posted
Ancient Egypt/Kemet was a Negro civilization. And, why do I say this without doubt - because the Ancient Egyptians said this! It's really that simple! We don't need any authentic images or DNA analysis; they said they were Negroes and that's that! And why don't I use the more 'politically correct' term that "Ancient Egypt was a Black civilization?" Because, semantical acrobatics has been used to obscure the sole purpose of language; the ability to communicate! Denzel Washington is a colored man/a Negro/an African-American and these descriptions ALL mean the same thing and if I were to use any of these adjectives to describe him, you would immediately know, if you didn't even know who he was, who it was that I was describing (he's also a great actor).
Stupid... There have been various means of communicating the fact that an individual is incapable of learning or understanding (slow of mind); 'stupid', 'retarded', and the more "politically correct" 'mentally challenged'; the bottom line is that the individual being described is incapable of learning So whatever term I choose to use, the idea of a situation is clearly understood by the person to whom I am communicating with...
Colored, Negro, Black, African... This is another form of expression that has been constantly updated but which in fact conveys the same meanings. If I use any of these expressions to describe a group of people, I would be immediately understood, by most normal people. It has nothing at all to do with science, it is simply descriptive. An astute poster on this forum once asked why the terms Negro, Mongolian, and Caucasian were outdated. It's simple, political correctness! Remember the scene in the first Superman movie where Lois Lane was shocked that Clark Kent used the 'outdated' expression of "swell", well she knew what he meant, it was just so outdated!...
Negro [Spanish word meaning Black] is "updated" by the use of the politically correct term 'Black'; the same with 'Caucasian' being updated to White or European and 'Mongolian' being updated to Asian... The fact of the matter is that there are Negroes, Caucasians, and Mongolian peoples on the earth today, and if I were to tell you that I have this Mongolian friend that you should meet, you would immediately have an idea of what I am describing, wouldn't you?
Afro-Asiatic non-sense Here's another politically correct update, whose direct ancestor was the "Hamito-Semitic" group. Both the 'Hamitic' and 'Semitic' languages originated and are indigenous to Africa, so why this update to Afro-Asiatic? It would be more intelligent to refer to this language group as simply Negro-African, as it originated amongst Negroes in Africa... This is why I am both saddened but slightly amused when someone posts:
quote: "The majority of Egyptians are of Eastern Hamitic origin (shown here)" http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/mod_egyptians.html I thought this term was obsolete? I assume this is the same "Wally" that posts here.
Jeezz, an "Eastern Hamite" is merely a descriptive term used to describe a specific group of Black African peoples (Negroes); it immediately brings to mind the Somali, the Beja, the Oromo, ( and by the way also the Ancient Egyptians - who were not only 'Hamitic' but also 'Nilotic', 'Bantu', and so on; it was an all-African culture.)
knowledge or intelligence is not determined by the latest and hippest terms used...sorry... Study and understand the Mdu NtrPosts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: Ancient Egypt/Kemet was a Negro civilization. And, why do I say this without doubt - because the Ancient Egyptians said this! It's really that simple! We don't need any authentic images or DNA analysis; they said they were Negroes and that's that! And why don't I use the more 'politically correct' term that "Ancient Egypt was a Black civilization?" Because, semantical acrobatics has been used to obscure the sole purpose of language; the ability to communicate!
Much truth Wally.
But some disagreement as well.
There are two distinct issues here:
The ethnic self definition of KM.t.
Tne biological classification of KM.t
Mdw Ntr is of profound relevance to the former, and of much lesser relevance to the later.
It just so happens that thru the former we can show that the Km.t considered themselves blacks, who came from inner Africa.
Via science we can demonstrate much the same, namely that Km.t were primarily native dark skinned peoples of Africa.
As for the term Negro. Since this is essentially a latin term for Black, it is simply a redundancy when used in this way to describe Km.t. IE - Km.t = Blacks = Negroes, same thing.
However...... [sorry]
...when used a racial classification, then the entire above argument falls apart for the following reason:
- Racial classifications are "biological" catagory. They can only be confirmed or disconfirmed thru scientific means. Mdw Ntr is not biology, so no matter how much we love and cherish it, it is not of any relevance to discussing the *biology* affinity of any people.
This is why it's a mistake to try to *use* Mdw Ntr to *prove* race classification.
It's a complete non-sequitur.
It's akin to trying to use oral histories of the Indian to *prove* that they are descend from the Grizzly Bear, and are so, unrelated to other peoples.
The statement now pertains to science [biology], but the proof offered is outside the parameters of science.
Hope this helps.
And "negro"?
If it's taken as Latin for Black then you are completely correct, that KM.t = Black = Negro and that all are equally valid as social terms for AE.
If it is taken as a racial classification, then *no* Km.t does not equate to Negro, nor is there anyway of proving or validating scientifically who is or is not a negro.
Actually it's a mistake to even try and do so, and I would even suggest that the frustration that you express in starting this thread, is the inevitable result of a discourse that leads to dead end. It's not your fault, but the racial terms on which you've been taught to think, lead to a dead end.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: Ancient Egypt/Kemet was a Negro civilization. And, why do I say this without doubt - because the Ancient Egyptians said this! It's really that simple! We don't need any authentic images or DNA analysis; they said they were Negroes and that's that! And why don't I use the more 'politically correct' term that "Ancient Egypt was a Black civilization?" Because, semantical acrobatics has been used to obscure the sole purpose of language; the ability to communicate! Denzel Washington is a colored man/a Negro/an African-American and these descriptions ALL mean the same thing and if I were to use any of these adjectives to describe him, you would immediately know, if you didn't even know who he was, who it was that I was describing (he's also a great actor).
Stupid... There have been various means of communicating the fact that an individual is incapable of learning or understanding (slow of mind); 'stupid', 'retarded', and the more "politically correct" 'mentally challenged'; the bottom line is that the individual being described is incapable of learning So whatever term I choose to use, the idea of a situation is clearly understood by the person to whom I am communicating with...
Colored, Negro, Black, African... This is another form of expression that has been constantly updated but which in fact conveys the same meanings. If I use any of these expressions to describe a group of people, I would be immediately understood, by most normal people. It has nothing at all to do with science, it is simply descriptive. An astute poster on this forum once asked why the terms Negro, Mongolian, and Caucasian were outdated. It's simple, political correctness! Remember the scene in the first Superman movie where Lois Lane was shocked that Clark Kent used the 'outdated' expression of "swell", well she knew what he meant, it was just so outdated!...
Negro [Spanish word meaning Black] is "updated" by the use of the politically correct term 'Black'; the same with 'Caucasian' being updated to White or European and 'Mongolian' being updated to Asian... The fact of the matter is that there are Negroes, Caucasians, and Mongolian peoples on the earth today, and if I were to tell you that I have this Mongolian friend that you should meet, you would immediately have an idea of what I am describing, wouldn't you?
Afro-Asiatic non-sense Here's another politically correct update, whose direct ancestor was the "Hamito-Semitic" group. Both the 'Hamitic' and 'Semitic' languages originated and are indigenous to Africa, so why this update to Afro-Asiatic? It would be more intelligent to refer to this language group as simply Negro-African, as it originated amongst Negroes in Africa... This is why I am both saddened but slightly amused when someone posts:
quote: "The majority of Egyptians are of Eastern Hamitic origin (shown here)" http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/mod_egyptians.html I thought this term was obsolete? I assume this is the same "Wally" that posts here.
Jeezz, an "Eastern Hamite" is merely a descriptive term used to describe a specific group of Black African peoples (Negroes); it immediately brings to mind the Somali, the Beja, the Oromo, ( and by the way also the Ancient Egyptians - who were not only 'Hamitic' but also 'Nilotic', 'Bantu', and so on; it was an all-African culture.)
knowledge or intelligence is not determined by the latest and hippest terms used...sorry... Study and understand the Mdu Ntr
Well apparently NOT they weren't negroes or black due to the authorities on this board *shrugs* because there is no RACE. Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well apparently NOT they weren't negroes or black due to the authorities on this board *shrugs* because there is no race.
Apparently you equate color [black] to race, and you are not capable of making a distinction between the two?
How can we help you engage your mind as opposed to merely rolling your eyes?
You're quite amusing with your words, although done effectively to let the individual know to engage you and the rest of the discussants on an intelligent and/or serious discourse.
Posts: 391 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wally, Rasol has pretty much answered all that you have addressed except for the last point about Afro-asiatic.
Afro-asiatic is a linguistic phylum as is Indo-European. Yes the language phylum originated in Africa, but it does no good to racialize it by calling it "Negro" which was the exact same thing Eurocentric did by calling it "Hamito" and which you unfortunately are continuing to do! Afro-asiatic means simply that the languages are spoken from Africa to Asia, but yes even mainstream Western white scholars agree that the phylum originated in Africa and that the majority of its languages are spoken there today. Again, linguistic classification is based on linguistic relation NOT on nebulous concepts such as 'race'. Which is why Afrasian, Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo, and Khoisan are all different linguistic phylums despite all of them originating and still being spoken in the African continent.
And to Vida, 'black' is a description of skin color and is totally different from 'race' which implies shared genetic origins. Thus, black Melanesians are closer related to fair-skinned Koreans than they are to black Africans.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that the terms discussed were not created by Africans themselves. Rather they were imposed with a palpable racist intent. It would seem to me that "African"--to refer to individuals who are adaptively genetic products of Africa's environments--is perhaps the most appropriate. Thus West, East, North, and Southern African, just as we have opted for East Asian or South Asian,etc.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing about the odious word "negro" is that racist and erocentic writings from the 15th to the 20th centuries make the disclaimer "black but not negro" overly frequent.
Negro, at least in the languages of Euro people deeply involved in the transAtlantc slave trade, takes on the meaning of "black thing" as in the commodity slave.
As such the word long ago lost its initial meaning as a color descriptor taking on the meaning "any African peoples who were provided as slaves to the New World."
Increasingly, non-African black peoples ceased being labeled negro just as now they are not even any longer referred to as blacks.
Indians would be the prime example. Does anyone remember Kipling derogated Gunga Din by the epithet nigger?
quote:Afro-asiatic is a linguistic phylum as is Indo-European. Yes the language phylum originated in Africa, but it does no good to racialize it by calling it "Negro" which was the exact same thing Eurocentric did by calling it "Hamito" and which you unfortunately are continuing to do! Afro-asiatic means simply that the languages are spoken from Africa to Asia, but yes even mainstream Western white scholars agree that the phylum originated in Africa and that the majority of its languages are spoken there today. Again, linguistic classification is based on linguistic relation NOT on nebulous concepts such as 'race'. Which is why Afrasian, Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo, and Khoisan are all different linguistic phylums despite all of them originating and still being spoken in the African continent.
Wally tends to mystify words. He embues them with inherent qualities of goodnesses and evilness and then defends them, or rejects on that basis, while losing track of the actual meanings of the very definitions he cites.
The result is confusion and contradiction from which he cannot extract his discourse, and so requring this thread as another round of attempted explanation.
For example:
He talks about the Hamites whom he says are select groups of peoples further sub-divided into "Western and Eastern" Hamites.
In defense of this mystification Wally claims that it stems from the Bible.
Of course all trafficers in the Hamite myth claim this, but the logical question to ask is ->
Where in the Bible is there any mention of sub-division of Eastern Hamites and Western Hamites?
Where in the Bible is there a list of Africans who supposidly *are* Hamites and Africans - actually the overwhelming majority of AFricans according to Wally's definition/source - who supposedly and somehow *are not* Hamites.
This later grouop, according to Wally's definition/source, that he manages to simultaneously cite, and ignore with inelegant duplicity, constitute something called -the Negroes- who are not the Hamites - two *mutually exclusive constructs*, according to Wally's source.
In fact that Negro and Hamite are two opposite constructs is essentially the *sole function of Hamite* in outdated and racist anthropology.
Without the above racist dialectic, Hamite ceases to have any function or meaning in Anthropology.
Wally has thus been duped into relying on this racist construct - because its the only way he can get his 'mystified term' into a 'psuedo' anthropology discussion.
The reality is - that Wally is not channeling the 'the Bible' at all.
Nor is he inventing any ideas of his own.
He is directly reciting from European racist anthrologist Seligman. Seligman created anthropology Hamite class. He placed peoples into this catagory based on a specific, testable, and now [debunked] hypothesis.
Thus the issue at hand is not -etymology- of magic words, but the soundess of Seligman's anthropology ideas.
To wit... "Apart from relatively late Semitic influence . . . the civilizations of Africa are the civilizations of the Hamites, its history the record of these peoples and of their interaction with the two other African stocks, the Negro and the Bushman, whether this influence was exerted by highly civilized Egyptians or by such wider pastoralists as are represented at the present day by the Beja and Somali . . .
The incoming Hamites were pastoral 'Europeans'--arriving wave after wave--better armed as well as quicker witted than the dark agricultural Negroes."
Wally misguidedly attempts to use Seligman's anthropology ideas, even quotes Seligman on his Website, but remains in complete denial with regards to the vileness that Seligman is actually relating.
His method for sustaining this irrationality is to retreat behind the Bible, or mdw ntr. But this is not acceptable, because Wally isn't quoting the Bible and he isn't quoting the AE -> he is quoting Seligman.
Wally there is a difference between the 'power to define' [as demonstrated by Seligman], and the bad habit of parroting really bad ideas to unintended consequence.
That you can't see the difference between the former and the later perhaps provides another example of mystificaion of terms, wherein words have power independant of the meanings that they relate.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The main reason that the Hamite hypothesis has been such and 'ultimately deadly' in Rwanda, propaganda device, is because it allowed racists to use the power of religious text, and the tendancy of people to grovel intellectually before religously imparted 'truth', in order to brow beat 'subjects' into accepting a discourse that was rooted in Eurocentric racism, and not the Bible.
To extricate onself from this mess Wally, you need to use the following rule of thumb.
- the moment any source says *anything* about Hamite, that is *not* found in the Bible, then that source is to be held suspect, and that sources ideas and meanings should be the lock/focus of the discussion.
At this point, retreating behind the Bible or any other meaning/definition of terms other than that provided by the source may be rightly regarded as either mischief or folly, chose one.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I think the Rwandan genocide is a deeply disturbing case of again how the root of all of African's problems lies in the perpetuation of Eurocentric colonial B.S. and how some Africans still cling on to it.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The subsequent opinions here regarding my original post are due primarily to dogma and the contradictions such dogma foster:
quote: Dogma 1 a: something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
The only statement made in my original posting that was an opinion was that "Denzel Washington was a great actor"; this is subjective and can be debated.
Objective facts... I was referring to language as a means of communication and how words have meanings - if I say that Denzel Washington is a colored guy, you know what I am saying.
Where the dogma is introduced into what is simple and straightforward is when we are then taken onto irrelevant tangents such as 'the Bible', the mis-use of terms such as 'Hamite'(a Negro), or biology, or such other nonsense like the Melanesian (Black peoples of south pacific) are more related to other Asians than they are to Africans! (...and how does Rwanda figure in this topic?...) Hey, I've been to the Philippine Islands and I have seen the Negritos ("little Blacks") and they resemble the twa people in Africa and they certainly did not suddenly spring anew in the Phillipine Islands, although they got there first before the arrival of the Malay groups...
But for those not steeped in dogma (and it shall re-appear), I repeat:
quote:Originally posted by Wally: Ancient Egypt/Kemet was a Negro civilization. And, why do I say this without doubt - because the Ancient Egyptians said this! It's really that simple! We don't need any authentic images or DNA analysis; they said they were Negroes and that's that! And why don't I use the more 'politically correct' term that "Ancient Egypt was a Black civilization?" Because, semantical acrobatics has been used to obscure the sole purpose of language; the ability to communicate! Denzel Washington is a colored man/a Negro/an African-American and these descriptions ALL mean the same thing and if I were to use any of these adjectives to describe him, you would immediately know, if you didn't even know who he was, who it was that I was describing (he's also a great actor).
Stupid... There have been various means of communicating the fact that an individual is incapable of learning or understanding (slow of mind); 'stupid', 'retarded', and the more "politically correct" 'mentally challenged'; the bottom line is that the individual being described is incapable of learning So whatever term I choose to use, the idea of a situation is clearly understood by the person to whom I am communicating with...
Colored, Negro, Black, African... This is another form of expression that has been constantly updated but which in fact conveys the same meanings. If I use any of these expressions to describe a group of people, I would be immediately understood, by most normal people. It has nothing at all to do with science, it is simply descriptive. An astute poster on this forum once asked why the terms Negro, Mongolian, and Caucasian were outdated. It's simple, political correctness! Remember the scene in the first Superman movie where Lois Lane was shocked that Clark Kent used the 'outdated' expression of "swell", well she knew what he meant, it was just so outdated!...
Negro [Spanish word meaning Black] is "updated" by the use of the politically correct term 'Black'; the same with 'Caucasian' being updated to White or European and 'Mongolian' being updated to Asian... The fact of the matter is that there are Negroes, Caucasians, and Mongolian peoples on the earth today, and if I were to tell you that I have this Mongolian friend that you should meet, you would immediately have an idea of what I am describing, wouldn't you?
Afro-Asiatic non-sense Here's another politically correct update, whose direct ancestor was the "Hamito-Semitic" group. Both the 'Hamitic' and 'Semitic' languages originated and are indigenous to Africa, so why this update to Afro-Asiatic? It would be more intelligent to refer to this language group as simply Negro-African, as it originated amongst Negroes in Africa... This is why I am both saddened but slightly amused when someone posts:
quote: "The majority of Egyptians are of Eastern Hamitic origin (shown here)" http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/mod_egyptians.html I thought this term was obsolete? I assume this is the same "Wally" that posts here.
Jeezz, an "Eastern Hamite" is merely a descriptive term used to describe a specific group of Black African peoples (Negroes); it immediately brings to mind the Somali, the Beja, the Oromo, ( and by the way also the Ancient Egyptians - who were not only 'Hamitic' but also 'Nilotic', 'Bantu', and so on; it was an all-African culture.)
knowledge or intelligence is not determined by the latest and hippest terms used...sorry... Study and understand the Mdu Ntr
quote:Originally posted by Wally: The subsequent opinions here regarding my original post are due primarily to dogma and the contradictions such dogma foster
Actually that's unfair and a bit of a copout.
For example - at least 3 different discussants addressed you in terms of specifics, point by point.
You don't engage any of the specifics but simply try to 'talk over' anyone who disagrees with you.
That is dogma.
It also isn't effective.
Because it makes it appear that you simply don't know how to respound to Djehuti, AlTakruri or myself in terms of specifics.
Now, I will address you latest dogmatic post - again in terms of specifics.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I agree with you Wally. Let's not discuss the Bible. Discuss the following, as per your source....
"Apart from relatively late Semitic influence . . . the civilizations of Africa are the civilizations of the Hamites, its history the record of these peoples and of their interaction with the two other African stocks, the Negro and the Bushman, whether this influence was exerted by highly civilized Egyptians or by such wider pastoralists as are represented at the present day by the Beja and Somali . . .
The incoming Hamites were pastoral 'Europeans'--arriving wave after wave--better armed as well as quicker witted than the dark agricultural Negroes." -
You believe this? Wholey? In part?
If you completely disagree with this, why advocate it at all?
Why do you want to divide Africans into Hamites & non Hamites(?) given that modern anthropological and linguistic scholars have falsified this racist concept?
I hope you can start answering our questions, rather than glibbly repeeating yourself and hoping no one notices you're just dodging.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Sorry, but I noticed. And I'm sure other posters with the least bit intelligence knows it as well.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never understood Mdu Ntr, can someone explain to me what it proves?
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Wally, Rasol has pretty much answered all that you have addressed except for the last point about Afro-asiatic.
Afro-asiatic is a linguistic phylum as is Indo-European. Yes the language phylum originated in Africa, but it does no good to racialize it by calling it "Negro" which was the exact same thing Eurocentric did by calling it "Hamito" and which you unfortunately are continuing to do! Afro-asiatic means simply that the languages are spoken from Africa to Asia, but yes even mainstream Western white scholars agree that the phylum originated in Africa and that the majority of its languages are spoken there today. Again, linguistic classification is based on linguistic relation NOT on nebulous concepts such as 'race'. Which is why Afrasian, Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo, and Khoisan are all different linguistic phylums despite all of them originating and still being spoken in the African continent.
And to Vida, 'black' is a description of skin color and is totally different from 'race' which implies shared genetic origins. Thus, black Melanesians are closer related to fair-skinned Koreans than they are to black Africans.
So then melasians are the same as nigerians?! based on the fact that we can ONLY describe people based on skin color?!?!
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: then melasians are the same as nigerians?! based on the fact that we can ONLY describe people based on skin color?!?!
Please quote Djehuti as stating that we can ONLY describe people in terms of skin color?
Of course he didn't say that, did he?
Perhaps what you meant to write was - You can't refute anything he actually said, and can ONLY resort to attacking strawmen?Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King_Scorpion: I've never understood Mdu Ntr, can someone explain to me what it proves?
You do know that Mdu Ntr [devine speech] is a reference to the AE language and writing system.
Basically it contains everything they ever wrote about themselves, so it proves quite a bit actually. I mean, where to begin?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol, my friend, and Djehuti my friend as well, you both are totally wrong on your responses to my post:
rasol, I agree with Dr. Winters that "you like to argue", but I would rather put it as you love to debate; so do I and I find this form of mental chess as very healthy. However, one of your methodologies that you use is to subtlety change what a person has stated to your 'interpretation' of what has been stated in order to create what essentially is a debate with yourself, and if you debate you, then who wins?
But to specifics on what I actually wrote and meant:
Examples of dogma...
quote: Djehuti wrote: Every society in the world, from egalitarian societies where goods are distributed evenly to communist societies where the government controls all goods, has WORK.
This is absolute Capitalist dogma! For if one understands Revolutionary theory, one would see immediately the contradictions in this statement; simply because in a Communist society, the state has 'withered' away and there is no longer a government; government is the means by which the ruling minority controls the majority, so if the majority is in control, government becomes an anachronism...
quote: Djehuti wrote: Afro-asiatic is a linguistic phylum as is Indo-European...
This is absolute dogma, and exemplifies uncritical thinking. The Indo-European 'linguistic phylum' conveniently groups all of the White peoples of Europe into a single, unified group and adds to the fiction that there is such a thing as a European continent! Just look at a NASA photograph of the earth and you will see that there is no such thing as a European continent; it's simply an expression used to describe all the White peoples of Western Asia! While African languages are conveniently balkanized, even in the reality that African languages are more closely related...
And rasol,
The human classification of the racial groupings that I use are taken directly from the Mdu Ntr, long before the Europeans could either read or write. This has been explained here previously, using principally the discoveries of Amelineau: Amelineau discovered these racial/ethnographic displays in numerous tombs and which have NOTHING at all to do with the 'book of gates': There was displayed a racial hierarchy, he discovered; the Black race ("family" in the Mdu Ntr would be more accurate)- the Kemetou (Ancient Egyptians) were at the front - consistent with African chauvinism - and the other Blacks next; then came the Semitic races, and at the rear were the White races; and as Amelineau has pointed out, in many cases the Semitic races and the White races were portrayed as being of different nationalities. It was NOT a table of nations but an ethnographic classification.
The Ancient Egyptians considered that all Blacks belonged to the same family!Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Djehuti wrote: Every society in the world, from egalitarian societies where goods are distributed evenly to communist societies where the government controls all goods, has WORK.
This is absolute Capitalist dogma! For if one understands Revolutionary theory, one would see immediately the contradictions in this statement; simply because in a Communist society, the state has 'withered' away and there is no longer a government; government is the means by which the ruling minority controls the majority, so if the majority is in control, government becomes an anachronism...
Just a brief interjection here:
I suspect you and Djehuti are looking at "Communism" from two different prisms. You seem to be talking about a more socialist form of 'Communism' where the social welfare of people is expected to come first - I simply call it socialist Society, but that may be a matter of semantics. Whereas Djehuti, based on his comments elsewhere, seems to be linking "Communism" to the sort practiced in China; this form was actually derived from Stalinist brand of "Communism", which has caused some folks to view the term with negativity, associating it with 'despotism'. Hence to that extent, the term takes the form of a pejorative. It goes without saying then, that it is because the Stalinist brand and its derivatives have betrayed what socialism ought to be about, by the contradictions therein - like government authoritarianism, to be then supplimented by adoption of capitalism [e.g. privatized profit, along with its associated 'free market' ideology, usually coupled with interestingly one-sided and hypocritical approach to government subsidization and strong tariffs by its leading proponents in the wealthy capitalist economies and such], not much different than that practiced in the openly self-identified capitalist plutocracies. Again, the two of you may be approaching the same term, "communism", from very different angles.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Djehuti wrote: Afro-asiatic is a linguistic phylum as is Indo-European...
This is absolute dogma, and exemplifies uncritical thinking. The Indo-European 'linguistic phylum' conveniently groups all of the White peoples of Europe into a single, unified group and adds to the fiction that there is such a thing as a European continent!...
African language diversity is much greater than that of Europe, regardless of association by family; do you not agree?
quote:Wally:
And rasol,
The human classification of the racial groupings that I use are taken directly from the Mdu Ntr, long before the Europeans could either read or write. This has been explained here previously, using principally the discoveries of Amelineau: Amelineau discovered these racial/ethnographic displays in numerous tombs and which have NOTHING at all to do with the 'book of gates': There was displayed a racial hierarchy, he discovered; the Black race ("family" in the Mdu Ntr would be more accurate)- the Kemetou (Ancient Egyptians) were at the front - consistent with African chauvinism - and the other Blacks next; then came the Semitic races, and at the rear were the White races; and as Amelineau has pointed out, in many cases the Semitic races and the White races were portrayed as being of different nationalities. It was NOT a table of nations but an ethnographic classification.
The Ancient Egyptians considered that all Blacks belonged to the same family!
AE groupings of people is no more a reality of human 'races' than any grouping done today anywhere.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But to specifics on what I actually wrote and meant:
The human classification of the racial groupings that I use are taken directly from the Mdu Ntr,
Please provide proof that Human classifications in mdw ntr -specifically relate races - defined as scientific assessments of biology class.
Please show the *scientific means* by which these *biological classifications* were arrived at?
If you laugh and say - that's prepostrous, then... we agree, and so too is your claim prepostrous.
To this point, you've provided absolutely nothing of substance Wally and no amount of grandstanding will distract us from this fact.
quote:There was displayed a racial hierarchy, he discovered; the Black race[ ("family" in the Mdu Ntr would be more accurate)- the Kemetou (Ancient Egyptians) were at the front
This is *interesting*. Please present the pictures, textures or whatever you have that can show this?
I am curious as to why you think social hierachy validates 'race'.
The Masai say that all cattle in the world were given unto them to rule.
You translate this into proof that Masai are *a race* and all other people of the world are .... another *race*. (??)
Basically you believe that any social system that is hierarchical is somehow *proof* of race. (???)
quote: - consistent with African chauvinism - and the other Blacks next; then came the Semitic races, and at the rear were the White races;
You list 4 groups,
Egyptians,
other Blacks,
Semtics
and Whites.
....yet you take 4 groups and extract 3 of what you chose to call "races."
So how can you claim it is a table of races?
Do you not see the glaring inconsistencies, the flaws in your logic, that run throughout your discourse?
Let me explain it to you then:
*) there is a table with 4 groups.
*) you insist the table denotes races.
*) therefore you *must* accept that there are 4, FOUR, races shown, in order for your claim to be internally consistent.
*) if you then claim that 2 of the groups belong to the 'same' race...then you admit that you do not consider it a table of races, per se, but rather impose your own -different- views upon them.
The difference is literally as clear and specific and the difference between 4 and 3.
In fact, you are imposing your own *race* ideology onto a primary text which says nothing of the kind.
quote:The Ancient Egyptians considered that all Blacks belonged to the same family!
Has nothing to do with proof of race.
Unless you feel that in cases where African ethnic groups claim to belong to *different families* - this proves they belong to different races?
You aren't making any sense. Your entire discourse is a non-sequitur in which you attempt to use ancient text as a substitute for scientific literacy.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:MysterSolver wrote: African language diversity is much greater than that of Europe, regardless of association by family; do you not agree?
quote:Wally wrote: It would be more intelligent to refer to this language group as simply Negro-African, as it originated amongst Negroes in Africa...
Yes, Obenga's Negro African...which excludes Ethiopian Semitic, and Khoisan, and Berber, in order to concord effectively to the racial myth of the 'true negro'
posted
*snickering* Hey Hey now...I never said anything as stupid as a language group being called "negro african". Now yall give me some props when this dude is supposed to be a mdw ntr expert lol.
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Fine, you have 'props' for not sounding as silly as you usually do. *short loud laugh*
Wally, Mystery has already addressed you about your replies on communism, so I will address your other more pertinent yet grossly inaccurate point on language phylum.
quote:This is absolute dogma, and exemplifies uncritical thinking. The Indo-European 'linguistic phylum' conveniently groups all of the White peoples of Europe into a single, unified group and adds to the fiction that there is such a thing as a European continent! Just look at a NASA photograph of the earth and you will see that there is no such thing as a European continent; it's simply an expression used to describe all the White peoples of Western Asia! While African languages are conveniently balkanized, even in the reality that African languages are more closely related...
Incorrect. Again (for the hundredth time), Indo-European as a linguistic phylum does NOT group people but languages. Not all the languages of Europe are even Indo-European, and many Indo-European languages are found outside of Europe! It has nothing to do with "white people"!
And again (for the hundredth time), the different languages phylums of Africa have nothing to do with "balkanizing" or seperating African peoples, but everything to do with the simple fact that linguistic diversity in Africa is much greater than that of Europe! Although you fail to realize is but rather follow your own dogma based on biased and false racial typology.
Your intentional ignorance and refusal of the above facts no matter how many times I repeat them is disturbingly like that of hopless March Washingon, whose ridiculous dogma has destroyed his common sense a long time ago.
quote:The human classification of the racial groupings that I use are taken directly from the Mdu Ntr, long before the Europeans could either read or write. This has been explained here previously, using principally the discoveries of Amelineau: Amelineau discovered these racial/ethnographic displays in numerous tombs and which have NOTHING at all to do with the 'book of gates': There was displayed a racial hierarchy, he discovered; the Black race ("family" in the Mdu Ntr would be more accurate)- the Kemetou (Ancient Egyptians) were at the front - consistent with African chauvinism - and the other Blacks next; then came the Semitic races, and at the rear were the White races; and as Amelineau has pointed out, in many cases the Semitic races and the White races were portrayed as being of different nationalities. It was NOT a table of nations but an ethnographic classification.
The Ancient Egyptians considered that all Blacks belonged to the same family!
^ That maybe, but this is different from the racial typology that we use in modern times. True the table was ethnographic, but it is based on ethnicity.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Djehuti wrote: Incorrect. Again (for the hundredth time), Indo-European as a linguistic phylum does NOT group people but languages. Not all the languages of Europe are even Indo-European, and many Indo-European languages are found outside of Europe! It has nothing to do with "white people"!
And again (for the hundredth time), the different languages phylums of Africa have nothing to do with "balkanizing" or seperating African peoples, but everything to do with the simple fact that linguistic diversity in Africa is much greater than that of Europe! Although you fail to realize is but rather follow your own dogma based on biased and false racial typology.
Wally, your discourse is being rightly rejected as absurd.
But, want everyone to understand the game you're playing - ie - how you hoped to bluff your way thru the conversation.
Your thesis is a feign synthesis of three catagories - biology, linguistics and semantics.
Whenever you are pinned down and required to present biological evidence of your biology [pro-race] claims, or linguistic evidence of your anti Afrisan langauge family claims..... you offer semantics, to switch the subject.
So, I falsify your race claims, and you write me back talking about mdw ntr [language].
Djehuti falsifies your language claims, so you write him back talking about racial catagories.
Any astute reader sees straight thru your semantical evasions.
Conclusion:
* You have no linguistic evidence against the Afrisan language family.
** You have no biological evidence in support of race.
If past is prologue, you will reply with more semantical bluffing - - and ad nauseum repetitiveness, but you will certainly produce no linguistic or biological evidence.
That might make you feel better, but your thread will not progress until you start honestly addressing the issues.
posted
...for those here who really want to know...
quote: Indo-European Language List
Aeolian Greek Afrikaans Albanian Arcadian Greek Armenian Aromanian Asturian Attic Greek Avestan Bactrian Baluchi Belorussian Breton Brittish Bulgarian Carian Catalan Celtiberian Common Anatolian Common Baltic Common Celtic Common Germanic Common Slavic Cornish Corsican Curonian Czech Dacian Dalmatian Danish Dardic Dari Doric Greek Dutch English Faliscan Faroese French Frisian Galician Galindan Gaulish German Gothic Greek New Hittite Icelandic Illyrian Ionic Greek Irish Istroromanian Italian Kashmiri Khwaresmian Koine Greek Kurdish Latin Latvian Lepontic Lithuanian Low German Luwian Lycian Lydian Macedonian Manx Median Messapic Mitanni Aryan Mycenaean Greek Norwegian Occitan Old Church Slavonic Old English Old High German Old Low German Old Macedonian Old Norse Old Prussian Old Russian Oscan Ossetic Palaic Pali Pamir Languages Parthian Persian Phrygian Picene Pisidic Polabian Polish Popular Latin Portuguese Prakrits Pashto Rhaetoromance Romanian Russian Ruthene (Rusyn) Sacian Sanskrit Sardinian Scots Scottish Gaelic Scythian Selonian Semigalian Serbo-Croatian Sidetian Slovak Slovene Sogdian Sorbian Spanish Sudovian Swedish Tadjik Talysh Tati Thracian Tocharic Ukrainian Umbrian Vedic Venetic Volscian Welsh Yagnobi Yiddish
quote: Djehuti wrote: Wally, Mystery has already addressed you about your replies on communism...
No, what Mystery has demonstrated are two different ways of viewing reality;
1) a bourgeois and distorted view that the world consists of events.
2) the more sophisticated view that the world does not consist of events but rather of processes.
When you are born, you don't suddenly wake up to the next 'event' and you are an old person; rather you go through the process of aging. It's the natural law of existence.
There are societies in the world where the political government is controlled by a party whose aim it is to proceed from a socialist order, where the working class is in control, into a full blown communist society, where there is no need for a state at all.
There are NO communist societies in existence today; only societies trending towards communism - it is an ongoing historical process.
To fully understand this requires ideological clarity which is achieved through study... Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: ...for those here who really want to know...
quote: Indo-European Language List
Aeolian Greek Afrikaans Albanian Arcadian Greek Armenian Aromanian Asturian Attic Greek Avestan Bactrian Baluchi Belorussian Breton Brittish Bulgarian Carian Catalan Celtiberian Common Anatolian Common Baltic Common Celtic Common Germanic Common Slavic Cornish Corsican Curonian Czech Dacian Dalmatian Danish Dardic Dari Doric Greek Dutch English Faliscan Faroese French Frisian Galician Galindan Gaulish German Gothic Greek New Hittite Icelandic Illyrian Ionic Greek Irish Istroromanian Italian Kashmiri Khwaresmian Koine Greek Kurdish Latin Latvian Lepontic Lithuanian Low German Luwian Lycian Lydian Macedonian Manx Median Messapic Mitanni Aryan Mycenaean Greek Norwegian Occitan Old Church Slavonic Old English Old High German Old Low German Old Macedonian Old Norse Old Prussian Old Russian Oscan Ossetic Palaic Pali Pamir Languages Parthian Persian Phrygian Picene Pisidic Polabian Polish Popular Latin Portuguese Prakrits Pashto Rhaetoromance Romanian Russian Ruthene (Rusyn) Sacian Sanskrit Sardinian Scots Scottish Gaelic Scythian Selonian Semigalian Serbo-Croatian Sidetian Slovak Slovene Sogdian Sorbian Spanish Sudovian Swedish Tadjik Talysh Tati Thracian Tocharic Ukrainian Umbrian Vedic Venetic Volscian Welsh Yagnobi Yiddish
^^^What the hell is this supposed to mean *snickering*
Thus sayeth 'Wally Mo Thugs' <---this is your new moniker Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: No, what Mystery has demonstrated are two different ways of viewing reality;
^ Perhaps you can start another thread proferring your political views on communism.
Please get back on topic in this thread.
Where is that linguistic evidence that the Afrisan language family does not exist?
Where is that biological evidence for race?
Don't you have any?
quote:If past is prologue, you will reply with more semantical bluffing - - and ad nauseum repetitiveness, but you will certainly produce no linguistic or biological evidence.
That might make you feel better, but your thread will not progress until you start honestly addressing the issues.
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote:Originally posted by Wally: ...for those here who really want to know...
quote: Indo-European Language List
Aeolian Greek Afrikaans Albanian Arcadian Greek Armenian Aromanian Asturian Attic Greek Avestan Bactrian Baluchi Belorussian Breton Brittish Bulgarian Carian Catalan Celtiberian Common Anatolian Common Baltic Common Celtic Common Germanic Common Slavic Cornish Corsican Curonian Czech Dacian Dalmatian Danish Dardic Dari Doric Greek Dutch English Faliscan Faroese French Frisian Galician Galindan Gaulish German Gothic Greek New Hittite Icelandic Illyrian Ionic Greek Irish Istroromanian Italian Kashmiri Khwaresmian Koine Greek Kurdish Latin Latvian Lepontic Lithuanian Low German Luwian Lycian Lydian Macedonian Manx Median Messapic Mitanni Aryan Mycenaean Greek Norwegian Occitan Old Church Slavonic Old English Old High German Old Low German Old Macedonian Old Norse Old Prussian Old Russian Oscan Ossetic Palaic Pali Pamir Languages Parthian Persian Phrygian Picene Pisidic Polabian Polish Popular Latin Portuguese Prakrits Pashto Rhaetoromance Romanian Russian Ruthene (Rusyn) Sacian Sanskrit Sardinian Scots Scottish Gaelic Scythian Selonian Semigalian Serbo-Croatian Sidetian Slovak Slovene Sogdian Sorbian Spanish Sudovian Swedish Tadjik Talysh Tati Thracian Tocharic Ukrainian Umbrian Vedic Venetic Volscian Welsh Yagnobi Yiddish
^^^What the hell is this supposed to mean *snickering*
Thus sayeth 'Wally Mo Thugs' <---this is your new moniker
You have neither the ability to give me 'a new moniker' nor even the ability to comprehend the obvious: all of the above listings of Indo-European languages are languages spoken by White peoples! It is clear documentation of what I have previously stated about the subjectivity of classifying language...but you won't understand... Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: rasol wrote: ^ Perhaps you can start another thread proferring your political views on communism.
That would be irrelevant; the idea was to show how people who are unfamiliar with a subject, will often repeat the dogma to which they are familiar with. If one wants to understand this political philosophy, there are tons of literature on the subject, and one can form their own political views - I'll guarantee you that Bill Gates knows the subject very well.
quote: rasol also wrote: Please get back on topic in this thread.
The topic of this thread is "Anti-Mdu Ntr: and the attack on our intelligence" which both you and Djehuti have attempted to change, such as;
quote: Where is that linguistic evidence that the Afrisan language family does not exist?
I never said that this "Afrisan" (see, you don't even know what to call it) language did not exist. What I said was this:
Afro-Asiatic non-sense Here's another politically correct update, whose direct ancestor was the "Hamito-Semitic" group. Both the 'Hamitic' and 'Semitic' languages originated and are indigenous to Africa, so why this update to Afro-Asiatic? It would be more intelligent to refer to this language group as simply Negro-African, as it originated amongst Negroes in Africa...
quote: Where is that biological evidence for race? Don't you have any?
This is your own personal dogma. Nowhere in my statements have I discussed the biology of race, it is something which you cleverly inserted into the discussion. I don't have to give evidence on something which I have neither claimed nor disputed. What I stated was clear:
Negro [Spanish word meaning Black] is "updated" by the use of the politically correct term 'Black'; the same with 'Caucasian' being updated to White or European and 'Mongolian' being updated to Asian...
The fact of the matter is that there are Negroes (Blacks), Caucasians (Whites), and Mongolian (Asian) peoples on the earth today, and if I were to tell you that I have this Mongolian (Asian) friend that you should meet, you would immediately have an idea of what I am describing, wouldn't you?
The topic isn't about biology, it's about sociology; and specifically how the Mdu Ntr (NOT 'divine speech' but 'words of the god/ancestor *Thoth' who invented language) were used to describe social reality; both subjectively and objectively...
*also written Tehuti/Djehuti.
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol: Where is that linguistic evidence that the Afrisan language family does not exist?
quote:Wally: I never said that this "Afrisan" language did not exist.
Ok. I will take that as and admission that you are not disputing this langauge family, and move on....
quote: Afro-Asiatic non-sense Here's another politically correct update, whose direct ancestor was the "Hamito-Semitic" group. Both the 'Hamitic' and 'Semitic' languages
This is Wally-semantic nonsense - there is no Hamitic language.
quote:so why this update to Afro-Asiatic?
Because there is no Hamitic language,
And Semitic is *not* the base of Afrisan, but merely a recently derived language group, younger than Chadic, and Omotic for example.
This has been explained to you before. You never engage answers to your questions when they debunk your claims. By never engaging the answers, you are then free to re-post the same nonsense over and over.
Wally, if that's not dogma then what is it?
quote: It would be more intelligent to refer to this language group as simply Negro-African
This is not done because it would quite unintelligent.
Negro is a race classifcation not a language.
This has already been explained to you before.
Your desire to change the names of languages into Eurocentric race catagories is your own personal dogma.
quote:rasol: Where is that biological evidence for race? Don't you have any?
quote:Wally: This is your own personal dogma.
translation: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY.
Dogma therefore is whatever your write that is meant to substitute and distract from your inability to answer the questions.
quote:Nowhere in my statements have I discussed the biology of race
This is a non-sequitur as race is rooted in biology.
Biology is precisely what distinguishes race from ethnology and sociology, which takes us back to all those questions about the difference between ethnicity and race - THAT YOU IGNORED because they expose your discourse for the nonsense that you know it is.
quote: it is something which you cleverly inserted into the discussion.
^ Any claimn about race is a claim about biology.
Not our fault that you have no evidence of your claim, and are desparately seeking a rationale for it, in lieu of evidence.
quote: What I stated was clear:
Negro [Spanish word meaning Black]
^ The above is backtracking.
1) You defined negro as a 'race'...
quote:Wally wrote: Fact of the matter is that there are Negroes, Caucasians, and Mongolian peoples on the earth
2) When asked for proof, you offer the semantic non-sequitur of negro as a spanish word for 'black', which is distinct from your use of the above terms as *race classifications*>
If asked for proof of the Mongoloid race, would you profer that Mongolian is a citizen of Mongolia?
If asked for proof that "Jew" is a race, would you respond with definition of someone who practicises the Hebrew faith?
Of course not, because none of the above denote race which is what you are claiming.
This tells us you lack confidence in your own assertions, and likely for good reasons.
quote:is "updated" by the use of the politically correct term 'Black';
Wrong.
Negro and Black are two different words.
Negro is a pseudo scientific race classification.
Black is a reference to color.
You wish to validate the pseudo scientific construct of race, by implying that it only means black.
Two terms X and Y.
You claim X is valid.
We ask you for proof.
You have none.
You claim you are not trying to prove X.
Rather X really means Y, and so Y validates X.
This is merely dissembling Wally.
Where X is race and race is biology then you must offer biological proof of race.
Any response from you that does not specifically address the above is immediately identified as STONEWALLING.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol, It is obvious to me and probably to most who are following this thread, that you are only debating yourself ; so I will leave it at this point and let you continue on to do so...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Well, it's your thread Wally. If you're not discussing/debating with me, or Djehuti, or Mystery Solver, then whom are you, debating? And why did you start the thread?
Imagine you were discussing this with a panel of linguists, do you think you would have persuaded them to adopt a "Negro African" language catagory?
Imagine you were discussing this with a panel of anthropologists? Do you think you would have persuaded them that race is scientifically valid?
If you could reduce the crux of your argument to once sentense - what would it be:
Negro is Spanish for black?
To which, linguists and anthropologist would reply -> So what?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL@"Negro-african" how can anyone accept such a classification let alone propose such name?
Wally seems to be confused, he thinks everyone has such mentality as his. If you consider your identitity as "negro" then thats up to you, but you'll never succeed to implement such identity on the rest of us.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol, I shall repeat, and for the last time; what I posted is not even a subject for debate, save for the statement about Denzel Washington. If anyone cannot discern the fact that the words "Negro", "Noir", "Schwarzes", "Nero", "Black" are ALL synonyms, then I am wasting my time... also emphasizing the idiotic response such as this from Yonis:
quote: Wally seems to be confused, he thinks everyone has such mentality as his. If you consider your identity as "negro" then that's up to you, but you'll never succeed to implement such identity on the rest of us.
This idiot doesn't realize that an African-American is a "Negro", a "Noir", a "Schwarzes", a "Nero", a "Black" (also a male or female, an American citizen, etc)...I'm through with this nonsense...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: Indo-European Language List
Aeolian Greek Afrikaans Albanian Arcadian Greek Armenian Aromanian Asturian Attic Greek Avestan Bactrian Baluchi Belorussian Breton Brittish Bulgarian Carian Catalan Celtiberian Common Anatolian Common Baltic Common Celtic Common Germanic Common Slavic Cornish Corsican Curonian Czech Dacian Dalmatian Danish Dardic Dari Doric Greek Dutch English Faliscan Faroese French Frisian Galician Galindan Gaulish German Gothic Greek New Hittite Icelandic Illyrian Ionic Greek Irish Istroromanian Italian Kashmiri Khwaresmian Koine Greek Kurdish Latin Latvian Lepontic Lithuanian Low German Luwian Lycian Lydian Macedonian Manx Median Messapic Mitanni Aryan Mycenaean Greek Norwegian Occitan Old Church Slavonic Old English Old High German Old Low German Old Macedonian Old Norse Old Prussian Old Russian Oscan Ossetic Palaic Pali Pamir Languages Parthian Persian Phrygian Picene Pisidic Polabian Polish Popular Latin Portuguese Prakrits Pashto Rhaetoromance Romanian Russian Ruthene (Rusyn) Sacian Sanskrit Sardinian Scots Scottish Gaelic Scythian Selonian Semigalian Serbo-Croatian Sidetian Slovak Slovene Sogdian Sorbian Spanish Sudovian Swedish Tadjik Talysh Tati Thracian Tocharic Ukrainian Umbrian Vedic Venetic Volscian Welsh Yagnobi Yiddish
You have neither the ability to give me 'a new moniker' nor even the ability to comprehend the obvious: all of the above listings of Indo-European languages are languages spoken by White peoples! It is clear documentation of what I have previously stated about the subjectivity of classifying language...but you won't understand...
No. YOU don't understand!
First of all, the list you presented is not even a complete one for there are actually over a hundred IE languages in all. The IE phylum like all large language phylum is divided into different subfamilies. While most of the subfamilies are spoken in Europe (i.e. Greek, Albanian, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic) others are spoken outside of Europe such as Anatolian, Armenian, and Indo-Iranian-- some of whose languages are in the list above, yet many in Southwest Asia and hardly those in India can be called 'white'!! The largest subfamily with the greatest diversity of languages is Indo-Iranian which includes the Indic or Indo-Aryan languages of India.
Indo-Aryan (Indo-European) speakers of India
There is debate as to where IE originated. Linguistics points to an area of the Western Steppes between Russia and Central Asia. We don't know for sure what the appearance of the original speakers were, but even if they were white, it has nothing to do with the language itself or with the appearance of speakers of its modern linguistic descendants! Similarly, we know Afro-asiatic originated in Africa undoubtedly among black Africans yet this has no bearing on the fact that one of its branches-- Semitic is spoken widely by people in Southwest Asia who, for the most part, are NOT black!!
What's ironic and at the same time humorous about Wally's claims of IE being a 'white language' is that the whitest people in Europe (the indigenous Saami of Scandinavia) do not even speak IE languages, whereas some of the darkest (blackest) people in India (like the Sinhalese) do!!
Thus your claim of language classification being subjective by being based on race is NULL!! In fact it is YOU who is being racially subjective with language classification to classify Egyptians as part of a "Negro-African language"!! Especially since such classification is not based on any linguistics at all but purely on racial typology!! Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Wally, your discourse is being rightly rejected as absurd.
But, want everyone to understand the game you're playing - ie - how you hoped to bluff your way thru the conversation.
Your thesis is a feign synthesis of three catagories - biology, linguistics and semantics.
Whenever you are pinned down and required to present biological evidence of your biology [pro-race] claims, or linguistic evidence of your anti Afrisan langauge family claims..... you offer semantics, to switch the subject.
So, I falsify your race claims, and you write me back talking about mdw ntr [language].
Djehuti falsifies your language claims, so you write him back talking about racial catagories.
Any astute reader sees straight thru your semantical evasions.
Conclusion:
* You have no linguistic evidence against the Afrisan language family.
** You have no biological evidence in support of race.
If past is prologue, you will reply with more semantical bluffing - - and ad nauseum repetitiveness, but you will certainly produce no linguistic or biological evidence.
That might make you feel better, but your thread will not progress until you start honestly addressing the issues.
You are not doing so now.
Prove me wrong.
^ Apparently he can't prove you wrong, because what you described above, Rasol, is exactly his M.O. to a tee!
How hilarious that Wally accuses others of following a "dogma" when the only one who does so is himself with all of his semantical racial typologizing language and culture!!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, this forum has its share of dogma issuing from its main contributors who turn every academic discussion into a debate veering to ad hominem flaming once other valid scholarly opinion presents alternatives differing from their cherished dogmas.
Many clearly see this fact now and have the balls/eggs enough to not fear the old boy network, stand up to it and speak out about it (for all the good it does, which is none at all).
You can't have a debate without a (panel of)debate moderator(s.) All we have here is a postings monitor not a debate moderator. Consequently, some imagine they've won a debate simply because they've posted the final comment on a topic after burying all the substance of their imagined opponent under a pile of off-point strawmen, red herrings, non-sequitors, and other irrelevancies.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Actually, this forum has its share of dogma issuing from its main contributors who turn every academic discussion into a debate veering to ad hominem flaming once other valid scholarly opinion presents alternatives differing from their cherished dogmas.
Many clearly see this fact now and have the balls/eggs enough to not fear the old boy network, stand up to it and speak out about it (for all the good it does, which is none at all).
You can't have a debate without a (panel of)debate moderator(s.) All we have here is a postings monitor not a debate moderator. Consequently, some imagine they've won a debate simply because they've posted the final comment on a topic after burying all the substance of their imagined opponent under a pile of off-point strawmen, red herrings, non-sequitors, and other irrelevancies.
^^^^HEAR HEAR; you hit it on the nose!!
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:This has the potential to be a good thread Wally in my opinion just need to remove "Hamite" and "Negro"
I agree, but I think that would defeat Wally's well intentioned but misguided purposes.
At root - he doesn't really understand what Seligman, whose definition of Hamites he is relating, is saying.
It's like, someone is insulting you, and you repeat their insult because you just don't get it and it flies right over your head, so you view it as some sort of compliment.
If Wally were to response, then...having quoted Seligman, he would change the subject to mdw ntr or the Bible.
He just changes the subject to avoid confronting difficulties in his discourse.
And that's why his thread never went anywhere and never will, whiny excuses notwithstanding.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Masonic Rebel: This has the potential to be a good thread Wally in my opinion just need to remove "Hamite" and "Negro"
Due to my Christian upbringing I am surprised about the word Hamite and it true meaning I never knew the true meaning of the word.(I'm shocked)
Define: African people of Caucasoid descent who occupy the Horn of Africa.
Hamite will be removed from my vocabulary along with the word Negro in reference to Race.
Actually Masonic, the original Biblical meaning of 'Hamite' from the Bible simply meant descendants of Ham and was a euphemism for black peoples, particularly Africans. It was Europeans of the late 1800s that changed the definition to mean 'black-skinned caucasoids' [sic] when they realized one of the earliest civilizations in the world began in Africa (Egypt).
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What's ironic and at the same time humorous about Wally's claims of IE being a 'white language' is that the whitest people in Europe (the indigenous Saami of Scandinavia) do not even speak IE languages, whereas some of the darkest (blackest) people in India (like the Sinhalese) do!!
^ Can Wally address the above, or as usual just ignore it and every now and then he will attack our true intelligence and common sense!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Afro-asiatic is a linguistic phylum as is Indo-European. Yes the language phylum originated in Africa, but it does no good to racialize it by calling it "Negro" which was the exact same thing Eurocentric did by calling it "Hamito" and which you unfortunately are continuing to do! Afro-asiatic means simply that the languages are spoken from Africa to Asia, but yes even mainstream Western white scholars agree that the phylum originated in Africa and that the majority of its languages are spoken there today. Again, linguistic classification is based on linguistic relation NOT on nebulous concepts such as 'race'. Which is why Afrasian, Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo, and Khoisan are all different linguistic phylums despite all of them originating and still being spoken in the African continent.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic