you're supposed to have black = anybody with dark skin inc. certain turks, eskimos etc.
and white = anyone with light skin, East Asians with such skin etc
also yellows = Khosians, certain North Africans, some Esat Asians etc.
___________________
and to keep that separate from your "Caucasoid" "Negroid" and "Long hair Loseroid" designations
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass,: That is not projecting it's showing that the skin tone as indicated by Manilius can be found in many places from the Near East to Central Asia and the Americas. What is project is assuming extra categories that are not in the translation and making self conceived charts that are not in the text.
I don't know what charts or categories you're talking about, but what YOU show are skin tones of people having NOTHING to do with the indigenous peoples of the places Manilius talks about which are located in the tropics and subtropics. You show strawman pictures of Central/East Asian Turks and Mongols who though dark are much lighter than nigri.
quote:You attempt to limit 'black' as per Manilius and suggest he goes beyond skin color and limits to only specific ethnicities he mentions for reasons other than skin color, a person who had a similar skin tone to an Egyptian or Maure would not have a similar skin tone to an Egyptian or Maure because they they are not from a region that he specifically mentioned. You are attempting to racialize what he said and assume that he limited 'black' to not only dark skinned persons but dark skinned persons only of a certain ethnicity, basically Africans only American definition but since he mentioned Indians we have to throw them in and the fact that they are supposedly darkeer than Egyptians compensates for there other unspoken deficits. A Kurd region person for example could not have the skin tone of an Egyptian or Maure for the sole reason that Manilius mentioned Indians but he didn't mention the region in particular where the people we call Kurds today live. That is why you are so narrow and robotic, dishonest actually, trying to patronize black folk with a less than objective eye. And ironic the idea we need Greeks and Romans for definitions, that that is some kind of yardstick or approval for Africanists. And if setting up these Greco Roman authors this way other parts of Africa would not be considered black because in the quote so and son Greek or Roman didn't specifically mention said peoples as qualifying in the ethnic black list. And is notable these authors don't use this stand alone color identity 'blacks' as Americans do. They might say someone has black skin but they don't call them 'a black'
Incorrect. He simply lists blacks known to him and his fellow Romans at that time which again are located in the tropics and subtropics. Most of the peoples he lists are Africans. You then insert modern photos of Inuit, Turks, and Mongols which again are not as dark as the folks he talks about.
quote:Anybody can read the Manilius and see how people like the below Kirgiz Turk and Inuit do indeed fit into the range of who Manilius if looking at them would say that their skin tone is black and within the range he outlined, a range where the Maure (BLACK) people are at lightest end of a graded spectrum of dark skinned people.
I'm sure Tukuler will take the fifth but if he had to give an honest answer I would bet money that he would not say the above persons do not fall within the range of dark skinned people that Manilius mentions begining with Ethiopians and ending with Maure (later: Moors). And that is beyond obvious in considering these persons and other examples
Anybody who doesn't admit to it is a believer in racial concepts. That is why you're afrocentrics, you are trying to correct by reversing and intentional omission
Again NO. You are lying either consciously or unconsciously which includes yourself as well! These people above are dark yes but you CANNOT say they represent the complexions he speaks of let alone the Egyptians, you dumbf*ck! LOL
Really their complexions are no different from many tanned Mediterraneans yet these same Mediterraneans called the Maure and Egyptians who lived to the south as 'black'!
tanned Italians
tanned Greeks
As Takruri says, you are projecting your own anti-black insecurities onto Manilius when he like his fellow Greco-Romans had a world view based on the gentes (races) di natios (of nations) septentrionalis (northern) i.e. north of the Mediterranean vs. gentes (races) di natios (of nations) meridianus (southern). The Mediterranean divides them but they use the myth of Phaeton nearly crashing the sun in the south and permanently burning the skins of the peoples there as a reason for black skin!
Northern Asians with complexions darker than white or yellow don't count!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: beating a dead horse at this point...
"In Manilius' order complexions from the most dark to the least dark are - Aethiopes - India - Aegyptia - Afrorum - Mauretania"
So why should I believe there was some drastic change??
You are correct. But I disagree with a few things in your picture spam. Particularly, your last category where you include modern mixed-types as representative of Maure. Remember, the Maure at least as originally described by Manilius and his Roman peers were not of the 'tawny' or 'yellowish' kind described often in later times but the Maure were described as adusti (dusky) and nigri (black)
^ Before lyinass or similar complain about the lighting, since they are in shade, take note of the areas of the skin where the sun light hits (the same is true with all the others). This should provide us with somewhat of an idea of the differences of complexions and how they grade from dark to light.
Lyinass 'produced' strawsh|t of dark north Asians like this Mongolian NOT included in Manilius list! LOL
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
^ Before lioness or similar complain about the lighting, since they are in shade, take note of the areas of the skin where the sun light hits (the same is true with all the others). This should provide us with somewhat of an idea of the differences of complexions and how they grade from dark to light.
Guy is a fvcking idiot of all the thousands of pictures available he deliberately picks people in shade
then he even says " Before lioness or similar complain about the lighting"
^^^^ in other words>" I'm hustling you with lighting and because I say I'm hustling you with lighting, therefore I'm not hustling you with lighting"
Djeshootme's special instructions necessary:>" take note of the areas of the skin where the sun light hits "......
idiotic
special instructions to Djeshootie:
find pics of people not in shade, there are thousands on the internet, FAIL
no need, Jari had it right:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: beating a dead horse at this point...
"In Manilius' order complexions from the most dark to the least dark are - Aethiopes - India - Aegyptia - Afrorum - Mauretania"
So why should I believe there was some drastic change??
east dark are (a)- Aethiopes (b)- India (c)- Aegyptia (d)- Afrorum (d)- Mauretania"
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass b|tch: Guy is a fvcking idiot of all the thousands of pictures available he deliberately picks people in shade.
then he even says " Before lioness or similar complain about the lighting"
^^^^ in other words>" I'm hustling you with lighting and because I say I'm hustling you with lighting, therefore I'm not hustling you with lighting"
NO, lying Euro-whore. I did NOT "deliberately" pick people in shade. I simply chose photos from my file of the INDIGENOUS people of the regions Manilius spoke of! As I correctly predicted, you would b|tch about them having poor lighting and being in "shade" but anyone with eyes cans see they are all BLACK.
quote:Djeshootme's special instructions necessary:>" take note of the areas of the skin where the sun light hits "......
idiotic
special instructions to Djeshootie:
find pics of people not in shade, there are thousands on the internet, FAIL
Again your complaints about the shade are irrelevant. They are all pristine natives of the regions in question.
quote:no need, Jari had it right:
Yea, Jari had it right except for his Maure example which do NOT match the Roman descriptions. High-yellow 'mulatto' types do not match the adusti or nigri descriptions by Manilius and other Romans.
LOL @ "deliberately choosing" pictures of them in poor lighting. As if the "shade" gives them black appearance!
You are so pathetic it is both hilarious at it sad. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got your lyinass, trick. And don't think I'm ever letting go!
Your dumbass complains about "lighting", well wait until I find photos with better lighting. What will you say then, you whining sore whore loser! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I got your lyinass, trick. And don't think I'm ever letting go!
Your dumbass complains about "lighting", well wait until I find photos with better lighting. What will you say then, you whining sore whore loser!
and of course Ethiopians are all pitch Dinka black and the darkest Indians you an find -also make sure all the dark skinned people have afro type hair to keep everyone happy (excspt Indian, can't change that)
let me know when you get your shade-y issues together also keep in mind the Mauretanians are Africans ( in latin "Afrorum" ) There are 4 Manilius categories of dark, not 5 get rid of the interpreter
LITERAL TRANSLATION
Phoebus harenosis Afrorum pulvere terris Sun-God sandy African dust lands exsiccat populos, et Mauretania nomen dries up the people, and the name of Mauritania oris habet titulumque suo fert ipsa colore. expressed has title brought itself color
_______________________________________________
Similar to the Goold it says the Sun God of the sandy African lands dries up the people and the name Mauritania expresses it's color
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Dejhutie our resident expert on black says the above Nigerian men are mixed. They don't fit into his True Blackest theory. He thinks the yellowish skin tone is not entirely indigenous. Don't take my word for it just observe what he says.
This is the problem with antiquated skin color oriented identities, "black' "white" as opposed to genetics and to some extent biomorphics.
If you go by skin color you find people all over the world, some Central Asians and Native Americans can have the same level of darkness as some pure Africans and Africans even darker than the above.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass dummy: and of course Ethiopians are all pitch Dinka black and the darkest Indians you can find -also make sure all the dark skinned people have afro type hair to keep everyone happy (excspt Indian, can't change that)
The 'Ethiopians' referred to by Manilius as the darkest people in the world ARE Sudanese people like the Dinka you idiot!! Again you are betrayed by your ignorance as usual!! Also, I didn't look for the "darkest" Indians just those that fit Manilius description as lighter than Aethiopians (Sudanese) but darker than Egyptians! I actually chose an indigenous person of northern India as opposed to lighter-skinned tribes of more recent northern extraction which is something your lyinass does!
quote:let me know when you get your shade-y issues together also keep in mind the Mauretanians are Africans ( in latin "Afrorum" ) There are 4 Manilius categories of dark, not 5 get rid of the interpreter
LOL Unlike you have no issues at all! Your complaints about "shade" are idiotic! Anybody with eyes can see these people are still BLACK even with better lighting. Your excuses are the dumbest I've ever heard in the internet! hahahaha LOL As for the Aforum, again your ignorant ass still doesn't know (despite Takruri and I telling you) that they are a particular ethnic group of Africans and NOT Africans in general! The Aforum were a people who lived in the Maghreb specifically western Libya up to Tunisia. And Manilius did NOT say there were any categories of 'dark'. He just lists dark [black] peoples from darkest to lightest. Even the lightest-- the Maure were called nigri by the Romans and we all know what nigri means!
quote: LITERAL TRANSLATION
Phoebus harenosis Afrorum pulvere terris Sun-God sandy African dust lands exsiccat populos, et Mauretania nomen dries up the people, and the name of Mauritania oris habet titulumque suo fert ipsa colore. expressed has title brought itself color
_______________________________________________ Similar to the Gold it says the Sun God of the sandy African lands dries up the people and the name Mauritania expresses it's color
LOL No where does is say the people are the same color as the sand! And the accurate translation is the title of the people reflects their color. What is the title? Maure We already went over what maure means-- BLACK. GTFOHPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Dejhutie our resident expert on black says the above Nigerian men are mixed. They don't fit into his True Blackest theory. He thinks the yellowish skin tone is not entirely indigenous. Don't take my word for it just observe what he says.
This is the problem with antiquated skin color oriented identities, "black' "white" as opposed to genetics and to some extent biomorphics.
If you go by skin color you find people all over the world, some Central Asians and Native Americans can have the same level of darkness as some pure Africans and Africans even darker than the above.
More strawsh|t. I never said the above Nigerian men were mixed, you lying dummy! LOL I said the Nigerian actress with fair-skin likely was. The men in the above photos by the way are NOT even 'yellow' in complexion. The first man in the picture is actually darker but his photo flooded with light! -- And yes lighting works both ways--
what this fool doesn't understand is that they all are real Chidi Mokeme Medium light toned Africans vary significantly as per how much outdoor exposure they get at a given time.
(^^WARNING skin tone not black according to Djeshootme)
.
^^^hence both are honest real photos of Wole Solinka taken at different times when his skin looked different in actuality It's called tanning and African people are also cappable of it
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Nah, lying b|tch. What I proved is that lighting works both ways. A person can look much lighter than he/she really is when flooded with light the same way a person can look darker if in the shade.
You're just cracking from desperation.
^^ Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Phoebus harenosis Afrorum pulvere terris Sun-God sandy African dust lands exsiccat populos, et Mauretania nomen dries up the people, and the name of Mauritania oris habet titulumque suo fert ipsa colore. expressed has title brought itself color
_______________________________________________
Similar to the Goold translation it says the Sun God of the sandy African lands dries up the people and the name Mauritania expresses it's color
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:LOL No where does is say the people are the same color as the sand! And the accurate translation is the title of the people reflects their color. What is the title? Maure We already went over what maure means-- BLACK. GTFOH
the quote and two pages surrounding it doesn't have the word black or white in it. Waht does that tell you? Could it be your are trying to insert modern concepts? Deal with what Manilus said not additional interpretation. much context has been provided in the intital post page 1 latin word for black "niger" So why isin't it called Nigertania? the definition of maure is "inhabitant of Noth Africa" Mauretanina. Mauretanina is land of the blacks? Then Numidia and Egypt are not Maure blacks?
Supposing the word means black as opposed to dark thus this definition of black by your Roman race expert would be a discernable shade lighter than this Tut bust photgraphed with dramatic lighting in a dark gallery
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass,: the quote and two pages surrounding it doesn't have the word black or white in it. What does that tell you? Could it be your are trying to insert modern concepts? Deal with what Manilus said not additional interpretation. much context has been provided in the intital post page 1 latin word for black "niger" So why isin't it called Nigertania? the definition of maure is "inhabitant of Noth Africa" Mauretanina. Mauretanina is land of the blacks? Then Numidia and Egypt are not Maure blacks?
Supposing the word means black as opposed to dark thus this definition of black by your Roman race expert would be a discernible shade lighter than this Tut bust photographed with dramatic lighting in a dark gallery
Maure means black in GREEK, dummy! How many times more must we tell you that?! Also, the Romans did label a people in Libya "Nigritai" who were the Garamantes or related to them! And 'dark' and 'black' were used interchangeably, stupid twit!!
Another image of Tut.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
However, Goold deliberately hid the meaning of Mauros in his footnote. Even today the word means black in Greek.
μαύρος
noun μαύρος => black, raven, Negro, nigger αράπης => nigger, black, Arab, Negro Νέγρος => Negro, nigger, black
adjective μαύρος => black, colored, sable, pitchy, coloured σκοτεινός => dark, obscure, dingy, murky, shady, black μαυρισμένος => black άσχημος => ugly, nasty, unsightly, seamy, homely, black άγριος => wild, feral, fierce, savage, ferocious, black δυσοίωνος => sinister, ominous, inauspicious, portentous, pessimistic, black
verb μουτζουρώνω => black, smudge, smut αμαυρώνω => darken, tarnish, stain, black δυσφημώ =>disparage, discredit, vilify, defame, denigrate, black
From Snowden: The Mauri, another northwest African people whose color received frequent notice, were at times described as 'nigri' (black) and 'adusti' (scorched).Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ YES. Labels such as 'black' and 'white' are descriptive of COLOR and are no more 'racial' than say other features like narrow noses vs. wide noses. This is why very dark South Asians (Indians) are still called 'black' not only by Westerners but by fellow Indians hence the label 'kalu'. Even in the Philippines we call fair-skinned people especially northeast Asians 'puti' which means white even though they are not 'caucasian'. Skin color is independent of other features and definitely independent of ancestry. A pale person whether European or northeast Asian could still be labeled 'white' the same way a dark person could still be called 'black' regardless if the person is African or aboriginal Southeast Asian.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ YES. Labels such as 'black' and 'white' are descriptive of COLOR and are no more 'racial' than say other features like narrow noses vs. wide noses. This is why very dark South Asians (Indians) are still called 'black'
and you can detect the bullshyt Asians are only black if they are very dark.
In other words this guy is black
but this guy is not black
because if you're Asian
you are required to be very dark to be black
-Dejootie's world
There's a difference between what people claim to believe and how they actually act
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass,: and you can detect the bullshyt Asians are only black if they are very dark.
In other words this guy is black
but this guy is not black
Well yeah. Because 'black' usually describes very dark. Just because someone's complexion is darker than pale or fair does not automatically make them 'black'. By the way, your first example is not even Asian but African.
quote:because if you're Asian
you are required to be very dark to be black
-Dejootie's world
There's a difference between what people claim to believe and how they actually act
^ There sure IS a difference and in your case it's called hypocrisy!
You have southern Euros like Romans such as Manilius who themselves can be very dark from exposure to the sun.
Yet they don't call themselves 'black'. They reserve that label for people who live to the south of them in Africa, including the North African coasts.
This north Indian man is quite dark also...
..though to many Indians including himself he is not dark enough to be called 'black'..
like these north Indians.
But again, it is all relative. Even among blacks there are variations in shade and complexion where color or shade terms are used to discern such differences. But then again the same is true for Europeans. Have you heard of the 'Black Irish'?? Interestingly the phrase is a figure of speech for Irish who have dark features. Funny how you have no problem with that term. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
We can see a prime example of the hypocritical double standard moving of the goal posts for those Djehootie deems black. Above a perfectly legit picture of great Nigerian writer Wole Soyinka. Djehootie can't deal with that picture. To him Wole Soyinka is not black in the above picture. Djehootie actually has to resort to using a different picture of Wole Soyinka in which he appears more tanned:
pathetic
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
[
enough games, enough switcheroo tricks
Below a picture of Nigerian writer Wole Soyinka, you just have to deal with it
Wole Soyinka
Kirgiz Turk Nigerian
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Faheem's Donkey:
'white people':
Remember all the people above are 'white' according to Afrocentric logic.
What does this inane dissembly have even a whit to do with Manilius and Greco-Latin black-white dichotomy?
None of them are white according to Euro arrogance.
Europeans have claimed exclusive rights to white and enforce it in their academic institutions and all attending imbibe and regurgitate that Eurocentrism (or receive failing grades in anthropology/sociology) but before Euro dominance such was not the case.
East Asian girls of white complexion like to hear it. I personally know Chinese in Indonesian go by "white Chinese." I've never heard any East Asian describe themself as yellow. That's why yellow has no parlance today considered a tad pejorative.
The Chinese classic Chin P'ing Mei by Wang Shih-cheng is profuse in adulation of white legged, white buttocked, ivory white legged, dazzling-white legged, and dazzling white necked Chinese women and girls.
Leaving Euro predicated skin colour wording to Euros of course these females are white. Xyyman posted a scientific colour chart supporting northeast Asians as whiter than Euros.
White ≠ only European unless one bows down to Simon and acquiesces to play Simon Says. Colour may or may not reveal close genetic or biological relation. White skinned peoples of Asia and Europe are almost as distinctly non-related as the blacks of Africa and Asia.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by lamin: [quote]You are correct there is no escaping it. Below examples of 'darks' as you call them or 'blacks' people of 'medium tone' as Manilius described the Egyptians[quote]
Manilius was Roman and lived in the Roman era. Did he ever travel to Egypt?
When the senate called a meeting to consider the matter, Scipio Nasica advised receiving the Carthaginian embassy and making a truce with them, but Marcus Cato declared that no truce ought to be made nor the declaration of war rescinded. Nevertheless, the senators listened to the entreaties of the envoys, promised to grant them a truce, and demanded hostages for the fulfilment of the conditions. These hostages were sent to Sicily, and Lucius Marcius and Marcus Manilius went there, took charge of them, and sent them on to Rome, while they themselves made haste to reach Africa. After encamping they summoned the magistrates of Carthage to appear before them.
Casssius Dio Book XXI
Oh my gosh, who tossed the timeline out the window? Internal evidence noted by Goold places our Manilius in an Augustan/Tiberian time cusp.
This other Manilius guy is some two centuries earlier when Carthage still existed and was a challenge to Rome.
Ya see what GOOGLE scholarship does? It causes (ouch) LyinAssFuckuptions. You just can't scissors and paste your way to valid knowledge. You have to (l)earn it toiling in study.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
also keep in mind the Mauretanians are Africans ( in latin "Afrorum" ) There are 4 Manilius categories of dark, not 5 get rid of the interpreter
LITERAL TRANSLATION
Phoebus harenosis Afrorum pulvere terris Sun-God sandy African dust lands exsiccat populos, et Mauretania nomen dries up the people, and the name of Mauritania oris habet titulumque suo fert ipsa colore. expressed has title brought itself color
_______________________________________________
Similar to the Goold it says the Sun God of the sandy African lands dries up the people and the name Mauritania expresses it's color
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As for the Af[r]orum, again your ignorant ass still doesn't know (despite Takruri and I telling you) that they are a particular ethnic group of Africans and NOT Africans in general! The Af[r]orum were a people who lived in the Maghreb specifically western Libya up to Tunisia. And Manilius did NOT say there were any categories of 'dark'. He just lists dark [black] peoples from darkest to lightest. Even the lightest-- the Maure were called nigri by the Romans and we all know what nigri means!
quote: LITERAL TRANSLATION
Phoebus harenosis Afrorum pulvere terris Sun-God sandy African dust lands exsiccat populos, et Mauretania nomen dries up the people, and the name of Mauritania oris habet titulumque suo fert ipsa colore. expressed has title brought itself color
_______________________________________________ Similar to the Gold it says the Sun God of the sandy African lands dries up the people and the name Mauritania expresses it's color
LOL No where does is say the people are the same color as the sand! And the accurate translation is the title of the people reflects their color. What is the title? Maure We already went over what maure means-- BLACK. GTFOH
INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION
Those really wanting to know will ask to clarify or expand on what they're unsure. Lyin'Ass snakes will hiss venom as they intentionally distort with their cockmaimee projections.
As stated in the old thread Manilius doesn't always use a peculiar colour description when delineating nations despite its feature primacy in listed human race characteristics or variety.
Such is the case with Hispania, Romanis, Syrium, and Afrorum, and so reflected inverse equator nearness order in this Manilius 4.715-30 keyword skeletal layout:
Colore is in the Mauretania description but no one particular colour. The direct explication is mauros i.e., black person as in "nigger."
Here is a family portrait of a woman of the Syrium (torti per tempora crines) and a man of the Afrorum and their offspring who according to Claudian is so hideous as to frighten its own cradle. Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: [quote]You are correct there is no escaping it. Below examples of 'darks' as you call them or 'blacks' people of 'medium tone' as Manilius described the Egyptians[quote]
Manilius was Roman and lived in the Roman era. Did he ever travel to Egypt?
When the senate called a meeting to consider the matter, Scipio Nasica advised receiving the Carthaginian embassy and making a truce with them, but Marcus Cato declared that no truce ought to be made nor the declaration of war rescinded. Nevertheless, the senators listened to the entreaties of the envoys, promised to grant them a truce, and demanded hostages for the fulfilment of the conditions. These hostages were sent to Sicily, and Lucius Marcius and Marcus Manilius went there, took charge of them, and sent them on to Rome, while they themselves made haste to reach Africa. After encamping they summoned the magistrates of Carthage to appear before them.
Casssius Dio Book XXI
Oh my gosh, who tossed the timeline out the window? Internal evidence noted by Goold places our Manilius in an Augustan/Tiberian time cusp.
This other Manilius guy is some two centuries earlier when Carthage still existed and was a challenge to Rome.
Ya see what GOOGLE scholarship does? It causes (ouch) LyinAssFuckuptions. You just can't scissors and paste your way to valid knowledge. You have to (l)earn it toiling in study.
one point for alTurki here
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
For some reason couldn't edit my last post so here
Here is a family portrait of a woman of the Syrium (torti per tempora crines)and a man of the Afrorum with their offspring who according to Claudian is so hideous as to frighten its own cradle.
Claudian from his The War Against Gildo vv175
When tired of each noblest matron Gildo hands her over to the Moors. Married in Carthage city these Sidonian mothers needs must mate with barbarians. He thrusts upon me an Ethiopian as a son-in‑law, a Berber as a husband. The hideous half-breed child affrights its cradle. Mauris clarissima quaeque fastidita datur. media Carthagine ductae barbara Sidoniae subeunt conubia matres; Aethiopem nobis generum, Nasamona maritum ingerit; exterret cunabula discolor infans.
alTakruri's note: Per Claudian when matched with a "white Syrian" both Aethiops and Nasamonians plant mulato bearing seed.
- Mauretania - Afrorum - Aegyptia - India - Aethiopes
Goold lists 4 peoples in this section, Ethiopians, Egyptians, Indians, and Moors and in 2005 you had the same 4 in bolded type on NVF
- Mauretania - Aegyptia - India - Aethiopes
But now have your own alternate translation adding "Afrorum" here where you have inserted the word "while" and you have re-squenced your own "interlinear translation". Also your line breaks don't correspond to my source. I'm not sure they are correct.
"while" latin : dum, dulcitudo dulcitudinis, cum, donec
_________________^^^ not in text
"et"
^^^ is in text meaning "and" or "both"
let's look at again using the literal order and as we know you have words can have multiple meanings. So your traslations of particular words are your personal selections of options available. I will use some of your word meaning selections for a literla translation basically very close to the one I had shown earlier
Phoebus harenosis Afrorum pulvere terris Apollo sandy African dusts lands
exsiccat populos, et Mauretania nomen dries nations Mauretania name
oris habet titulumque suo fert ipsa colore. mouth he wears label there they bear color (hue, tint)
The professonal world reknowned Yale scholar G.P Goold says the above represents one people, Mauretanians and "Afrorum" is referring to them. Your alternative theory is that Manilius is speaking of two peoples. You say Afrorum is strictly Tunisians and they, as per the order, are darker than the Mauretanians (later "Moors" )
The passage may seem a little ambiguous. I would like to hear a classics professor in latin comment on your alternative to Goold added category theory.
The text can be left in actual sequence using your word meanaings
Sol sandy African dust lands dries nations Mauretania name mouth he wears label there they bear color (hue, tint)
^^^^ folks look at this. This is alturk's basically. From this he assumes two separate nations
I had already demonstrated that the actual terrritory of these Roman Province names changes in different periods. Also this is a poem and not clinical historical prose
we can take this
Sol sandy African dust lands dries nations Mauretania name mouth he wears label there they bear color (hue, tint)
^^^ and and arrive at this:
(note: "Sol" = Son God, ancient Rome)
Sol dusts the African sands and dries nations, Mauretania, a name, mouths it's label by color
NOTE where the word African appears in the text (Afrorum) it is not followed by people (or nations) as alTurki has it in his Turkized version
harenosis Afrorum pulvere sandy Africans dusts
the word populos (people or nations) is not next to Afrorum it's not even on the same line, but the next:
exsiccat populos, et Mauretania dries nations Mauretania name
^^^^^ the nations (people) are dried by the Sun God alTurki has cut and pasted Afrorum and pasted it to "populos" and translated it as African people therfore giving the illusion of 'Afican nation' as a thing unto itself as meaning Tunisia. But that is not how it appears in the text. Afrorum is separated by three whole words from "populos".
lioness productions everyday like a vitamin
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
We can see a prime example of the hypocritical double standard moving of the goal posts for those Djehootie deems black. Above a perfectly legit picture of great Nigerian writer Wole Soyinka. Djehootie can't deal with that picture. To him Wole Soyinka is not black in the above picture. Djehootie actually has to resort to using a different picture of Wole Soyinka in which he appears more tanned.
pathetic
Yeah, you're right. I'm lying. Wole Soyinka and his Nigerian brethren all have chocolate dark complexions due to tans. Their real complexions are really not that dark. I promise!
ROTFLMAOH Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Anyway, I believe there is no point in arguing with something so stupid as what is and what is not 'black'. Nigerians like Wole Soynika are obviously black. Manilius like his fellow Romans and Greeks held the world view that the native 'gentes' (races) of people to the south i.e the Mediterranean were black peoples. The mythological basis being Phaeton who nearly crashed the sun in the southern lands scorching the lands into deserts i.e. the Saharan, Arabian, and Thar deserts of Africa, Arabia, and India respectively. This same mythology says the natives of these lands were burnt black.
Manilius lists the people from darkest to lightest starting with the Aethiopes (Sudanese) as the blackest to the Maure of Tunisia as the least black but STILL black. As I cited from Snowden, even the least dark Maure were called 'adusti' and 'nigri' which means scorched and black respectively.
My only qualm now is with the word 'Afrorum'. What lyinass does not realize is that this is another gente or ethnicity and NOT the word for Africa which is actually derived from the ethnicity. Where is Dana when you need her? I believe Dana has made references to the Afrorum or Afer tribes that inhabited the Maghreb and were also described as 'nigri' just as other Africans.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Afri (singular Afer) was a Latin name for the Carthaginians It was received by the Romans from the Carthaginians, as a native term for their country Afer was at first used as an adjective, meaning "of Carthage", "of Africa". As a substantive, it denoted a native of Africa, i. e., a Carthaginian.
The ultimate etymology of the Punic term for the country is uncertain. It is possible that it is derived from a Punic term for an indigenous population of the area surrounding Carthage.[citation needed] See Terence#Biography for discussion. The name may be connected with Phoenician `afar, dust[1] (also found in other Semitic languages), or with Berber ifri, cave (see Tataouine). The classical historian Flavius Josephus asserted that the region had been invaded by descendants of Abraham's grandson Epher, who gave it their name.
During the Roman Empire period, Afer came to be a cognomen for people from the Africa Province.
This ethnonym is the source of the term Africa. The Romans referred to the region as Africa terra (land of the Afri), based on the stem Afr- with the adjective suffix -ic- (giving Africus, Africa, Africum in the nominative singular of the three Latin genders). Following the defeat of Carthage in the Third Punic War, Rome set up the province of Africa.
The Roman Diocese of Africa was conquered by the Vandals in the 5th century, and re-conquered by the empire as the Praetorian prefecture of Africa in AD 534. The Latin name Africa was received in Arabic after the Islamic conquest, as Ifriqiya.[2]
The name is still extant today as Ifira and Ifri-n-Dellal in Greater Kabylie (Algeria). A Berber tribe was called Banu Ifran in the Middle Ages, and Ifurace was the name of a Tripolitan people in the 6th century. Troglodytism was frequent in northern Africa and still occurs today in southern Tunisia. Herodotus wrote that the Garamantes, a North African people, used to live in caves. The Greeks also called an African people who lived in caves Troglodytae. The Roman province of Africa (named for a people who lived there) was established after the Romans defeated Carthage in the Third Punic War. It roughly comprised the territory of present-day northern Tunisia, and the small Mediterranean Sea coast of modern-day western Libya along the Syrtis Minor. The Arabs later named roughly the same region as the original province Ifriqiya, a rendering of Africa.
The African provinces were amongst the wealthiest regions in the Empire (rivaled only by Egypt, Syria and Italy itself) and as a consequence people from all over the Empire migrated into the Roman Africa Province, most importantly veterans in early retirement who settled in Africa on farming plots promised for their military service. Historian Theodore Mommsen estimated that under Hadrian nearly 1/3 of the eastern Numidia population (roughly modern Tunisia) was descended from Roman veterans. Even so, the Roman military presence of North Africa was relatively small, consisting of about 28,000 troops and auxiliaries in Numidia and the two Mauretanian provinces. Starting in the 2nd century AD, these garrisons were manned mostly by local inhabitants. A sizable Latin speaking population developed that was multinational in background, sharing the north African region with those speaking Punic and Berber languages.Imperial security forces began to be drawn from the local population, including the Berbers.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Yawn
The latest Lyin'Ass Fuckuption behind Afrorum is not worth a reply (singular vs plural and semi- colon separating Afrorum-Africans and Mauretania- a non-desert nation in Goold's translation which leaves et untranslated not to mention poetry often neglects strict rules of grammar and so on).
Anybody need clarification of what I last posted or would like me to expand on what I've written?
By the way I use the Perseus Digital Library tools, the university standard in dictionaries and gazeteers for classical Greek and Latin like
Charlton T. Lewis. An Elementary Latin Dictionary.
Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short. A Latin Dictionary.
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott 1) A Greek-English Lexicon. 2) An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon.
This is my latest take of Manilius on the blacks/ darks/southerners/euator-tropics-subtropics peoples.
Line1 = original Latin. Line2 = My interlinear word for word of the Latin.
Line3 = My translation in non-poetical grammar.
As most know this is the standard transposition in books supplying interlinear translation like Budge's Egyptian language books for instance.
I invite any and all who seriously want to collaberate on a translation.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: one point for alTurki here
Points eh? Admitting to just playing a game distracting others after authentic knowledge.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ I'd rather take YOUR translation via the Perseus Digital Library used by scholars any day than some wiki-translated gobbledy-gook and then distorted further by lyinass agenda. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^ I'd rather take YOUR translation via the Perseus Digital Library used by scholars any day than some wiki-translated gobbledy-gook and then distorted further by lyinass agenda.
Djehutie,you thick dimwit I put up the Goold which is the world standard for English translation of the text. Look at post 1 please enough with the idiotic cheerleading. Alturki is not using the standard English translation by Goold. Try to think for yourself instead of dick riding big Al. He is simply using dictionary tools and then choosing one word from several options given for a word's meaning and then rearranging as to what he thinks it mean grammatcially.
In typical fashion AlTurki complicates things by using three different words for the Sun God, Phoebus, Apollo and Sol. He often looks for the most obscure version of what is being talked about. He is hoping you won't recognize it give up your own look at what is being talked about and just accept his pompous ivory-toweresque word for it
Let me simplify matters.
This is AlTack's translation exactly as he stated:
"Sol dries the African people's dusty desert lands while Mauretania's own mouth has labeled it's appellation by the color they bear"
^^^^ He is proposing an alternative meaning to the standard English translation and suggesting this means two peoples are being talked about rather than just Mauretanians. Notice how he uses the word "appellation" instead of "name" for the latin word "nomen" which is cleary more similar to "name" No big deal it means the same thing yet he will always try to enhance the pretentiousness.
The trick he has pulled is to take the latin word "et" meaning "and" and replace it the "while"
So here is a correct version:
"Sol dries the African people's dusty desert lands and Mauretania's own mouth has labeled it's name by color "
this is the alTurkerized version
"Sol dries the African people's dusty desert lands while Mauretania's own mouth has labeled it's appellation by the color they bear"
While pretentious-izing "name" into one of his favortios "appellation" is no problem he has inserted this word "while" to imply that at the beginning of the thought Manilius was talking about "Africans" while on the other hand there are Mauretanians.
Look at the latin "et" = and or both
and that is one of the most elementary words
I propose that the standard English translation is correct that only Mauretanians are being discussed here. And what he is proposing as two categories are at the same latitude anyway, Roman provinces
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Aw, don't be a jealous hater you can learn from me too.
For the love of heaven consult contemporaneous geographers will ya.
Dionysius c120BCE above and Ptolemy c150CE below are the most detailed. Each has Æthiopes/Æthiopia and Ægyptus/Ægyptum in the east and at far northwest Maurusii/Mauretania. At Carthago, the original home of the Aourigha/Afri/Afer and in the desert to its south Gætuli/Melanogætuli Nigretes/Nigritæ Pharusii/Pharausi. They are the major Afrorum/Africans of the dry dusty sandy lands of Africa. Mauretania is not desert. Please zoom maps as necessary. Ptolemy explicitly writes at Book4 chapter3 "The west side of Africa is terminated by Mauretania Caesariensis ..."
Here, have a peek at another ancient geographer based map.
Unlike Mauretania Afrorum, Phoebus Apollo is one and the same two part name. BTW he's Phaeton's daddy and that's his chariot and team of horses.
Sol is the obvious contemporary choice for English speakers. It's the choice of scientists as the nickname for the sun, Ol' Sol as most were taught and learned in elementary school.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Affirmative. 'Afrorum' and 'Mauretania' are two different regions and thus inhabited by two different ethnikoi/gentes/races. If 'Afrorum' was the general term for all of Africa then why are Egyptians and Aethiopians excluded as well even though they share the same continent?
By the way, Phoebus (Greek: Phoibos) means 'bright one' and was used as an epithet for several deities having such a quality especially the sun. Apollo was originally not a sun god-- the actual sun deity being called 'Helios' in Greek and 'Sol' in Latin/Roman. Apollo was a god of prophecy, divine judgement and retribution, and art and inspiration. It was only later that his epithet of 'phoibos' took on solar qualities which is why after the death of Phaeton, his father the sun (Helio/Sol) forbade anyone else to drive his chariot except Apollo who could control his celestial steeds as well as he could.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
here we see Africa Vitale under the M and E of "Mediterranevm" around what is now Tunisia. But low and behold the continent is labeled "Africa" at the same time.
These highly inaccurate and varying maps are not going to prove the case for Afrorum as a distinct people.
All of these Roman Provinces are on the same latitude. Tunisia is even slightly higher. This was the site of Carthage. It is there in fact where the most foreigners had settled, Phoenicians and then thousands of Roman soldiers all mixing in with indigenous peoples and these city building foreigners probably greatly outnumbering indigenous people by then. This after Carthage of the Phoenicians was already razed to the ground. And the proposed Afrorum in the Manilius order are supposedly darker than the Maure. OK if that's they want you want it. If you want to prove such a case these maps aren't going to do it you will have to begin (not the cherleader the other guy) by first producing examples of "Afrorum" being used in Roman texts spelled in that exact way and shown in context to be used to describe a particular ethnic group. I can save you the effort with this very long multi-chapter Astronomica poem the word is only used once
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Xlation of the above
"When I posted maps it was OK but when you post 'em no good."
"Oh boo hoo neither my maps or these ones support Mauretania = Afrorum and Ptolemy even wrote down Africa ends where Mauretania begins, oh boo hoo."
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Interesting thing is this Greco-Latin idea of black-white south north dichotomy is pervasive.
I think the janiform ceramics introduces the concept and in a sense is seen in Manilius:
_____________________________ Aethiopes Germania _________________________________ India Gallia ______________________________ Aegyptia Hispania _______________________________ Afrorum Romanis _____________________________ Mauretani Graecia
_____________________________________ Syriam
View the parabola of the Mediterranean lands with Syriam at the vertex, southerns facing left, northerns facing right.
Manilius lists Syriam among whites/lights/northerners and comments on the character of Syriam's hair so unlike the others.
Black-white dichotomy also appears more directly in other literary sources. It's usually done with any one people from each of the two major colours.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Affirmative. 'Afrorum' and 'Mauretania' are two different regions and thus inhabited by two different ethnikoi/gentes/races. If 'Afrorum' was the general term for all of Africa then why are Egyptians and Aethiopians excluded as well even though they share the same continent?
Afer evolved from a distinct (Afri) to a generalized (Libya/Africa) meaning.
Context tells where between the two is meant.
In Manilius it is nether just the original Afri nor all of Libya/Africa but a set consisting of peoples between Egypt and Mauretania on towards the Sahara.
As with - janiform karanthos - textual examples of black-white dichotomy Afer is another theme I intend to expand on.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass,: the modern desire for a "Black-white dichotomy"
sought to be approved of in ancient Greco-Roman thought
Dumb twit things black-white dichotomy is a "modern" concept that Greco-Romans never had.
It was Manilius who divided the gentes (races) into light/white and dark/black. His view is actually typical of Greco-Romans as per their own mythology of Phaeton burning the races of the southern lands below the Mediterranean black! Again the dumb trick has no idea about what Greco-Romans thought because she is an ignoramus who knows nothing about 'Classics'. Even the Anglo-farthead acknowledges the Phaeton myth as a Greco-Roman explanation for black peoples. This in it of itself is proof for this view of whites vs. blacks in the Greco-Roman world! The lyinass hates to admit it though because it goes against her blackphobic notions! LOL
This b|tch is so crazy she tries to 'lighten' up Nigerians and say they are the same color as Mongolians! LMAOPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[/QB][/QUOTE]
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic