posted
"The quote has NO value and the racist 'one drop rule' is garbage and has NO value"
The quote explains a relevant part of American history. You try to shove this under the rug. Is if it never happened.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: zarahan why do you have the ridiculous Mary Lefkowitz quote up? She says "If you go by the American 'one drop rule' the Egyptians would be black"
That could mean the ancient Egyptians were 5/8 or more non-African. The quote has NO value and the racist 'one drop rule' is garbage and has NO value.
A perfect example of the widely varied meaning of "black"
The brown paper bag is where this one drop rule ends. Not my words. Don't get it twisted.
quote:That was one cultural legacy that would be put to rest in a hurry-we all made sure of that. But in a manner of speaking, it was replaced by an opposite test whereby those who were deemed "not black enough' ideologically were to be shunned. I was not sure this was an improvement."
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: OK. Can you show me what scholars are calling the AE black/brown in some other language or using some other words?
Because I have not yet seen it not once.
All I see is the standard white European phenotype coming out of European scholarship.
So I don't see where there is some 'objective' group of scholars standing up challenging or pushing a different view of the AE as anything other than white.
You had Exodus movie last year. You have had the Nat Geo and Discovery productions before that. Now you got Gods of Egypt And you got the standard magazine covers of history mags showing the AE as white folks.
Yet you are sitting here telling me that I just need to "read between the lines" to understand that they really mean the AE were black?
Come on dude.
Lay off the crack.
They aren't going to use such terminology, ... because they considered it an implication.
The only crack I am into, is the one I can get into. I am a sportsman, btw.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ Is the usage of "Caucasoid" correct in its description of certain metric variables found in Europeans?
Beyoku the entire Caucasoid name and term is false and can be refuted very easily. White Europeans are not and never belonged to a singular "Caucasian race", that is simply false.
Proof of this is the fact that the Basque are the oldest surviving European group and they have absolutely nothing in common with Eastern and Northern and Western Europeans; they are so inbred also that they are their own population in the island of European genes. They only primarily are of Haplogroup R1b and are genetically distant from other more modern white Europeans.
On one side of Europe, you have people that are predominantly haplogroup R1b whereas in Eastern Europe and Russia you have haplogroup R1a. And even White Russians and white finns and Hungarians all look different from each other and have different genes.
Even groups like Maltese people and Albanian people have different genes from the rest of Europe and have African genes in them. Thus there is no Caucasoid race and there never was in Europe before.
Also there are Japanese and Asiatic people who look pseudo-Caucasian or have pseudo-Caucasian features, but yet they have no immediate admixture with any so called Caucasoid group of peoples AT ALL!
So this whole term of "Caucasian" is false and is made up entirely and has no real genetic basis.
I'm not sure about this accuracy, but I had a conversation with a girl from Italy years ago. She explained that Mediterranean skulls are different from West Europeans. Then some white American dude got upset.
Do you happen to know anything about this difference. Or anyone else for that matter. Swenet,perhaps?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: That quote mentions Aethiopids not Egyptians....
Wrong again (as usual). The racist Baker himself related founding Egyptians to what he called "Aethiopids" (as did Coon and other racists who have seriously studied their skeletal remains):
From predynastic times onwards a principal part of the population of Egypt appears to have been composed of a section of the Aethiopid subrace (pp. 225-^6), but with this stock there coexisted for a time an ‘Aeneolithic’ (Chalcolithic) people that disappeared before the beginning of the First Dynasty. The skulls of the latter people show that they were related to the main population, but distinct from it. --Baker
Now what? What strawman attack or deceptive fallacy you're going to pull out of the hat now?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And he point blank says Aethiopids are a subrace of Europids....
Your point? You specifically and repeatedly asked for examples of racist Eurocentric scholars who got the AE skin pigmentation level right. According to you, I fabricated and lied about their existence in academia, even though evidence was repeatedly posted.
Stop moving the goalpost.
You made the claims below and you repeatedly tried to generalize them to all the Eurocentric European descent scholars who have seriously studied the ancient Egyptian remains:
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: No they accept that the Ancient Egyptians looked like Charleton Heston and not even olive skinned white Europeans.
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: When these folks say Caucasiod they mean pure white Aryan, blue blood, pale as snow white folks.
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: That has ALWAYS been the agenda of the white supremacists concerning Egypt.
Just give it up. Your paranoia and these sweeping fictitious allegations may appeal to a certain audiences, but beyond that you're not fooling anyone. Duping people who don't know any better. That's what you've done the majority of the time in this thread.
Do you honestly read what you post? Are you seriously claiming that this racist is supporting theidea that the AE were black some sort of way?
You are seriously delusional.
But that is not a strawman. You said that 'objective' scholars were admitting in some way shape or form that the AE were black. Yet the only folks you have been posting to support your claim are racists and YOU call them that. So really, you are seriously making no attempt to even cover the fact that you are just being a mouthpiece for white folks and white racists no less in a debate about words being used for the skin color of black folks. Yeah your main defense is racists now.... You have been doing it the whole thread just looking ridiculous claiming that these 'objective' scholars exist but you haven't posted one yet.
I say the AE were black Africans and you say no we need to please racists with language that doesn't talk about skin color directly because that makes you look racist...... Yet you have no problem using actual racists as your defense that white folks are somehow claiming that these folks in AE were black, knowing full dam well if you asked them they would say they were white. The words they used are supposed to be misleading. They mean white and you are the only one buying into this nonsense.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: OK. Can you show me what scholars are calling the AE black/brown in some other language or using some other words?
Because I have not yet seen it not once.
All I see is the standard white European phenotype coming out of European scholarship.
So I don't see where there is some 'objective' group of scholars standing up challenging or pushing a different view of the AE as anything other than white.
You had Exodus movie last year. You have had the Nat Geo and Discovery productions before that. Now you got Gods of Egypt And you got the standard magazine covers of history mags showing the AE as white folks.
Yet you are sitting here telling me that I just need to "read between the lines" to understand that they really mean the AE were black?
Come on dude.
Lay off the crack.
They aren't going to use such terminology, ... because they considered it an implication.
The only crack I am into, is the one I can get into. I am a sportsman, btw.
They consider it an implication? You mean an assumption on your part? So these scholars don't says anything about skin color directly, yet you are standing here defending them and assuming that "they really do mean that the AE were black" yet you can't provide any public mass media articles, books, magazines or videos where they are publicly and openly saying this. Because they aren't. They are being vague and ambiguous so they don't look openly racist. The only one defending these clowns is you.
People and their "personal communications" are irrelevant, because if they had put all the facts out openly and publicly then you wouldn't have had to contact them on the side to address the issue.
You should be careful not to contradict your own point. Because folks on this thread are challenging the use of the term black which is about skin color but have no problem letting white folks off the hook with vague and ambiguous language as if they 'really mean black', but they don't and that is why they don't use the term. I go by what people say and I assume that people say what they mean. If they don't use the term black it is because they feel the AE were not black and that is what it means with all its "implications".
Other folks on this thread are trying to defend this as "objective science". I think not.
Black as a reference to skin color is the most direct and obvious way to address the issue of skin color and there is really no way around it.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: They consider it an implication? You mean an assumption on your part? So these scholars don't says anything about skin color directly, yet you are standing here defending them and assuming that "they really do mean that the AE were black" yet you can't provide any public mass media articles, books, magazines or videos where they are publicly and openly saying this. Because they aren't. They are being vague and ambiguous so they don't look openly racist. The only one defending these clowns is you.
People and their "personal communications" are irrelevant, because if they had put all the facts out openly and publicly then you wouldn't have had to contact them on the side to address the issue.
You should be careful not to contradict your own point. Because you challenge folks on this thread on the use of the term black which is about skin color but you have no problem letting white folks off the hook with vague and ambiguous language af if they 'really mean black', but they don't and that is why they don't use the term. I go by what people say and I assume that people say what they mean. If they don't use the term black it is because they feel the AE were not black and that is what it means with all its "implications".
Other folks on this thread are trying to defend this as "objective science". I think not.
Can you explain how I am defending "them"?
HOW DOES THE WESTERN WORLD REFER TO THE WORD BLACK, IS IT NOT THE REFERRED AT BY THE "STEREOTYPE NEGRO"?
If they use the word black it becomes an implication to them, because they see "stereotype negroes" as black. Not the rest of Africa. The rest can have dark skin, but that doesn't mean black to them, since black means the stereotype negro.
Please reread, and explain how I am defending them?
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Originally posted by Doug M: When these folks say Caucasiod they mean pure white Aryan, blue blood, pale as snow white folks.
Not necessarily. They have also used other covering labels- like "Hamitic", "Oriental", "Middle Eastern" etc. In fact they are careful not to define a "true white" in the same way they define and use the "true negro" dodge.
I understand what you mean but you only have to look at the movies, tv shows, magazines and other media that they control to see what they mean. Caucasoid is code language for white even if it refers to populations who are black. It is just double talk. It seems odd that folks don't see this for what it is. When they say the AE were Caucasoid they don't mean like "black African Caucasoids".
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: "The quote has NO value and the racist 'one drop rule' is garbage and has NO value"
The quote explains a relevant part of American history. You try to shove this under the rug. Is if it never happened.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: zarahan why do you have the ridiculous Mary Lefkowitz quote up? She says "If you go by the American 'one drop rule' the Egyptians would be black"
That could mean the ancient Egyptians were 5/8 or more non-African. The quote has NO value and the racist 'one drop rule' is garbage and has NO value.
A perfect example of the widely varied meaning of "black"
The brown paper bag is where this one drop rule ends. Not my words. Don't get it twisted.
quote:That was one cultural legacy that would be put to rest in a hurry-we all made sure of that. But in a manner of speaking, it was replaced by an opposite test whereby those who were deemed "not black enough' ideologically were to be shunned. I was not sure this was an improvement."
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: They consider it an implication? You mean an assumption on your part? So these scholars don't says anything about skin color directly, yet you are standing here defending them and assuming that "they really do mean that the AE were black" yet you can't provide any public mass media articles, books, magazines or videos where they are publicly and openly saying this. Because they aren't. They are being vague and ambiguous so they don't look openly racist. The only one defending these clowns is you.
People and their "personal communications" are irrelevant, because if they had put all the facts out openly and publicly then you wouldn't have had to contact them on the side to address the issue.
You should be careful not to contradict your own point. Because you challenge folks on this thread on the use of the term black which is about skin color but you have no problem letting white folks off the hook with vague and ambiguous language af if they 'really mean black', but they don't and that is why they don't use the term. I go by what people say and I assume that people say what they mean. If they don't use the term black it is because they feel the AE were not black and that is what it means with all its "implications".
Other folks on this thread are trying to defend this as "objective science". I think not.
Can you explain how I am defending "them"?
HOW DOES THE WESTERN WORLD REFER TO THE WORD BLACK, IS IT NOT THE REFERRED AT BY THE "STEREOTYPE NEGRO"?
If they use the word black it becomes an implication to them, because the see stereotype negroes as black. Not the rest of Africa. The rest can have dark skin, but that doesn't mean black to them, since black means the stereotype negro.
Please reread, and explain how I am defending them?
I mean black is skin color as I have said numerous times and when they reject the term black they are referring to skin color also. That should be obvious. "True Negro" is not "black skin". Black skin is part of "true Negro" but not the only thing. And when they reject the word black they are rejecting both the skin color component and everything else. However, folks keep trying to claim they are rejecting the other "True Negro" characteristics but keeping the skin color part..... Come on. No they aren't. Why are you going so far on a limb to try and speak for them? They mean they weren't black and obviously that means skin color as well. What part of English don't you understand when they say this? Why do you keep trying to claim that there is some "other" way to interpret this that includes black skin? That makes no sense.
You and other folks just seem to want to deny the obvious.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I mean black is skin color as I have said numerous times and when they reject the term black they are referring to skin color also. That should be obvious. "True Negro" is not "black". Black skin is part of "true Negro" but not the only thing. And when they reject the word black they are rejecting both the skin color component and everything else. However, folks keep trying to claim they are rejecting the other "True Negro" characteristics but keeping the skin color part..... Come on. No they aren't. Why are you going so far on a limb to try and speak for them. They mean they aren't black and obviously that means skin color as well. What part of English don't you understand when they say this?
You and other folks just seem to want to deny the obvious.
LOL "You and other folks just seem to want to deny the obvious." SMH
AGAIN. THE WEST SEES BLACK AS STEREOTYPE NEGROES. NIGGERS if that is more clear! THEY HAVE A BILLION OTHER NAMES. If they would use the word black to refer to other Africans, it means that their race theory ends. This is why they aren't doing it. It's inconvenient.
It has nothing to do with me, it has to do with Western standards.
Of course they know they had dark skin. And yes, they know that originate from the Sahara-Sahel. But hey will call them mixed with eurasians and a million other things. So they can avoid the term black.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I mean black is skin color as I have said numerous times and when they reject the term black they are referring to skin color also. That should be obvious. "True Negro" is not "black". Black skin is part of "true Negro" but not the only thing. And when they reject the word black they are rejecting both the skin color component and everything else. However, folks keep trying to claim they are rejecting the other "True Negro" characteristics but keeping the skin color part..... Come on. No they aren't. Why are you going so far on a limb to try and speak for them. They mean they aren't black and obviously that means skin color as well. What part of English don't you understand when they say this?
You and other folks just seem to want to deny the obvious.
LOL "You and other folks just seem to want to deny the obvious." SMH
AGAIN. THE WEST SEES BLACK AS STEREOTYPE NEGROES. NIGGERS if that is more clear! THEY HAVE A BILLION OTHER NAMES. If they use the word black to refer to other Africans, it means that their race theory ends. This is why they aren't doing it. It's inconvenient.
It has nothing to do with me, it has to do with Western standards.
Of course they know they had dark skin. And yes, they know that originate from the Sahara-Sahel. But hey will call them mixed with eurasians and a million other things. So they can avoid the term black.
Well I just call them being racists and no matter what words you use that will still be there. Black is not race and has been used to refer to Africans since before Europeans invented the term race. If the Europeans don't want to refer to the AE as black it is because of racism, meaning they need to feel that the black Africans they endlsaved are inferior to them and they can't have black Africans being the originators of civilization. That is exactly why folks like Samuel Morton began studying the skulls of Egyptian remains in order to prove the superiority of the white race via AE skull measurements. Skin color was always the underlying issue in American and European obsession with Egypt. Therefore, I don't look at them avoiding the term black as being anything other than them saying the AE were white. That is the bottom line and has always been the agenda since they invaded Egypt and started stealing artifacts. Those are the facts of history, yet folks like you think it is 'objective' when it is not. You keep saying that they had "dark skin" yet dark skin is as vague and ambiguous a word there is and can include anything from a sun tan to coal black. So again you are trying to interperet what they say and claim to know what they mean even when they say explicitly the AE were not black, you keep trying to suggest that somehow or someway this includes black skin when it does not.
quote: gypt is justly regarded as the parent of civilization, the cradle of the arts, the land of mystery. Her monuments excite our wonder, and her history confounds chronology; and the very people who thronged her cities would be unknown to us, were it not for those vast sepulchres whence the dead have arisen, as it were, to bear witness for them- selves and their country. Yet even now, the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians are regarded with singular diversity of opinion by the learned, who variously refer them to the Jews, Arabs, Hindoos, Nubians, and Negroes. Even the details of organic structure have been involved in the same uncertainty, the configuration of the head, the position of the ear, the form of the teeth, the colour of the skin, and the texture of the hair; while the great question is itself undetermined whether civilization ascended or descended the Nile; whether it had its origin in Egypt or in Ethiopia.* These con- flicting opinions long since made me desirous to investigate the subject for myself; but the many difficulties in the way of obtaining adequate materials, compelled me to suspend the inquiry; and it is only within a recent period that I have been able effectively to re- sume it. It gives me great pleasure to state, that my present facilities have been almost exclusively derived, directly or indirectly, from the scientific zeal and personal friendship of George R. Gliddon, Esq., late United States consul for the city of Cairo. During a former visit to the United States, this gentleman entered warmly into my views and wishes; and on his return to the East, in 1838, he commenced his researches on my behalf; and in the course of his various travels in Egypt and in Nubia, as far as the second Cataract, he procured one hundred and thirty-seven human crania, of which one hundred pertain to the ancient inhabitants of Egypt. Of these last, seventeen were most obligingly sent me, at the instance of Mr. Gliddon, by M. Clot Bey, the distinguished Surgeon in chief to the Viceroy of Egypt They are arranged by the latter gentleman into two series, the Pharaonic, and the Ptolemaic; but without availing myself of this classification, I have merely regarded them in reference to their national characters.
....
The Egyptian form differs from the Pelasgic in having a narrower and more receding forehead, while the face being more prominent, the facial angle is consequently less. The nose is straight or aquiline, the face angular, the features often sharp, and the hair uniformly long, soft, and curling. In this series of crania I include many of which the conformation is not appreciably different from that of the Arab and Hindoo; but I have not, as a rule, attempted to note these distinctions, although they are so marked as to have induced me, in the early stage of the investigation, and for reasons which will appear in the sequel, to group them, together with the proper Egyptian form, under the provisional name of Austral-Egyptian crania. I now, however, propose to restrict the latter term to those Caucasian communities which inhabited the Nilotic valley above Egypt. Among the Caucasian crania are some which appear to blend the Egyptian and Pelasgic characters: these might be called EgypttyPelasgic heads; but without making use of this term, except in a very few instances by way of illustration, I have thought best to transfer these examples from the Pelasgic group to the Egyptian, inas- much as they so far conform to the latter series as to be identified without difficulty. For examples of this mixed form, I refer especially to Plate XI., Fig. 1, and Plate III., Fig. 7.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I mean black is skin color as I have said numerous times and when they reject the term black they are referring to skin color also. That should be obvious. "True Negro" is not "black". Black skin is part of "true Negro" but not the only thing. And when they reject the word black they are rejecting both the skin color component and everything else. However, folks keep trying to claim they are rejecting the other "True Negro" characteristics but keeping the skin color part..... Come on. No they aren't. Why are you going so far on a limb to try and speak for them. They mean they aren't black and obviously that means skin color as well. What part of English don't you understand when they say this?
You and other folks just seem to want to deny the obvious.
LOL "You and other folks just seem to want to deny the obvious." SMH
AGAIN. THE WEST SEES BLACK AS STEREOTYPE NEGROES. NIGGERS if that is more clear! THEY HAVE A BILLION OTHER NAMES. If they use the word black to refer to other Africans, it means that their race theory ends. This is why they aren't doing it. It's inconvenient.
It has nothing to do with me, it has to do with Western standards.
Of course they know they had dark skin. And yes, they know that originate from the Sahara-Sahel. But hey will call them mixed with eurasians and a million other things. So they can avoid the term black.
Well I just call them being racists and no matter what words you use that will still be there. Black is not race and has been used to refer to Africans since before Europeans invented the term race. If the Europeans don't want to refer to the AE as black it is because of racism, meaning they need to feel that the black Africans they endlsaved are inferior to them and they can't have black Africans being the originators of civilization. That is exactly why folks like Samuel Morton began studying the skulls of Egyptian remains in order to prove the superiority of the white race via AE skull measurements. Skin color was always the underlying issue in American and European obsession with Egypt. Therefore, I don't look at them avoiding the term black as being anything other than them saying the AE were white. That is the bottom line and has always been the agenda since they invaded Egypt and started stealing artifacts. Those are the facts of history, yet folks like you think it is 'objective' when it is not.
Black is not a race, and this is what Swenet is explaining, thoughout this entire thread. He gave many examples. As I said, I understand both positions.
On a few occasions I had folks ignoring this melanin dosage study, and looking for all kinds of excuses: "It doesn't mean all were ..., it's not true ... because all people have melanin etc .... The funniest response was, it doesn't mean they are black i.e. negroid."
I then ask them to name 5 ethnic groups of the Sahara-Sahel region, they can't and get upset. They usually end the conversation with you nigger or terminology similar to that. lol
Melanin Dosage Tests: Ancient Egyptians
Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues
-- A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2 Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13 " Materials and Methods
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I mean black is skin color as I have said numerous times and when they reject the term black they are referring to skin color also. That should be obvious. "True Negro" is not "black". Black skin is part of "true Negro" but not the only thing. And when they reject the word black they are rejecting both the skin color component and everything else. However, folks keep trying to claim they are rejecting the other "True Negro" characteristics but keeping the skin color part..... Come on. No they aren't. Why are you going so far on a limb to try and speak for them. They mean they aren't black and obviously that means skin color as well. What part of English don't you understand when they say this?
You and other folks just seem to want to deny the obvious.
LOL "You and other folks just seem to want to deny the obvious." SMH
AGAIN. THE WEST SEES BLACK AS STEREOTYPE NEGROES. NIGGERS if that is more clear! THEY HAVE A BILLION OTHER NAMES. If they use the word black to refer to other Africans, it means that their race theory ends. This is why they aren't doing it. It's inconvenient.
It has nothing to do with me, it has to do with Western standards.
Of course they know they had dark skin. And yes, they know that originate from the Sahara-Sahel. But hey will call them mixed with eurasians and a million other things. So they can avoid the term black.
Well I just call them being racists and no matter what words you use that will still be there. Black is not race and has been used to refer to Africans since before Europeans invented the term race. If the Europeans don't want to refer to the AE as black it is because of racism, meaning they need to feel that the black Africans they endlsaved are inferior to them and they can't have black Africans being the originators of civilization. That is exactly why folks like Samuel Morton began studying the skulls of Egyptian remains in order to prove the superiority of the white race via AE skull measurements. Skin color was always the underlying issue in American and European obsession with Egypt. Therefore, I don't look at them avoiding the term black as being anything other than them saying the AE were white. That is the bottom line and has always been the agenda since they invaded Egypt and started stealing artifacts. Those are the facts of history, yet folks like you think it is 'objective' when it is not.
Black is not a race, and this is what Swenet is explaining, thoughout this entire thread. He gave many examples. As I said, I understand both positions.
On a few occasions I had folks ignoring this melanin dosage study, and looking for all kinds of excuses: "It doesn't mean all were ..., it's not true ... because all people have melanin etc .... The funniest response was, it doesn't mean they are black i.e. negroid."
I then ask them to name 5 ethnic groups of the Sahara-Sahel region, they can't and get upset. They usually end the conversation with you nigger or terminology similar to that. lol
Melanin Dosage Tests: Ancient Egyptians
Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues
-- A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2 Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13 " Materials and Methods
I never called black a race. Why do you insist on avoiding the point? Black is a reference to skin color and white folks will always promote ancient Egyptians as white skinned. Isn't that obvious? They know what white means and they know what black means and both are references to skin color and they know it. There is nothing objective about it and many white scientists are on board with it going back to the very beginning of Egyptology. I don't know what part of this is so difficult to understand. You keep claiming they aren't racist but then say they call you "nigger" if you push them on it....And that is supposedly "objective"?
They are avoiding the melanin dosage test because it proves the AE were black folks which is what they have been rejecting for 200 years. Yet you keep claiming they "know these people were dark skinned". I go by what they say and not by what they may or may not know.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I never called black a race. Why do you insist on avoiding the point? Black is a reference to skin color and white folks will always promote ancient Egyptians as white skinned.
Bullshit. Why do you keep repeating the same bullshit when over and over examples have been posted of Scholars saying AE were Brown skinned and not "Black"? Remember when Zahi Hawass said the Tut was not "Black" but then went on to talk about how the type of "Black" that exists in Egypt is different from Negroes?
Remember when Zahi Hawass said that Egyptians are not Arabs NOR are they Africans "even though Egypt is in Africa". When he said they are not "Africans" are you dumb enough to argue that he meant they didn't LIVE on the African continent even when the next thing out of his mouth said "Egypt is in Africa"?
Remember when KEITA would not call Egyptians "Black" but said their skin tone would be brown/Dark brown for the majority of the country? IS KEITA RACIST TOO? Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I never called black a race. Why do you insist on avoiding the point? Black is a reference to skin color and white folks will always promote ancient Egyptians as white skinned. Isn't that obvious? They know what white means and they know what black means and both are references to skin color and they know it. There is nothing objective about it and many white scientists are on board with it going back to the very beginning of Egyptology. I don't know what part of this is so difficult to understand. You keep claiming they aren't racist but then say they call you "nigger" if you push them on it....And that is supposedly "objective"?
They are avoiding the melanin dosage test because it proves the AE were black folks which is what they have been rejecting for 200 years. Yet you keep claiming they "know these people were dark skinned". I go by what they say and not by what they may or may not know.
Please.
This is nonsense.
Please can you show me where I stated that you called black a race?
"I never called black a race."
I wrote that the western world, in modern terms, calls blacks, in the reference to the stereotype "sub-Sahara negro". This is why don't and refuse to refer to other Africans as black. It is you who is avoiding the point. Or you are just ignorant. It has nothing to do with me supporting their ideology.
"They are avoiding the melanin dosage test because it proves the AE were black folks which is what they have been rejecting for 200 years.
Yet you keep claiming they "know these people were dark skinned". I go by what they say and not by what they may or may not know." I keep claiming they "know these people were dark skinned" (?)
I posted the melanin dosage test as an explanation, to what I have encountered in conversations, it is not about me, or "my claims". smh
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
In this 6 Part Lecture Keita speaks on the "Bio-Cultural" Origins and aspects of the Ancient populations of the Nile Valley. He includes details on the Afro-Asiatic Language Family, Genetics of the P2 Clade, Skull Measurements and Limb Proportions. AND SKIN COLOR.
quote: The technique of forensic facial approximation, or reconstruction, is one of many facets of the field of mummy studies. Although far from a rigorous scientific technique, evidence-based visualization of antemortem appearance may supplement radiological, chemical, histological, and epidemiological studies of ancient remains. Published guidelines exist for creating facial approximations, but few approximations are published with documentation of the specific process and references used. Additionally, significant new research has taken place in recent years which helps define best practices in the field. This case study records the facial approximation of a 3,000-year-old ancient Egyptian woman using medical imaging data and the digital sculpting program, ZBrush. It represents a synthesis of current published techniques based on the most solid anatomical and/or statistical evidence. Through this study, it was found that although certain improvements have been made in developing repeatable, evidence-based guidelines for facial approximation, there are many proposed methods still awaiting confirmation from comprehensive studies. This study attempts to assist artists, anthropologists, and forensic investigators working in facial approximation by presenting the recommended methods in a chronological and usable format.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Do you honestly read what you post? Are you seriously claiming that this racist is supporting theidea that the AE were black some sort of way?
Why not? Before you answer and further weaken your own positions for me, remember that you said that 'black' ONLY refers to skin color. That's the definition of 'black' you so repeatedly steered the discussion towards in the first couple of thread pages.
With that out of the way, explain to me why Baker's observation that Egyptians were mainly from a 'race' that's darker than some Sub-Saharan Africans, does not say what the rest of the sane world reads into it (i.e. that the Baker excerpts are consistent with the AE having 'black' skin on par with Sub-Saharan Africans).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Northwest Europeans are absurdly representing themselves as AE and you think that it's somehow important that the actual descendants of the AE have the 'wavy' hair of *some* pharaohs, even though afro hair is just as indigenous to Southern Egyptians and lower 'Nubians'?
The fact that you've previously tried to link 'wavy hair in Africans' to Eurasians makes me think that you're trying to evoke them here with your homogenous comment. The people of AE originated from the South and the Western desert, so that's the only way you can describe them as heterogeneous.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I never called black a race. Why do you insist on avoiding the point? Black is a reference to skin color and white folks will always promote ancient Egyptians as white skinned.
Bullshit. Why do you keep repeating the same bullshit when over and over examples have been posted of Scholars saying AE were Brown skinned and not "Black"? Remember when Zahi Hawass said the Tut was not "Black" but then went on to talk about how the type of "Black" that exists in Egypt is different from Negroes?
Remember when Zahi Hawass said that Egyptians are not Arabs NOR are they Africans "even though Egypt is in Africa". When he said they are not "Africans" are you dumb enough to argue that he meant they didn't LIVE on the African continent even when the next thing out of his mouth said "Egypt is in Africa"?
Remember when KEITA would not call Egyptians "Black" but said their skin tone would be brown/Dark brown for the majority of the country? IS KEITA RACIST TOO?
No such scholars have been posted. Swenet posted notes from racists. Are you sure you are reading the thread? You are losing your mind if you think that white scholars are openly and publicly saying in any way shape or form that the AE were black. The ones that do are few and far between and have not been posted on this thread.
Why don't you post it since you swear it has been posted already because it hasn't.
Otherwise, if all these white folks were so publicly admitting the AE were black then what is the point of most of the posts on this forum then? There should be no reason to post then should it?
The point being that some folks in this thread are claiming that we don't need to use the word "black" because Western science has deemed it a bad word and there are other ways to say the same thing. Fine. So where is Western science doing this using other words?
My point is that Western science is avoiding the term black relative to AE, not because they don't feel it is a valid word, but because they don't agree the AE were black in any shape or form, including skin color wise. And since page one some folks have been trying to tell me that for the last 200 years white folks have really been agreeing with some of us but using different words to describe the AE as black and that black is a "racial" term and that Western science has been calling the AE black in other ways without using the term black. And I am calling bull **** on all of the above. I say black because I mean skin color black and white folks don't want to use the term because of the implications of skin color more than any other so called "racial" characteristic.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Do you honestly read what you post? Are you seriously claiming that this racist is supporting theidea that the AE were black some sort of way?
Why not? Before you answer and further weaken your own positions for me, remember that you said that 'black' ONLY refers to skin color. That's the definition of 'black' you so repeatedly steered the discussion towards in the first couple of thread pages.
With that out of the way, explain to me why Baker's observation that Egyptians were mainly from a 'race' that's darker than some Sub-Saharan Africans, does not say what the rest of the sane world reads into it (i.e. that the Baker excerpts are consistent with the AE having 'black' skin on par with Sub-Saharan Africans).
I am saying that Baker was not saying the AE had black skin. Race doesn't exist idiot. Skin color does.
Baker does not say in any way shape or form that the AE had a black skin complexion.
This is what he actually says:
quote: Similarly, the Aethiopids of Ethiopia and elsewhere (Galla and other tribes) are almost certainly hybrids between Europids with some Negrid admixture, but certain authorities[303,8361 regard them as Negrids with Europid admixture.
A remote possibility exists, however, that the Aethiopids are the descendants of a group from which both Europids and Negrids are derived. There are several tribes commonly grouped together as ‘Nilo-Hamites’, because they are supposed to have Nilotid Negrids and Aethiopid Europids as ancestors; but different tribes were probably derived from different Negrid subraces and/or different Europid subraces, and if so, the grouping under a single name is misleading because it does not reflect a common ancestry.
What he actually says is that the AE were a branch of the Aethiopid RACE with Europid RACE mixture. His words are used to imply that these people are close to Europeans. He does not mention color here but uses RACIAL terms. The use of racial terms within European science means Aethiopids can be classified as a form of Europids and therefore portrayed as white in the case of AE. He never mentions skin color but if asked to produce an image of what he felt an AE person looked like it would be white skinned most likely.
But again why are you trying to twist the words of racists to say what they arent? They don't mention skin color and they are using all sorts of racial terms (but not the word black) and yet you sit here and claim this is admission of black skin color? Not it isn't. Also note how nowhere in this are black or white used as racial terms. Nowhere. Black and white are skin color terms not "racial" terms. Aethiopid, Negrid, Caucasoid and other similar terms are racial terms. Skin color is not race. Which is why black Ethiopians can be considered as part of the "Caucasoid race" with Europeans. All of this is based solely on cranial measurements with skin color hardly ever mentioned directly. Race historically has always been based on skull measurements not skin color. So based on cranial measurements, if Ethiopians, the AE and other Europeans had similar cranial types, then they were part of the same race with varying skin complexions, according to the old school racists. Implying that the AE were white skinned "Aethiopids" or "Caucasoids" with the possibility of some "negroid" admixture to imply some folks may have been "black" because of mixture. This is why I am so determined to separate cranial measurements from skin color measurements or analysis. They are two totally separate and distinct things and calling skin color black has absolutely nothing to do with historical concepts of race scientifically since it is historically based on skull measurements.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
You're denying that he assigned the AE 'black' skin and to support that you post a quote that talks about race. Then you flip flop and swear that 'black' only refers to dark skin pigmentation and has nothing to do with race. Are you off your meds again?
Doug M, just fall back and give it up. Baker said that South Asians and "Aethiopids" had "black" skin, regardless of the race he assigned them. Dishonest flip flopper.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're denying that he assigned the AE black skin and to support that you post a quote that talks about race. Then you flip flop and swear that 'black' only refers to dark skin pigmentation and has nothing to do with race. Are you off your meds again?
Doug M, just fall back and give it up. Baker said that South Asians and "Aethiopids" had "black" skin, regardless of the race he assigned them. Flip flopper.
Stop trolling Swenet. You are not seriously addressing what I said. If you are so concerned about discussing "race" then why are you quoting racists who do nothing but talk in terms of "race"?
The only one flip flopping is you.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're the one who repeatedly invoked white supremacists and you desperately wanted to talk about them. Now you're trying to shift the discussion away from them because you failed to prove your bizarre claims. Flip flopper.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what you said and how we arrived at the present topic, which you now want to abandon desperately, like a flip flopping buffoon:
They still want to have the power to categorize folks in a way that supports white supremacy, which ALL boils down to skin color. --Doug M
You are talking insane nonsense. These people [white supremacists] are not calling them black because they are not claiming they are in the same range of complexions as most Africans. --Doug M
they [white supremacists] are absolutely not saying in any shape or form that these people were in the same range of colors as most Africans. That is a bold faced lie. --Doug M
The charge that white supremacists universally have the agenda to depict Egyptians as pale skinned has been proven to be a fictitious figment of your imagination. Whether you want to own up to the figments of your imagination or whether you want to flip flop for five more thread pages is up to you. But it doesn't change the facts.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug: He never mentions skin color but if asked to produce an image of what he felt an AE person looked like it would be white skinned most likely.
Lol. Groping in the dark and floundering, like on the rest of the pages of this thread.
In their monuments the dynastic Egyptians represented themselves as having a long face, pointed chin with scanty beard, a straight or somewhat aquiline nose, black irises, and a reddish-brown complexion. --John Baker
posted
So. This is the new stratetgy? To wrestle away “Black” from Africa. Disentangle Black from Africa thus making Balck Africans null when speaking of Ancient Eygyptians. Not bad Swenet. I like it!
Euronutz have lost the war on claiming AEians and Caucasoids Europeans. So the strategy is now remove Black and thus they are only African. Word of advice. That is an uphill battle. But I like it. Cunniing as a fox Mr Swenet.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
But here is the problem. Ignoring the fact there may be politically black people. I agree Black is not a “racial term” although it is used by some Afrocentrics as “racial”. There are biologically black people. Meaning heavily Melaniated people found inside and outside Africa. So where do we draw the line as how dark is black? I think that is your argument. But the fact is the matter is as far as the AEians are concerned. Are they black like other Africans south of the sahara? Or do you prefer white Africans. Is Tan African preferable? Or even Red Africans? Bottomline. AEians were pcitured very dark. But pictures can be misleading. But the TWO the studies cited so far conclude they were deeply pigmented. So to this poiint Black Africans is apppropriate. Of course undoubtedly they were indigenous Africans from the south and had no relation to modern Europeans. So does it really matter if they are black, brown, tan red or even….white.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
I don't use 'black' anymore for reasons I've explained elsewhere. I'm commenting on how others use the term. But my past use of 'black' has been predominantly pigmentation related (e.g. see how al Jahiz includes all global low latitude populations based on skin pigmentation).
Recap of my views (emphasis on my as I'm not trying to 'convert' anyone), since reading what someone is saying by going over their posting history on that subject seems to have become a thing of the past:
*I don't think the term 'black' is needed in anthro conversations. *It tends to lead to strawman attacks from the other side *People tend to flip flop between different usages of 'black'. Because this happens subconsciously, they don't announce when they're doing it, which causes confusion. *Everyone and their mother has their own slight and large variations in their personal and default use of the term *Unless it can be substantiated with evidence, I don't think someone who is reluctant to apply 'black' to certain Africans is automatically racist *I don't think that someone who doesn't use 'black' in regards to certain dark skinned populations is automatically saying they aren't brown, or even dark brown skinned *Anything you want to express by saying 'black', you can express in more accurate terminology. If you want to group all indigenous Africans and exclude non-Africans, an alternative for 'black' can be 'indigenous Africans' or 'Saharo-Tropical variants' (Keita). If you want to refer to levels of skin pigmentation, you can talk in terms of melanin units, luschan scale values or ranges (e.g. the African American skin pigmentation range).
But I dislike how people are using 'black' like a trojan horse to trick academics and lay people. I don't support that at all. This lies at the root of why this discussion keeps resurfacing. I'm going to call it out where I see it, especially when I suspect people are doing it deliberately.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
My latest views on the level of skin pigmentation of the ancient Egyptians and how it changed over time (from early holocene to dynastic times) are discussed in the thread below.
So all of that "he doesn't believe they were 'black'" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) groping in the dark can be put to bed immediately.
posted
I understand what you are saying. Yes, Black Africans conjures up an image. But “Caucasoids” is used with the same purpose. Europeans use it to steal African History. But which one is better suited to describe AEians? That is why I have no problem using the word Caucasoids now to describe AEians. I am no longer afraid of the word….Caucasoid. Because I know it is a trgger to get a response and image. Modern Europeans has absolute no connection to AEians.. Neine! None! Nada! You see the cat is out the bag already. There is no turning back the clock. The Amarna are undoubtedly related to South Saharans and West Africans more than a hundred-fold compared to Europeans and Berbers or Levantine. Too late the turn things around. The BMJ place Rameses III in direct lineage with SSA. Strike TWO! Last I checked SSA were balck. So yes, Black African is Appropraite. Nevertheless these people were scientifically tested and proven to be heaviliy pigmented. Nothing more to add here.
But to following with the logic in that thread by the banned member linked to. I understadn his arugument about latitude within Egypt. But the data emerging now indicates Europeans were phenotypically balck up to 4000BC and they may have only turned white on a large scale only recently. Point being light skin, is newer than we think.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug: He never mentions skin color but if asked to produce an image of what he felt an AE person looked like it would be white skinned most likely.
Lol. Groping in the dark and floundering, like on the rest of the pages of this thread.
In their monuments the dynastic Egyptians represented themselves as having a long face, pointed chin with scanty beard, a straight or somewhat aquiline nose, black irises, and a reddish-brown complexion. --John Baker
So that comment about the paint color somehow is Baker's statement on what he believed the actual skin color was of those people? Most Egyptologists say that. But it has nothing to do with how they represent the AE in popular media.
That is not a statement about the actual skin color they believe was in AE.
Bottom line the racists have been using double talk and any old made up terminology to make the AE white because it supports their racist agenda. For you to sit here and claim that they "really meant" just the opposite is ridiculous.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I understand what you are saying. Yes, Black Africans conjures up an image. But “Caucasoids” is used with the same purpose. Europeans use it to steal African History. But which one is better suited to describe AEians? That is why I have no problem using the word Caucasoids now to describe AEians. I am no longer afraid of the word….Caucasoid. Because I know it is a trgger to get a response and image. Modern Europeans has absolute no connection to AEians.. Neine! None! Nada! You see the cat is out the bag already. There is no turning back the clock. The Amarna are undoubtedly related to South Saharans and West Africans more than a hundred-fold compared to Europeans and Berbers or Levantine. Too late the turn things around. The BMJ place Rameses III in direct lineage with SSA. Strike TWO! Last I checked SSA were balck. So yes, Black African is Appropraite. Nevertheless these people were scientifically tested and proven to be heaviliy pigmented. Nothing more to add here.
But to following with the logic in that thread by the banned member linked to. I understadn his arugument about latitude within Egypt. But the data emerging now indicates Europeans were phenotypically balck up to 4000BC and they may have only turned white on a large scale only recently. Point being light skin, is newer than we think.
After seeing these arguments for what, ten years or so. You still don't understand that Europeans "ARE" the Albinos of Dravidians and other Caucasian Blacks. If you can't even get that right, how can you participate in a discussion on the subject?
After seeing these arguments for what, ten years or so. You still don't understand that Europeans "ARE" the Albinos of Dravidians and other Caucasian Blacks. If you can't even get that right, how can you participate in a discussion on the subject?
This is getting old.
quote:
Southeast and south Asian populations are also often thought to be derived from the admixture of various combinations of western Eurasians (‘Caucasoids’), east Asians and Australasians. ...
These findings, coupled with the recently discovered presence of haplogroup U in Ethiopia [11], support a scenario in which a northeast African population dispersed out of Africa into India, presumably through the Arabian peninsula, before 50,000 years ago (Figure 2). Other migrations into India also occurred, but rarely from western Eurasian populations. ...
Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’— that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.
--Todd R. Disotell.
Human evolution: The southern route to Asia
Volume 9, Issue 24, 30 December 1999, Pages R925–R928
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny the author said “presumably through the Arabian peninsular”.. Because ther eis no genetic evidence the migration was THROUGH Arabia. IIRC U9 found in Souath Asia and East Africa are related . The U9 in Africa was older than the U9 in India. So yes, these “Caucasoid” features always existed IN Africa. The question is, as I told MOM, How did they arrive in India …….or Canary Islands?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
It was the year 1999. It was not clear yet whether they moved out via the Sinai or the Horn. Straits of Gibraltar was no option back then, thus far I know.
And what do you mean with the "Canary Islands". The Canary Islands are on the West side of the African continent.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question on Iberia was directed at MOM, Mindovermatter poster, my bad.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
I don't use 'black' anymore for reasons I've explained elsewhere. I'm commenting on how others use the term. But my past use of 'black' has been predominantly pigmentation related (e.g. see how al Jahiz includes all global low latitude populations based on skin pigmentation).
Recap of my views (emphasis on my as I'm not trying to 'convert' anyone), since reading what someone is saying by going over their posting history on that subject seems to have become a thing of the past:
*I don't think the term 'black' is needed in anthro conversations. *It tends to lead to strawman attacks from the other side *People tend to flip flop between different usages of 'black'. Because this happens subconsciously, they don't announce when they're doing it, which causes confusion. *Everyone and their mother has their own slight and large variations in their personal and default use of the term *Unless it can be substantiated with evidence, I don't think someone who is reluctant to apply 'black' to certain Africans is automatically racist *I don't think that someone who doesn't use 'black' in regards to certain dark skinned populations is automatically saying they aren't brown, or even dark brown skinned *Anything you want to express by saying 'black', you can express in more accurate terminology. If you want to group all indigenous Africans and exclude non-Africans, an alternative for 'black' can be 'indigenous Africans' or 'Saharo-Tropical variants' (Keita). If you want to refer to levels of skin pigmentation, you can talk in terms of melanin units, luschan scale values or ranges (e.g. the African American skin pigmentation range).
But I dislike how people are using 'black' like a trojan horse to trick academics and lay people. I don't support that at all. This lies at the root of why this discussion keeps resurfacing. I'm going to call it out where I see it, especially when I suspect people are doing it deliberately.
There is no trojan horse. White racists want the AE to have white skin. That is the point. This was not created by nor originated with black folks. Black people are oppressed world wide because of their skin color. It is not an American issue it is a world wide issue. This nonsense about people not being able to describe skin colors by names like black and white is simply a tactic chosen by white Europeans in control of Egyptology to avoid the discussion all together. This tactic was even used when folks protested the King Tut reconstruction. But that is all it is.
Discussing skin color of ancient populations is as valid as any other aspect of anthropology. Yet when white folks keep presenting their lilly white Egyptians in movies, magazines, TV and other forms of media we are supposed to assume this is based on valid science? Of course not.
Egyptsearch has been a perennial thorn in the side of the mainstream community precisely because of the fact many folks here have exposed the hypocrisy and continuing racism within Egyptology. And this is done using multi disciplinary data across a wide range of populations and sites inside and outside Egypt.
But bottom line, the whole issue has always been about skin color. And if anyone thinks that the controversy and debates over Ancient Egypt are just about the Egyptians being "African" they are being either totally stupid or in denial. At the end of the day the issue is and has always been about skin color.
And if that is the issue then that is what should be addressed directly in terms of facts and evidence to support the Ancient Egyptians having black skin. There is no other way to do it. Because that is the fundamental underlying issue. And no matter how much data and multi disciplinary research folks on this site or other sites post showing otherwise, white folks are not going to stop portraying the AE as white because it suits their agenda which is inherently racist. And racism has always been based on skin color. The white Europeans who run Egyptology, finance the digs and own the artifacts know full dam well that the issue is about skin color yet they got some folks believing that skin color "isn't important". And that means they can continue portraying the AE as white and if you ask them they will claim that you are introducing "race" into the discussion. That is why I wholeheartedly disagree with this nonsense that skin color equals race. And if anybody believes skin color equals race we know for a fact it is white European science as it is they who created the concept in the first place. So I don't by that garbage that these folks don't know and understand what you mean when you say "black people" when you are talking about Ancient Egypt. They know dam well you are talking about skin color and when they reject the word black, they are absolutely rejecting the skin color it represents. There is no denying that fact.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Black people are oppressed world wide because of their skin color. It is not an American issue it is a world wide issue.
I thought the reason was to use them as slave labor and take their land
-but it was all because they didn't like their skin color? So it wasn't about greed, it's just a visual thing?
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: White racists want the AE to have white skin. That is the point.
Show me a list of academics, racist or otherwise, who aggregated the multidisciplinary evidence in their work and concluded at the end of their discourse that unadmixed (i.e. native) AE were pale skinned blondes.
Note that I said ***"academics who went through the evidence"***, so don't come back with no bs talking about pop culture portrayals or ignorant Egyptologists who are talking from their social conditioning.
The post of mine that was cited in the OP never talked about pop culture commentators or people who were influenced by hollywood portrayals. As usual, you're flip flopping and shifting the goalpost, but what else is new?
You're talking about the same trolls and fantasists who have historically depicted Jesus as pale, blue eyed, blonde haired and/or with European facial features. Stop wasting my time with obsessing over inconsequential nincompoops when I'm talking about academia.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you mean "doing the exact opposite"? Are you suggesting that I should post counter evidence to his claim that "white racists want the AE to have white skin"? I've posted plenty examples of white racists who acknowledged the dark skin of AE.
When I disprove Doug M's claims, he starts flip flopping and flipping the script. That is all Doug does.
1) Doug claims A 2) I counter it with B 3) Instead of acknowledging he messed up, Doug then questions your motives for posting B, even though he may have explicitly asked you to post B (e.g. "why are you posting B when it was written by racists? You're a mouthpiece for Eurocentrics" or "the fact that you're posting B proves that you can't post [insert whatever his new goal post shift is]" or "[after I disproved his claim that the Bronze Age warrior resembled modern Europeans] you posted B, so are you saying that Maghrebis and Lower Egyptians are black?", etc, etc.)
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] What do you mean "doing the exact opposite"? Are you suggesting that I should post counter evidence to his claim that "white racists want the AE to have white skin"?
My last message was to Doug not you.
My point was that Doug is being reactionary. He sees something he thinks is wrong and thinks by doing the exact opposite it's right. Not realizing he's conforming to a paradigm
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: White racists want the AE to have white skin. That is the point.
Show me a list of academics, racist or otherwise, who aggregated the multidisciplinary evidence in their work and concluded at the end of their discourse that unadmixed (i.e. native) AE were pale skinned blondes.
Note that I said ***"academics who went through the evidence"***, so don't come back with no bs talking about pop culture portrayals or ignorant Egyptologists who are talking from their social conditioning.
The post of mine that was cited in the OP never talked about pop culture commentators or people who were influenced by hollywood portrayals. As usual, you're flip flopping and shifting the goalpost, but what else is new?
You're talking about the same trolls and fantasists who have historically depicted Jesus as pale, blue eyed, blonde haired and/or with European facial features. Stop wasting my time with obsessing over inconsequential nincompoops when I'm talking about academia.
You have takend the words of racists who don't say anything specifically about the skin color of the AE and tried to claim they specifically said anything about the skin color of the AE when they did not. The racists like Morton and the other guy used CRANIAL measurements as the basis of their definition of race. You keep trying to pretend that if someone says "Aethiopid" they mean black when they don't. "Aethiopid" is a generic "racial" category that they define to include Europeans based on skull shape. Historically all the major race scientists have used skull shape to define race. Hardly ever do you hear them say anything about the skin color of the AE directly. Most often they only claim that the AE skulls were similar to European skulls of various types. The implication being that if the skulls had similar shapes, then the skin color was similar as well. This has always been the standard racist paradigm concerning the skin color of the AE. Not to mention the only time you hear these same scientists use the term black is in reference to so-called "Nubians". So it isn't that they don't use the word black, they certainly do use it to refer to Africans. It is just that they don't use it for the AE because it is not in their interest to do so because they want to leave the door open for the AE being white.
And contrary to your point, white scholars are not sitting up here saying anything about the skin color of the AE directly. Hollywood, popular magazines, the History Channel, Discovery Channel all have scientists and scholars from the field of Egyptology who push the same racist nonsense that they have been pushing for the last 300 years. The fact is that Egyptology as a course of study was founded on making Ancient Egypt into a white society. And that is what they continue to do up to the present day. You are simply misunderstanding what is really happening in academia. Any scholar who has done a study can publish it for peer review. Just because it is deemed as sound science does not mean that individual studies will cause the entire scholarly community to change their own conclusions. The study of AE mummies being packed with melanin has done nothing to change the attitudes and public statements of Scholars on AE. For example, take the statement on the skin color of the King Tut reconstruction. Those were scholars and there was a large body of scholarship behind it. So the point is again skin color and these people are absolutely continuing to push their agenda and you are sitting here saying that even though everything these people produce shows the AE as white, there are other scientists somewhere who know that the AE were black. This is nonsense. If they existed this racist paradigm wouldn't be continuing to the present day.
Again, you are simply being a mouthpiece for racists and trying to put words into their mouths and change what they have written to make it say something it does not say. They are racists. They want ancient Egypt to be white. Your pronouncements and exhortations to the contrary are irrelevant. Which is why I don't agree with your proclamations that we can 'trust' or 'assume' these people really have the best intentions at heart. They don't.
There is nothing in current scholarship that suggests that the information below is NOT the consensus of modern scholarship on the skin color of ancient Egypt. If you go to the Oriental Institute, University of Pennsylvania or any institution that does research on ancient Egypt they will most likely say the exact same thing or something similar. NOTHING in here says that the AE were black people. In fact it says something absurd but that is the whole point, to make absurd blanket open ended statements that leave room for interperetation so that they can cover themselves in a cloak of legitimacy. In fact, this page actually shows why your point of view makes no sense. They say the Ancient Egyptians were "dark skinned" yet then conclude the image of Tut is "brown skinned", when it is not. Yet according to you this means they think the AE were black. Please. That is nonsense. And even if they do know it, they will never ever state it publicly.
You know dam full well that folks are talking bull sh&t out of their behinds when they start saying things like "they were neither white nor black", when the fact is that no population on earth is literally white or black, but we know that some populations have very light skin, generally called "white" and some populations have very dark skin generally called "black" regardless. Not to mention they claim that they are limited by statements of ancient writers, as if there is no science available to determine independently from that or that the artworks themselves aren't reliable enough.
quote: Not white. There is not yet enough evidence to make a definitive judgment about the pigmentation of the pharaohs or Moses, who himself was likely an Egyptian. Mummies are too desiccated to reveal skin tone, and the tiny amount of genetic evidence they have yielded so far adds nothing to the question. As the Explainer wrote back in 2011, small differences in bone structure don’t reliably indicate the race of a recently deceased person, let alone a 3,000-year-old corpse. We are mostly limited to the subjective statements of Egyptians and the outsiders who depicted them, which suggest that majority of people of pharaonic Egypt were neither white nor black, by modern standards.
Herodotus, for example, referred to the Egyptians as melanchroes. That term is sometimes translated as “black-skinned,” but Herodotus typically used a different word to describe people from further south in Africa, suggesting that “dark-skinned” is more appropriate. He also compared Egyptian skin to that of the people of Colchis, in the Southern Caucasus. The Egyptians typically painted representations of themselves with light brown skin, somewhere between the fair-skinned people of the Levant and the darker Nubian people to the south. These paintings, however, may not be entirely reliable, because Egyptian artists didn’t always faithfully attempt to recreate reality. They sometimes alternated skin tones of people in a row to create contrast. Men were depicted with darker skin than women to represent gender roles—men worked in the fields while women stayed in the home—even when the subjects were royalty who did not engage in manual labor.
Ancient Egypt was a racially diverse place, because the Nile River drew people from all over the region. Egyptian writings do not suggest that the people of that era had a preoccupation with skin color. Those who obeyed the king, spoke the language, and worshipped the proper gods were considered Egyptian. Outsiders were allowed to marry Egyptians. Even the aristocracy was racially integrated. Princesses from the Levant joined the Egyptian nobility. Maiherpri, a dark-skinned Nubian who lived shortly before the reign of Ramses II, was also part of the Egyptian royal court and was buried in the Valley of the Kings.
The skin color of ancient Egyptians is a long-running modern debate, both among scholars and in the lay community, even if the ancient Egyptians themselves didn’t much care about it. The last major flare-up came in 2005, when National Geographic launched a traveling exhibition featuring a reconstruction of the face of the boy-king Tutankhamun. A pair of earlier representations had suggested darker skin, and the lighter National Geographic version annoyed some observers. The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia convened a conference at which scholars slammed the depiction as too white. (One participant even compared the bust to a young Barbra Streisand.)* Nearly a decade later, though, the light-brown depiction of King Tut remains as good a guess as any.
Wrong. In fact she lies and says that new discoveries in the North have changed their understanding of the predynastic. No they haven't. The Egyptian state and culture still originated in the South. Nothing found in the North has changed this.
posted
Let me know when you have that list Doug. Where are all these boogeymen in academia who went over the evidence and came out claiming that the AE were pale and blue eyed? I'm not going to take your word for it. Prove it.
Other than the clumsy Tut comment and other biases, this is what your article says:
quote:Originally posted by Brian Palmer: What was the skin color of ancient Egyptians? Not white.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Let me know when you have that list Doug. Where are all these boogeymen in academia who went over the evidence and came out claiming that the AE were pale and blue eyed? I'm not going to take your word for it. Prove it.
Other than the clumsy Tut comment and other biases, this is what your article says:
quote:Originally posted by Brian Palmer: What was the skin color of ancient Egyptians? Not white.
I just did. Emily U of Chicago.
But since you are in denial I will post some more. Suffice to say the only phantoms or boogeymen are those white scholars who claim that the AE were anything other than white or very light skinned.
I mean why on earth would people be posting so much on forums like this if mainstream scholarship was openly acknowledging that the AE were black? You don't make any sense. You just sound like you are defending white scholarship when they don't need to be defended. That makes you their mouthpiece. Note how she has problems with the word black, but claims that everybody and their grandmom was in ancient Egypt except black folks..... Seriously this is retarded and your attempts to claim that white scholars are saying something different no matter all the evidence to the contrary is also ridiculous.
quote: SBM: The Egyptians are a separate ethnic group, aren't they? They're not Arabs--
ET: That's correct. It's a difficult question. Because Egypt is in northeastern Africa on the big migration routes, we're not exactly sure what group the Egyptians are. We can trace the language, but it's dangerous to say what ethnic group people are from a language, because you can change languages. Languages are not affixed to gene types.
Our assumption is that the Egyptians are essentially a mongrel people--in a nice sense--a mixed group of people because of the location. You've got indigenous African stock. You've got a lot of peoples from Palestine. The precursors of the Arabs are mixed in there. There are blond, light-skinned people from North Africa, like the Libyans. You've got all of these people mixed together to make what were called the Egyptians.
You can even see from the painted reliefs in Egyptian tombs that Egyptians came in a wide spectrum of skin colors, everything from very light to very black. But they considered themselves to be Egyptians. They did not, particularly, have a sense of race. They had a sense of national identity.
People are studying the remains--because Egypt has so many mummies to study--but the question of where these people came from has not been resolved. We've been able to completely discard this colonial idea that came at the turn of the century, where people said, "It couldn't have been Africans who made this fabulous civilization. It must have been Anglo-Saxon types or Indo-Europeans." This has now been rejected for 40 or 50 years, but occasionally comes up from people who are not aware that this is nonsense--and nastiness.
SBM: What about the opposite view, the Afrocentric view, that it's all black civilization and they taught the Greeks everything they knew?
ET: There are problems with that also. First of all there are problems with the use of the term black. What does black mean? It's so imprecise. And when you look at the reliefs, what does black have to do with these?
The impact of Egypt on Greece is being reevaluated. Certainly there is not as much transfer of information as had been thought, because in the Greek period in Egypt there were two parallel societies. There was a Greek society, the overlords of Egypt, and then there were the Egyptians.
posted
Not that watching you debunk your own claims with your own sources isn't entertaining (none of them claim that the AE were pale and blue eyed), but I still don't see academics who did what I asked you to substantiate. Post academics who WENT OVER THE EVIDENCE and came to the conclusion that they were pale and blue eyed.
Which one the articles you posted discuss the evidence? They're just opinionated rookies. You're just proving my point that the Eurocentrics you're obsessing over NEVER STUDIED THIS and if they did study this and they're saying that, they're TROLLING.
Again, THIS is generally what Eurocentric scholars who studied the subject say in regards to AE skin:
According to the best preserved monuments, the ancient Egyptians had a brownish-reddish complexion of skin, long face, pointed chin, scant beard, straight or aquiline nose like the Ethiopian race (see p. 288). The hair of the mummies makes us think of the black and frizzy hair of the Ethiopians themselves. --Joseph Deniker (1900)
I don't have time for this. This is getting more ridiculous by the second. Who cares about Emily Teeter or what she thinks? You just pluck random articles off the internet and try to pass them off as knowledgeable specialists.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Let me know when you have that list Doug. Where are all these boogeymen in academia who went over the evidence and came out claiming that the AE were pale and blue eyed? I'm not going to take your word for it. Prove it.
Other than the clumsy Tut comment and other biases, this is what your article says:
quote:Originally posted by Brian Palmer: What was the skin color of ancient Egyptians? Not white.
Thing is, a lot of the public commentators on this issue that Doug is referencing haven't gone over that evidence before spouting that bullshit. Hopefully if they did, they would revise their statements accordingly. But that being said, the fact that they're presenting themselves as authoritative voices despite not having examined the evidence in depth is still a problem. I wouldn't say they are involved in some deliberate coverup like Doug seems to be claiming, but you can still fault them for arrogance and presenting their own ignorance as reliable information. And in a way, that's no less infuriating. The way I see it, ignoramuses pretending to be experts can be at least as obnoxious as conscious liars.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I keep claiming they "know these people were dark skinned" (?) 
Printer-friendly view of this topic