1) Keita does not believe in race or terms like "black" or "negro"
2) he does not believe that there was any significant back migration from Asia into Egypt
But I posted an important 2002 study saying there is DNA Y-chromosome evidence that there was an Asian back migration even further South into to Sub-Saharan Africa. This however would be in pre-historic times far before dynastic Egypt. So even if it is true it is a separate issue from an Asian migration that included Near East cultural influences during the formation of the dynastic civilization. Is the study correct? I don't know but it was credible research.
However I believe it's still possible that there was a cultural exchange going on between Egypt and the Near East from the earliest dynasties or before. There was certainly trading going on. I also believe it's possible even if there wasn't a major migration from the near East into Egypt at that time a small migration could still have occurred and it may have included people from the Near East who were to become Kings and the ruling class of Egypt in particular and at the same time other Kings and members of the ruling class who were indigenous Africans. It's hard to prove one way or the other by biological means because there is so little skeletal remains left. Maybe these new mummies that were found at Saqqara will shed some light on it.
I think Keita is disturbed by racial politicking of history and he should be but he can take it too far in the other direction with diversity of Africa thing- as if every so called "race" may have originated in Africa. It's even possible that light skinned people with straight hair might have originated in Africa as doc was pointing out. I'm not completely convinced of that, but if it is true I would not go as far to say that there was no other adaptations that occurred as a result of people living in climates much colder and with less UV than Africa.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
In part 5 he goes on to argue that people with light skin and straight hair could have evolved that way within Africa:... so much for the Caucus mountains
If they evolved within Africa, so much for "mulatto theory" of race mixes in various parts of Africa to explain differences in how people look. And such evolution does not leave out recent gene flow millennia later from southern Europe or the Levant into north coastal Africa- Algeria, Morocco, etc.. Carthage for example would be an example of such later gene flow.
But I posted an important 2002 study saying there is DNA Y-chromosome evidence that there was an Asian back migration even further South into to Sub-Saharan Africa.
What 2002 study says back migration "even further South into to Sub-Saharan Africa." How far "south" into "sub-Saharan" Africa? Give the specific locations please because your purported "study" may say no such thing. What specific locations "south"? Don't just list the study name. What locations "even further south" are you talking about?
However I believe it's still possible that there was a cultural exchange going on between Egypt and the Near East from the earliest dynasties or before. There was certainly trading going on. I also believe it's possible even if there wasn't a major migration from the near East into Egypt at that time a small migration could still have occurred and it may have included people from the Near East who were to become Kings and the ruling class of Egypt in particular and at the same time other Kings and members of the ruling class who were indigenous Africans.
The question is not what you believe. It is the empirical, scientific proof you have on hand. The burden of proof is still on you to back up your assertion. We all know there was trade, but do you have any empirical proof that "people from the near East" became kings and the ruling classes of Egypt prior to the later eras of the Hyskos, Persians, Syrians, Greeks and other such outsiders? If you have such empirical proof, let's see it.
I think Keita is disturbed by racial politicking of history and he should be but he can take it too far in the other direction with diversity of Africa thing- as if every so called "race" may have originated in Africa.
If modern humans originated in Africa, then every so-called "race" traces its origin to Africa. All non-Africans have a small subset of original African genetic diversity.
but if it is true I would not go as far to say that there was no other adaptations that occurred as a result of people living in climates much colder and with less UV than Africa.
What other adaptations are you talking about? Please be specific. Remember, we have already dealt with the limb proportion and tropical adaptations thing below:
posted
zarahan the study on back migration is posted. You might want to comment there, I also posted excerpts there, they talk about Cameroon and elsewhere. I don't think Egypt is mentioned. I didn't say it was. It's possible back migrations from Asia must have come in through Egypt. It's possible, though that the Asians didn't settle but went further South.
As Kieta points out people assume that an "in between" looking person is the result of the mixing of two "extremes" or two very different looking people when in reality they might be an intermediate step of very slow thousands of years evolutionary mutations. This I agree with and I think it covers a lot of people. There is also "mixing" too.
Why do you ask me about adaptation outside Africa and talk about "tropical adaptation" Obviously there would be "temperate adaptations" of varying degrees more variant the colder you get including stockier proportions, depigmentation and possible adaptation to high altitudes for some people in mountainous regions. South Africa is more temperate but it doesn't cover colder regions. The very term "tropical adaptation" proves that there are adaptations to climates that are not tropical. But many people will assume that adaptation is only tropical. Yes there is the most diversity in Africa. No, it doesn't account for all variation. Keita also points out it's a mistake to look at somebody in some part of the world not African and because they look similar to another tribe in Africa that they are of the same ancestry. He says this in the video. Yet people do this all the time. You have someone in Asia or some other part of the world and then pictures are posted of some people in an Africa tribe who have similar features and it is assumed that the ancestry is the same and a given person may be atypical of the tribe, unusual. But it doesn't prove anything until you look at things such as Y chromosomes and certain body and cranial proportions It's not always the case but for obvious geographical reasons people who live close to each other are more likely to share some common ancestry. Every so called race traces it's origin to Africa. That does not mean they are all African types otherwise you would see every type of person in the world in Africa. You don't see that you just see certain similarities and that type of similarity is often coincidental. When you have people living for thousands of years in new climates it changes them.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Keita spoke of indigenous African diversity yet he did not take into account recent historical immigrations that affect the way modern North Africans look today.
Besides, you can't have it both ways-- you can't say that Africans are diverse and then turn around and say Near Easterners migrated into Egypt to become its elite! LOL Besides, I thought Ausar and others explained to you already that there is no such evidence for your 'dynastic race' theory? Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
"I don't know what you mean by that term negro... they would have been dark based on ecological principles"
Posts: 46 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Keita spoke of indigenous African diversity yet he did not take into account recent historical immigrations that affect the way modern North Africans look today.
Besides, you can't have it both ways-- you can't say that Africans are diverse and then turn around and say Near Easterners migrated into Egypt to become its elite! LOL Besides, I thought Ausar and others explained to you already that there is no such evidence for your 'dynastic race' theory?
Seriously, I wonder if he knows about the Million something white slaves enslaved in Europe.
Good clip!!
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Near: Quote from part 5:
"I don't know what you mean by that term negro... they would have been dark based on ecological principles"
^Exactly. They were native, tropically adapted Africans, who have a wide range of skin shades and features, without needing any race mix or "wandering Caucasoid" migrations to explain why. All the bogus labels like "Middle Eastern" or "Mediterranean" for the AEs are exposed by this fact.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Zaharan- would you happen to have any studies correlating Tropical adaptions with skin color?
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by Near: Quote from part 5:
"I don't know what you mean by that term negro... they would have been dark based on ecological principles"
^Exactly. They were native, tropically adapted Africans, who have a wide range of skin shades and features, without needing any race mix or "wandering Caucasoid" migrations to explain why. All the bogus labels like "Middle Eastern" or "Mediterranean" for the AEs are exposed by this fact.
quote:Originally posted by Near: Quote from part 5:
"I don't know what you mean by that term negro... they would have been dark based on ecological principles"
The reason Keita says this is because "negro" is a very loaded racial term which can imply a very narrow phenotype. Of course by "dark" based on ecological principles he means Gloger's rule where warm blooded populations living in tropical climates tend to have greater amount of pigmentation, specifically melanin, compared to populations that live in colder climates. Humans of course are mammals with very little body hair, and we know melanin is the main factor of color in such populations.
Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Near: Quote from part 5:
"I don't know what you mean by that term negro... they would have been dark based on ecological principles"
The reason Keita says this is because "negro" is a very loaded racial term which can imply a very narrow phenotype. Of course by "dark" based on ecological principles he means Gloger's rule where warm blooded populations living in tropical climates tend to have greater amount of pigmentation, specifically melanin, compared to populations that live in colder climates. Humans of course are mammals with very little body hair, and we know melanin is the main factor of color in such populations.
posted
Negro is a funny word. It can mean a particular supposedly Gulf of Guinea phenotype and every phenotype displayed by descendents of the Middle Passage Survivors, all at once, depending on the speaker's country, the era, or the audience.
Without even going into the vile connotations of the word it's easy to see why sensible scholars refuse to acknowledge it. Keita eschews it at least twice in the Bio Cultural Origins of Egypt presentation.
posted
^ Yes it is funny since the very word meant simply 'black' and thus a reference to skin color only and NOT whatever other physical features some may try to attach. Yet the classical European label for black peoples was Moor which Euronuts nowadays claim to mean 'Muslim'. LOL All a part of the shuffling of terms Euronuts resort to.
Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Negro in the English language never has meant black.
No one speaking English has ever referred to things of black color as negro.
A car black in color is not a negro car it's a black car.
A horse black in color is not a negro horse it's a black car.
The negro concept as meaning a relegated type of person has persisted into the use of black as an ethnicity.
Thus we hear things like I'm not black I'm Asian where black is obviously not a reference to colour alone as there are some people in Asia the same colour as the people who are labeled black.
So one should alternatively say I'm not African I'm Asian or I'm not black I'm yellow/brown (or insert colour of choice).
Each of us has a skin colour and an ethnic or continental originating identity. It matters little which of the two a person choses as primary identifier. The choice is in the end a matter of personal appeal and preference.
The right of self-determination suggests we acknowledge, accept, recognize, and respect an individual person or an entire people's self-defined identity including dissenters.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: "black" is another racist word often avoided my researchers because it means the same thing a s"negro" in every respect
"black" is what is now accepted
it cuts us off from the African root.
Do Chinese people go around calling themselves "yellow" NO
The call themselves
Chinese
I'm an an African
not a skin color
Still, in the very videos you posted, Keita states that the Egyptians would have been dark based on ecological principles. Regardless of whether or not researchers find the term "black' appropriate or not, in modern society the Egyptians would be what we recognize as black people:
Black People- A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, especially those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
If you have various dark brown skinned people why do you separate those from Africa, Oceania and Australia and call them "black" ???
answer:
racism
-that's what we have been trained to accept
[/QB]
you must not realize that a dictionary can have racist definitions
This particular dictionary say that "black" people are dark (brown) skinned people who come from especially those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
If you have dark brown skinned people from all over the world why are the ones from Africa, Oceania, and Australia not called "dark skinned people" why are these people especially called "black" ?
You wouldn't answer that with a ten foot pole and the best you can do is call be silly.
The there's the case of Africa above. In Africa three is a range of skin darknesses from San to Nigerian. Some of them are lighter than some Australians or Oceania persons yet for some reason you bolded the word "African" in the definition as if they are some how black but less black for some mysterious reason.
This three region list of dark skinned people, African, Australian, Oceanian
being separated for "especially black" is arbitrary and racist
why do many researchers avoid the words "Negro" and "black" because they are "loaded"
loaded with racist history which classifies and asks people to identify with the color of their skin
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: ...Negro in the English language never has meant black.
No one speaking English has ever referred to things of black color as negro.
A car black in color is not a negro car it's a black car.
A horse black in color is not a negro horse it's a black car.
The negro concept as meaning a relegated type of person has persisted into the use of black as an ethnicity...
Of course not in English, but I thought in Romance languages 'negro' is still used for black as it is derived from Latin,
Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lyingass: If you have various dark brown skinned people why do you separate those from Africa, Oceania and Australia and call them "black" ???
answer:
racism
-that's what we have been trained to accept
Nope. You fail to realize that the label IS referring to dark brown or very dark populations and not medium or moderately dark people who are usually labeled as 'brown', moron. Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why even respond to the lioness? She already had this exact same discussion with Kalonji, in which she proved unable to comprehend a thing. Now, she's going about posting this BS on every single thread. Quite anoying >_>
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the lyingass: If you have various dark brown skinned people why do you separate those from Africa, Oceania and Australia and call them "black" ???
answer:
racism
-that's what we have been trained to accept
Nope. You fail to realize that the label IS referring to dark brown or very dark populations and not medium or moderately dark people who are usually labeled as 'brown', moron.
posted
OK, yes, but in French there is negro and noir. The former has fell out of use because of its relationship to negre. So at least in this Romance language there's still the negro/negre - noir dichotomy where only the latter is applied strictly as a color adjective.
Negro/nigger and negro/neger are not simple adjectives.
This is why anthropologists of the past could say "black but not negro." Translating that into Spanish yields the ambiguous "negro pero no moreno," but moreno can mean the brunette white person.
Anyway, the Keita video is in English, and I hope this little excursus in part explains why at one point he says he doesn't know what the questioner means by negro.
In English negro is two edged sword, in one set of circumstances denoting a narrowly limited phenotype and at the same time connoting probably the broadest defined social race of them all.
How does one know just what another means when using that term? Really, context pretty much tells. Keita was to an extent being facetious employing dialectic against an obsolete concept that respecters of self deem offensive.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: ...Negro in the English language never has meant black.
No one speaking English has ever referred to things of black color as negro.
A car black in color is not a negro car it's a black car.
A horse black in color is not a negro horse it's a black car.
The negro concept as meaning a relegated type of person has persisted into the use of black as an ethnicity...
Of course not in English, but I thought in Romance languages 'negro' is still used for black as it is derived from Latin,
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a method to keep the forum in a rut chasing its own tail or following where trollers lead instead of progressing and developing new themes. Works like a charm, never seen it fail. Sometimes it seems that without trollers or blatant Eurocentrics the forum has no purpose and direction.
I was so glad nobody leapt where SpiralMan pointed. Showed the forum doesn't have to slave the rhythm.
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz: Why even respond to the lioness? She already had this exact same discussion with Kalonji, in which she proved unable to comprehend a thing. Now, she's going about posting this BS on every single thread. Quite anoying >_>
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel as if ES is kind of dead. I suppose that's why ESR was created though. Is there anybody here with the ability to ban trolls like argyle?
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This is a method to keep the forum in a rut chasing its own tail or following where trollers lead instead of progressing and developing new themes. Works like a charm, never seen it fail. Sometimes it seems that without trollers or blatant Eurocentrics the forum has no purpose and direction.
I was so glad nobody leapt where SpiralMan pointed. Showed the forum doesn't have to slave the rhythm.
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz: Why even respond to the lioness? She already had this exact same discussion with Kalonji, in which she proved unable to comprehend a thing. Now, she's going about posting this BS on every single thread. Quite anoying >_>
Thanks in advance to the posters who will prove they at least will attempt to be scholarly by having the courage to answer the simple question above.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Argyle, it depends. The parts of the word which recognizes such categorizations would most likely call that Nigerian "black". However, that Nigerian may want to be called something different, and he could then correct someone who calls him black. Basically, while the western world may call him black, he could define himself entirely differently. It's up to that individual. Last time I checked, many Africans don't refer to themselves as black though. As a matter of fact, only the western world has such labels.
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Is a Nigerian who has a beige skin color,
is that Nigerian black?
Thanks in advance to the posters who will prove they at least will attempt to be scholarly by having the courage to answer the simple question above.
quote: Argyle, it depends. The parts of the word which recognizes such categorizations would most likely call that Nigerian "black". However, that Nigerian may want to be called something different, and he could then correct someone who calls him black. Basically, while the western world may call him black, he could define himself entirely differently. It's up to that individual. Last time I checked, many Africans don't refer to themselves as black though. As a matter of fact, only the western world has such labels.
People, look at the above.
Now the logical question is why do 95% of you so called "blacks" accept the white man's definition of you. The term black was created as a social bookend to white so that it was clear as to who was at the top of society and who was at the bottom of society.
What group of people under any circumstances came over calling themselves "black"?
posted
Perhaps. The term black may have been created by Europeans, and it is used to describe dark-skinned peoples of African descent. Is that a bad thing to you?
Argyle, there are several dark-skinned Africans who don't refer to themselves as black. Others have adopted the term, but still...
This has been an intellectual thrashing issued to you by Calabooz
LMAO!
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Calabooz wrote:
quote: Argyle, it depends. The parts of the word which recognizes such categorizations would most likely call that Nigerian "black". However, that Nigerian may want to be called something different, and he could then correct someone who calls him black. Basically, while the western world may call him black, he could define himself entirely differently. It's up to that individual. Last time I checked, many Africans don't refer to themselves as black though. As a matter of fact, only the western world has such labels.
People, look at the above.
Now the logical question is why do 95% of you so called "blacks" accept the white man's definition of you. The term black was created as a social bookend to white so that it was clear as to who was at the top of society and who was at the bottom of society.
What group of people under any circumstances came over calling themselves "black"?
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: OK, yes, but in French there is negro and noir. The former has fell out of use because of its relationship to negre. So at least in this Romance language there's still the negro/negre - noir dichotomy where only the latter is applied strictly as a color adjective.
Negro/nigger and negro/neger are not simple adjectives.
This is why anthropologists of the past could say "black but not negro." Translating that into Spanish yields the ambiguous "negro pero no moreno," but moreno can mean the brunette white person.
Yes, thank you for clarifying.
quote:Anyway, the Keita video is in English, and I hope this little excursus in part explains why at one point he says he doesn't know what the questioner means by negro.
In English negro is two edged sword, in one set of circumstances denoting a narrowly limited phenotype and at the same time connoting probably the broadest defined social race of them all.
How does one know just what another means when using that term? Really, context pretty much tells. Keita was to an extent being facetious employing dialectic against an obsolete concept that respecters of self deem offensive
That's one thing that I've noticed, with the insanity of Western racism that a word could mean two different yet related things. "Negro" means a very select black phenotype but then a broad range of phenotype for blacks of African descent is ridiculous! This just shows the schizo nature of racism.
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz: Why even respond to the lioness? She already had this exact same discussion with Kalonji, in which she proved unable to comprehend a thing. Now, she's going about posting this BS on every single thread. Quite anoying >_>
You're right. I've only recently noticed her rehashing (since she's done this before) of her questioning the whole label of 'black' yet not so much for 'white'.
Anyway, getting back to the subject, is there anything else one wants to add about the Keita interview?? I mean pretty much everything Keita said supports what we've been saying here for years in this forum yet the Euronuts try to make it as if it is contrary.
Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yes... Euro-centrics think Keita chooses sides. Either they think he's on their side, or they think he's an Afro-centric. If the former, they rely on Keita saying that in terms of cranial-facial features and skin color, the diversity of modern Egypt is likely to be similar to that of the past. I cannot begin on how many times euro-centric s have misinterpreted that quote. If the latter scenario, they have actually read Keita's work, don't like it, and claim he's Afro-centric, but never providing even one scholar who refutes Keita.
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic