posted
"Black Americans with an interest in the issue asked two perfectly logical questions that drew evasive answers from physical anthropologists, wrapped up in technical jargon. "Why are people who look like us called 'white' or 'Hamitic' if they live in Egypt but 'Negroes' if they live in this country?" and "Why, if someone of that type turns up among the Egyptian pharaohs is he classified 'white', but if he lived in Mississippi he'd be put in the back of the bus?" Du Bois and other vindicationists were led to adopt a simple basic strategy. They called for consistency in the use of the term "Negro" (p136-137).
"Diop's rejoinder was that specialists should remember that laymen do not react to genotypes and blood types but to phenotypes, that is, to what old-fashioned anthropologists call "races""(p140).
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote: "As far as I see it, all this obsession and refusal to accept that the ancient Egyptians were a mixed race, not all Blacks as they claim, has a psychological foundation in most Afro people's deep and perhaps also unconscious inferiority complex as to white people. They carry a chip on their shoulder and must try to grasp whatever they can to bolster their self-esteem at any price."
posted
To be clear, the e-mail reply from the Professor was not in response to the content of Drake's book--I post it to show the contrast with what I see as the reasonable logic of the first two quotes.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a reason why racists like you tropicals redacted, swenet, beyoku, Truthcentric, Ish Gebor and all the other ids here avoid genetic results like the plague?
Does it hurt you that Ancient Egyptians were proven using ancient DNA from mummies to be mostly Africans, not Europeans or Middle Eastern migrants? Same as it was proven with the latest archaeological and anthropological analysis?
BMJ study: Ramses III and son are E1b1a, the most common male lineages among African-Americans. It must hurt your ass.
Tropical redacted and other other ids: Ouch!! Let's distract with outdated stuff!!
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: "Black Americans with an interest in the issue asked two perfectly logical questions that drew evasive answers from physical anthropologists, wrapped up in technical jargon. "Why are people who look like us called 'white' or 'Hamitic' if they live in Egypt but 'Negroes' if they live in this country?" and "Why, if someone of that type turns up among the Egyptian pharaohs is he classified 'white', but if he lived in Mississippi he'd be put in the back of the bus?" Du Bois and other vindicationists were led to adopt a simple basic strategy. They called for consistency in the use of the term "Negro" (p136-137).
"Diop's rejoinder was that specialists should remember that laymen do not react to genotypes and blood types but to phenotypes, that is, to what old-fashioned anthropologists call "races""(p140).
These are very relevant questions.
I read that book somewhere in to mid-90's. I will reread soon.
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: Professor of Egyptology 30/04/2015:
quote: "As far as I see it, all this obsession and refusal to accept that the ancient Egyptians were a mixed race, not all Blacks as they claim, has a psychological foundation in most Afro people's deep and perhaps also unconscious inferiority complex as to white people. They carry a chip on their shoulder and must try to grasp whatever they can to bolster their self-esteem at any price."
I like to know why he/she attacked "blacks" and not "whites"?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:I like to know why he/she attacked "blacks" and not "whites"?
Exactly. I'd previously pointed this out, and they replied:
29/04/2015
quote: The opinions you quote by some scholars accepting that the ancient Egyptians should be considered as "Black", until I see their detailed reasonings, I can only take them as such, opinions. And in view of the intimidating climate in academia about this and the need to retain positions obtained through many years of hard work, I can't take them at face value, just like that.
So no matter how credible the evidence and reasoned the academic opinion, there are hardliners within Egyptology --and online--who it seems won't be swayed.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
Me, a racist? Someone who's questioned academics on their 'thinking'?
Go back and at look the first thread on Pagani 2015, and you'll see it was me who first brought to light the 80% quote:
29/05/2015
quote: This is interesting:
quote: Using ADMIXTURE and principal-component analysis (PCA) (Figure 1A), we estimated the average proportion of non-African ancestry in the Egyptians to be 80% and dated the midpoint of the admixture event by using ADLER to around 750 years ago (Table S2), consistent with the Islamic expansion and dates reported previously
quote: Is there a reason why racists like you tropicals redacted, swenet, beyoku, Truthcentric, Ish Gebor and all the other ids here avoid genetic results like the plague?
Does it hurt you that Ancient Egyptians were proven using ancient DNA from mummies to be mostly Africans, not Europeans or Middle Eastern migrants? Same as it was proven with the latest archaeological and anthropological analysis?
BMJ study: Ramses III and son are E1b1a, the most common male lineages among African-Americans. It must hurt your ass.
Tropical redacted and other other ids: Ouch!! Let's distract with outdated stuff!!
A subset of dynastic Egyptian samples squeezed in between Abyssinians and Cretans, Etruscans and Sardinians and showing considerable ties with the biblical inhabitants of the Judaean city of Lachish. No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown). And in the occasion they do use 'black' in a racial sense (usually when they speak in an informal context), they're likely to say that they think that the ancient Egyptians were half black/half non-black based on their position in cranio-facial analysis.
This is the obvious peril/risk you run when you engage opponents trying to repurpose and reinvigorate old prejudiced terms (i.e. "black" as applied in the west) as opposed to focusing on the real issue, i.e., the question whether they were indigenous Africans or not. Of course, someone's position in multivariate space is going to determine how lay people perceive their "race", so the "forget science, I'm just focusing on what lay people would say" escape, is a deliberately deceptive fallacy. Craniofacial analysis uses measurements that the lay public intuitively uses when assigning race.
Only people in denial, with a political agenda and blatant disregard for science act like they don't grasp this basic idea. But it's certainly entertaining that the troll in the OP thinks posting more private emails is going to change this reality or move anyone other than like-minded black-centrists and PC academics who talk out of turn. Just spam more flimsy examples of "racism" and it will magically bend reality to alter the above facts, seems to be the underlying thinking.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: Professor of Egyptology 30/04/2015:
quote: "As far as I see it, all this obsession and refusal to accept that the ancient Egyptians were a mixed race, not all Blacks as they claim, has a psychological foundation in most Afro people's deep and perhaps also unconscious inferiority complex as to white people. They carry a chip on their shoulder and must try to grasp whatever they can to bolster their self-esteem at any price."
Whomsoever the "Professor" is it seems that he may be propping up yet another strawman. Diop never said ALL Egyptians at ALL times were ALL black. He noted that Asiatics, particularly in the later periods, and then people like Greeks towards the tail end, had more influence. Since some of these folk settled in Egypt, of course ALL Egyptians everywhere could not be ALL black. By propping up this strawman, they can divert attention from the primary fact of the indigenous African character of the Egyptians.
It is also an excellent diversionary mechanism to dismiss the diversity of Africans. People with narrow noses can thus be classified as "non black" and then allocated to a "mixed race." Its a standard diversionary, propaganda tactic they use. But narrow noses are nothing special in "sub-Saharan" Africa. Long term life in High altitude locales, locales with cooler temperatures, or hot, dry desert environments can yield narrow noses and do so in Africa, without needing any "race mix" to explain why.
A final use of the diversion is to claim the pious mantle of objectivity. Race some airily sniff, is "irrelevant" or "unimportant." Fine. But if this is so,
(a) why do you insist on the "mixed race" theme,
and
(b) why do you keep using stereotypical "true negro" types to de-Africanize the Egyptians and distort the diversity of Africans?
and
(c) Why don't you apply the same "true type" reasoning to white people and likewise define a stereotypical "true white" against which, all else can be juxtaposed,
and
(d) Why don't you apply the same "mixed race" models to white Europeans and call them "mixed race" when they have African DNA like some Greeks, Italians or southern Europeans for example?
It is these hypocrisies that are among the central items still at issue.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will you guys just stop bitching about that silly old adjective? There are autistics less obsessive and badly behaved than you. Just let go of that obsolete misnormer and move on.
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: Will you guys just stop bitching about that silly old adjective? There are autistics less obsessive and badly behaved than you. Just let go of that obsolete misnormer and move on.
Truthcentric, plenty if people seem to have this obsession. You yourself:
In (a) above you complain that- Quote: "White rather than Black actors are cast into the Egyptian characters’ roles."
^^Why is this a problem if "black" is so silly? --------------------------------------------------------------
You also have much to say on "black" Egyptians- quote: "While this may suffice to answer the question of whether the Egyptians could be classified as “Black” or “Negroid” using modern American racial terminology, there is still the issue of their cultural affinity with the rest of the African continent. Being “Black” is not sufficient culturally African..
^^WHy do you write things like the above dealing with "black" if it is an obsolete misnomer? You yourself spend a lot of time on the term "black"..
posted
^ My views on the adjective's utility have changed after recent discussions. And those papers of mine that you cite are years old, plenty of time to revise my opinions on certain topics.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not about the adjective. It's the underlying, needy "look at me, look at me. Me looks E-shipshun, you wasist" agenda he, Amun and certain others here try to impose on everyone who disagrees with them, including academics. It's obvious that this compulsive neediness leads to confirmation bias and paranoia, so the adjective is not the point of contention.
If you're not a dark skinned Sudanese, Egyptian, Chadian or Libyan, in all probability you have little more to do with dynastic Egyptian history than you have to do with San history. So it's interesting in that sense that people like Drake and the troll in the OP are rarely concerned about the West's tradition of (correctly) seeing San hunter gatherers as ethnically, physically, linguistically, etc. distinct from other 'families' of indigenous Africans. In the absence of tangible evidence of prejudice that would legitimize criticism, this selective indignation betrays their neediness and hidden agendas.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Zaharan Yes, good points, but unfortunately the common sense, logic and reasonable fairness that you bring to the debate appears to hold little currency with a number of academics, nor certain individuals among the internet crowd...
Just to make it clear that I'm no longer going to respond to/engage with the Egyptsearch members in this thread who've admitted to trolling, or who say on this forum that I've exhibited "pedo-ish" behaviour. There comes a point when one needs to stop engagement and I've reached it.
quote: Whomsoever the "Professor" is it seems that he may be propping up yet another strawman. Diop never said ALL Egyptians at ALL times were ALL black. He noted that Asiatics, particularly in the later periods, and then people like Greeks towards the tail end, had more influence. Since some of these folk settled in Egypt,of course ALL Egyptians everywhere could not be ALL black. By propping up this strawman, they can divert attention from the primary fact of the indigenous African character of the Egyptians.
It is also an excellent diversionary mechanism to dismiss the diversity ofAfricans. People with narrow noses can thus be classified as "non black" and then allocated to a "mixed race." Its a standard diversionary, propaganda tactic they use. But narrow noses are nothing special in "sub-Saharan" Africa. Long term life in High altitude locales, locales with cooler temperatures, or hot, dry desert environments can yield narrow noses and do so in Africa, without needing any "race mix" to explain why.
A final use of the diversion is to claim the pious mantle of objectivity. Race some airily sniff, is "irrelevant" or "unimportant." Fine. But if this is so,
(a) why do you insist on the "mixed race" theme,
and
(b) why do you keep using stereotypical "true negro" types to de-Africanize the Egyptians and distort the diversity of Africans?
and
(c) Why don't you apply the same "true type" reasoning to white people and likewise define a stereotypical "true white" against which, all else can be juxtaposed,
and
(d) Why don't you apply the same "mixed race" models to white Europeans and call them "mixed race" when they have African DNA like some Greeks, Italians or southern Europeans for example?
It is these hypocrisies that are among the central items still at issue.
posted
@Zaharan The academic in question delivered a hatchet job on Diop, which an online contact brought to my attention. I'm no devotee of Diop, but I though it unfair, and reactionary. Here's some more of the 'dialogue':
23/04/2015, the academic says:
quote: "Diop in order to defend his misconceptions would describe northern African people of today as Blacks, even ridiculously, southern mediterraneans like southern Italians and such, something they would strongly reject, just ask them."
29/04/2015, I respond with:
quote: "Also in your response to question two, you suggested that Diop regarded North Africans and southern Mediterraneans such as Italians as 'black'. I've only read his The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality? (which you referred to in your 1984 paper) but, from my limited reading of his work, I don't think this is correct. Over the weekend, I skimmed through his book twice and found no evidence of this. However, I did manage to find the page which I think you may be alluding to:
"The theory that makes Caucasoids of the Dinka, Nuer, Masai etc., is the most unwarranted. Suppose an African ethnologist insisted on recognising only blond Scandinavians as Whites and systematically refused all other Europeans - especially Mediterraneans, French, Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, and Portuguese - membership in the White race. Just as Scandinavians and Mediterraneans must be considered as the two poles, the two extremes of the same anthropological reality, it would be only fair to do the same for the two extremes of the reality of the black world: Negroes of East Africa and those of West Africa. To call a Shilluk, a Dinka, or a Masai a Caucasoid is as devoid of sense and scientific validity for an African as it would be for a European to claim that a Greek or Latin are not White" (p273).
Diop was actually confirming southern Mediterranean populations/Italians as 'white', to make the point of diversity among black Africans. He was not saying that southern Mediterraneans/Italians are 'black'. However, if you have a page reference/source for where Diop wrote this, then please send it to me."
29/04/2015, they reply
quote: "About Diop extending his concept of Blackness to southern Italians and other dark whites, I only have my memory and I read since then more than one book by Diop, but I can't start searching my data base to satisfy you in this point."
05/05/2015, they then say:
quote: "Whether Diop wrote what I said in a previous email or not is of little importance since my main point is his approach which I consider biased and unscientific and in my XXXX I said why."
Like I say, a hatchet job, unfair and reactionary.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
just read the first couple of posts in this thread.
come on, academics are just people. they are as bigoted prejudice hateful as anybody else.
I am Black and not ashamed of being black unlike certain posters here.
there is no ambiguity about who is black nor has there ever been except for reactionary Negroes who are volunteer slaves ever ready to go up Against progressive blacks for their Eurasian masters.
the ancient Egyptians labeled themselves and their River Nile nneighbors black.
the Hebrews and Jews included Egyptians along with Sudanese as black as they did Many Arabs aand Levantines not to exclude themselves.
The earliest Greeks through to the last Imperial Romans counted Egyptians black right alongside Sudanese and even some Indians.
Islamic Arabs wrote down contemporary Egyptians for bla k just astthey did the Sudanese and iMazighen and Indians.
It is only when it comes to the depth Of Western civilization debt to AE That they must be whitewashed To at least a non black status.
that's it. That's all that fancy so called scientific dancing by Negroo running dogs is really all about
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
of course they were indigenous Africans but more importantly they were black. iMazighen are indigenous African. the coastal ones are indeed white nowadays. this is where the ruse comes in to substitute modern-day white Berbers as indigenous Africans thus ancient Egyptians as indigenous Africans could also be white or non black. Don't be fooled. indigenous African alone is not enough. indigenous black African should be the watchword ( even though I personally object to the designation black African because it is used as a barrier separation divider tool).
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
on ESR not long ago somebody posted mummy next to a living East African both were female. Please transfer the image of here I want to comment on it. I can't post image myself using this device thanks
posted
It's sad how one can be on these forums for a certain amount of time, yet still can't be trusted to accurately inform the public. Descriptions of dark to medium brown skin notwithstanding, certain North Africans were never conflated with certain Sub-Saharan Africans (which is what Carlos Oliver Coke is trying to do with his 'black' trojan horse). See how sneaky some of the above posters are with their trojan horses. They twist ancient descriptions of dark-medium brown skin to mean 'black' as modern western people would interpret the term (i.e. in a racial sense). Another well known trojan horse is their attempt to write off known hybrid populations as "indigenous". No one thinks ~50% outside admixture when they hear "indigenous", but then again, that deception is exactly what their trojan horses are designed to do.
Anyone familiar with my posts knows I have no objection to how the Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Egyptians would have applied 'black', brown or variants of that term, but obviously, I do object to how Carlos Oliver Coke is using the term as a trojan horse for something else, entirely. I trust that the audience I'm speaking to, i.e. the level-headed Egyptsearch audience that isn't gullible, will be able to discern this for themselves.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Contrary to some confused individuals and academics who are being used as tools by Carlos Oliver Coke, I know exactly what he tries to do. I’ve had more than enough conversations with him to know what he’s up to. Shortly I will post an example of Carlos Oliver Coke refusing to accept that long term inhabitants of the Sahara shouldn’t and can’t be conflated with Sub-Saharan Africans. Throughout the whole conversation he was fishing for me to say that the North African dental pattern in Irish work is “black African”, even though I had already emphasized their African origin several times. Sadly, I didn’t catch Carlos' trojan horse back then.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: of course they were indigenous Africans but more importantly they were black. iMazighen are indigenous African. the coastal ones are indeed white nowadays. this is where the ruse comes in to substitute modern-day white Berbers as indigenous Africans thus ancient Egyptians as indigenous Africans could also be white or non black. Don't be fooled. indigenous African alone is not enough. indigenous black African should be the watchword ( even though I personally object to the designation black African because it is used as a barrier separation divider tool).
The people who try to pass off those coastal Mediterranean North African people as "indigenous" in terms of ancestry are either ignorant or in denial of the substantive Eurasian component (including certain lighter-skin alleles and trace admixture with non-sapiens Eurasian "archaic" hominins). That Eurasian component would presumably have been much less significant in proto-Egyptians and Sudanese.
Sure, you could try to define "Black" identity as synonymous with indigenous, dark-skinned African. But you'd still be running up against people who, for whatever reason, insist on equating it with modal West or Central Africans. And it's funny how people here cling to "black" as having meaning even though other technically inaccurate color-based terminology (e.g. "yellow" for Asians or "red" for Native Americans) have fallen out of common use just like "Negro" (which is "black" in Spanish).
You people are way too attached to that stupid descriptor.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Blase blase blase blase blase yo ass up out my Maserati
Enrique; Ish When one of you gonna repost the mummy lady w/ living NE Afr lady for me, please.
No apologies No parentheses Just str8 up B L A C K No shame No subterfuge
Meant the same way back then as it do right here and now 2day And every & all time in between
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
What people need to know about Carlos Oliver Coke's many trojan horses and deceptions. This is taken from my private conversations with Carlos Oliver Coke:
20-02-2014
And the author he says to read, Irish. Is he trustworthy? --Carlos Oliver coke
Irish is a troll. He was forced to retract his previous work --Swenet
Let me give you a quick run down of Irish' work --Swenet
Yes, that would be appreciated. --Carlos Oliver Coke
[...]
The earliest manifestation of what [Irish] calls a "north African" pattern is now deep inside the Sudan and too early to explain away as coinciding with any known Eurasian invasion of Sudan. From the looks of things, the "north African" pattern has always been there, alongside the Jebel Sahaba pattern. --Swenet
[…]
I don't think [Irish] retracted anything officially. But he knows that this sample invalidates his previous suggestions about population replacement from outside of Africa. The funny thing is The Jebel Sahaban [people] didn't leave behind notes in their graves claiming to be ancestors of later [dynastic] Egyptians and northern Nubians. So there should have never been a need to say: "Well later [dynastic] Nubians don't resemble [Mesolithic Nubians], so something drastic must have happened that involved [Eurasian] influences". [Irish et al] come to Africa just looking to explain away civilization that's why, even with the skeletal record as limited as it was, they assumed the difference must have involved foreign people --Swenet
Not satisfied with my CLEAR description of them being indigenous Africans and with a skeletal pattern that is not primarily or at all determined by Eurasian admixture, Carlos Oliver Coke started fishing for me SEVERAL TIMES to say that the alKhiday people were “black Africans”, which, unfortunately, I fell for (at that point, ‘black’ to me meant dark skin, see my Bob Brier youtube vid and older posts, for example). Note also that, despite my many comments that there is a biological underpinning for these differences in the Saharan and Sub-Saharan dental patterns, Carlos Oliver Coke somehow gets it into his head that it all boils down to “arbitrary geographical convention” and that "the use of "North African is dubious". Obviously, he did this with the intention to use it as a trojan horse in conversations with his opponents and to further his needy agenda that "I looks E-shipshun".
21-02-2014.
Other question just to get it straight in my head - do the al khiday results prove that what was previously considered 'north African' actually falls within the range of indigenous black African variability? --Carlos Oliver Coke
Yes. What it shows is that what Irish et al call the "Sub-Saharan dental pattern" does not capture the full range of indigenously African dental variability." --Swenet
Thanks. This is what I need. Larry seems to be arguing that dental traits have the last word and trump limb lengths in terms of deciding ancestry. Citing Irish's acknowledgment following the al Khiday findings, I can go back to him and question whether the use of dental traits really is the final arbiter in determining origin, and question the classification of what is SSA and what is North African. Thanks again. --Carlos Oliver Coke
One side note SSA and NAF are geographical descriptions. This needs to be remembered, because the dental pattern can be found in northern Africa, be distinct from the dental pattern below the Sahara, and still be totally indigenous to Africa --Swenet
OK. I guess I'm not saying anything new though in suggesting that the North African/SSA distinction, although a geographical one, is racially loaded? --Carlos Oliver Coke
So, what I mean is, those terms are tricky. Yes, the alKhiday dental pattern seems to be on remains which appear to be African people, biologically speaking. But geographically speaking, there is no record of a SSA sample with this dental pattern. So, what I'm arguing is: biologically SSA, but the pattern belongs to a subset of variation which isn't common to that found in SSA remains so far. Just be aware of that distinction. --Swenet
OK, but the fact that al khiday is south of Khartoum suggests that these traits belonged to indigenous black Africans, right? --Carlos Oliver Coke
Yes, but Khartoum is technically not sub-sahara because its in the Sahara, geographically speaking. So, biologically African, but with a subset of variation which is unique to north Africa. --Swenet
Therein lies the problem - arbitrary geographic convention. The idea that black Africans are limited to SSA and are absent from the trans-saharan region. This is useful ammo that I can again question Larry with. He himself has made the equation of Nubians with other SSAs - I think he makes a notes this in his Thutmose III scribblings. -- Carlos Oliver Coke
We need to be mindful of this, because Irish' has hi-jacked the North African label and turned it into something which is essentially Eurasian. Which can get us into trouble with the al Khiday remains. Because the dental pattern is indeed peculiar to North Africans, and would thus be best termed 'North African' --Swenet
Ok, so how about 'North African dental pattern found south of Khartoum at al Khiday raises questions over the usefulness of the term North African in implying population affiliation, and whether the full range of indigenous African variability is captured by dental traits currently considered SSA'. -- Carlos Oliver Coke
Yes, I like how you worded that. --Swenet
Notice that, in the end, I co-signed his completely botched summation of what I said. It didn’t become obvious to me until later, that this buffoon had been twisting my words completely. I say that the dental pattern would be best termed ‘North African’ due to its apparent origin there, and this decepticon reframes my words to mean “the North African label is dubious” and “North African and Sub-Saharan is an arbitrary distinction”. Of course, the way Irish applied to term “North African” was dubious (this is what I agreed to), but as I explained to him throughout the conversation and elsewhere many times, the dental pattern was unique to North Africa and evolved there.
Still, the troll kept reaching and fishing for me to say "black African" and to conflate all Africans into some pseudo-scientific monolith construct, even though it was already clear at that point that they were indigenous Africans:
Other question just to get it straight in my head - do the al khiday results prove that what was previously considered 'north African' actually falls within the range of indigenous black African variability? --Carlos Oliver Coke
OK, but the fact that al khiday is south of Khartoum suggests that these traits belonged to indigenous black Africans, right? --Carlos Oliver Coke
Therein lies the problem - arbitrary geographic convention. --Carlos Oliver Coke
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: Will you guys just stop bitching about that silly old adjective? There are autistics less obsessive and badly behaved than you. Just let go of that obsolete misnormer and move on.
"Bitching" about what exactly? I see both camps as being RIGHT! Yes, I said many times on here and agree that when it comes to a biological/scientific discussion that using racial terms such as "black" can be limiting like you and Swenet showed.
BUT...When it comes to a historical discussion I don't see why not.
During antiquity the people of the Nile such as the Egyptians and Nubians were indeed referred to as "black" by the Hebrews, Greeks, Romans and many others.
My point is we should separate historical discussions from scientific. I always held this belief. Matter fact may make a thread about this.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: During antiquity the people of the Nile such as the Egyptians and Nubians were indeed referred to as "black" by the Hebrews, Greeks, Romans and many others.
And this ancient use of 'black' and its variants I have always subscribed to up until the point I noticed that this ancient use of the term was used as a trojan horse by nutjobs like Carlos Oliver Coke. Even today I recognize its usefulness (although I've been trying to avoid it just to remain consistent and keep people from misconstruing my words). This ancient skin pigmentation based use of 'black' is light years away from the modern western (racial) use of 'black'. Any attempt to claim they're the same is simply a trojan horse designed to trick people.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: And this use of 'black' and its variants I have always subscribed to. Even today I see its usefulness.
Out of sheer curiosity, where would you say this word is useful today (other than quoting historical writers, and not taking into account the confusion Carlos et al might seek to sow)?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Simply as an alternative for "tropically adapted"; a way to designate people all over the world with a range of brown to black skin tones, without necessarily or primarily invoking Africans. Also, for instance, to point out that the aboriginal people along all southern coasts of Asia (but especially Bronze Age Sumer, Elam and the Indus Valley) were not what the current inhabitants look like.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Simply as an alternative for "tropically adapted" (which is also not exclusive to Africans); a way to designate people all over the world with a range of brown to black skin tones. Also, for instance, to point out that the aboriginal people along all southern coasts of Asia (Sumer, Khuzistan) were not what the current inhabitants look like.
Understood. On the other hand, since even "black" people in those other places aren't literally black but dark brown, it's still not technically accurate. And how would you deal with "intermediate" skin tones like cocoa or mahogany, which are darker than tan but not the very darkest skin tones? I always figured "Aethiopian" in the ancient Greek usage literally denoted the very darkest Africans such as the Kushites, whereas Africans with less dark skin were simply "melanchroes" (that is, "black" but not the "blackest", if that makes sense).
On the other hand, the more objective "tropically adapted" is somewhat cumbersome, and there's the argument that the Egyptian Sahara is subtropical rather than fully tropical. So maybe "hyper-melanated" (in reference to melanin)?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: The people who try to pass off those coastal Mediterranean North African people as "indigenous" in terms of ancestry are either ignorant or in denial of the substantive Eurasian component (including certain lighter-skin alleles and trace admixture with non-sapiens Eurasian "archaic" hominins). That Eurasian component would presumably have been much less significant in proto-Egyptians and Sudanese.
I personally on here have never seen anyone in denial about humans who migrated to the Maghreb during the paleolithic being from Eurasia. The thing is the history of Northwest Africa is very complex and there were more than one migrations into the Maghreb like with India and even Europe.
Fact is by the time of the Neolithc those Eurasian components such as U6 would have undergone a SNP event and would have been unique to the area. 30,000 is a long time... But more importantly those Mediterranean North Africans from the paleolithic would have been absorbed by migrating proto-Berbers from East Africa around 20,000 years. So I don't get what you're getting at? The original would have been "Berbers" were black like Tukuler stated. The genesis of the Berbers is NOT from the Maghreb, but East Africa...
Then we have the fact that most of the Eurasian component in modern day Northwest Africans is recent. Anthropology/genetics alone can tell us the full picture.
What most people do not know is that the area of Northwest Africa(Morocco/Algeria) was sparsely populated even up to the early period of the Moors. People also forget that converted European Muslims from Europe were expelled and flooded the coastal part of Northern Africa. Remember the term Moor soon meant all Muslim's in general. Non black Moors soon outnumbered the original black Moors.
To give you an example Christian renegades (Spanish, Italian, French, Albanian, etc. who would eventually convert to Islam) and the medieval slave trade had a major impact on places like Tlemcen, Oran, Bejaia (Bougie - Kabyle central) and especially Alger. Jacques Heers argues in "Les barbaresques" (2001, pg 227) at the time of Turkish rule in Algeria, something like 50% of the population in the capital was composed of European-Christian slaves (even Italian slaves by the seventeenth century). Saqalibas from the Balkans were also well represented. Besides, Arab excursions displaced many of the ancestral populations of the Maghreb between the 12th-15th centuries.
So again it really wasn't mixing but a large population from Europe displacing an already smaller population in an already sparsely populated area. The Berber's were also spread out. Which is also why they were displaced. You have to understand that the original Berbers did not really live on the coastal part of North Africa but in the Sahara and near the Senegal river. They were nomadic people for the most part. The origins of modern day lighter skinned North Africans is not all due to mixing but also European migrates after post-Moorish Iberia who easily displaced a population. Much similar to how Bantu migrates displaced the very small Khoisan population of South Africa.
That in my opinion is where the bulk of modern day Northwest African ancestry comes from. That is what I'm sure Tukuler meant when he mentioned modern day "white" Berbers.
I'm sure Ish Gebor can co-sign this.
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
Sure, you could try to define "Black" identity as synonymous with indigenous, dark-skinned African. But you'd still be running up against people who, for whatever reason, insist on equating it with modal West or Central Africans. And it's funny how people here cling to "black" as having meaning even though other technically inaccurate color-based terminology (e.g. "yellow" for Asians or "red" for Native Americans) have fallen out of common use just like "Negro" (which is "black" in Spanish).
Again yes, using black in a scientific discussion is moot, but in a historical discussion I see why not? "Moor" and "Ethiopian(original Greek word)" too fallen out of use, but if we're going to have a serious historical discussion about the origins of the people who those terms were applied to then those terms have to be used. I mean the Berbers throughout history were referred to as "black" by outsiders. Yes the term "black" has meaning, just not in scientific discussions like Swenet showed.
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: You people are way too attached to that stupid descriptor.
It seems you really have a beef with the term... The point is knowing WHEN and WHEN NOT to use it.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: During antiquity the people of the Nile such as the Egyptians and Nubians were indeed referred to as "black" by the Hebrews, Greeks, Romans and many others.
And this ancient use of 'black' and its variants I have always subscribed to up until the point I noticed that this ancient use of the term was used as a trojan horse by nutjobs like Carlos Oliver Coke. Even today I recognize its usefulness (although I've been trying to avoid it just to remain consistent and keep people from misconstruing my words). This ancient skin pigmentation based use of 'black' is light years away from the modern western (racial) use of 'black'. Any attempt to claim they're the same is simply a trojan horse designed to trick people.
Yes I admit that they were different. I mean iirc black back then included very dark skinned Indians.
But their was Eastern Ethiopians vs Western Ethiopians who the Greeks noted their differences. But that's just my opinion and I still agree with what you said.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
"The Ethiopians were considered as occupying all the south coasts of both Asia and Africa" --Ephorus
"I assert that the ancient Greeks, in the same way as they classed all the northern nations with which they were familiar as Scythians, etc., so, I affirm, they designated as Ethiopia the whole of the southern countries toward the ocean." --Strabo
What the hell does this have to do with the modern western racial and stereotypical use of "black"? In early ancient documents, there was no preference that 'black' or its many variants should have a special relationship to Africa(ns). This is in complete opposition of the modern western use of the terms, which seek to describe only a small subset of Africans. It's clear who the liars and decepticons of this forum are.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stuart Tyson Smith: 1998 review of Egypt in Africa
"Thus, while the Egyptians can be reasonably characterized as "black" by modern standards, we must acknowledge not only similarities, but also the evidence for the physical and cultural diversity of African peoples."
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt Volume 3 (2001):
"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial characteristics are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of the race of the ancient Egyptians depends on modern cultural definition, not scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards, it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as "black", while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans" (p28).
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:indigenous black African should be the watchword ( even though I personally object to the designation black African because it is used as a barrier separation divider tool).
Yep,if it wasn't for the denial of the mounting evidence and common sense, there would be no need to assert that most indigenous ancient Egyptians would be regarded as black today.
If tomorrow, mainstream academia and the media began representing the ancient Egyptians as, for example, akin to Somalis or Ethiopians, then I'd have nothing more to say. THEN I would consider the need to use a racial descriptor fatuous.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Typical Carlos Oliver Coke obfuscation and diversion tactics above (see the Smith reference).
1) you tell him that, based on empirical evidence and common sense, Africans have the mental faculties to cross the Sahara desert on their own. Then he starts asking the forum for textual confirmation from some scholar, to feel like he has the approval to adopt this belief.
2) you tell him that, according to empirical evidence and common sense, modern people in the west, including the US, don't consider all northeast Africans racially and unambiguously 'black'. Instead of standing his own ground and posting evidence, he then starts appealing to authority and invoking some scholar's opinion (the scholar doesn't provide any proof or survey) to give himself permission to publicly adopt views he already knows are questionable.
3) In private conversations, Carlos Oliver Coke himself said certain pharaohs (with a modal dynastic Egyptian phenotype) don't look unambiguously black in his eyes. In fact, in private, Carlos Oliver Coke was deliberating over whether he should sweep the images he deemed 'amiguous looking' under the rug. Now he's citing some scholar opinion, obviously to give himself approval to publicly lie about what he doesn't believe in himself.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Uhm BbHorus please don't interpret me. Besides being right here to clarify and/or expand on my submissions there is a shipload of posts I made all throughout the 12 years I've been hanging out on ES TNV ESR about Tehenu Tamehu Lebu etc IMazighen Berbers KelTamasheq Tamazgha and Tamazigh, oh yeah, and Maurusia(ns) too.
But that's over the waterfall and what's important for the ES of today is what the younger crowd have to say.
So carry on Blessed ByHorus I'm your fan and find your ability to synthesis seemingly opposing views a vital skill and a necessity to achieve real understanding.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke: If tomorrow, mainstream academia and the media began representing the ancient Egyptians as, for example, akin to Somalis or Ethiopians, then I'd have nothing more to say.
Right. Is that why you added Keita to your hitlist and started criticizing him for staying away from racial language? Or why, even when talking to me, you were repeatedly fishing for me to use 'black' in reference to the alKhiday specimen, even though I had already ruled out foreign admixture as a necessary explanation for their appearance.
Let's face it, you deliberately want to use 'black' as a trojan horse because it serves you well in producing fake racism allegations and drumming up fake academic "support" for your book. Not to mention, your own admission of using ancient Egypt's prestige as a crutch to systematically boost your children's self-confidence (how pathetic).
Or what about Carlos Oliver Coke's blatant disregard of bio-anthropology because, as he puts it, he "goes by terms and perceptions that laypeople use". When pointed out that bio-anthropological findings are at odds with such perceptions and will eventually replace them, Carlos Oliver Coke refuses to get on board. Why? Because he prefers to dwell in the racial language that gives him a strategic edge in his fake racism allegations.
Nice try, Carlos, but see-through as the rest of your lies. You might fool these academics and the other people you use as tools, but you're not fooling me.
It's really no different from how certain Eurocentrics try to deal with their discomfort towards the appearance of certain generalized UP Europeans, by calling them "caucasoid". This way, they hope nobody notices, and they get to conjure up certain misleading images in the minds of the people they try to influence. Nice try, but neither they, or Carlos, are fooling anyone.
quote:
Thus, the morphological description of the sample as "Australoid" by some early anthropologists did not reflect its ancestral makeup. Also, this proves that Caucasoids existed 37,000 years ago, which most physical anthropologists would believe, but it is nice to have direct confirmation.
Same old tried and tested trojan horse game of deceptive labeling. But nobody is buying it in both cases, other than the tools who are being manipulated, that is.
posted
What would happen if all the major white Egyptologists wrote books and said the Egyptians were black and what if new Hollywood movies about Egypt were made with African American actors playing the Egyptians? And what would happen if this was taught in schools?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: @Zaharan The academic in question delivered a hatchet job on Diop, which an online contact brought to my attention. I'm no devotee of Diop, but I though it unfair, and reactionary. Here's some more of the 'dialogue':
23/04/2015, the academic says:
quote: "Diop in order to defend his misconceptions would describe northern African people of today as Blacks, even ridiculously, southern mediterraneans like southern Italians and such, something they would strongly reject, just ask them."
29/04/2015, I respond with:
quote: "Also in your response to question two, you suggested that Diop regarded North Africans and southern Mediterraneans such as Italians as 'black'. I've only read his The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality? (which you referred to in your 1984 paper) but, from my limited reading of his work, I don't think this is correct. Over the weekend, I skimmed through his book twice and found no evidence of this. However, I did manage to find the page which I think you may be alluding to:
"The theory that makes Caucasoids of the Dinka, Nuer, Masai etc., is the most unwarranted. Suppose an African ethnologist insisted on recognising only blond Scandinavians as Whites and systematically refused all other Europeans - especially Mediterraneans, French, Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, and Portuguese - membership in the White race. Just as Scandinavians and Mediterraneans must be considered as the two poles, the two extremes of the same anthropological reality, it would be only fair to do the same for the two extremes of the reality of the black world: Negroes of East Africa and those of West Africa. To call a Shilluk, a Dinka, or a Masai a Caucasoid is as devoid of sense and scientific validity for an African as it would be for a European to claim that a Greek or Latin are not White" (p273).
Diop was actually confirming southern Mediterranean populations/Italians as 'white', to make the point of diversity among black Africans. He was not saying that southern Mediterraneans/Italians are 'black'. However, if you have a page reference/source for where Diop wrote this, then please send it to me."
29/04/2015, they reply
quote: "About Diop extending his concept of Blackness to southern Italians and other dark whites, I only have my memory and I read since then more than one book by Diop, but I can't start searching my data base to satisfy you in this point."
05/05/2015, they then say:
quote: "Whether Diop wrote what I said in a previous email or not is of little importance since my main point is his approach which I consider biased and unscientific and in my XXXX I said why."
Like I say, a hatchet job, unfair and reactionary.
Thanks for putting out the mail corresponding. It shows how much of white supremacy is still going on in the academic world.
The arguments I read coming from these "academics", are the arguments I read in conversations coming from faceless racists on the internet who claim to be academics too (they ago to extremes with their rants). That faceless face is now taking shape. In the last couple of months I have reviewed the history of white supremacy and racism academia, all this is much incoherence with that history.
Although, I can not agree with all of your arguments, as in arbitrary, I certainly take in consideration the arguments by the academics you've put out who claim eurasians (a terminological replacement before caucasoids) presence in the whole of the Sahara going back 30Kya. And it doesn't matter how far back you stretch it, they will be right behind you stretching along. Then to force this dark skin caucasoid theory in North /Africa, while on average a North Africans looks intermediate.
About 3 years ago, I encountered into some guy on youtube, who back then claimed how a friend of him (a geneticist) was at Sahel and how he was going to "proof" that eurasian/ "caucasoids" had a long standing history there, the guy himself claimed that eurasians/ "caucasoids" had been in the Sahara-Sahel region for over 30 thousand years. Indeed within recent years I have read about this in publications, on genetics. So yes, they are detriment to force heir politics.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: During antiquity the people of the Nile such as the Egyptians and Nubians were indeed referred to as "black" by the Hebrews, Greeks, Romans and many others.
And this ancient use of 'black' and its variants I have always subscribed to up until the point I noticed that this ancient use of the term was used as a trojan horse by nutjobs like Carlos Oliver Coke. Even today I recognize its usefulness (although I've been trying to avoid it just to remain consistent and keep people from misconstruing my words). This ancient skin pigmentation based use of 'black' is light years away from the modern western (racial) use of 'black'. Any attempt to claim they're the same is simply a trojan horse designed to trick people.
Swenet, how do you think the use of this word "black" got changed to how it is bing used now, coherent with the "bantu" phenotype.
And yes, obviously the Sahara-Sahel people have districts traits, and rightfully so.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: The people who try to pass off those coastal Mediterranean North African people as "indigenous" in terms of ancestry are either ignorant or in denial of the substantive Eurasian component (including certain lighter-skin alleles and trace admixture with non-sapiens Eurasian "archaic" hominins). That Eurasian component would presumably have been much less significant in proto-Egyptians and Sudanese.
I personally on here have never seen anyone in denial about humans who migrated to the Maghreb during the paleolithic being from Eurasia. The thing is the history of Northwest Africa is very complex and there were more than one migrations into the Maghreb like with India and even Europe.
Fact is by the time of the Neolithc those Eurasian components such as U6 would have undergone a SNP event and would have been unique to the area. 30,000 is a long time... But more importantly those Mediterranean North Africans from the paleolithic would have been absorbed by migrating proto-Berbers from East Africa around 20,000 years. So I don't get what you're getting at? The original would have been "Berbers" were black like Tukuler stated. The genesis of the Berbers is NOT from the Maghreb, but East Africa...
Then we have the fact that most of the Eurasian component in modern day Northwest Africans is recent. Anthropology/genetics alone can tell us the full picture.
What most people do not know is that the area of Northwest Africa(Morocco/Algeria) was sparsely populated even up to the early period of the Moors. People also forget that converted European Muslims from Europe were expelled and flooded the coastal part of Northern Africa. Remember the term Moor soon meant all Muslim's in general. Non black Moors soon outnumbered the original black Moors.
To give you an example Christian renegades (Spanish, Italian, French, Albanian, etc. who would eventually convert to Islam) and the medieval slave trade had a major impact on places like Tlemcen, Oran, Bejaia (Bougie - Kabyle central) and especially Alger. Jacques Heers argues in "Les barbaresques" (2001, pg 227) at the time of Turkish rule in Algeria, something like 50% of the population in the capital was composed of European-Christian slaves (even Italian slaves by the seventeenth century). Saqalibas from the Balkans were also well represented. Besides, Arab excursions displaced many of the ancestral populations of the Maghreb between the 12th-15th centuries.
So again it really wasn't mixing but a large population from Europe displacing an already smaller population in an already sparsely populated area. The Berber's were also spread out. Which is also why they were displaced. You have to understand that the original Berbers did not really live on the coastal part of North Africa but in the Sahara and near the Senegal river. They were nomadic people for the most part. The origins of modern day lighter skinned North Africans is not all due to mixing but also European migrates after post-Moorish Iberia who easily displaced a population. Much similar to how Bantu migrates displaced the very small Khoisan population of South Africa.
That in my opinion is where the bulk of modern day Northwest African ancestry comes from. That is what I'm sure Tukuler meant when he mentioned modern day "white" Berbers.
I'm sure Ish Gebor can co-sign this.
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
Sure, you could try to define "Black" identity as synonymous with indigenous, dark-skinned African. But you'd still be running up against people who, for whatever reason, insist on equating it with modal West or Central Africans. And it's funny how people here cling to "black" as having meaning even though other technically inaccurate color-based terminology (e.g. "yellow" for Asians or "red" for Native Americans) have fallen out of common use just like "Negro" (which is "black" in Spanish).
Again yes, using black in a scientific discussion is moot, but in a historical discussion I see why not? "Moor" and "Ethiopian(original Greek word)" too fallen out of use, but if we're going to have a serious historical discussion about the origins of the people who those terms were applied to then those terms have to be used. I mean the Berbers throughout history were referred to as "black" by outsiders. Yes the term "black" has meaning, just not in scientific discussions like Swenet showed.
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: You people are way too attached to that stupid descriptor.
It seems you really have a beef with the term... The point is knowing WHEN and WHEN NOT to use it.
I agree with most of what you wrote, sure, but I still have trouble with the 30Kya "back migration" denoting Hg U6, as I had from the start. My initial resentment is based on:
quote: Since Cro Magnon Man was first discovered in 1868, he has presented fundamental puzzles for traditional scientists. Today there is still no solution in sight for the traditional anthropologists. A mere 20 years after his discovery, the Secret Doctrine by Blavatsky, published in 1888, asserted the answer to the mysterious origin of Cro Magnon Man. Since then, facts have been accumulating to further support Blavatsky's view. And more recently, starting in the 1980's and particularly in 1997, very scientific, and unexpected, evidence from DNA analysis has confirmed the accuracy of her claims and helped us to better understand the early prehistory of man. Briefly put, Cro Magnon was Atlantean. The location, dates, of his sites and the character of his culture, support the claims of Theosophy, showing that once again Blavatsky was right.
CRO MAGNON WHO?
Basic facts: Cro Magnon Man appeared abruptly in Europe and North Africa. He lasted from 40,000 years ago to about 12,000 years ago. The first recognized discovery of a Cro Magnon was in 1868, only 20 years before the Secret Doctrine was written.
Blavatsky quotes a man of science as saying:
On the contrary, one of the oldest types, that of the men of the sepulchral cave of Cro-Magnon, is that of a fine race, tall in stature, large in brain, and on the whole superior to many of the existing races of mankind. (SDii678)
[...]
To show you this yet more emphatically, here are a series of quotes showing the "developed somewhere else" nature of Cro Magnon culture:
According to Prof. Francois Bordes, world renown archeologist and former director of the Laboratory of Prehistory at the University of Bordeaux, the Aurignacian [Cro Magnon ] tool tradition without doubt originates outside of Europe, ready-made, although from where is still a mystery (Bordes, 1968). Dr. John E. Pfeiffer, professor of anthropology at Rutgers University observes: "The Aurignacian is quite distinct from the Parigordian" [ a separate older European style ]; they arrive "from some area outside of Western Europe"; with an already "established way of life."
Archeologist Frank Hibben states that the Aurignacian industry is "indubitably non-European in origin";
These "invasions" [ of earlier Cro Magnons in Europe ] are all associated with waves of Cro-Magnon occupation. No formative,
The origin of a lot of these "modern social sciences is obscure".
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: of course they were indigenous Africans but more importantly they were black. iMazighen are indigenous African. the coastal ones are indeed white nowadays. this is where the ruse comes in to substitute modern-day white Berbers as indigenous Africans thus ancient Egyptians as indigenous Africans could also be white or non black. Don't be fooled. indigenous African alone is not enough. indigenous black African should be the watchword ( even though I personally object to the designation black African because it is used as a barrier separation divider tool).
This is being dismissed. I have seen instances were they claim that "pure eurasians/ caucasoids" went to Africa 30-40Kya, and that these ethnic groups you speak of are therefore mixed. The only real/ original people are the congoid bantus. However, these too are actually a mix of San and eurasian, about 12 thousands years ago in West Africa. The Neolithic pottery etc in these regions is then being explained as due to eurasian back migrations. In other words, all the studies being done on Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic history on these regions is actually the history of these alleged Eurasians/ caucasoids with Neanderthal DNA.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Yeah, some conclusions drawn in some geneticists' reports do seem a tad inventive, no?
quote: Thanks for putting out the mail corresponding.
Thanks.
There are scholars who have been consistently supportive in my efforts and encourage me doing a write-up, so I'm getting the sense that I really should do something with this.
One academic suggested the thinking and planning may take two years before anything comes out, so still need to ponder.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Yeah, some conclusions drawn in some geneticists' reports do seem a tad inventive, no?
Yes, I do think so, especially when they tell you way before any analysis, they are going to proof so-and-so, that tells me that there is more going on then objective scientific evaluation. It tells me there is an agenda going on.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: @TP
quote: Thanks for putting out the mail corresponding.
Thanks.
There are scholars who have been consistently supportive in my efforts and encourage me doing a write-up, so I'm getting the sense that I really should do something with this.
One academic suggested the thinking and planning may take two years before anything comes out, so still need to ponder.
Have you ever asked one of them where they draw the line, to who is black and who not, and the intermediate ethnic groups. Because they seem to agree on what caucasoid is and how they can be dark too.
I'm against this 19th century racialist sort of thing but anyway here's the link for curiousity's sake dividing the wolrd into two categories is idiotic Dienekes Pontikos
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: @TP
quote: Thanks for putting out the mail corresponding.
Thanks.
There are scholars who have been consistently supportive in my efforts and encourage me doing a write-up, so I'm getting the sense that I really should do something with this.
One academic suggested the thinking and planning may take two years before anything comes out, so still need to ponder.
Have you ever asked one of them where they draw the line, to who is black and who not, and the intermediate ethnic groups. Because they seem to agree on what caucasoid is and how they can be dark too.
The sooner folks accept and stop denying that European institutions of anthropology and Egyptology are based on racism, the sooner we can stop having these absurd diatribes. If white folks want to fight racism they need to start with themselves. Black folks at no time have ever invented racism, scientific or otherwise and therefore it is not on black folks to answer for it. However, some folks just don't want to stand up to racism when they see it and would rather give them the benefit of the doubt they don't deserve.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic