-FM and has reported extensively throughout Africa and the Middle East. He reported from Cairo for three years.
Because of my looks, my religion and my name, I have frequently been mistaken for Arab during my travels throughout the Middle East. It has been a mentally liberating sensation — to leave the racial politics of the United States (in reality, this is simply the process of exchanging the ethnic politics of one land for those of another) and not to be regarded as simply a nondescript "black." ... But other blacks, whether American or not, have fared much worse than I did; they are never mistaken for Arabs.
Slender, beautiful, blue-black-skinned Southern Sudanese women, who walk around Cairo with their thick, kinky hair woven distinctively in intricate braids, are routinely the targets of verbal public abuse. Carloads of Arab men drive by, hanging out of windows, shouting catcalls, or making loud demands for sexual favors.
Over the years, Egypt has had a particularly difficult time coming to grips with its African identity. Many Egyptians do not consider themselves Africans. Some take offense even to being identified with Africa at all. When speaking to Egyptians who have traveled to countries below the Sahara, nearly all of them speak of going to Africa, or going down to Africa, as if Egypt were separate from the rest of the continent.
More than a few Egyptian women, for example, told me that they disliked the dark-skinned former President Anwar Sadat, ridiculed for years as "Nasser's black poodle." Sadat, whose mother was Sudanese, they insisted, "did not look Egyptian enough."
For too many Egyptians, sub-Saharan Africa is a stereotypical exotic land of thick jungles and masses of poor, starving and black-skinned savages. Ironically, a little more than a generation ago, Cairo was the nerve center for the continent's liberation movement. Today the state-controlled media devote scant attention to the affairs of the continent below the Sahara. Even the occasional visit by a head of state from sub-Saharan Africa is greeted with smiles by snickering Egyptian government officials, especially when African visitors choose to wear their national dress.
This was not always the case. In 1966, following the coup in Ghana, Egypt's first president, Gamal Abdel-Nasser, sent for the Egyptian wife and half-Egyptian children of Ghana's deposed leader, Kwame Nkrumah. Nasser died suddenly in 1970, and much has changed since then.
Sub-Saharan Africans, who have fled as refugees to Egypt from Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea, are routinely targeted for periodic security roundups in Cairo. In December 2005, Egyptian riot police brutally attacked a camp of Sudanese refugees in Cairo who were protesting their treatment. In front of TV cameras, at least 28 and as many as 100 refugees were killed, and hundreds of others were injured, arrested, imprisoned or deported. There was little public protest.
Read the rest of Sunni M. Khal
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] Didn't say three-fifths was motivated by racism, I said "racially based" -
It had nothing to do with race. It was based on population and trying to use it for political advantage . They had slaves in their population and the South wanted those people to be counted as population so they could be get Congressmen in the House. I would call it hypocritical politically since simultaneously there were no political rights for the slaves but not race based that they wanted them to be counted as part of the population.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
No question that the text seems neutral on face, but the effects were racially based in that most of the enslaved in question were black, and the fact that at the same time the compromise was approved, delegates also approved a constitutional clause that allowed enslavers to “reclaim” enslaved people who sought freedom. By characterizing them as fugitives this clause criminalized the (mostly black) enslaved individuals who ran away in quest of their freedom. Here again most of the sufferahs would be black. The final formula adopted was of that proposed by Charles Pickney of South Carolina, which specifically mentions race. Everyone knew what the races were and what "free white persons" were.
"“Three-fifths of the number of slaves in any particular state would be added to the total number of free white persons, including bond servants, but not Indians, to the estimated number of congressmen each state would send to the House of Representatives.” https://johnmarshallcenter.org/pop-civ-3-three-fifths-compromise/
That a race is not specifically mentioned in the final version which removes the words "white" or "enslaved", but this does not change the background, context, and general intent and understanding of the white delegates.
On the flip side, the 3/5ths was a good deal for slaveowners, overwhelming white. It gave Southern states more representatives and more presidential electoral votes than if slaves had not been counted. It also gave white slaveholders similarly enlarged powers in Southern legislatures; this was an issue in the secession of West Virginia from Virginia in 1863.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: It seems like most people here only care about Egyptian race and other aspects of Egypt which are directly or indirectly related to their biological makeup. No wonder the "whiteys" are always gonna be the greatest contributers in Egyptology and provide with the information they want so you can continue to argue about the Egyptian race.
Look here another forum concerning Ancient Egypt i just found, http://forum.egyptia ndreams.co.uk these people here are interested genuinly about Pharaonic Egypt, they barely ever discuss social contructs such as "race", they are real passionate about Ancient Egypt and its people, Religion, culture etc. Its these people who will take over Egyptology later and become the next generation experts on Egypt and controll the information flow, maybe then you'll still be debating and arguing with the information they release. Fix up god damn it, this race thing has gone to far, same ol day in and day out, and then waiting for the next guy to appear and release the same old debate and arguments, and waiting for the next again.
lol. Actually race has been a significant part of Egyptology since its beginning. WF Petrie father of Egyptology, put forward several racial theories, correlating his widely used dating method with the "rise and fall" of various races in AE. He was also influenced by racial eugenics guru Francis Dalton.
" Petrie championed a technique for relative dating that correlated the ‘rise-floruit-fall’ patterns (Silberman 1999:76) in stratified pottery sequences with the grand cycles of the rising and falling vigor of races responsible for them. The racial component of Petrie’s methodology was explicit and he frequently complemented his artifactual analyses with considerations of ethnic physiognomies. To this end, Petrie carried out photography of exhumed remains, live subjects, and ancient portraiture in order to study facial features as an avenue to understanding the past. He maintained, for example, that the thirteenth dynasty Egyptian ruler ‘Mermashau’ had ‘a high face of coarser type, with high cheekbones, quite unlike any of the earlier statues of kings, and suggesting a foreigner who had risen to be a general and thence reached the throne’ (Petrie 1939:139). Petrie’s approach to biological variability can be attributed to the influence of Sir Francis Galton, the father of Eugenics."
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] Didn't say three-fifths was motivated by racism, I said "racially based" -
It had nothing to do with race. It was based on population and trying to use it for political advantage . They had slaves in their population and the South wanted those people to be counted as population so they could be get Congressmen in the House. I would call it hypocritical politically since simultaneously there were no political rights for the slaves but not race based that they wanted them to be counted as part of the population.
This is kind of silly. The overall point being made (That the "3/5th's" aspect wasn't codified to say that [Black] Slaves were literally 3/5th's of a human) is true, but the fact that such a compromise would even be needed in the first place was a direct result of Racism/Racially-based policies.
It's cognitive dissonance to say it "had nothing to do with race" when the dilemma at the heart of it had basically everything to race.
Even saying it had "nothing to do with race because they wanted to count them as a part of the population" is nonsensical because if Negros had full citizenship rights they would have already been counted as a part of the population.
-------------------- "One dog ain't enough, and two is too low" - Three Dog
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] Didn't say three-fifths was motivated by racism, I said "racially based" -
It had nothing to do with race. It was based on population and trying to use it for political advantage . They had slaves in their population and the South wanted those people to be counted as population so they could be get Congressmen in the House. I would call it hypocritical politically since simultaneously there were no political rights for the slaves but not race based that they wanted them to be counted as part of the population.
This is kind of silly. The overall point being made (That the "3/5th's" aspect wasn't codified to say that [Black] Slaves were literally 3/5th's of a human) is true, but the fact that such a compromise would even be needed in the first place was a direct result of Racism/Racially-based policies.
It's cognitive dissonance to say it "had nothing to do with race" when the dilemma at the heart of it had basically everything to race.
Even saying it had "nothing to do with race because they wanted to count them as a part of the population" is nonsensical because if Negros had full citizenship rights they would have already been counted as a part of the population.
Indeed. The clear background and context, including the formula of the white delegates pretty much debunk claims that 3/5ths was "race neutral."
----------------------- “Three-fifths of the number of slaves in any particular state would be added to the total number of free white persons, including bond servants, but not Indians, to the estimated number of congressmen each state would send to the House of Representatives.” https://johnmarshallcenter.org/pop-civ-3-three-fifths-compromise/ ----------------------
The compromise specifically mentions race, and the discussions and motions of the delegates again and again refer to race. Everyone knew what the races were and what "free white persons" were. Just because the word "white" or "slave" was not in the final version does not change the clear history. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-constitutional-convention-the-three-fifths-clause/
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
_______________________________
This is the 3/5ths compromise There is nothing about race here. If the slaves had been a class of other whites it would make no difference as to the intent of this law and it's outcome. The intent of the law is decides if people who are also regarded as property should be counted or not for taxation and political representation and is a compromise between these two. The Southern slave holders wanted the whole slave population counted but settled for 3 out of 5.
Thus the 3/5th compromise was good thing.
because otherwise the slave holders would have counted the full 5/5 full slave population counted
and thus would be allowed more Congressmen to advocate for the continuation of slavery and racist propaganda used to try to justify it. The reality here is a little more complex. It's much simpler to say "the racists regarded black people as 3/5ths of a human" but that is not what it was about. It did not create the conditions it came about in. The context was that the North would have preferred no slaves were counted, think about that. They wanted zero fifths counted which would have even been better > in the context of slavery in the Southern states
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Lioness is correct! The 3/5ths Amendment was NOT racial because it was meant for slaves NOT all black people since many blacks in the Northern states were free. The 3/5ths Amendment was created by Republicans because the slave holding Democrats were counting their slaves in the census for districting and thus giving them more power in congress. The Republicans pointed out the hypocrisy of including slaves in a census for citizens when they were not citizens at all with any rights but property. Therefore they made a compromise with the Democrats that if you count a slave that slave is 3/5ths a person in the census. Note the actual amendment doesn't mention "negro" or any racial group but simply refers to an enslaved person. Of course by that time all the slaves in the States were black (since originally there were white slaves).
Again the 3/5ths Amendment was created to limit the power of the Democrats who were the slave owners! Unfortunately, as my black friends have shown me, the Democratic Party has found ways to enslave the minds of many black Americans.
Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Lioness If the slaves had been a class of other whites
Is irrelevant, because they weren't. Negros were the slave class. You'll note that "those bound to Service for a Term of Years" I.E. White Indentured Servants were counted as full citizens, because (on paper at least) They had access to full citizenship.
because otherwise the slave holders would have counted the full 5/5 full slave population counted
Well see that's apart of the dilemma, because non-slave states didn't want to allow slave-states to count slaves towards the population while also denying these very same people full citizenship.
Now depending on who you ask, Abolitionists in the north also didn't want [Negro] slaves to not be counted either, allegedly for some vaguely altruistic reason, but it just as likely they wouldn't have been able to preserve the Union while taking that hard of a stance, hence the "compromise".
It's much simpler to say "the racists regarded black people as 3/5ths of a human"
Well some of the "racists" didn't even regard Black people as human at all, hence the race-based institution of slavery that existed in the first place lmao. But regardless, whether or not that was the explicit intent behind the 3/5th's compromise or not, that was in essence the reality of the situation. That [Negro] slaves were not considered human enough to be entitled to the so-called "unalienable rights" bestowed upon man supposedly by god himself, hence the justification for enslavement in the first place.
The context was that the North would have preferred no slaves were counted
Here you use the word "context" but I'm not sure you really understand what it means. Because even fully understanding the context of "chattel slavery in the U.S." you still somehow came to the conclusion that the damn 3/5ths compromise had "nothing to do with race". It's the tantamount to saying "Slavery in the U.S. had nothing to do with race" which is nonsense.
I feel like you're taking a very minor caveat and arguing it way past the point where it's useful. The poster you replied to merely brought up the 3/5ths compromise as example of America's "obsession with race" being around since the beginning, and nothing you've said could even possibly contradict that. Unless you are actually planning on arguing that slavery in the U.S. had nothing to do with race, because if that's the case then I don't want no parts of that conversation.
-------------------- "One dog ain't enough, and two is too low" - Three Dog
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Lioness is correct! The 3/5ths Amendment was NOT racial because it was meant for slaves NOT all black people since many blacks in the Northern states were free. The 3/5ths Amendment was created by Republicans because the slave holding Democrats were counting their slaves in the census for districting and thus giving them more power in congress. The Republicans pointed out the hypocrisy of including slaves in a census for citizens when they were not citizens at all with any rights but property. Therefore they made a compromise with the Democrats that if you count a slave that slave is 3/5ths a person in the census. Note the actual amendment doesn't mention "negro" or any racial group but simply refers to an enslaved person. Of course by that time all the slaves in the States were black (since originally there were white slaves).
Again the 3/5ths Amendment was created to limit the power of the Democrats who were the slave owners! Unfortunately, as my black friends have shown me, the Democratic Party has found ways to enslave the minds of many black Americans.
The character of the Democratic and Republican parties are not of the same relativity now as they were then
For instance what did you think of day after day while in office Trump saying "The China Virus" at any opportunity and not even specifying the CCP ?
Later there were random attacks on Chinese people and other similar looking Asians. Do you think that was coincidence or was it a racial vibe that he subliminally enhanced?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Lioness is correct! The 3/5ths Amendment was NOT racial because it was meant for slaves NOT all black people since many blacks in the Northern states were free. The 3/5ths Amendment was created by Republicans because the slave holding Democrats were counting their slaves in the census for districting and thus giving them more power in congress. The Republicans pointed out the hypocrisy of including slaves in a census for citizens when they were not citizens at all with any rights but property. Therefore they made a compromise with the Democrats that if you count a slave that slave is 3/5ths a person in the census. Note the actual amendment doesn't mention "negro" or any racial group but simply refers to an enslaved person. Of course by that time all the slaves in the States were black (since originally there were white slaves).
Next you'll be telling me that Anti-voter laws specifically designed to limit the Black vote weren't "Racial" or that redlining laws weren't "racial" because they didn't explicitly name Black people in the language.
You can not in one breath say that the law wasn't "racial", because "all blacks weren't slaves", and then turn around and say that "all slaves were Black" and have that be a sensible position. The whole point in removing reference to race in the final draft was to be able to feign some sense of legitimacy. But as the previous poster has pointed out the conversation leading up to the final draft was very clearly about race, or had race as a primary feature. Even without reference to race in the final draft, it should go without saying that any conversation concerning slavery at that time would necessarily be about race because that was the reality. The existence of free blacks does not invalidate to racial nature of slavery in the U.S.
I get trying to add some nuance to the discussion of racism in America but I just don't see what it adds to this conversation.
-------------------- "One dog ain't enough, and two is too low" - Three Dog
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
_______________________________
This is the 3/5ths compromise There is nothing about race here. If the slaves had been a class of other whites it would make no difference as to the intent of this law and it's outcome. The intent of the law is decides if people who are also regarded as property should be counted or not for taxation and political representation and is a compromise between these two. The Southern slave holders wanted the whole slave population counted but settled for 3 out of 5.
Thus the 3/5th compromise was good thing.
because otherwise the slave holders would have counted the full 5/5 full slave population counted
and thus would be allowed more Congressmen to advocate for the continuation of slavery and racist propaganda used to try to justify it. The reality here is a little more complex. It's much simpler to say "the racists regarded black people as 3/5ths of a human" but that is not what it was about. It did not create the conditions it came about in. The context was that the North would have preferred no slaves were counted, think about that. They wanted zero fifths counted which would have even been better > in the context of slavery in the Southern states
Of course the final version of the text does not include reference to race, but in the development of the compromise race was constantly referenced, and racial differentiation was made between black slaves, free whites and so on. So while there was no direct statement of racial motivation, race was a distinct element the formation of the provision, as can be seen in records of the actual discussion and motions filed by the white delegates. This is why claims of "racial neutrality" as if race did not figure into it at all are problematic.
3/5th was actually a good deal in context for white slaveowners for on the flip side, they risked not getting ANY recognition of the black slave population. That they got 3/5th out of the deadlock was a victory for them. If no slaves were counted, then the northern states would have had that much more power, and southern representation and slave power, correspondingly restricted.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic