quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And as far as Egypt goes, phenotypically, genetically and skin color wise, they fall well within this indigenous black African feature set and are not separate from it.
Yes, Ancient Egyptians are truly indigenous Africans. Ancient Egyptians also share a lot of cultural elements with other African populations.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Recent genetic studies have been extraordinary for us who wanted more proof Ancient Egyptians were indigenous Africans not migrants from the Middle East and Europe. Recent studies have found no substantial amount of Eurasian admixture in Egypt before around 750 years ago. It means Ancient Egyptians were truly indigenous Africans not migrants from Middle East or Europe.
According to this recent study modern Egyptians are 80% non-African and 20% African. And the non-African admixtures are dated to around 750 years ago. Well, after the foundation of Ancient Egypt or Ancient Egyptian precursor cultures like the Green Sahara, Nabta Playa (cave of swimmers, cave of the beasts), Tasians, Badarians, Naqada, etc.
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 ALDER20 to around 750 years ago (Table S2), consistent with the Islamic expansion and dates reported previously.
I guess, the only thing left for us is full genome sequencing of Ancient Egyptian mummies (partial sequencing already done and showing African affinities like E1b1a for Ramses III).
admixture midpoint of 1,500 is 750
quote: Assuming that the African and non-African components of the Ethiopian genomes result from a single admixture event, we used ROLLOFF to estimate the midpoint of the period of admixture. However, if there were multiple or continuous admixture events, as with the North African populations, this method detected the most recent event or the admixture midpoint, respectively.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Yes, Ancient Egyptians are truly indigenous Africans. Ancient Egyptians also share a lot of cultural elements with other African populations.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
I guess, the only thing left for us is full genome sequencing of Ancient Egyptian mummies (partial sequencing already done and showing African affinities like E1b1a for Ramses III). [/QB]
The DNA analysis of Egyptian mummies is only in it's infancy
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Thanks, but I'm not sure if that (no longer having objections) is what I wanted. The best thing for people reading this is to look up all the views expressed in this thread (including Doug's and the views of others), contrast them with the anthro literature and to then make informed decisions. Decisions about terminology that come from a place of deliberation and having carefully weighed things (including things not discussed here) are always more effective than when they come from reading or participating in a discussion.
I want to add the suggestion that we look inside ourselves and ask why we're so invested in this to begin with.
I shouldn't lie about it: I first got interested in this entire topic in response to white supremacist claims that "Black Africans" had no indigenous civilization and have contributed nothing of value to modern society. Even non-racists tend to gloss over "Black Africa" and its people as significant players in world history other than targets of oppression. Some of this can be attributed to an incomplete archaeological or historical record for large regions of the continent, but you can't deny this neglect feeds into the dehumanizing perception that black people had no history worth celebrating before Europeans and Arabs barged in to mess things up.
I don't know what the average black person feels, but I imagine they're damn sick of every "Black History" movie having something to do with the oppression they've suffered at the hands of whites. Constantly portraying them as impoverished victims isn't uplifting them, it's patronizing even if it's usually well-intentioned. And it's still giving them a narrower range of stories to consume than what white people enjoy all the time.
Now it's true that there were plenty of complex societies throughout Africa beyond the Nile Valley, and probably many more than archaeologists have yet uncovered. In fact, West Africa, the homeland of African-Americans, has its own long history of urbanization and even imperialism. But given that Egypt perceivably had the most influence on the non-African world and has had more documents and artifacts recovered than other regions, I can see why "Afrocentric" activists fixate on it. It's harder to dismiss a Bronze Age superpower like Egypt to the historical periphery than, say, Songhay or Great Zimbabwe.
I don't say any of that to justify the pseudo-scholarship and in-fighting that plague this community. I mean to ask for introspection here.
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
And my point is that black skin is a common trait across all indigenous African populations. And there is not enough of a distinction between the skin color of the AE and other Africans to argue that the skin color of the AE, as but one form of phenotype diversity, is different enough to claim that calling them black isn't accurate. The diversity across African populations in bone lengths, cranial measurements and genetics has absolutely nothing to do with skin color, because all of this diversity is among black people.
So again, where are all these objective scholars who are against "racial labels" because to me, it seems like after 8 pages we are back to trying justify sub categorizing Africans into "racial" clusters which I am totally against. This really is simply nonsense. There are no races. Period. And the fact of the tremendous diversity within Africa among black Africans in terms of genetics, language and phenotype makes grouping Africans accurately very difficult. The diversity of Africans means the phenotypes seen in one population are not unique to one population and can be seen in percentage across other populations. That is different from other populations outside Africa who are less diverse and seem to have a smaller subset of features which are more often found clumped into individual populations. Africa is just the opposite, across all populations you will find similar combinations of features, even though some populations do carry traits that are relatively unique to that population. And as far as Egypt goes, phenotypically, genetically and skin color wise, they fall well within this indigenous black African feature set and are not separate from it.
It's odd the way if you say the Egyptians were brown it's unacceptable to Doug.
"Brown" is an accurate color description of the skin color in most Egyptian art.
Doug prefers "black" because when you use it you can't tell if the person means "Negroid" or if they just mean skin color.
So then if somebody says "The Egyptians were black" and you secretely want it to mean "Negroid" (even puporting not to believe in race but knowing that "Negroid traits" are typical of AAs) you can cosign the statement but then not have to deal with the issues raised by that. You just say "it only means skin color" and then then wink
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Thanks, but I'm not sure if that (no longer having objections) is what I wanted. The best thing for people reading this is to look up all the views expressed in this thread (including Doug's and the views of others), contrast them with the anthro literature and to then make informed decisions. Decisions about terminology that come from a place of deliberation and having carefully weighed things (including things not discussed here) are always more effective than when they come from reading or participating in a discussion.
I want to add the suggestion that we look inside ourselves and ask why we're so invested in this to begin with.
I shouldn't lie about it: I first got interested in this entire topic in response to white supremacist claims that "Black Africans" had no indigenous civilization and have contributed nothing of value to modern society. Even non-racists tend to gloss over "Black Africa" and its people as significant players in world history other than targets of oppression. Some of this can be attributed to an incomplete archaeological or historical record for large regions of the continent, but you can't deny this neglect feeds into the dehumanizing perception that black people had no history worth celebrating before Europeans and Arabs barged in to mess things up.
I don't know what the average black person feels, but I imagine they're damn sick of every "Black History" movie having something to do with the oppression they've suffered at the hands of whites. Constantly portraying them as impoverished victims isn't uplifting them, it's patronizing even if it's usually well-intentioned. And it's still giving them a narrower range of stories to consume than what white people enjoy all the time.
Now it's true that there were plenty of complex societies throughout Africa beyond the Nile Valley, and probably many more than archaeologists have yet uncovered. In fact, West Africa, the homeland of African-Americans, has its own long history of urbanization and even imperialism. But given that Egypt perceivably had the most influence on the non-African world and has had more documents and artifacts recovered than other regions, I can see why "Afrocentric" activists fixate on it. It's harder to dismiss a Bronze Age superpower like Egypt to the historical periphery than, say, Songhay or Great Zimbabwe.
I don't say any of that to justify the pseudo-scholarship and in-fighting that plague this community. I mean to ask for introspection here.
What pseudo scholarship are you referring to and how does that relate to the simple description of the AE skin color or any other human skin color as black?
Also, the investment on my part is to challenge hypocrisy which tries to lay the blame for racism in science at the feet of black people in order to try and stop them from doing the research and telling the truth about African history. Of course Egypt is only one part of African culture but there is also another dimension. The United States is symbolically built as a New Egypt/New Atlantis. That is why so many towns and cities are called Memphis and so many Egyptian symbols are seen in the architecture and monuments of the country. So it is a part of popular occult lore within European society that Egypt was the first civilization and as part of this lore Europeans see themselves as direct inheritors of that legacy while at the same time oppressing the Africans who actually come from the continent.
At the end of the day this is simply one aspect of a fight against white supremacy.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug you are butthurt. Please stop lying to yourself in saying that you dont use "Black" in racial terms.
Once you use "Black" when talking about people in Africa this is mainly racial usage because the people you are calling "Black" LITERALLY almost always have BROWN SKIN! IF you were only talking about "Skin Tone" then you would be calling these populations "Brown". We are all adults, you dont have to lie as if you are using it as a descriptive label. This is the difference between descriptive labels vs Social interpretation of race: My toddler, having learned her colors, when I ask what color my skin is she says "Brown". My niece, who is Ethiopian when asked what her skin color was said "Brown" yet us being the SAME skin tone labeled mine as "Black".
The usage of "Black" in the "Western World" over the past few hundred years is mainly racial and social in origin. It has changed over time, excluded certain folks, even when they have brown skin and sometimes even when they are of African origin. NOW, whether or not this is the best application of the word you cant deny the fact that different interpretations on "Black" exists. Not all these interpretations have to do Racism, Not all of them overlap, and you would be hard pressed to find reason to argue why your usage is better than someone else when the term is outdated racial usage ANYWAY when looking that the science and population affinity.
Please answer: Is "White" the equivalent of "Black"? If not or if so: Are ancient Europeans white?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Thanks, but I'm not sure if that (no longer having objections) is what I wanted. The best thing for people reading this is to look up all the views expressed in this thread (including Doug's and the views of others), contrast them with the anthro literature and to then make informed decisions. Decisions about terminology that come from a place of deliberation and having carefully weighed things (including things not discussed here) are always more effective than when they come from reading or participating in a discussion.
I want to add the suggestion that we look inside ourselves and ask why we're so invested in this to begin with.
I shouldn't lie about it: I first got interested in this entire topic in response to white supremacist claims that "Black Africans" had no indigenous civilization and have contributed nothing of value to modern society. Even non-racists tend to gloss over "Black Africa" and its people as significant players in world history other than targets of oppression. Some of this can be attributed to an incomplete archaeological or historical record for large regions of the continent, but you can't deny this neglect feeds into the dehumanizing perception that black people had no history worth celebrating before Europeans and Arabs barged in to mess things up.
I don't know what the average black person feels, but I imagine they're damn sick of every "Black History" movie having something to do with the oppression they've suffered at the hands of whites. Constantly portraying them as impoverished victims isn't uplifting them, it's patronizing even if it's usually well-intentioned. And it's still giving them a narrower range of stories to consume than what white people enjoy all the time.
Now it's true that there were plenty of complex societies throughout Africa beyond the Nile Valley, and probably many more than archaeologists have yet uncovered. In fact, West Africa, the homeland of African-Americans, has its own long history of urbanization and even imperialism. But given that Egypt perceivably had the most influence on the non-African world and has had more documents and artifacts recovered than other regions, I can see why "Afrocentric" activists fixate on it. It's harder to dismiss a Bronze Age superpower like Egypt to the historical periphery than, say, Songhay or Great Zimbabwe.
I don't say any of that to justify the pseudo-scholarship and in-fighting that plague this community. I mean to ask for introspection here.
Still, the whole thing started with racist Europeans who wanted to steal African civilizations like Ancient Egypt and even Great Zimbabwe from African people. It was all racists propaganda to justify their own racism (slavery, colonisation, etc), but it still did a lot of damage to the Egyptology field we still feel today. For them, Ancient Egypt was created by a dynastic race coming from outside Africa instead of indigenous black Africans. This view was held for many years. Only recently did real effort been made to place Ancient Egypt in its African context.
So asking why we are interested is a waste of time. People were always interested and nobody ever claimed Ancient Greek were built by an African dynastic race or a dynastic race coming from outside Europe. Everybody take it as a given Ancient Greeks were European people and include it as part of European history because the were never a period of politically motivated "dynastic race theory" for them.
The real question is asking. Were Ancient Egyptians truly indigenous black Africans or migrants from Europe or the Middle East like the old dynastic race theory stipulated. The current scientific results seem to indicate Ancient Egyptians were truly indigenous Africans genetically, culturally and historically related to modern sub-Saharan Africans (Karrayyu, Somali, Wolof, Serer, Yoruba, Zulu, etc). It seems pretty obvious since Ancient Egypt is in Africa and modern Egyptians mostly trace their origin to the islamic migrations of North Africa (Banu Hilal, etc). But if we dig more we can see Ancient Egyptians were indeed historically, genetically, culturally black Africans in every way based on our current scientific knowledge.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Please answer: Is "White" the equivalent of "Black"? If not or if so: Are ancient Europeans white?
To be honest, I think he and many other people here would answer "yes". We've all seen the thousands of posts throughout ES claiming that the very first Europeans were "black" like Africans. But even if that label ostensibly describes skin color rather than ancestry, I still sense that there's a desire to claim those "Black Europeans" as part of a global "Black race". For that matter, some of the other posts here applying "black" to certain non-African populations (Indians, Southeast Asians, Mesoamericans, etc.) were probably meant to link those people to Africans. Perhaps that goes to show you that even the simple chromatic descriptor can still be manipulated to support racialist activism.
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Recent genetic studies have been extraordinary for us who wanted more proof Ancient Egyptians were indigenous Africans not migrants from the Middle East and Europe. Recent studies have found no substantial amount of Eurasian admixture in Egypt before around 750 years ago. It means Ancient Egyptians were truly indigenous Africans not migrants from Middle East or Europe.
According to this recent study modern Egyptians are 80% non-African and 20% African. And the non-African admixtures are dated to around 750 years ago. Well, after the foundation of Ancient Egypt or Ancient Egyptian precursor cultures like the Green Sahara, Nabta Playa (cave of swimmers, cave of the beasts), Tasians, Badarians, Naqada, etc.
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 ALDER20 to around 750 years ago (Table S2), consistent with the Islamic expansion and dates reported previously.
I guess, the only thing left for us is full genome sequencing of Ancient Egyptian mummies (partial sequencing already done and showing African affinities like E1b1a for Ramses III).
admixture midpoint of 1,500 is 750
quote: Assuming that the African and non-African components of the Ethiopian genomes result from a single admixture event, we used ROLLOFF to estimate the midpoint of the period of admixture. However, if there were multiple or continuous admixture events, as with the North African populations, this method detected the most recent event or the admixture midpoint, respectively.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Yes, Ancient Egyptians are truly indigenous Africans. Ancient Egyptians also share a lot of cultural elements with other African populations.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
I guess, the only thing left for us is full genome sequencing of Ancient Egyptian mummies (partial sequencing already done and showing African affinities like E1b1a for Ramses III).
The DNA analysis of Egyptian mummies is only in it's infancy [/QB]
Those are good points but they were many studies posted on this forum showing us the same thing in term of dating the Eurasian back migrations into Africa (Mota, Sudan Ancient DNA, Ramses III, autosomal STR, Pickrell, etc). Particularly Mota and Sudan DNA (Kadruka) showing us an absence or rarity of European DNA in those time periods.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: [qb]Please answer: Is "White" the equivalent of "Black"? If not or if so: Are ancient Europeans white?
To be honest, I think he and many other people here would answer "yes". /QB]
Well, I am going to go ahead and let him answer. He knows the implications of the answer regardless of which way it goes. Anyone else can feel free to chime in too.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you say on this forum that no one, I mean NO ONE is going to call the man below 'white' in the western sense, everyone immediately understands what you mean.
Reconstruction of Bronze Age inhabitant of what is today Poland:
Proved invaluable assistance skeleton results Rogalin. Also genetic. Thanks to them, we know that the warrior had a dark complexion, dark hair and eyes.
When you acknowledge that many lay people in the West, North Africa and elsewhere have similarly narrow terms for Africans, they act like they're confused for 10 thread pages.
Makes you wonder to what extent people are motivated by racial politics. Already knew it was bad, but this bad?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Doug you are butthurt. Please stop lying to yourself in saying that you dont use "Black" in racial terms.
Once you use "Black" when talking about people in Africa this is mainly racial usage because the people you are calling "Black" LITERALLY almost always have BROWN SKIN! IF you were only talking about "Skin Tone" then you would be calling these populations "Brown". We are all adults, you dont have to lie as if you are using it as a descriptive label. This is the difference between descriptive labels vs Social interpretation of race: My toddler, having learned her colors, when I ask what color my skin is she says "Brown". My niece, who is Ethiopian when asked what her skin color was said "Brown" yet us being the SAME skin tone labeled mine as "Black".
The usage of "Black" in the "Western World" over the past few hundred years is mainly racial and social in origin. It has changed over time, excluded certain folks, even when they have brown skin and sometimes even when they are of African origin. NOW, whether or not this is the best application of the word you cant deny the fact that different interpretations on "Black" exists. Not all these interpretations have to do Racism, Not all of them overlap, and you would be hard pressed to find reason to argue why your usage is better than someone else when the term is outdated racial usage ANYWAY when looking that the science and population affinity.
Please answer: Is "White" the equivalent of "Black"? If not or if so: Are ancient Europeans white?
Because retards on this thread are simply cowards hiding behind a fake facade of trying to sound "objective" they are scared so say what they really mean.
I am saying what I mean and no more and no less.
Black skin is not race and neither is white skin or any other type of skin.
And when I say that the AE were black Africans I mean just that:
The only population that matches this artistic rendition along with the biological, genetic and skeletal affinities of this person are black African people. That has nothing to do with race.
But rather than argue with white scientists who use whatever terms they want to use to say that no black Africans were in AE, cowards will sit here and debate whether we should talk about skin color as if that will soothe their egos for being cowards.
I say what I mean and when I say black that is what I mean:
And the reason I am saying this is because the whole point is that people keep claiming that suggesting that the AE were "biologically" Africans is enough to correct the historical deception promoted by white racists. But it won't. In their minds and in their writings and in every other form of propaganda they promote the AE were "caucasian" or white folks. So no, I don't pretend for one second that changing my words is going to fix the issue. I do say however that on the issue of biological debate there is no substitute for addressing skin color as a biological fact if that is the actual subject at hand. [u]Nobody[/u] is debating the population of AE because of skull shape, nose shape, genetics or anything else. It is all a debate about skin color and some folks are too scared to even mention skin color because of some cowardly attitude that talking about skin color equates to talking about race. If that is the case then talking about any aspect of human biology is talking about race. Give it up already. You make no sense. That is why 8 pages into the thread where I made my self very clear why the term is perfectly valid as a reference to skin color we got folks sitting here claiming "but what if their skeletal features look like XYZ... does that make them black?" Skeletal features aren't skin color stupid. Black Africans have a wide range of skeletal features.
quote: Egypt was ruled by black pharaohs for nearly 100 years, but their role as leaders of the ancient civilization has been largely kept in the dark because of racism, according to this month's National Geographic magazine.
Yeah, but I guess we shouldn't use black in Egypt because "objective" scientists sure have no problem using it for the rest of Africa....
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: When you say on this forum that no one, I mean NO ONE is going to call the man below 'white' in the western sense, everyone immediately understands what you mean.
Reconstruction of Bronze Age inhabitant of what is today Poland:
Proved invaluable assistance skeleton results Rogalin. Also genetic. Thanks to them, we know that the warrior had a dark complexion, dark hair and eyes.
When you acknowledge that many lay people in the West, North Africa and elsewhere have similarly narrow terms for Africans, they act like they're confused for 10 thread pages.
Makes you wonder to what extent people are motivated by racial politics. Already knew it was bad, but this bad?
Why wouldn't they if the facts permit it? The fact is you have to provide the evidence to support the claim. What biological evidence do you have for the skin color of this person? Right now you are clinging to outdated notions that skull shape indicates skin color when it doesn't. That is the stupidest nonsense I keep hearing over and over on this thread. Skin color is skin color and unfortunately there is only limited science for determining skin color from a skull. It is all hypothetical at best. But there are plenty of white folks in Poland to this day with similar features:
But arguing that the skin color of this person was very pale due to adaptation to a northern environment, AKA WHITE, is not absurd in the least but this garbage is simply folks talking out of their behinds as usual. Is saying blood is red racist? Of course not. I saying bones are white racist? Of course not. Is saying eye color is blue racist? Of course not. But somehow saying skin color is black or white is racist.
Man you guys are retards.
But hey I can play along with this. This guys facial features I guess are supposedly "NEGROID" so I guess we cant all him white huh?
Oh and this guys features are supposedly "CAUCASOID" so we cant call him black either? Right..
Typical blowhard nonsense from folks that SUPPOSEDLY know better but at every turn they keep running back to white daddy to get "objective" approval.
And what about this? How come nobody is complaining about this then?
Folks don't even know anything about European diversity in features but want to lecture me about skin color in Africa.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Please answer: Is "White" the equivalent of "Black"? If not or if so: Are ancient Europeans white?
To be honest, I think he and many other people here would answer "yes". We've all seen the thousands of posts throughout ES claiming that the very first Europeans were "black" like Africans. But even if that label ostensibly describes skin color rather than ancestry, I still sense that there's a desire to claim those "Black Europeans" as part of a global "Black race". For that matter, some of the other posts here applying "black" to certain non-African populations (Indians, Southeast Asians, Mesoamericans, etc.) were probably meant to link those people to Africans. Perhaps that goes to show you that even the simple chromatic descriptor can still be manipulated to support racialist activism.
No, I believe some folks are confused about the issue. The issue and reason of black folks talking about ancient "black history" is to refute the racists who have spent the last 500 years trying to claim everything good and positive in human history came from very light skin "white" people, in their own words. But nobody challenges that. Nobody breaks them down on who is white and who isn't. Yet when the actual correct facts emerged within the last 50 years that all humans originated in Africa and therefore provided the basis of the argument that the majority of humans were black for most of human history, all of a sudden Africans who point this out from white scientists are racists.
No at this point it is just retards being retards for the sake of being retarded.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Why wouldn't they if the facts permit it? The fact is you have to provide the evidence to support the claim. What biological evidence do you have for the skin color of this person? Right now you are clinging to outdated notions that skull shape indicates skin color when it doesn't.
More proof that this guy simply does not read. He didn't even read that 5 sentence post he pretends to be addressing. Makes you wonder what else he skimmed over in the previous 10 thread pages or scientific studies in general.
Good luck getting on topic replies out of him Beyoku.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
But arguing that the skin color of this person was very pale due to adaptation to a northern environment, AKA WHITE, is not absurd in the least but this garbage is simply folks talking out of their behinds as usual. Is saying blood is red racist?
The man's hair is white.
His skin is not white. Let's be honest here
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Because retards on this thread are simply cowards hiding behind a fake facade of trying to sound "objective" they are scared so say what they really mean.
I am saying what I mean and no more and no less.
Black skin is not race and neither is white skin or any other type of skin.
And when I say that the AE were black Africans I mean just that:
The only population that matches this artistic rendition along with the biological, genetic and skeletal affinities of this person are black African people. That has nothing to do with race.
But rather than argue with white scientists who use whatever terms they want to use to say that no black Africans were in AE, cowards will sit here and debate whether we should talk about skin color as if that will soothe their egos for being cowards.
I say what I mean and when I say black that is what I mean:
He shows a dimly lit painting of Thutmose IV, still clearly brown skinned and then he has a man under who is much darker, nearly black and he says " when I say black that is what I mean"
Why not show someone who at least has a skin tone that matches the painting ?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: A lot of the stuff that we have been discussing on this forum has always been stated in the occult works of the various Western Secret Societies as traditional lore about the history of 'mysteries', 'magic' and the occult.
Now in the age of the internet a lot of this stuff is at your fingertips online without a trip to a masonic bookstore or good library.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: A lot of the stuff that we have been discussing on this forum has always been stated in the occult works of the various Western Secret Societies as traditional lore about the history of 'mysteries', 'magic' and the occult.
Now in the age of the internet a lot of this stuff is at your fingertips online without a trip to a masonic bookstore or good library.
I suggest we leave the ad hominem to Doug. Doug seems to be fond of questioning people's credibility when they don't agree with him or mindlessly attacking strawmen because he doesn't (want to) understand.
What Doug chooses to believe in elsewhere shouldn't be relevant here, UNLESS it is relevant to the topic.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
"Black skinned" doesn't indicate if there is any African ancestry at all.
Therefore if one is trying to associate African Americans with the ancient Egyptians it makes much more sense to draw the parallels in the genetics and physical proportions rather than insist on a word which is a much weaker association and say it's brave to do so. All it means is your old and still living in the old skin color based system.
Suppose someone said the Egyptians were "black" skinned.
^^ Then both of the above men could say that they were also black like the Egyptians
Yet while Will Smith might have the highest similarly to ancient Egyptians of anyone on this page. Both Napoleon and Lyndon B Johnson, both belonging to Haplogroup E would be closer genetically to the ancient Egyptians than the Peruvian man would be to the Egyptians. Therefore it is silly to skin color is the primary factor that relates people. It's quite superficial
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Why wouldn't they if the facts permit it? The fact is you have to provide the evidence to support the claim. What biological evidence do you have for the skin color of this person? Right now you are clinging to outdated notions that skull shape indicates skin color when it doesn't.
More proof that this guy simply does not read. He didn't even read that 5 sentence post he pretends to be addressing. Makes you wonder what else he skimmed over in the previous 10 thread pages or scientific studies in general.
Good luck getting on topic replies out of him Beyoku.
The only one with empty statements is you. I suggest the skull looks similar to modern Polish people who happen to have white skin.
But rather than address that you sit here and pretend not to understand English.
So do you agree that the skull looks similar to modern Polish people and that the likelihood is high that the person when alive had a similar skin complexion?
Or are you just making up arguments just to argue?
If you aren't serious about depending your own logic why continue posting? You posted the skull so what was your point? Are you seriously claiming that because of the skull shape we should question whether a person in Europe during the bronze age had white skin or not? As if there is no way to figure it out?
Do you even know how stupid that sounds?
You are simply trying to make a simple word into something complex when it isn't: white skin.
So how is it European scientists have no problem calling pale skin "white skin"? Yet you are sitting on this thread debating me as if the term isn't still used quite often in scholarly context, not to mention 'black skin'. At this point you have shown nothing that suggests otherwise, other than you mindless attempts to divert from the point which is that "black skin" or "black people" is a perfectly viable way of describing people with dark skin from Africa and elsewhere.
quote: When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.
But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.
Then, the first farmers from the Near East arrived in Europe; they carried both genes for light skin. As they interbred with the indigenous hunter-gatherers, one of their light-skin genes swept through Europe, so that central and southern Europeans also began to have lighter skin. The other gene variant, SLC45A2, was at low levels until about 5800 years ago when it swept up to high frequency.
Another example of black Egyptians, which also is used to show that the AE would have had similar complexions. But the issue is some people want to pretend not to understand what you mean when you say "black people" and "Ancient Egypt" and all of sudden act deaf, dumb and blind as if they don't know what the hell you mean. And they do this because they don't want to accept it because it goes against their fantasy, which has nothing to with reality. Which is why they want to avoid any discussion of skin color at all so they can stay in their fantasy.
quote:A view as Egyptian Army soldiers sit on their camels in the desert of Aswan, Egypt. March 01, 1948
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: When you say on this forum that no one, I mean NO ONE is going to call the man below 'white' in the western sense, everyone immediately understands what you mean.
Reconstruction of Bronze Age inhabitant of what is today Poland:
Proved invaluable assistance skeleton results Rogalin. Also genetic. Thanks to them, we know that the warrior had a dark complexion, dark hair and eyes.
When you acknowledge that many lay people in the West, North Africa and elsewhere have similarly narrow terms for Africans, they act like they're confused for 10 thread pages.
Makes you wonder to what extent people are motivated by racial politics. Already knew it was bad, but this bad?
Interesting, as they continue:
This combination of traits is rather uncommon in modern Poles. It seems that Eastern Europeans looked quite different four thousand years ago than they do today.
quote:Also I'm Polish and I read this source in original. Dark doesn't means black there. You have skin tone on reconstruction, is rather swarthy. Regretabbly I don't have cranofacial measurements, which will be very helpful. But nose looks rather narrow. There is no prognatism. This is denifinietly not negroid It could be some Berberoid (which is consider white by Polish typologist) element mixed with Cromagnoid. According to Polish sources the very slight Berber admixture was noted from Meghalitic times in Central European skeletal remains. And it is connected from migrants from Southern Europe.
--Lukasz Torun
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used Google translator, since I don't understand Poolish.
The museum in Hrubieszow reconstructed face of a warrior from the first half of the second millennium BC In the reconstruction helped specialists in forensic medicine from. He used them to this perfectly preserved skeleton of prehistoric man found during excavations in Rogalin for Hrubieszow. Alongside there is also a warrior princess - that archaeologists have called the woman whose richly endowed grave found in the same cemetery. The story of "The Warrior and the Princess" will be shown at the exhibition, which opens on 25 April.
Skeletons warrior and princess for over 4000 years lay on the field in Rogalin for Hrubieszow. It was only in 2010 discovered them in the ground, one of the farmers. It turned out that there are graves of people from the early Bronze Age. One of them, probably a warrior - has been preserved in very good condition and are encouraged archaeologists to reconstruct his face.
In the reconstruction of specialists helped with the Department of Forensic Medicine at the Medical University in Poznań. The combination of traditional archeology and modern technology gave excellent results. Based on the teeth, the researchers found that the warrior at the time of death was 47 years.
On the basis of a well-preserved skeleton was reconstructed face not only a warrior but his whole character. Its dimensions and weight. Hrubieszów now visiting the museum will be able to literally stand face to face with a man four thousand years. Archaeologists have also developed a portrait of 20-year-old woman whose bones were discovered in a subsequent graves. She was named a princess because her grave was the richest facilities.
The story of "The Warrior and the Princess" will be shown at the exhibition on 25 April. It documents the lives of people from the second century BC and the effect of archaeological excavations in Rogalin. These are the monuments found in graves: pottery, flint tools, weapons, ornaments. The 3D glasses will be able to view three-dimensional photographs of skeletons. The exhibition is part of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Hrubieszów museum and you can see it to the end of July.
W muzeum w Hrubieszowie zrekonstruowano twarz wojownika z pierwszej połowy II tysiąclecia p.n.e. W rekonstrukcji pomogli specjaliści z zakresu medycyny sądowej z Poznania. Posłużył im do tego doskonale zachowany szkielet prehistorycznego człowieka znaleziony podczas wykopalisk w Rogalinie pod Hrubieszowem. Obok wojownika pojawia się też księżniczka - tak archeolodzy nazwali kobietę, której bogato wyposażony grób znaleźli na tym samym cmentarzysku. Historię "Wojownika i Księżniczki" będzie można zobaczyć na wystawie, która otwarta zostanie 25 kwietnia. Szkielety wojownika i księżniczki przez ponad 4 tysiące lat spoczywały na polu w Rogalinie pod Hrubieszowem. Dopiero w 2010 roku odkrył je w ziemi, jeden z rolników. Okazało się, że znajdują się tam groby ludzi z wczesnej epoki brązu. Jeden z nich, prawdopodobnie wojownik - zachował się w bardzo dobrym stanie i to zachęciło archeologów do zrekonstruowania jego twarzy. W rekonstrukcji pomogli specjaliści z Katedry i Zakładu Medycyny Sądowej Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Poznaniu. Połączenie tradycyjnej archeologii i nowoczesnej technologii dało rewelacyjne efekty. Na podstawie uzębienia naukowcy ustalili, że wojownik w chwili śmierci miał 47 lat. Na podstawie dobrze zachowanego szkieletu odtworzona została nie tylko twarz wojownika ale cała jego postać. Jego wymiary i waga. Teraz odwiedzając hrubieszowskie muzeum będzie można stanąć dosłownie twarzą w twarz z człowiekiem sprzed czterech tysięcy lat. Archeolodzy opracowali też portret 20-letniej kobiety, której kości odkryto w jednym z kolejnych grobów. Została nazwana księżniczką, bo jej grób miał najbogatsze wyposażenie. Historię "Wojownika i Księżniczki" będzie można zobaczyć na wystawie 25 kwietnia. Dokumentuje życie ludzi z II wieku p.n.e. i efekt archeologicznych wykopalisk w Rogalinie. Pokazane będą zabytki znalezione w grobach: naczynia gliniane, narzędzia krzemienne, broń, ozdoby. W okularach 3D będzie można oglądać trójwymiarowe fotografie szkieletów. Wystawa wpisuje się w obchody 50-lecia hrubieszowskiego muzeum i będzie można ją oglądać do końca lipca.
posted
White racist idiot Ish Gebor posting stuff about his ancestors in Europe. Diversionary tactics.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
"Black skinned" doesn't indicate if there is any African ancestry at all.
Therefore if one is trying to associate African Americans with the ancient Egyptians it makes much more sense to draw the parallels in the genetics and physical proportions rather than insist on a word which is a much weaker association and say it's brave to do so. All it means is your old and still living in the old skin color based system.
Suppose someone said the Egyptians were "black" skinned.
^^ Then both of the above men could say that they were also black like the Egyptians
Yet while Will Smith might have the highest similarly to ancient Egyptians of anyone on this page. Both Napoleon and Lyndon B Johnson, both belonging to Haplogroup E would be closer genetically to the ancient Egyptians than the Peruvian man would be to the Egyptians. Therefore it is silly to skin color is the primary factor that relates people. It's quite superficial
.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I used Google translator, since I don't understand Poolish.
The museum in Hrubieszow reconstructed face of a warrior from the first half of the second millennium BC In the reconstruction helped specialists in forensic medicine from. He used them to this perfectly preserved skeleton of prehistoric man found during excavations in Rogalin for Hrubieszow. Alongside there is also a warrior princess - that archaeologists have called the woman whose richly endowed grave found in the same cemetery. The story of "The Warrior and the Princess" will be shown at the exhibition, which opens on 25 April.
Skeletons warrior and princess for over 4000 years lay on the field in Rogalin for Hrubieszow. It was only in 2010 discovered them in the ground, one of the farmers. It turned out that there are graves of people from the early Bronze Age. One of them, probably a warrior - has been preserved in very good condition and are encouraged archaeologists to reconstruct his face.
In the reconstruction of specialists helped with the Department of Forensic Medicine at the Medical University in Poznań. The combination of traditional archeology and modern technology gave excellent results. Based on the teeth, the researchers found that the warrior at the time of death was 47 years.
On the basis of a well-preserved skeleton was reconstructed face not only a warrior but his whole character. Its dimensions and weight. Hrubieszów now visiting the museum will be able to literally stand face to face with a man four thousand years. Archaeologists have also developed a portrait of 20-year-old woman whose bones were discovered in a subsequent graves. She was named a princess because her grave was the richest facilities.
The story of "The Warrior and the Princess" will be shown at the exhibition on 25 April. It documents the lives of people from the second century BC and the effect of archaeological excavations in Rogalin. These are the monuments found in graves: pottery, flint tools, weapons, ornaments. The 3D glasses will be able to view three-dimensional photographs of skeletons. The exhibition is part of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Hrubieszów museum and you can see it to the end of July.
W muzeum w Hrubieszowie zrekonstruowano twarz wojownika z pierwszej połowy II tysiąclecia p.n.e. W rekonstrukcji pomogli specjaliści z zakresu medycyny sądowej z Poznania. Posłużył im do tego doskonale zachowany szkielet prehistorycznego człowieka znaleziony podczas wykopalisk w Rogalinie pod Hrubieszowem. Obok wojownika pojawia się też księżniczka - tak archeolodzy nazwali kobietę, której bogato wyposażony grób znaleźli na tym samym cmentarzysku. Historię "Wojownika i Księżniczki" będzie można zobaczyć na wystawie, która otwarta zostanie 25 kwietnia. Szkielety wojownika i księżniczki przez ponad 4 tysiące lat spoczywały na polu w Rogalinie pod Hrubieszowem. Dopiero w 2010 roku odkrył je w ziemi, jeden z rolników. Okazało się, że znajdują się tam groby ludzi z wczesnej epoki brązu. Jeden z nich, prawdopodobnie wojownik - zachował się w bardzo dobrym stanie i to zachęciło archeologów do zrekonstruowania jego twarzy. W rekonstrukcji pomogli specjaliści z Katedry i Zakładu Medycyny Sądowej Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Poznaniu. Połączenie tradycyjnej archeologii i nowoczesnej technologii dało rewelacyjne efekty. Na podstawie uzębienia naukowcy ustalili, że wojownik w chwili śmierci miał 47 lat. Na podstawie dobrze zachowanego szkieletu odtworzona została nie tylko twarz wojownika ale cała jego postać. Jego wymiary i waga. Teraz odwiedzając hrubieszowskie muzeum będzie można stanąć dosłownie twarzą w twarz z człowiekiem sprzed czterech tysięcy lat. Archeolodzy opracowali też portret 20-letniej kobiety, której kości odkryto w jednym z kolejnych grobów. Została nazwana księżniczką, bo jej grób miał najbogatsze wyposażenie. Historię "Wojownika i Księżniczki" będzie można zobaczyć na wystawie 25 kwietnia. Dokumentuje życie ludzi z II wieku p.n.e. i efekt archeologicznych wykopalisk w Rogalinie. Pokazane będą zabytki znalezione w grobach: naczynia gliniane, narzędzia krzemienne, broń, ozdoby. W okularach 3D będzie można oglądać trójwymiarowe fotografie szkieletów. Wystawa wpisuje się w obchody 50-lecia hrubieszowskiego muzeum i będzie można ją oglądać do końca lipca.
Reconstruction looks pretty white to me. Not sure where this idea that this skull and the skin color of Polish people 4,000 years ago has to do with ancient or Modern Egypt. I would argue that those polish people were white.
Look at this thread on the topic and look at this poster named Krefter:
posted
Both reports seem to be different in interpreting the given, of this 3.500 Yr remain.
The article as posted by dienekes.
They recreated the face of a warrior from the Bronze Age. His tomb was for Hrubieszow
Researchers from the Department of Forensic Medicine University of Medical Sciences reconstructed face of the man from the Bronze Age.
His grave was under Hrubieszow. Graveyard of the pre-4000 years was discovered in Rogalin for Hrubieszow. The best preserved is the skeleton of a man who at death was 45 years. Archaeologists called it a warrior. Why?
- In the grave we found, among others, several flint arrowheads to a shot, flint knife or spear, sickle with flint and bone buckle - lists Bartecki Bartholomew, director of the Museum. Fr.. Staszic in Hrubieszow.
The skull warrior was in such good condition that the museum was tempted by experiment - a reconstruction of his face. Tasks undertaken by the research team of Dr. Dorothy Lorkiewicz-Muszyńska of the Department of Forensic Medicine at the Medical University in Poznań. Every day with their ability to use police, for example, when you need to identify a murder victim. The first step was to do a scan of the skull in 3D.
- At the base using a special computer program was applied to the muscle tissues - explains the director Bartecki. - Method shows more than 90 percent. compliance with the real appearance of a man - he remarks.
Invaluable assistance proved to be the results of the skeleton of Rogalin. Also genetic. Thanks to them, we know that the warrior had a dark complexion, dark hair and eyes.
- Generally enjoyed good health. He had all his teeth, there have also discovered no significant bone degeneration - says the head of the museum in Hrubieszow.
But it turned out that the man who lived in the Lublin region 4000 years ago, he suffered from bone cancer. - The tumor was not malignant, so you may not feel pain feet - wonders Bartholomew Bartecki. With genetic testing, we also know that some people from the cemeteries were related. For example, in one place next to each other were buried two brothers or cousins. The youngest children at the time of death were 7 to 10 years.
In April the Museum. Fr.. Staszic in Hrubieszow will take place opening of the exhibition devoted to the excavations of Rogalin. I'll see to it, among others, skeleton warrior, and next records the next steps in the reconstruction of his face. Alongside boards will show a multimedia presentation, showing step by step how to print skull was created in 3D.
- We're not betray everything. The full effect of the reconstruction will present only at our exhibition - says the director of Bartecki.
On this basis it will be drawn cast of the head of a warrior. Dummy get a "hand" copy of his tools.
Research cemetery in Rogalin not yet been completed. It may be that the discovery of 12 graves is just the beginning.
Odtworzyli twarz wojownika z epoki brązu. Jego grób był pod Hrubieszowem Naukowcy z Katedry i Zakładu Medycyny Sądowej UM w Poznaniu zrekonstruowali twarz mężczyzny z epoki brązu. Jego grób znajdował się pod Hrubieszowem. Cmentarzysko sprzed 4 tysięcy lat zostało odkryte w Rogalinie pod Hrubieszowem. Najlepiej zachowany jest szkielet mężczyzny, który w chwili śmierci miał 45 lat. Archeolodzy nazwali go wojownikiem. Dlaczego? - W grobie znaleźliśmy m.in. kilkanaście krzemiennych grotów do strzał, krzemienne ostrze noża lub włóczni, sierp z krzemienia i sprzączkę z kości - wylicza Bartłomiej Bartecki, dyrektor Muzeum im. ks. Stanisława Staszica w Hrubieszowie. Czaszka wojownika była w tak dobrym stanie, że muzeum pokusiło się o eksperyment - rekonstrukcję jego twarzy. Zadania podjął się zespół badawczy dr Doroty Lorkiewicz-Muszyńskiej z Katedry i Zakładu Medycyny Sądowej Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Poznaniu. Na co dzień z ich umiejętności korzysta policja, na przykład, gdy trzeba zidentyfikować ofiarę morderstwa. Pierwszym krokiem było zrobienie skanu czaszki w 3D. - Na tę bazę za pomocą specjalnego programu komputerowego nakładane były tkanki mięśniowe - wyjaśnia dyrektor Bartecki. - Metoda wykazuje ponad 90 proc. zgodności z rzeczywistym wyglądem mężczyzny - zaznacza. Nieocenioną pomocą okazały się wyniki badań szkieletu z Rogalina. Także genetyczne. Dzięki nim wiemy, że wojownik miał ciemną karnację, ciemne włosy oraz oczy. - Generalnie cieszył się dobrym zdrowiem. Miał wszystkie zęby, nie odkryliśmy też żadnych znaczących zwyrodnień kości - opowiada szef muzeum w Hrubieszowie. Okazało się jednak, że mężczyzna żyjący na Lubelszczyźnie 4 tysiące lat temu, cierpiał na raka kości. - Nowotwór nie był jednak złośliwy, więc być może nie odczuwał bólu nogi - zastanawia się Bartłomiej Bartecki. Dzięki badaniom genetycznym wiemy także, że niektóre osoby z tego cmentarzyska były ze sobą spokrewnione. Na przykład, w jednym miejscu obok siebie zostali pochowani dwaj bracia lub kuzyni. Najmłodsze dzieci w chwili śmierci miały od 7 do 10 lat. W kwietniu w Muzeum im. ks. Stanisława Staszica w Hrubieszowie odbędzie się wernisaż wystawy poświęconej wykopaliskom z Rogalina. Zobaczymy na niej m.in. szkielet wojownika, a obok dokumentację kolejnych etapów rekonstrukcji jego twarzy. Obok plansz pokazana zostanie multimedialna prezentacja, przedstawiająca krok po kroku, jak powstawał wydruk czaszki w 3D. - Na razie nie zdradzamy wszystkiego. Pełny efekt rekonstrukcji zaprezentujemy dopiero na naszej wystawie - zapowiada dyrektor Bartecki. Na tej podstawie zostanie sporządzony odlew głowy wojownika. Manekin dostanie "do ręki" kopię jego narzędzi. Badania cmentarzyska w Rogalinie nie zostały jeszcze zakończone. Może okazać się, że odkrycie 12 pochówków to dopiero początek.
posted
I know it's a bit off topic. But it grabbed my curiosity.
14.09.2012
Warrior tomb from the Bronze Age discovered in Rogalin | News | Science & Scholarship in Poland
A well-preserved tomb of a warrior with weapons from the early Bronze Age (almost 4 thousand years old) was discovered in Rogalin (Lublin province). In the same place, archaeologists previously unearthed a princess tomb containing rich ornaments.
In the cemetery in Rogalin near Hrubieszow, near the Polish-Ukrainian border, during the archaeological research that continues for four years now, archaeologists discovered 11 graves from the early Bronze Age. Most of them contained bronze ornaments and utensils, like three graves discovered this August. Among them is the tomb of a warrior.
"In this tomb we have found a very well-preserved skeleton of an adult man, laid in the straight position, but with folded hands" - told PAP Anna Hyrchała, archaeologist from the Stanisław Staszic Museum in Hrubieszów, head of excavations in Rogalin.
"The warrior status is indicated by a flint blade found at the side of the deceased, probably a knife originally framed in a wooden handle, and a dozen arrowheads arranged in one place with tips pointing towards the feet of the deceased" - she said.
Hyrchała announced that the skeleton would be subjected to anthropological studies that would determine the man’s height, whether and what with he was ill, perhaps the cause of death. The plan is to reconstruct his face, as the skull is well preserved.
In the warrior tomb archaeologists found 15 flint arrowheads and a flint spear tip. According to Hyrchała, it also had to contain a wooden bow that decomposed, like wooden parts of the javelin and arrows. The grave also contained a flint sickle for cutting grain, a pin with holes (probably used to fasten a coat), bone plates which could be used as a belt buckle.
This year, archaeologists have also discovered in the cemetery the graves of two boys, one of whom was about 10 years old, the other a few years older. The graves contained decorative pendants made of cockle shells (species of mollusc) and copper, faience beads and specific dishes decorated with cord impressions and rugged, rubbed with a bunch of grass before burning.
Hyrchała reported that last year on the same site archaeologists discovered a princess tomb. "We called it that because of the extremely large number of rich ornaments, including copper, which was very valuable in the Bronze Age" - she said. Ornaments included an earring made with copper sheet and wire, worn on the head, on the wristband or headband. Archaeologists also found 80 beads and several cockle pendants, which could form a necklace. The skeleton in the grave was poorly preserved, the grave only contained a skull and a few vertebrae.
Items from the princess tomb have already undergone conservation and will be displayed on the permanent archaeological exhibition at the museum in Hrubieszów, together with other finds from Rogalin.
The cemetery in Rogalin originates from the Strzyżów culture that flourished between 2000 and 1600 BC. Its name comes from the name of the Strzyżów village in the district Hrubieszów, where in the 1950s a settlement of this period was discovered. The Strzyżów culture covered the areas of today’s Volhynia in Ukraine and eastern Lublin region.
People of the Strzyżów culture had settlements mainly in the valley of the River Bug, and their occupations included agriculture and animal husbandry. Cemeteries were on the hills and their slopes.
Fr. St. Staszic Museum in Hrubieszów conducts excavations in the Early Bronze Age cemetery in Rogalin (commune Horodło), in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology of the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin since 2008. This year's season ended a few days ago. Research will continue perhaps even this fall.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Both reports seem to be different in interpreting the given, of this 3.500 Yr remain.
The article as posted by dienekes.
They recreated the face of a warrior from the Bronze Age. His tomb was for Hrubieszow
Researchers from the Department of Forensic Medicine University of Medical Sciences reconstructed face of the man from the Bronze Age.
His grave was under Hrubieszow. Graveyard of the pre-4000 years was discovered in Rogalin for Hrubieszow. The best preserved is the skeleton of a man who at death was 45 years. Archaeologists called it a warrior. Why?
- In the grave we found, among others, several flint arrowheads to a shot, flint knife or spear, sickle with flint and bone buckle - lists Bartecki Bartholomew, director of the Museum. Fr.. Staszic in Hrubieszow.
The skull warrior was in such good condition that the museum was tempted by experiment - a reconstruction of his face. Tasks undertaken by the research team of Dr. Dorothy Lorkiewicz-Muszyńska of the Department of Forensic Medicine at the Medical University in Poznań. Every day with their ability to use police, for example, when you need to identify a murder victim. The first step was to do a scan of the skull in 3D.
- At the base using a special computer program was applied to the muscle tissues - explains the director Bartecki. - Method shows more than 90 percent. compliance with the real appearance of a man - he remarks.
Invaluable assistance proved to be the results of the skeleton of Rogalin. Also genetic. Thanks to them, we know that the warrior had a dark complexion, dark hair and eyes.
- Generally enjoyed good health. He had all his teeth, there have also discovered no significant bone degeneration - says the head of the museum in Hrubieszow.
But it turned out that the man who lived in the Lublin region 4000 years ago, he suffered from bone cancer. - The tumor was not malignant, so you may not feel pain feet - wonders Bartholomew Bartecki. With genetic testing, we also know that some people from the cemeteries were related. For example, in one place next to each other were buried two brothers or cousins. The youngest children at the time of death were 7 to 10 years.
In April the Museum. Fr.. Staszic in Hrubieszow will take place opening of the exhibition devoted to the excavations of Rogalin. I'll see to it, among others, skeleton warrior, and next records the next steps in the reconstruction of his face. Alongside boards will show a multimedia presentation, showing step by step how to print skull was created in 3D.
- We're not betray everything. The full effect of the reconstruction will present only at our exhibition - says the director of Bartecki.
On this basis it will be drawn cast of the head of a warrior. Dummy get a "hand" copy of his tools.
Research cemetery in Rogalin not yet been completed. It may be that the discovery of 12 graves is just the beginning.
Odtworzyli twarz wojownika z epoki brązu. Jego grób był pod Hrubieszowem Naukowcy z Katedry i Zakładu Medycyny Sądowej UM w Poznaniu zrekonstruowali twarz mężczyzny z epoki brązu. Jego grób znajdował się pod Hrubieszowem. Cmentarzysko sprzed 4 tysięcy lat zostało odkryte w Rogalinie pod Hrubieszowem. Najlepiej zachowany jest szkielet mężczyzny, który w chwili śmierci miał 45 lat. Archeolodzy nazwali go wojownikiem. Dlaczego? - W grobie znaleźliśmy m.in. kilkanaście krzemiennych grotów do strzał, krzemienne ostrze noża lub włóczni, sierp z krzemienia i sprzączkę z kości - wylicza Bartłomiej Bartecki, dyrektor Muzeum im. ks. Stanisława Staszica w Hrubieszowie. Czaszka wojownika była w tak dobrym stanie, że muzeum pokusiło się o eksperyment - rekonstrukcję jego twarzy. Zadania podjął się zespół badawczy dr Doroty Lorkiewicz-Muszyńskiej z Katedry i Zakładu Medycyny Sądowej Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Poznaniu. Na co dzień z ich umiejętności korzysta policja, na przykład, gdy trzeba zidentyfikować ofiarę morderstwa. Pierwszym krokiem było zrobienie skanu czaszki w 3D. - Na tę bazę za pomocą specjalnego programu komputerowego nakładane były tkanki mięśniowe - wyjaśnia dyrektor Bartecki. - Metoda wykazuje ponad 90 proc. zgodności z rzeczywistym wyglądem mężczyzny - zaznacza. Nieocenioną pomocą okazały się wyniki badań szkieletu z Rogalina. Także genetyczne. Dzięki nim wiemy, że wojownik miał ciemną karnację, ciemne włosy oraz oczy. - Generalnie cieszył się dobrym zdrowiem. Miał wszystkie zęby, nie odkryliśmy też żadnych znaczących zwyrodnień kości - opowiada szef muzeum w Hrubieszowie. Okazało się jednak, że mężczyzna żyjący na Lubelszczyźnie 4 tysiące lat temu, cierpiał na raka kości. - Nowotwór nie był jednak złośliwy, więc być może nie odczuwał bólu nogi - zastanawia się Bartłomiej Bartecki. Dzięki badaniom genetycznym wiemy także, że niektóre osoby z tego cmentarzyska były ze sobą spokrewnione. Na przykład, w jednym miejscu obok siebie zostali pochowani dwaj bracia lub kuzyni. Najmłodsze dzieci w chwili śmierci miały od 7 do 10 lat. W kwietniu w Muzeum im. ks. Stanisława Staszica w Hrubieszowie odbędzie się wernisaż wystawy poświęconej wykopaliskom z Rogalina. Zobaczymy na niej m.in. szkielet wojownika, a obok dokumentację kolejnych etapów rekonstrukcji jego twarzy. Obok plansz pokazana zostanie multimedialna prezentacja, przedstawiająca krok po kroku, jak powstawał wydruk czaszki w 3D. - Na razie nie zdradzamy wszystkiego. Pełny efekt rekonstrukcji zaprezentujemy dopiero na naszej wystawie - zapowiada dyrektor Bartecki. Na tej podstawie zostanie sporządzony odlew głowy wojownika. Manekin dostanie "do ręki" kopię jego narzędzi. Badania cmentarzyska w Rogalinie nie zostały jeszcze zakończone. Może okazać się, że odkrycie 12 pochówków to dopiero początek.
"Dark" in the context of this article is next to meaningless. And again what does this have to do with places like Egypt and elsewhere where we have lots more evidence of what the people actually looked like? Again, lets assume we actually can see the skin complexion of the people in question, so we can rule out guessing skin color from skeletons. Assuming we see populations in various complexions, what is wrong with labeling certain populations, as in Africans, as black? Or other populations, as in Europeans as white? Nothing actually, this thread is just going above and beyond pulling any kind of gimmicks to avoid the point.
Populations in temperate zones like Europe are not the same as populations in tropical areas like Africa and South Asia. The tropical environment presents strong environmental pressure for creating black skin (not just "dark") while temperate environments present less environment pressure for white skin. Black folks living there could retain that skin color without "turning white". The theory is that truly white folks in Europe came from somewhere else where environmental pressure for white skin was more predominant, as in the far north or "great white north", as in Central Asia and Siberia. This is why there is so much confusion about what "dark" means in a temperate environment like Poland.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: White racist idiot Ish Gebor posting stuff about his ancestors in Europe. Diversionary tactics.
"According to the current data East Africa is home to nearly 2/3 of the world genetic diversity independent of sampling effect.The antiquity of the east African gene pool could be viewed not only from the perspective of the amount of genetic diversity endowed within it but also by signals of uni-modal distribution in their mitochondrial DNA (Hassan et al., unpublished) usually taken as an indication of populations that have passed through ‘‘recent’’ demographic expansion [33], although in this case, may in fact be considered a sign of extended shared history of in situ evolution where alleles are exchanged between neighboring demes [34]."
--Jibril Hirbo, Sara Tishkoff et al.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
"Dark" in the context of this article is next to meaningless. And again what does this have to do with places like Egypt and elsewhere where we have lots more evidence of what the people actually looked like? Again, lets assume we actually can see the skin complexion of the people in question, so we can rule out guessing skin color from skeletons. Assuming we see populations in various complexions, what is wrong with labeling certain populations, as in Africans, as black? Or other populations, as in Europeans as white? Nothing actually, this thread is just going above and beyond pulling any kind of gimmicks to avoid the point.
Populations in temperate zones like Europe are not the same as populations in tropical areas like Africa and South Asia. The tropical environment presents strong environmental pressure for creating black skin (not just "dark") while temperate environments present less environment pressure for white skin. Black folks living there could retain that skin color without "turning white". The theory is that truly white folks in Europe came from somewhere else where environmental pressure for white skin was more predominant, as in the far north or "great white north", as in Central Asia and Siberia. This is why there is so much confusion about what "dark" means in a temperate environment like Poland.
I too have no idea on what the "dark argument" is based. Did you actually read my post where I mentioned Hirisplex?
But I am starting to wonder to what degree it deals with the Black Madonnas?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: When you say on this forum that no one, I mean NO ONE is going to call the man below 'white' in the western sense, everyone immediately understands what you mean.
Reconstruction of Bronze Age inhabitant of what is today Poland:
Proved invaluable assistance skeleton results Rogalin. Also genetic. Thanks to them, we know that the warrior had a dark complexion, dark hair and eyes.
When you acknowledge that many lay people in the West, North Africa and elsewhere have similarly narrow terms for Africans, they act like they're confused for 10 thread pages.
Makes you wonder to what extent people are motivated by racial politics. Already knew it was bad, but this bad?
Why wouldn't they if the facts permit it? The fact is you have to provide the evidence to support the claim. What biological evidence do you have for the skin color of this person? Right now you are clinging to outdated notions that skull shape indicates skin color when it doesn't.
SMH, Did you even bother to read what was posted? I dont think so, and you dodged the question.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: When you say on this forum that no one, I mean NO ONE is going to call the man below 'white' in the western sense, everyone immediately understands what you mean.
Reconstruction of Bronze Age inhabitant of what is today Poland:
Proved invaluable assistance skeleton results Rogalin. Also genetic. Thanks to them, we know that the warrior had a dark complexion, dark hair and eyes.
When you acknowledge that many lay people in the West, North Africa and elsewhere have similarly narrow terms for Africans, they act like they're confused for 10 thread pages.
Makes you wonder to what extent people are motivated by racial politics. Already knew it was bad, but this bad?
Why wouldn't they if the facts permit it? The fact is you have to provide the evidence to support the claim. What biological evidence do you have for the skin color of this person? Right now you are clinging to outdated notions that skull shape indicates skin color when it doesn't.
SMH, Did you even bother to read what was posted? I dont think so, and you dodged the question.
Look dude. Are you seriously trying to claim that this 4,000 year old Polish skeleton was black?
I never said that. So why are you even bringing it up here in a thread about when and when not to use the term black?
Seriously?
What is the point of posting it unless you are trying to say that this "dark" Polish person from 4,000 years ago somehow disproves that the AE, Africans in general and other populations elsewhere ARE BLACK?
You make no dam sense. Nobody was even talking about Europe. And yes white scientists in Europe do indeed call Europeans white. That is not ME making up words these are words used every day in the English language.
So stop pretending this is something I or other people made up on my own. This is simply ridiculous.
quote: A study by academics at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) published in 2011, explores why in London “cycling is disproportionately an activity of affluent, white men” or, as Transport for London (TfL), has put it, why the London cyclist is “typically white, under 40, male, with medium to high household income.” Funded by TfL and NHS Camden, it examines in-depth interviews with 78 Londoners: women and men of assorted ethnicities, cultural backgrounds and occupations, some of them cyclists, some of them not and some of them thinking about taking cycling up.
Now if you object so much to people referring to populations as white or black based on skin color then you need to go around the world and fix the newspapers, science publications, book publishers, movies and everything else which uses such language. Sitting up here trying to tell me about when or when not to use those terms as if it is "my personal agenda" is beyond foolish and stupid.
The fact that you don't accept the English language is not my problem.
quote: Nikesh Shukla, writer
Latest work: Meatspace (Friday Project)
I’m writing this hoping it’ll be my last piece on diversity in publishing. I am tired. Tired of fighting for representation for writers of colour, pushing for more black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) people to be in positions of management in the industry. I am tired of sitting on panels about diversity, writing pieces about diversity, and tweeting about prizes, review coverage and lists that ignore diversity. Which is why I lost my patience at the end of November when the titles announced for the 2016 World Book Night – when free books are distributed to encourage reading – failed to include a single BAME author. It might seem heartless to criticise a brilliant charity for wanting to put books in the hands of non-readers, and, in response, World Book Night expressed frustration that no publishers had put forward any BAME writers.
Nodnarb, Swenet, Beyoku, Ish Gebor = White Racists with multiple IDs
Be very careful folks!
Look at the remains of the ancient European above. Is he white? Why or why not?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I am very well aware of the history of the word white as a pejorative term for all Europeans being a relatively new concept. But that doesn't change or diminish the reality of white skin in Europe.
Nodnarb, Swenet, Beyoku, Ish Gebor = White Racists with multiple IDs
Be very careful folks!
Look at the remains of the ancient European above. Is he white? Why or why not?
@ Doug - You still dodged the question. The fact that you cannot answer the question shows how you racially use the term "Black". There is nothing wrong with this. I personally use the term "Black" racially as well as I exclude non African populations. The point of contention revolves around weaseling and blackmailing individuals that don't agree with YOUR usage and attempting to act as if there are not other traditional uses. Lastly assuming that racism is the underlying motive for one not accepting your usage. Its like not accepting that dark skin Dominicans see themselves as "Latino" and only see Haitians as "Black".
On to the remains. That individual being "Dark".........like the other remains are "Dark" in the GLOBAL context of the word. They were dark skinned like Africans. If its ONLY about color, then Ancient Europeans were "Black" as you would put it. Once you start including and excluding populations based on origin it is MORE than just skin color, its Racial ideas based on where humans originate.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not only does the reconstruction I posted look like what westerners may call 'ethnic' (as opposed to looking like living Europeans), but he has the ancestral pigmentation genes for hair, skin and eyes. This was conveyed in the post and linked content which seem to challenge Doug's reading comprehension.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting that blog commentators of European descent on Eurocentric sites are capable of making a distinction between the narrow western criteria for 'whiteness' vs being factually and demonstrably biologically European:
quote:Originally posted by Krefter:
quote:Originally posted by bmdriver: Europeans are nothing but Indian migrants. Who have turned white over the past 3000years.
The term white is only relevant when it comes to culture in the modern world. Ancient DNA shows that Euro-genes are much older than light skin, and so there's no such thing as the white race. Euros are a composite of 3 very different people who lived in west and north Eurasia 10,000YBP>, as are middle easterns.
The objections of lay people and others not very familiar with this subject are understandable, but some ES 'vets' are resisting for 10 thread pages and on other threads because their whole agenda is to mix anthropology with racial politics. But it's not racial agenda when you do it, right? Only when Eurocentrics do it.
And how can you be a 'vet' on ES when you can't even grasp this basic concept, even though it has been explained again and again over 10 thread pages?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Now I don't think the term black is completely irrelevant. The idea is separating historic discussions from scientific discussions.
History is different, because history is well just history.... Saying we shouldn't use "black" in a historical discussion is like saying we shouldn't use black when having a historical discussion about the Civil Rights or the Haitian revolution. History is just the study of past events and even what terms they used back then.
For example I don't not see a problem with arguing that the Ancient Egyptians were black in a historical discussion considering that Greek and Roman writers referred to them and the Nubians as black(though not a racial sense like modern times), but still black nonetheless.
Also using black in historical discussions involving the Moors is not only relevant, but very important considering the term "Moor" meant black.
My point is we should know when and when not to use "black" in discussions. Basically by separating historical discussions from scientific ones.
Again just my 2 cents.
I do think the writings of ancient Mediterranean people are useful for understanding how they perceived different populations they came into contact with. When you have not only ancient Greeks and Roman but also early Judeo-Christian and Islamic writers (such as those cited by Goldenberg's Curse of Ham) describing indigenous Egyptians as "black" dark-skinned---sometimes even grouping or confusing them with "Aethiopians" or Kushites---it gives you a clue that they must have been significantly darker than the typical "tan" Middle Eastern or Mediterranean person of that time.
Where you run into problems is when you try to equate ancient terminology like the Greek melas or aethiopes with the later "racial" taxonomy that came into vogue in the 18th through 19th centuries. I don't think the Greeks had an equivalent word for our "Negroid" or "Caucasoid" for instance. And while ancient ethnographers almost certainly could pick up on physical distinctions between ethnic groups in Africa as well as elsewhere, none of them had our neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution, let alone all the tools and knowledge used by modern population genetics. It wasn't that long ago when Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians were also considered part of the "Negroid" race (see here for example) even though they're probably even further removed from West Africans genetically than ancient Egyptians, Nubians, or Somalis. Hell, I've even see white supremacists in places like VNN post photos of "Black" Oceanians in traditional attire as proof of "African cultural inferiority".
For that matter, I would argue even the construct "sub-Saharan African" isn't monophyletic. They have their own sub-structural differences that even the narrower constructs of "Black" identity gloss over. Look at this graph for example and you'll observe that Yoruba and Dinka are less genetically divergent from OOAs than are Khoisan or Hadzabe. There are grades of affinity to OOA even within sub-Sahara, so it's not like "Negroid" or "sub-Saharan" describes a singular sub-structure any more than "Black".
Another graph illustrating this reality:
Of course, migrations across Africa like the Bantu and Nilo-Saharan expansions had smeared over some of these earlier substructures with admixture. But then, even Swenet has stated repeatedly that the Green Sahara would have led to a degree of "equatorial African" input into predynastic Egyptians and Nubians that wouldn't have been present in their Upper Paleolithic ancestors.
In summary, racial constructs change over time and culture and typically aren't grounded in today's phylogenetic knowledge.
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You could say "SSA" is like "non-avian dinosaur". Sure, Velociraptor is closer to birds than Tyrannosaurus, but than Tyrannosaurus is closer to those two than it is Brontosaurus, which in turn is more like the previous three than it is Triceratops, and so on. A term like "SSA" might be useful as an exclusionary grade for Africans more distantly related from OOA, but even then you have gradients of relatedness to OOA within that grouping. Besides, "sub-Saharan" has taken on racial connotations in its conventional usage, e.g. as a PC synonym for "Black", so it's still potentially problematic for a post-racial anthropology.
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Nodnarb, Swenet, Beyoku, Ish Gebor = White Racists with multiple IDs
Be very careful folks!
Look at the remains of the ancient European above. Is he white? Why or why not?
@ Doug - You still dodged the question. The fact that you cannot answer the question shows how you racially use the term "Black". There is nothing wrong with this. I personally use the term "Black" racially as well as I exclude non African populations. The point of contention revolves around weaseling and blackmailing individuals that don't agree with YOUR usage and attempting to act as if there are not other traditional uses. Lastly assuming that racism is the underlying motive for one not accepting your usage. Its like not accepting that dark skin Dominicans see themselves as "Latino" and only see Haitians as "Black".
On to the remains. That individual being "Dark".........like the other remains are "Dark" in the GLOBAL context of the word. They were dark skinned like Africans. If its ONLY about color, then Ancient Europeans were "Black" as you would put it. Once you start including and excluding populations based on origin it is MORE than just skin color, its Racial ideas based on where humans originate.
Don't start that double talk. I never said skin color is race. Africans being black is not a statement of race. YOU believe that which is why YOU keep saying it.
You sound like a racist troll claiming that calling the AE black is racist. That is you trying to change the subject versus addressing the point which is skin color. I said the AE were black because they had black skin color. There is no other way to say that because that is what I mean. You interpret that in any way you want to interpret it but I never said anything about race. The only one bringing race into this is you.
So you are saying that this Polish skeleton from the bronze age was black then? Is that what you are saying?
I don't agree. Whatever kind of "dark" they mean, I don't agree that it was "dark" enough to be "black".
And honestly the actual painted reconstruction shows the face as white.
But either way what on earth does that have to do with Africa where we know people are black to this very day? The biological and environmental factors for skin color from Africa are totally different from Europe. Yet you are trying to mix the two as if they are the same. The environment of Europe produces lighter skin not darker. So your point is nonsensical.
But show me anywhere in any study where it says this Polish man was "dark" enough to be black....
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Interesting that blog commentators of European descent on Eurocentric sites are capable of making a distinction between the narrow western criteria for 'whiteness' vs being factually and demonstrably biologically European:
quote:Originally posted by Krefter:
quote:Originally posted by bmdriver: Europeans are nothing but Indian migrants. Who have turned white over the past 3000years.
The term white is only relevant when it comes to culture in the modern world. Ancient DNA shows that Euro-genes are much older than light skin, and so there's no such thing as the white race. Euros are a composite of 3 very different people who lived in west and north Eurasia 10,000YBP>, as are middle easterns.
The objections of lay people and others not very familiar with this subject are understandable, but some ES 'vets' are resisting for 10 thread pages and on other threads because their whole agenda is to mix anthropology with racial politics. But it's not racial agenda when you do it, right? Only when Eurocentrics do it.
And how can you be a 'vet' on ES when you can't even grasp this basic concept, even though it has been explained again and again over 10 thread pages?
I am not promoting racial politics and if you believe that you are talking pure garbage and simply ignoring what has been said for 10 pages. In fact, the only person posting any racial politics is you. Why on earth are you even using a reference to a racist blog as if there is anything there of value as it relates to this discussion? Are you seriously claiming that they don't engage in racial politics? This is a pattern with you, where you keep posting arguments and ideas from racists and claim that they are "objective" in their views on skin color. You are simply being a mouthpiece for them. And then you keep trying to label some folks here as racists when they aren't. You just cant accept that all your justifications for this idea that we shouldn't use black is invalid. And that is why we have 10 pages of you changing the subject and moving to other areas of the map to defend yourself. And now we are in Europe.
I have consistently said that skin color is not race since page 1. You keep saying that "western" scientists are objective, yet who is it that posted racist scholars and their racist views, as in Samuel Morton? You did. The point is there is no valid credible reason not to use the word black for all indigenous black Africans. You have yet to post an 'objective' scholar who has openly and publicly admitted the skin color of the ancient Egyptians to be "black" using whatever terminology you believe is valid. Somehow I don't see where debating European skin color has anything to do with this.
And here is my point, the AE were on average as dark as or DARKER than many African Americans. And we all know that Sudanese are some of the darkest people in Africa. Sudanese are not "Sub Saharan" Africans. Not to mention the black Africans IN the Sahara. So this nonsense of trying to limit black skin to a certain part of Africa is an agenda and that agenda starts with racist white folks either directly or indirectly through folks on this thread who are being the mouthpiece of white folks. Because if the Sudanese and Upper Egyptians are very black you cannot claim that somehow there is a 'special grade' of color unique to Egypt that makes it distinct from the rest of Africa. That is not true now and it wasn't true 5,000 years ago.
That is the only point I am making by the use of the term black and this is exactly what white folks have been trying hard to deny, downplay and ignore which is another reason why I continue to use the word to expose their hypocrisy and dishonesty.
Folks on this thread are still trying to pretend that this is a language issue when it isn't. It is a racism issue and black and white are used all over Europe and other English speaking countries as references to very light or dark people respectively. So the only issue here is with the English language which is not inherently racist yet folks are trying to redefine words to make it what the want it to mean when that is not how it is defined in the dictionary.
And bottom line, when Europeans object to the AE being labelled black it is because they want to promote them as white. Hence:
quote: 1. Gods of Egypt
Starting with the most recent one: this is a movie where the ancient Egyptian sun god is played by Geoffrey Rush. And Gerard Butler is playing the god Set. And when you think of Horus, is the name that immediately springs to mind is “Nikolaj Coster-Waldau?” And the whitewashing isn’t limited to the gods. Even the main human character, Bek, is being played by a white actor: Brenton Thwaites. This is a movie based on Egyptian mythology that takes place in Egypt, and pretty much every major character is white.
And given the objections of some folks on this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if they wouldn't say that an "accurate" movie about ancient Egypt had to be "multicultural" so that nobody would be offended.
This is simply absurd but it also shows how cowardly and deceptive some folks are as they are scared to use the word black without 'white permission and approval'.
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic