quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 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.
Swenet, your trolling tactics are getting annoying. I posted a current up to date article by current scholars in the field at a leading university involved in teaching Egyptology and you go to a dam article from 1900? Why don't you address what has been posted? You have been doing this since page one. I prove you wrong and you jump to something else continually trying to troll as if you have a point. You don't. Egyptology as a whole is racist and has always been racist and your attempts to defend it and pretend that it is otherwise are simply asinine.
Nothing you have posted on this thread justifies the notion that European scholars are anything but promoting ancient Egypt as white or that use of the word black is being rejected for any other reason other than skin color. You are trying to defend these people and it is the reason why this thread has been going for over 13 pages now. Yes some European scholars have acknowledged that the AE were black Africans, but most of them don't. That is the point that you simply keep refusing to admit and now you finally find one who actually says the AE had black skin and you act like this changes all the other scholars who say the exact opposite. Not only that you pretend that this somehow contradicts the following which is what you asked for and I provided. So the point is you are wrong. European scholars as a whole are not admitting or claiming the AE were black. You are wrong and no amount of special pleading will change those facts. Budge, Bernal, Poe and many other individual white scholars have acknowledged the AE as black, but the bulk of European scholars still to this day views them and portrays them as white.
quote: One of the greatest powerhouses of Egyptology--the study of the history, language, and culture of ancient Egypt--and other ancient Near Eastern studies is the Oriental Institute, established in 1919 as an arm of the University of Chicago. It's been a leader in archaeology and epigraphy, the study of inscriptions, and its museum, which is now being expanded and improved, is a major resource for anyone with an interest in the field.
Dr. Emily Teeter, author of numerous scholarly papers on ancient Egypt, has been assistant curator at the museum for the last five years. A Seattle native, she was one of the Egyptologists for the "Treasures of Tutankhamun" show that toured American cities, including Chicago, in the late 70s, and has been a curator and consultant for many other exhibits and programs.
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.
ET: Certainly the Greeks did borrow from the Egyptians. The problem I have is when you say black Africans. Certainly they're Africans. Some of them you might say were black. The Afrocentric view is an important one to consider, and it is something that we deal with quite a bit. But there's not that much that the Greeks got from Egypt. There are significant amounts, but it's not as though Egypt inspired Greek civilization--not at all. Martin Bernal's Black Athena and all of that are just based on loose scholarship. It seems to be a sort of academic exercise of taking information and molding it to a certain preset conclusion--obviously not well received by Egyptologists or linguists.
SBM: But it's being taught in universities all over the country.
ET:That's right, and it's a shame, because there is a lot of good in the Afrocentrist approach. Certainly Africa has been given short shrift. There are now more publications coming out about ancient African civilizations, of which Egypt of course is one. It's something we've tried to do here, emphasizing Nubia, because Nubia--which is in today's southern Egypt and northern Sudan--has much less Middle Eastern influence. It's much more African--whatever African is. Africa is this incredible mosaic of hundreds of different cultures.
We've been emphasizing Nubia, because first of all it's a culture that people have no idea about. Because it is less Middle Eastern-influenced, people who are looking for African roots and the glories of Africa can look at that. And it was an absolutely incredible civilization. At one point, in fact, the Nubians conquered Egypt and unified most of the Nile Valley, about the eighth century BC. They built pyramids, they trained elephants for the Roman army, they were in a lot of contact with Rome and with Greece--a very rich civilization. We feel that part of our mission here is to educate people about cultures like that, which fall within our sphere because it is in the Nile Valley.
This is what you asked for and this is what you got from modern day European scholars. Address that and stop running.
This woman is defending the portrayals of AE people in movies, TV and popular media as white. That is the context of the conversation. Now again, please show me where these folks know the AE were black. They don't. What this woman is saying is the "party line" for all of Egyprtology. That is what she teaches to her students and that is what they need to regurgitate in order to get "acceptance" from Egyptology. Whatever it is you are talking about is irrelevant.
You are nothing but a troll defending white folks and their nonsense at this point.
These people are consistent across the board with their lies and misrepresentations of the facts.
quote: The Ancient Egyptians’ use of color is a controversial topic, one which is quite often deeply misunderstood. It is a famous point of contention for those overly concerned with “race,” specifically Afrocentrists, some of whom often make claims to the effect of Egyptian deities being “literally Black” because some were depicted with black or reddish-brown skin in some instances, and that Ancient Egyptian society, rather than being a multi-ethnic Afro-Asiatic mosaic* society as has been clearly and repeatedly demonstrated to the point of intuitive ubiquity, were originally and uniformly “Black Africans” by virtue of one of the several names for their homeland: Kemet, or “Black Land.” However, such claims furthering specific racial ideologies grossly decontextualize and distort the Ancient Egyptians’ codified systems of metaphor and depiction. These depictions are not always literal or true to life, particularly where the representation of Divine, Otherworldly beings and sacred concepts are concerned. In this article, I will attempt to clear the air by explaining what each of the major colors meant to the Ancient Egyptians, and how those colors were used.
Thesis paper on ancient Egypt from 2007: Totally avoids the point by not discussing skin color at all, as if any discussion of skin color in ancient populations equates to race.
quote: Race vs Ethnicity
Despite the Egyptian focus on physical differences, and this paper's interpretation of this focus, the term "race" will be avoided where possible. The concept of "race" has long been used to describe and label people who display similar physical characteristics, most notoriously so in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Attempts to predict the behavior pattern of groups of people belonging to the various "races" were once backed by pseudo-scientific assertions that claimed that individual characteristics such as intellect and personality were biological and could thus be linked to physical characteristics like skin color. These arguments have no serious scientific grounding but the term "race" remains problematic. The idea that behavior or ability is connected with skin color is "the classic definition of racism" and so, to avoid unintentionally bringing to mind the negative and primarily modem connotations associated with race, this work will focus instead on describing the ethnic identities of the various peoples of the ancient Near East and to interpret critically the relationships that existed between these groupings.
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.
Emily Teeter is not ignorant. She is custodian at the Oriental Institute in the University of Chicago. These people are not ignorant. They are willful liars and deceivers. Ignorant doesn't come into the equation.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Why don't you address what has been posted?
There is nothing to "address" other than that you set the goal post here:
White racists want the AE to have white skin. That is the point. --Doug M
And then you single handedly debunked yourself by posting Emily Teeter and Brian Palmer:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What was the skin color of ancient Egyptians? Not white. --Brian Palmer
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: 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. --Emily Teeter
Do you even see yourself flip flop?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Why don't you address what has been posted?
There is nothing to "address" other than that you set the goal post here:
White racists want the AE to have white skin. That is the point. --Doug M
And then you single handedly debunked yourself by posted Emily Teeter and Brian Palmer:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What was the skin color of ancient Egyptians? Not white. --Brian Palmer
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: 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. --Emily Teeter
Do you even see yourself flip flop?
No Swenet, you are a lame troll at this point simply defying logic to try and avoid the fact that all of your arguments on this thread have been shown to be invalid.
You started on page one claiming that "objective" European scholars did not use the word black but still acknowledged that the AE were 'black' using some other kind of words. You failed.
You then tried to equate studying skin color in ancient populations to racism and failed.
You then tried to claim that ancient European people are relevant when talking about "black people" in Africa and Ancient Egypt and failed.
Then you claimed that racists were admitting the AE were black in some way and failed.
You simply keep skipping from one point to the next every time you get debunked trying to find some other superfluous tidbit of data to try and defend white European scholarship as if we all don't know that when it comes to the AE they are racists. Yet you pretend that the movies books and other publications showing the AE as white are not supported by the same European scholarly community that created scientific racism. And now you have skipped again, like a record player after being bumped because you simply keep getting demolished and keep trying to save face.
Now you are saying that the page I posted is somehow acknowledging the AE as "black" using some other language.
No it isn't.
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.
According to the full quote they were neither white nor black. Which is nonsense.
But here you go claiming that the page says what it does not, which is that the AE were "black people" in some kind of 'dark skinned' way. OK.
Then the article goes on to say:
quote: 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.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.
Yeah this article is NOT acknowledging the AE as dark skinned or "black".
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Talk is cheap. Strawman attacks are cheaper. Let me know when you're ready to stop flip flopping and to start demonstrating.
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.
Talk is cheap. Strawman attacks are cheaper. Let me know when you're ready to stop flip flopping and start demonstrating.
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.
Nobody is flip flopping. You keep getting your nonsense demolished on this thread but sure I am flip flopping.
bottom line: You are wrong. White European scholars are not acknowledging the AE as black skinned using some other language, words or anything else among the large majority of scholars in Egyptology or even anthropology.
That has been shown to be completely false.
Which makes your argument that using "other words" than black will somehow change the way the AE are depicted in European popular media and scholarship totally false.
I have been saying this consistently since page one. And you have consistently failed to prove me wrong which is why you keep jumping around trying to divert the topic into something else in order to avoid the fact you are wrong.
Whatever you claim I am flip flopping about is irrelevant to the point above.
You are simply wasting time because you can't defend your argument.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: White European scholars are not acknowledging the AE as black skinned using some other language, words or anything else among the large majority of scholars in Egyptology or even anthropology.
All my comments have been restricted to academics who have a certain competence in this area and who have studied the AE ethnic background:
No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown). --Swenet
Emily Teeter and Brain Palmer don't have a firm grasp on the subject matter, which is evident from their language and inability to go much deeper beyond "red skinned Egyptians on the monuments". Try again flip flopper.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Which makes your argument that using "other words" than black will somehow change the way the AE are depicted in European popular media and scholarship totally false.
His persistent strawmen attacks and hopes they're going unnoticed would be amusing if they weren't so transparent and played out by now.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: White European scholars are not acknowledging the AE as black skinned using some other language, words or anything else among the large majority of scholars in Egyptology or even anthropology.
All my comments have been restricted to academics who have a certain competence in this area and who have studied the AE ethnic background:
No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown). --Swenet
Emily Teeter and Brain Palmer don't have a firm grasp on the subject matter, which is evident from their language and inability to go much deeper beyond "red skinned Egyptians on the monuments". Try again flip flopper.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Which makes your argument that using "other words" than black will somehow change the way the AE are depicted in European popular media and scholarship totally false.
His persistent strawmen attacks and hopes they're going unnoticed would be amusing if they weren't so transparent and played out by now.
Swenet you are in no position to determine who is competent or acknowledged as an authority in any field of scholarship anywhere. You don't pay their salaries, confer their degrees or sign off on their thesis papers. Therefore what you consider as 'valid' scholarship is irrelevant. The faculty at the U of Chicago is not paid by you and do not require your approval for their degrees or to teach. Your absurd attempts to downplay and ignore the fact that Europeans are absolutely racist when it comes to Egypt are simply sad and delusional to say the least.
I don't have any illusion about the situation while you keep with some delusional belief that these people aren't saying what they actually say or that the European scholarly community isn't the European scholarly community because you say so.
Like I said before, modern Egyptology has taken the stance that any discussion of skin color in Ancient Egypt is equivalent to discussing race, which is used to keep students studying Egyptology from debating or disagreeing with any "authorities" in the field on the subject. It basically is trying to avoid the accusation that the portrayals of the skin color of the Ancient Egyptians by modern scholars is based on modern racism in the European academic community and does not match the facts nor evidence from ancient or modern Egypt itself.
quote: Talking about what race the Ancient Egyptians is a fascinatingly controversial topic that, even today, ignites angry passions. There exists a fierce argument between Afro-centrists and those who would love to discredit them (the latter group is almost hilarious in their desperation to discredit the former) over whether or not the Ancient Egyptians were black. But trying to “retcon” them into our narrow parameters of race is difficult to say the least as, most importantly, race is not even real in the biological sense. Human DNA does not vary much between one population to the next–in fact, more genetic variation can be found within a population–and as such it is impossible to determine race based on DNA alone.
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. --Emily Teeter
Has no authority to speak on the matter. Stop trying to fool yourself. You seem to have the "smart massa" complex where every white academic with a position in a university is automatically an authority on every niche subject.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Your absurd attempts to downplay and ignore the fact that Europeans are absolutely racist when it comes to Egypt are simply sad and delusional to say the least.
Stop the strawman attacks Doug. It's making it seem like you have the short term memory of a goldfish.
This is what I said in regards to Eurocentric racism. I don't deny it exists, I just don't agree most of it was channeled into the skin pigmentation of the EA by academics who have studied the subject.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: An additional point is that the vast majority of the racism in Egyptology has been directed into channels other than the ethnic background of the ancient Egyptians. Early writings on the AE phenotypical associations mostly centered on their so-called 'Hamitic' origins. The comparative populations in this 'Hamitic' grouping are still considered their closest relatives today by bio-anthropologists widely cited on egyptsearch.
How by far most of the racism has expressed itself, is in the following, among other things:
1) reluctance to admit or at least consider that the 'Hamitic' grouping consists of groups who are indigenous African in principle. 2) saying civilization was brought in from Sumer and elsewhere. 3) insisting that they couldn't have been 'black' and then pointing to region x in Africa they perceive to be uncivilized. 4) making the the ability to progress in civilization hereditary. 5) explaining unexpected (i.e. "negroid") skeletal remains away as individuals who were 'enslaved' by the ancient Egyptians. 6) explaining Egypto-Nubian conflicts as racial wars. 7) saying 'black Africans' couldn't have crossed the Sahara when it was a desert. 8) ignoring and marginalizing cultural links with inner Africa and magnifying cultural links with the Middle East.
Black is a reference to skin color and white folks will always promote ancient Egyptians as white skinned
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
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.
Doug keeps saying over and over again mainstream Egyptology wants the Egyptians to be white and when asked to give an example it's this:
quote:
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.
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
In Doug's mind this 20 year old quote is supposed to be a glaring example of "white" racist Egyptologists wanting the Egyptians to be white
How can Doug be that delusional ? The woman plainly says some Egyptians are depicted not only black but "very black" and of the ones depicted with lighter skin she specifically excludes then from being Anglo-Saxon types or Indo-Europeans Instead she references Libyans
Doug needs to do his homework and find a recent quote where an Egyptologist is saying the Egyptians were white, otherwise he needs to hang up the straw men because he is looking very foolish with this example
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Anyone who says this:
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. --Emily Teeter
Has no authority to speak on the matter. Stop trying to fool yourself. You seem to have the "smart massa" complex where every white academic with a position in a university is automatically an authority on every niche subject.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Your absurd attempts to downplay and ignore the fact that Europeans are absolutely racist when it comes to Egypt are simply sad and delusional to say the least.
Stop the strawman attacks Doug. It's making it seem like you have the short term memory of a goldfish.
This is what I said in regards to Eurocentric racism. I don't deny it exists, I just don't agree most of it was channeled into the skin pigmentation of the EA by academics who have studied the subject.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: An additional point is that the vast majority of the racism in Egyptology has been directed into channels other than the ethnic background of the ancient Egyptians. Early writings on the AE phenotypical associations mostly centered on their so-called 'Hamitic' origins. The comparative populations in this 'Hamitic' grouping are still considered their closest relatives today by bio-anthropologists widely cited on egyptsearch.
How by far most of the racism has expressed itself, is in the following, among other things:
1) reluctance to admit or at least consider that the 'Hamitic' grouping consists of groups who are indigenous African in principle. 2) saying civilization was brought in from Sumer and elsewhere. 3) insisting that they couldn't have been 'black' and then pointing to region x in Africa they perceive to be uncivilized. 4) making the the ability to progress in civilization hereditary. 5) explaining unexpected (i.e. "negroid") skeletal remains away as individuals who were 'enslaved' by the ancient Egyptians. 6) explaining Egypto-Nubian conflicts as racial wars. 7) saying 'black Africans' couldn't have crossed the Sahara when it was a desert. 8) ignoring and marginalizing cultural links with inner Africa and magnifying cultural links with the Middle East.
What I said was not a strawman. You do not confer degrees upon or pay the salaries of anybody in any field of study in any discipline. So your attempt to ignore Emily Teeter as a scholar of Egyptology is simply you living in fantasy land. You did say that yet her paycheck and her titles say otherwise. Rather than debate the fact that her position is not dependent on your approval, I would rather point out she is just promoting the standard party line concerning ancient Egypt in terms of what you must accept and regurgitate in order to get a degree in Egyptology. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant, but the fact is that this is what the 'scholarly community' promotes as Ancient Egyptian history and your attempts to downplay and ignore the racism in Egyptology as an institution is beyond belief.
Here is another video by Miss Teeter rehashing the trope that the color of Egyptian men was red (when it was brown) and the women were yellow because they stayed inside:
We all know full damn well this is nonsense and I am quite sure she is familiar with the objections to this nonsense but that won't stop her from continuing to say it because again, nobody here pays this woman's checks or confers her any degrees or authority over anything.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Here is another video by Miss Teeter rehashing the trope that the color of Egyptian men was red (when it was brown) and the women were yellow because they stayed inside:
We all know full damn well this is nonsense and I am quite sure she is familiar with the objections to this nonsense but that won't stop her from continuing to say it because again, nobody here pays this woman's checks or confers her any degrees or authority over anything.
^^^ Time 43:52
"very very commpn that the men are painted kid of terra-cotta red and women are painted yellow and this is an encoding, it's symbolic, that supposedly this family is well off enough that the woman does not have to word outdoors, this is what we think is going on here...."
So agin the word "white" was not used but Doug is claiming that it was
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
the color of Egyptian men was red (when it was brown)
interesting, they were brown, clip and save quote
Let's look at the sculpture form the Oriental Institute Teeter is referring to:
quote: The brown and yellow skin tones are common ancient Egyptian convention that differentiate male from female. The woman's lighter tone indicates that she lived a protected life and did not have to work under the harsh sun. The affectionate pose of the couple attests to the close tie between man and wife in ancient Egypt.
Terrracotta is reddish brown not red like an apple as Doug tries to imply by leaving out the word "terracotta" Color semantics again (yet this is the age of genetics)
So we see the words "terracotta red" is a fair description of this particular sculpture and the woman never said "white" or anything close to it
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yet pop depictions in movies today sometimes depict the Egyptians as Europeans.
So what to do about?
I suggest one thing that is better than crying about it here or trying to entrap professors to use words you like is to instead go to the sources of whoever is misrepresenting the Egyptians.
Doug pointed out a history magazine published in Britain "All About History" with Ramesses II depicted as a European looking type on the cover
So you are free to contact them and complain in any way you see fit.
But did any of you do it? I did.
Do people really care about taking action? Or is it really about winning debates in forums?
Maybe that won't change anything but I will tell you it is certainly more likely to have an influence than endlessly debating semantics in this long ass thread
It is time to stop nitpicking and focusing on words.
The best approach is to go to the sources and say your representation is not matching the Egyptian's representation and it's not fair and not respectful or twitter about it
Ridley Scott took heat for Exodus despite his defensiveness about it
To an extent however, one can use artistic license in a film and have any ethnicity play any other ethnicity
But,,, historians and history magazines can't use such excuses - and you need to call them to account for it
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egyptology, since its founding by the rich robber barons of Europe who began going there to steal the treasures, has been founded on white supremacy. They created a whole discipline with one purpose, which is to turn ancient Egypt into a long lost white civilization, which was based upon enslaving black folks to the south. This narrative was the reason for the Samuel Morton's and other racists of the world creating the science of craniology and anthropology in the first place, in order to show the world that white folks have always built their civilizations based on conquest and enslavement of "inferior" races, like Africans. This language is consistent in all the books written by the racists on ancient Egypt from the 1700s to this very day and it continues in the movies, TV shows, magazines and other popular publications put out in the media.
Because of this history, Egyptology as a degree granting course of study in many major European universities have come up with a doctrine that tries to blame racism in science on black folks. This is based on the idea that "scholars aren't racists" even if their views and ideas on what the Ancient Egyptians looked like haven't changed for over 200 years. They basically force you to accept their blanket statements on the skin color of the ancient Egyptians being white but when you challenge them on this portrayal, turn around and claim you are being racist for focusing on skin color. That is the whole underlying argument that is being made by some folks on this thread. they must be trying to get acceptance from or admission into some European school of Egyptology because they are going out of their way to support the same doctrine.
Here is an example from a current page from an egyptology department professors web site:
quote: Race is based on phenotypic characteristics with skin color being the first indication of one’s background, but this process is flawed due to the simple fact of clinal distribution and other, highly variable factors such as diet.
Skin color is not race. Studying the skin color of an ancient population is no different than studying any other aspect of biology in anthropology. It becomes racist when you identify skin color of said population based on preconceived notions of superiority or inferiority based on skin color, which is implicit in most of the works of European anthropology for the last 200 years. In fact, most of the racism was based using skull measurements to determine "race", where certain types of skulls were deemed to be closer to the European "ideal" racial type, even in Egypt.... See Samuel Morton. None of this originates with black people or black scholars.
quote: There is simply no place where “black” skin ends and white “skin” begins, though many are hoping that by studying the DNA of mummies the racial background of the Ancient Egyptians will be revealed.
Populations have skin color based on environmental adaption to prevailing local conditions. Ancient Egypt was primarily populated from the South by populations who would have been tropically adapted and therefore black in complexion. Nothing in the environment of the Sahara or Southern Egypt would produce the skin color and phenotype of a modern European or very pale Levantine type population.
quote: Moreover, race as we know it is a modern concept. Our pattern of white supremacy, which was birthed out of economic concern, only began after African slaves had been brought to the Americas. For the ancients, nationality as we understand it was much more important than whatever shade of skin might have. The Ancient Greeks, for example, considered themselves the premier race based on culture, not color. But these racist ideals were too blinding to early archaeologists, who practically fabricated reason after reason the Ancient Egyptians could only be white. Even more desperately, the Nubians were not escape this pattern of whitewashing.
OK. But this hasn't changed. Europeans are still portraying the ancient Egyptians as white. So where does Egyptology stand on this point? And we know that the word "white skin" refers to any population with very pale skin colors. But to this day in most depictions of ancient Egyptians the populations are depicted this way, even though most people in Egypt to this day don't match this, especially those in Upper Egypt (Abydos on down) who have always been black.
But here is the key. Even on this very page of Egyptology they admit that Europeans are still very racist in terms of what the Ancient Egyptians looked like. However, instead of addressing the issue as originating within Egyptology itself, they try and pretend that skin color isn't a part of anthropology and the study of human biology. As if to say "white scholars" aren't racist, but other people are. The point is nobody would know about Egypt in the West or most of the world if it was not for the so-called science of Egyptology and it is that same field of scholarship that is responsible for promoting the idea of ancient Egypt as being white.
So take responsibility for the racism within the institution that you belong to and stop trying to pretend it is somebody else's fault.
Egyptology was financed by rich white folks like the David Rockefeller to analyze and study the artifacts they stole from Egypt. The University of Chicaco and the Oriental institute were founded by Rockefeller money along with the expeditions to Egypt and the Egyptian museum itself. In other words, the whole institution was founded by and for racists who were plundering nations and people of the world for their own wealth and power and plundering Egypt was just the jewel in the crown of their stolen glory.
quote: Regardless of the race of the Egyptian people, does it matter?
It doesn’t matter to me in the sense that it proves the superiority of one race or another at any given time. It doesn’t matter to me in the sense that I feel moved to prove the Egyptians as one race or another. It is important because of our recent history with race, one that leaves children feeling lesser and some feeling cheated as the race of famous individuals is left out of history books. If the Egyptians were truly a white race I wouldn’t care; they would still be an amazing people. But what is so offensive about this argument is that for so many it is literally impossible to imagine the Egyptians not being of European descent, that while researching I found comments ranging from ignorant to outright hateful and racist, that there exists a rhetoric that Africans could never have accomplished so much. And that is exceedingly problematic.
So, why isn't Egyptology setting the record straight then not from a "racial" perspective, because skin color is not race, but from a biological perspective on how the origins of the populations that became ancient Egyptians would have had skin colors very dark and not looked anything like Europeans, if indeed that is what you believe. Because otherwise, you are in support of the racists.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jean-Francois Champollion (1790 – 1832) , acknowledged as the father of modern Egyptology, best known for his work on the Rosetta Stone made the following remarks on a scene form the book of gates:
"Right in the valley of Biban-el-Moluk, we admired, like all previous visitors, the astonishing freshness of the paintings and the fine sculptures on several tombs. I had a copy made of the peoples represented on the bas-reliefs. At first I had thought, from copies of these bas-reliefs published in England, that these peoples of different races led by the god Horus holding his shepherd's staff, were indeed nations subject to the rule of the Pharaohs. A study of the legends informed me that this tableau has a more general meaning. It portrays the third hour of the day, when the sun is beginning to turn on its burning rays, warming all the inhabited countries of our hemisphere. According to the legend itself, they wished to represent the inhabitants of Egypt and those of foreign lands. Thus we have before our eyes the image of the various races of man known to the Egyptians and we learn at the same time the great geographical or ethnographical divisions established during that early epoch. Men led by Horus, the shepherd of the peoples, belong to four distinct families. The first, the one closest to the god, has a dark red color, a well-proportioned body, kind face, nose slightly aquiline, long braided hair, and is dressed in white. The legends designate this species as Rot-en-ne-Rome, the race of men par excellence i.e., the Egyptians. There can be no uncertainty about the racial identity of the man who comes next: he belongs to the Black race, designated under the general term Nahasi. The third presents a very different aspect; his skin color borders on yellow or tan; he has a strongly aquiline nose, thick, black pointed beard, and wears a short garment of varied colors; these are called Namou. Finally, the last one is what we call flesh-colored, a white skin of the most delicate shade, a nose straight or slightly arched, blue eyes, blond or reddish beard, tall stature and very slender clad in a hairy ox-skin, a veritable savage tattooed on various parts of his body; he is called Tamhou. I hastened to seek the tableau corresponding to this one in the other royal tombs and, as a matter of fact, I found it in several. The variations I observed fully convinced me that they had tried to represent here the inhabitants of the four corners of the earth, according to the Egyptian system, namely: 1. the inhabitants of Egypt which, by itself, formed one part of the world ...; 2. the inhabitants of Africa proper: Blacks; 3. Asians; 4. finally (and I am ashamed to say so, since our race is the last and the most savage in the series), Europeans who, in those remote epochs, frankly did not cut too fine a figure in the world. In this category we must include all blonds and white-skinned people living not only in Europe, but Asia as well, their starting point. This manner of viewing the tableau is all the more accurate because, on the other tombs, the same generic names reappear, always in the same order. We find there Egyptians and Africans represented in the same way, which could not be otherwise; but the Namou (the Asians) and the Tamhou (Europeans) present significant and curious variants. Instead of the Arab or the Jew, dressed simply and represented on one tomb, Asia's representatives on other tombs (those of Ramses II, etc.) are three individuals, tanned complexion, aquiline nose, black eyes, and thick beard, but clad in rare splendor. In one, they are evidently Assyrians, their costume, down to the smallest detail, is identical with that of personages engraved on Assyrian cylinders. In the other, are Medes or early inhabitants of some part of Persia. Their physiognomy and dress resemble, feature for feature, those found on monuments called Persepolitan. Thus, Asia was represented indiscriminately by any one of the peoples who inhabited it. The same is true of our good old ancestors, the Tamhou. Their attire is sometimes different; their heads are more or less hairy and adorned with various ornaments; their savage dress varies somewhat in form, but their white complexion, their eyes and beard all preserve the character of a race apart. I had this strange ethnographical series copied and colored. I certainly did not expect, on arriving at Biban-el-Moluk, to find sculptures that could serve as vignettes for the history of the primitive Europeans, if ever one has the courage to attempt it. Nevertheless, there is something flattering and consoling in seeing them, since they make us appreciate the progress we have subsequently achieved." Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
So this despicable woman [Emily Teeter] is basically saying that Africans should concentrate all their efforts on 'Nubia' and forget Egypt because AE was somehow heavily influenced by the 'Middle-East' and that 'Nubia' was unambiguously African? What Middle-eastern 'influence' is this snake of a woman talking about? It was the other way round.
There is no evidence that AE was mix race. This is maddening.
This reminds me of what rasol once said: "Nubia" is the contrived Bantustan of Nile Valley history.
Western Egyptology attempts to say to Africans: "You go play here, and don't cross the line."; a line of their own creation and serving their agenda, and not an African one.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Let me put it like this.
If Teeter et al know for a fact from the skeletal evidence that there are no racial undertones (i.e. a preference for [and the presence of] 'mixed' and West Asian women) implied in the skin color scheme below, I agree with your assessment about her. If she's unsure or assumes out of ignorance that there are racial implications, I mostly disagree. [/qb]
I would assume that she knows exactly what she's doing, because she's been in this field for many decades now and was confident enough in her 'knowledge' on the subject to write a long list of books and papers on AE -- one of which was centered around religion and ritual in AE, and so she would have been aware of the symbolic conventions in AE art in one way or another, directly through her own research or through discussions with colleagues.
So I doubt that her 'mixed group' position is influenced by art. Nothing in the disciplines lends credence to her assertions; she's willfully sending into emission factually false assertions that are not grounded in science. And if she was merely ignorant about findings in certain fields, then she have been a little more reticent. [/qb]
There tends to be a tangible difference in beliefs between white Egyptologists and white bio-anthropologists who have seriously studied AE skeletal remains.
The latter rarely say that the AE men were tanned whites and that the AE women (who remained indoors) represent the true pigmentation level of the entire AE population, while people who subscribe to this among Egyptologists and lay people are much, much more common.
These proponents are all white, so we know this difference has nothing to do with their background.
These proponents can all be just as racist. In fact, the latter can be even more committed to their racism as I've shown, so we know this difference doesn't lie there, either.
What would you say this difference can be chalked up to?
Reposted from other thread. Sudaniya, please answer here for the sake of continuity.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
So far no examples of scientists calling the Egyptians "white"
Ippolito Rosellini, 1800-1843 was the founder of Egyptology in Italy also made many illustrations, copies of tomb paintings. Doug keeps claiming that Egyptologists wanted the Egyptians to be white. Yet we see from the start, them recording the art in faithful dark skinned reproductions
[
And Egyptologists who first started excavating these tombs did not know exactly who the Egyptians were ethnically or to what extent their population was homogeneous or heterogeneous -and they're still not sure about it today
Petrie had his Dynastic race theory, was it calculated racism or ignorance? yet he is the same person who bought a broad featured Egyptian artifact in a shop and declared it to be the head of Narmer. The field has been a mixed bag of interpretation from the start
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Let me put it like this.
If Teeter et al know for a fact from the skeletal evidence that there are no racial undertones (i.e. a preference for [and the presence of] 'mixed' and West Asian women) implied in the skin color scheme below, I agree with your assessment about her. If she's unsure or assumes out of ignorance that there are racial implications, I mostly disagree.
I would assume that she knows exactly what she's doing, because she's been in this field for many decades now and was confident enough in her 'knowledge' on the subject to write a long list of books and papers on AE -- one of which was centered around religion and ritual in AE, and so she would have been aware of the symbolic conventions in AE art in one way or another, directly through her own research or through discussions with colleagues.
So I doubt that her 'mixed group' position is influenced by art. Nothing in the disciplines lends credence to her assertions; she's willfully sending into emission factually false assertions that are not grounded in science. And if she was merely ignorant about findings in certain fields, then she have been a little more reticent. [/qb]
There tends to be a tangible difference in beliefs between white Egyptologists and white bio-anthropologists who have seriously studied AE skeletal remains.
The latter rarely say that the AE men were tanned whites and that the AE women (who remained indoors) represent the true pigmentation level of the entire AE population, while people who subscribe to this among Egyptologists and lay people are much, much more common.
These proponents are all white, so we know this difference has nothing to do with their background.
These proponents can all be just as racist. In fact, the latter can be even more committed to their racism as I've shown, so we know this difference doesn't lie there, either.
What would you say this difference can be chalked up to?
Reposted from other thread. Sudaniya, please answer here for the sake of continuity. [/QB]
Bio-anthropologists are scientists and have very little room to maneuver in favour of any prejudices that they may hold; their methodology, sampling and conclusions have to be clearly laid bare, and if they transgress against the science by allowing their prejudices to overwhelm them and influence their works, they can quite easily be called out for it, as Keita has done regarding the skewed samplings of other bio-anthropologists.
Egyptology has no such clearly defined constraints and accords far too much flexibility - allowing dishonest Egyptologists to constantly subject people to nauseatingly nonsensical guff.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: There tends to be a tangible difference in beliefs between white Egyptologists and white bio-anthropologists who have seriously studied AE skeletal remains.
To clarify what I mean, consider this 1992 bit, from bio-anthropologist Christian Simon. Despite Simon's confused concept of what 'African' means (he equates it to Sub-Saharan Africa) and other biases, he ties dynastic Egyptians in with Nubians and observes "affinities" between the Badarians and "black Africans":
quote:The dendrogram of Figure 8 shows the proximity of various populations. We find two well individualized sets; The Nubians and Egyptians, while Africans seem more different. Overall the Nubian Kerma populations are grouped with the Ethiopians and the group of Siwah. We had already observed in other analyzes, this similarity between Kerma and Ethiopians. By Siwah against the position of group from Upper Egypt remains poorly explained. Other Nubian groups are related to this set but with a less strong similarity. The [dynastic] Egyptian population is fairly homogeneous but with the group of Badari which has affinities with black populations. The Sahara group is a little different it relates to the Egyptians but with low affinity. Negroid groups are very different and show very little affinity with the Egyptian-Nubian populations. However, it should be noted that these populations are recent and that therefore a significant distortion may arise from this great chronological difference. In conclusion, found in a fairly strong Kerma population morphological continuity from one period to another, formed a large population of Nubian background associated with foreign ethnic elements. At its insertion in the Nilo-African populations, it shows a relatively large affinity with the Egyptian people and much less with the South. However it should be noted as we have already said, that African populations are recent comparison. To get a more accurate view it would have archaeological populations in southern Sudan or East Africa. Unfortunately we have not such populations.
They may have not always have said that this Egypto-Nubian cluster is completely indigenous African, but, historically, this has been the most common explanation of AE relationships among white bio-anthropologists, including notorious racists like Baker, Morton and Coon. Among the Egyptologists I'm familiar with, people who believe this are a minority.
What would you attribute this huge gap to, if you disagree that it has a lot to do with familiarity with the bio-anthro evidence?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sudaniya: Bio-anthropologists are scientists and have very little room to maneuver in favour of any prejudices that they may hold; their methodology, sampling and conclusions have to be clearly laid bare, and if they transgress against the science by allowing their prejudices to overwhelm them and influence their works, they can quite easily be called out for it, as Keita has done regarding the skewed samplings of other bio-anthropologists.
I don't think you understand the magnitude of difference involved between the Egyptologists and bio-anthropologists I've mentioned. Modern bio-anthroplogists who fit your description (only reluctantly admitting relationships to Africans because they're forced to) are bio-anthropologists like Raxter and Godde, who say that the AE resemble Nubians due to ecology. According to them, the AE migrated from some place to the north and gradually acquired tropically adapted limbs and other characteristics that make them "appear" close to Nubians. This sounds an awful lot like the "tanned" red outdoors Egyptians and the swarthy "indoors" theory Egyptologists love so much.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sudaniya: Bio-anthropologists are scientists and have very little room to maneuver in favour of any prejudices that they may hold; their methodology, sampling and conclusions have to be clearly laid bare, and if they transgress against the science by allowing their prejudices to overwhelm them and influence their works, they can quite easily be called out for it, as Keita has done regarding the skewed samplings of other bio-anthropologists.
I don't think you understand the magnitude of difference involved between the Egyptologists and bio-anthropologists I've mentioned. Modern bio-anthroplogists who fit your description (only reluctantly admitting relationships to Africans because they're forced to) are bio-anthropologists like Raxter and Godde, who say that the AE resemble Nubians due to ecology. According to them, the AE migrated from some place to the North and gradually acquired tropically adapted limbs and other characteristics that make them "appear" close to Nubians. This sounds an awful lot like the "tanned" red outdoors Egyptians and the swarthy "indoors" Egyptian theory Egypologists love so much.
I had no idea that modern bio-anthropologists peddled such scientifically bereft nonsense. I looked up some of these 'specialists' and have now concluded that they are purposely distorting the affinities of AE. We can't trust Europeans to faithfully research African history whether as bio-anthropologists or Egyptologists because they will always attempt to distort the evidence and skew things in their favour in one way or another.
Bio-anthropologists can't maneuver as well, but they will still lie. We are at war with these people, unfortunately our death-deserving leaders in Africa are too busy killing their own and stealing resources instead of arming Africa for the intellectual battles required to reclaim our history.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Raxter and Godde are by no means specialists in the true sense of the word (although they are more specialized than others), but what I'm saying is that the degree to which EVEN THEY show improvements relative to the Egyptologists I mentioned, has to do with the fact that they realize that certain positions that ignorant Egyptologist and lay people may find acceptable (based on their interpretation of certain AE artwork), are untenable.
Just for the sake of clarity (so my point doesn't get lost in the mix), what I repeatedly said in regards to "specialists" or people who have studied AE skeletal remains, is that they're not in denial in regards to skin pigmentation (this argument came up because Doug claimed that there was a consensus among them that the AE were pale skinned and blue eyed). I didn't say that they're specialists in the sense that they're right about everything they're saying. There are both racists and non-racists among said "specialists", but the point is they're ahead of people who think that the AE were tanned, but originally pale or swarthy immigrants. In that sense (familiarity with the skeletal remains), they're "specialists" for the lack of a better word.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^If there is one re-occurring theme in the writings of racist and racialist specialists, it's that AE who were depicted as brown skinned, WERE actually brown skinned and related to Lower Nubians.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: See above. It's a misconception that specialists think they AE were pale skinned. As far as I know, this is mostly the position of amateur commentators and academic trolls who have never looked into the matter. The specialists (both the racist and the non-racist) tend to think either that they and their afro-asiatic relatives were mixed or that both are indigenous and in their own clade.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That racist and non-racist specialists and racialists have often said or implied that the ancient Egyptian skin color would have been in the range of African American skin pigmentation is ancient news.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I had no idea that modern bio-anthropologists peddled such scientifically bereft nonsense.
The flip flops you're talking about are entirely within the bounds of science. Often they do it deliberately and due to denial, but it's not like it's contra science in and of itself. As I've said earlier, most scientific disciplines cannot tell if Coon and Baker or we are right.
*Yes, if Levantines would settle in the tropics, they would darken gradually and become more like Nubians in their cranio-facial features. *Yes, there is evidence for mixed populations who cranio-facially approximate the ancient Egyptians (namely, Dravidians, who are ANI/ASI mixed).
On a fundamental level, most branches of science don't favor one ancient Egyptian origin narrative of the ancient Egyptian over the other.
The only way you can prove OUR position over their position is by analyzing all the data and seeing which theory stands when the dust settles. If you don't have all the data at your disposal, but just a few pieces of the puzzle, their theory is as good as ours or almost as good from the perspective of science.
Again, examples of what science can prove:
*that the AE had levels of pigmentation that were way out of the range of Europeans and swarthy people and in the range of African Americans *that the AE were phenotypically close to Nubians and closely related Africans *that the AE so far have mainly shown haplogroups and autosomal genetic material that occurs more in Africans *that the AE spoke a language that belongs to a phylum that has more speakers in Africa
What science can't prove on a fundamental level:
*That any of this, including haplogroup E, M1, etc. did or didn't arrive on the African continent as a result of backmigration.
Yes, we know they didn't backmigrate (at least in the case of E we're very determined), but we didn't arrive at that conclusion because there is a gene somewhere that talks to you when you ask it if it's African or Asian.
One can only arrive at this conclusion by looking at all the data and carefully applying ockham's razor. Only when you do that you can see that science supports our case more than theirs. But that's a matter of analysis, not the raw "cutting edge" findings. And it's not a self-evident matter. Just because we've come to the conclusion over the years that it's self evident to us doesn't mean that it's self-evident to all observers.
These 'standoffs' are very common in science. In fact, they're natural to science because all sciences start with making descriptions about natural phenomena and not being able to see the larger patterns of what things mean in the larger scheme. Everything from evolution to physics gets demystified like this over time and mostly based on skillful analysis and ockham's razor, not based on any specific set of findings.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: One can only arrive at this conclusion by looking at all the data and carefully applying ockham's razor. Only when you do that you can see that science supports our case more than theirs. But that's a matter of analysis, not the raw "cutting edge" findings. And it's not a self-evident matter. Just because we've come to the conclusion over the years that it's self evident to us doesn't mean that it's self-evident to all observers.
These 'standoffs' are very common in science. In fact, they're natural to science because all sciences start with making descriptions about natural phenomena and not being able to see the larger patterns of what things mean in the larger scheme. Everything from evolution to physics gets demystified like this over time and mostly based on skillful analysis and ockham's razor, not based on any specific set of findings.
This is true. A lot of this knowledge comes from synthesizing data from various disciplines, not any single headline-grabbing study. What's needed here is a comprehensive synthesis of all the data, like maybe an updated follow-up to Keita's "Studies and Comments" papers.
That said, the odd headline-grabbing (or "cutting edge") study would come in handy for communicating this information to a public that hasn't been picking up all the pieces over time like we have. Back in the late 90's, when fossils of certain maniraptoran dinosaurs (e.g. Caudipteryx and Sinornithosaurus) were found with feathers preserved, paleontological consensus was already shifting towards feathers being ubiquitous throughout this theropod subgroup, including charismatic dromaeosaurids like Velociraptor and Deinonychus. Before then, feathers were generally considered an apomorphy specific to Archaeopteryx and then birds proper. But it wasn't until 2007 when feathers were practically confirmed on Velociraptor itself, by virtue of quill knobs (feather attachment points) found on one of its arm bones. That would have been the headline-grabbing event that abolished any doubt that Velociraptor, and by extensive all Dromaeosauridae, had feathers.
What a comparable headline-grabber would be for our pet hobbyhorse, I don't know. The DNA Tribes studies might come closer than most, but their non-peer-reviewed publication and misleading characterization of their results (AEs related most of all to South Africans, what?) might not give them the gravitas of a peer-reviewed paper.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^This thread makes me even more convinced that trying to explain stuff to lay people or even this forum is just a bad investment of time. 15 thread pages already. No matter what headline you show them, they're going to read into it whatever they want to read.
Take Carlos Coke. After everything I taught him, he got belligerent with me and tried to lecture me on that reconstructions of most dynastic AE would necessarily come out looking unambiguously 'black', which is crap of the highest order. He even admitted this privately when he looked at some NK pharaohs and said their looks threw him off. But selective memory is how these people cope, so why not let them get high off their own fantasies.
Doug proved that Eurocentrics aren't necessarily racists when he called that Bronze Age warrior European-looking. If something like that, which is clearly consistent with North Africans and some dynastic Lower Egyptians, looks necessarily European to Doug, it shows that Eurocentric authors aren't necessarily deliberately racist when they get a hard on looking at certain North African skeletal remains with a similar craniofacial pattern.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^No idea. But I've participated in this thread for 15 thread pages so it's on record and he can't lie about my positions or flip flop to do damage control. I'm about to wrap it up shortly and save this thread and his screw ups in case he tries to take his crap elsewhere in public.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^This thread makes me even more convinced that trying to explain stuff to lay people or even this forum is just a bad investment of time. 15 thread pages already. No matter what headline you show them, they're going to read into it whatever they want to read.
Understood. People are too invested in their preconceptions and agendas to reason with them either way.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about you? Do you think they're ever going to accept something like the DFA affinities of Brace et al 1993's 'averaged' Naqada, recent Nubian and X group Nubian individuals? If this thread is any indication they'd rather accuse Brace et al of tampering with his data than admitting that this is the result you can get with the measurements and DFA statistics he used.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^This thread makes me even more convinced that trying to explain stuff to lay people or even this forum is just a bad investment of time. 15 thread pages already. No matter what headline you show them, they're going to read into it whatever they want to read.
Take Carlos Coke. After everything I taught him, he got belligerent with me and tried to lecture me on that reconstructions of most dynastic AE would necessarily come out looking unambiguously 'black', which is crap of the highest order. He even admitted this privately when he looked at some NK pharaohs and said their looks threw him off. But selective memory is how these people cope, so why not let them get high off their own fantasies.
Doug proved that Eurocentrics aren't necessarily racists when he called that Bronze Age warrior European-looking. If something like that, which is clearly consistent with North Africans and some dynastic Lower Egyptians, looks necessarily European to Doug, it shows that Eurocentric authors aren't necessarily deliberately racist when they get a hard on looking at certain North African skeletal remains with a similar craniofacial pattern.
Nice try Swenet but it wont work. This thread went for 15 pages for 4 main reasons:
1) You refuse to admit that modern science still is quite racist in their portrayals and depictions of the skin color of ancient Egypt and that the issue is fundamentally all about skin color, not nose shape, eye shape, head shape or anything else. THIS is obvious from the last 200 years of argument and debate by various scholars.
2) You refuse to admit that 'black' is historically a reference to skin color in populations like Africa and not anything else which other folks have tried to graft onto it over time, especially with the advent of scientific racism. The AE were black because their skin color was indeed black.
3) You brought up a whole bunch of irrelevant facts about European Bronze Age people to other populations outside of Africa to try and debate whether 'black' is a valid word for black skinned people as if European people are currently identified as black or similar to Ancient Egyptian people.
4) And the last main point, you are ultimately in denial of the fact that when these scholars reject the idea of 'black' ancient Egyptians they are absolutely talking about skin color. This National Geographic magazine proves that quite clearly.
quote: The Black Pharaohs An ignored chapter of history tells of a time when kings from deep in Africa conquered ancient Egypt. By Robert Draper National Geographic Contributing Writer Photograph by Kenneth Garrett
In the year 730 B.C., a man by the name of Piye decided the only way to save Egypt from itself was to invade it. Things would get bloody before the salvation came.
“Harness the best steeds of your stable,” he ordered his commanders. The magnificent civilization that had built the great pyramids had lost its way, torn apart by petty warlords. For two decades Piye had ruled over his own kingdom in Nubia, a swath of Africa located mostly in present-day Sudan. But he considered himself the true ruler of Egypt as well, the rightful heir to the spiritual traditions practiced by pharaohs such as Ramses II and Thutmose III. Since Piye had probably never actually visited Lower Egypt, some did not take his boast seriously. Now Piye would witness the subjugation of decadent Egypt firsthand—“I shall let Lower Egypt taste the taste of my fingers,” he would later write.
quote: Chosen By God - The Great Black Pharaohs of the 25th Dynasty!
And of course I already posted the comments by Emily Teeter.
So what do they mean by black in this context? Are they not talking about skin color here? And are you suggesting that the same scholars who have such a problem with black in terms of Ancient Egypt have no problem with it in Sudan? If so then it proves you absolutely, totally and fundamentally wrong. You keep getting proven wrong but of course you will try and blissfully ignore all the facts contradicting your point to try and paint a picture of "objective" scholars rejecting the term black for some 'technical and scientific' reason but of course miss the obvious point that they are rejecting the connotation of skin color.
And this article from National Geographic which openly and blatantly calls the Sudanese and so called "Nubians" black is something repeated consistently across the board among all Egyptologists. So your argument that 'black' is not a reference to skin color and is some arcane reference to some other combination of 'very specific' biological features on some super technical level is bull sh*t. And your argument that they do this because of some concerns about 'objectivity' is bull sh*t as well. They don't want to call them black because they don't want to portray them as having skin colors similar to most Africans who are black.
And as for this article Sudan is not "deep inside of Africa". It is North African.
Not to mention the Egyptian culture originated in and was continually renewed from the South as even the Metropolitan museum is currently showcasing:
So stop lying with your nonsense that these people don't use the word black when they use it all the time and if they don't use it in Egypt it is because they are rejecting the notion that the Ancient Egyptians had black skin. Period.
And if you want to be technical and scientific about it, the AE looked exactly like the black people depicted in the ancient art who are still in Egypt to this day:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: 4) And the last main point, you are ultimately in denial of the fact that when these scholars reject the idea of 'black' ancient Egyptians they are absolutely talking about skin color.
Time to put Doug back to sleep again (or probably a more likely reaction we'll see from him: his predictable tendency of goalpost shifts, denialism and flip flopping when confronted with inconvenient data). Here is yet another Egyptologists who rejects the applicability of 'black' in the western, racial sense for the Egyptians, yet accepts that the Egyptians who are depicted as dark brown and jet-black skinned on the monuments would have been exactly that in real life:
quote:The iconography of the Egyptians’ depictions of themselves and foreigners suggests that, for most of their history, they saw themselves as midway between the black, woolly-haired Africans and the pale, bearded Asiatics. Scenes in the tombs of the New Kingdom pharaohs Seti I and Ramesses III in the Valley of the Kings specifically depict the various human types in the universe over which the sun-god Ra presided. These types included reddish brown Egyptians whose skin colour contrasts equally starkly both with the black-skinned Kushites (Nubians) and with the paler skinned Libyans and Asiatics. Although partly based on skin colour and other physical characteristics, these ancient ethnic types were also based on varieties in hairstyles and costume, and their function was apparently to allow the Egyptians to define themselves as a national group, relative to the rest of the world. Such depictions, however, would have been recognized by the Egyptians themselves as simplified stereotypes, given that the thousands of portrayals of individual Egyptians show that the population as a whole ranged across a wide spectrum of complexions, from light to dark brown and black.
--Ian Shaw, Ancient Egypt A Very Short Introduction (2004)
In case someone decides to get cute and attack strawman as usual: I'm not saying that Shaw is without Eurocentric biases. I'm not posting him to parade him as a paragon of objectiveness that people should rally behind. I'm posting him to refute a specific claim Doug is making, so miss me with the strawman attacks.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: 4) And the last main point, you are ultimately in denial of the fact that when these scholars reject the idea of 'black' ancient Egyptians they are absolutely talking about skin color.
Time to put Doug back to sleep again. Here is yet another Egyptologists who rejects 'black' as a racial term for the Egyptians, yet accepts that the Egyptians who are depicted as dark brown and jet-black skinned on the monuments would have been exactly that in real life:
quote:The iconography of the Egyptians’ depictions of themselves and foreigners suggests that, for most of their history, they saw themselves as midway between the black, woolly-haired Africans and the pale, bearded Asiatics. Scenes in the tombs of the New Kingdom pharaohs Seti I and Ramesses III in the Valley of the Kings specifically depict the various human types in the universe over which the sun-god Ra presided. These types included reddish brown Egyptians whose skin colour contrasts equally starkly both with the black-skinned Kushites (Nubians) and with the paler skinned Libyans and Asiatics. Although partly based on skin colour and other physical characteristics, these ancient ethnic types were also based on varieties in hairstyles and costume, and their function was apparently to allow the Egyptians to define themselves as a national group, relative to the rest of the world. Such depictions, however, would have been recognized by the Egyptians themselves as simplified stereotypes, given that the thousands of portrayals of individual Egyptians show that the population as a whole ranged across a wide spectrum of complexions, from light to dark brown and black.
--Ian Shaw, Ancient Egypt A Very Short Introduction (2004)
Which means what? So would Mr Shaw use the word black to refer to the "nubians"? Are not black people in all of Africa or specifically places like Sudan who are also called black not shades of brown? You are arguing for racists again and not for yourself. And this is why this thread goes on for pages and pages.
What I said was that the colors of 'brown' in the Ancient Egyptian artwork is called 'black' as a reference to the skin color of most Africans and indeed to this day Egyptians still have that complexion. And these scholars who are rejecting this notion of 'black' in Egypt are rejecting that those colors are literally the complexion the AE actually had. So you are misunderstanding the quote. He is NOT claiming that the AE matched those colors of brown in the art 'of various shades' and I would argue they DID match those shades and they are the same shades found elsewhere in Africa. His argument is that those colors are symbolic and that the actual people were probably much lighter as in almost white. But of course you are trying to claim he is saying something different. Again, you are wrong.
And if black is not a valid term then it isn't valid for ANY population on earth, because technically no population is black as opposed to a shade of brown. If black is not a valid term that scholars refuse to use in Egypt because it is not "technically valid" and because the AE portrayed themselves as brown, does that mean that 'black' is not used by these same people for OTHER Africans who are also brown? And what is the difference in 'brown' from ancient Egypt and the 'brown' of other Africans? Because there is no one shade of brown. And this is where your assumption that because they say brown they mean 'black' like other Africans you are totally, absolutely and fully incorrect. They mean white. In their eyes, the reconstruction of TUT is brown, as I already have shown you from Emily Teeter and others in Egyptology itself. Which means that in terms of actual skin color those words are less than meaningless and as meaningless as 'black' supposedly is but actually this proves why using 'black' is better because it is the most direct and unambiguous way of making sure there is no wiggle room for these clowns to wiggle out of the fact that the AE had black skin not like 'brown' tan white folks.
Bottom line, when these white scholars say 'in between' Asiatics and "Nubians" they mean 'white skinned' or almost white. Sorry Swenet, you have spent 15 pages trying to defend these clowns and you are still wrong and your whole 6 horse team is dead no matter how much you keep trying to beat them.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Flip flopping, fabricating incoherent mumbo jumbo BS and shifting the goal post as usual. But, of course, most onlookers aren't going to call you out of for your shenanigans. So, go ahead. The flip flop stage is all yours. I've demonstrated what I came here to demonstrate.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What about you? Do you think they're ever going to accept something like the DFA affinities of Brace et al 1993's 'averaged' Naqada, recent Nubian and X group Nubian individuals? If this thread is any indication they'd rather accuse Brace et al of tampering with his data than admitting that this is the result you can get with the measurements and DFA statistics he used.
I wasn't really talking about this forum in particular in my last couple of posts. But obviously ES posters generally aren't counter-examples to my statement that a lot of people are too invested in their preconceptions to accept reality.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Flip flopping, fabricating incoherent mumbo jumbo BS and shifting the goal post as usual. But, of course, most onlookers aren't going to call you out of for your shenanigans. So, go ahead. The flip flop stage is all yours. I've demonstrated what I came here to demonstrate.
Swenet, how about reading the books you cite before posting them?
Because this man contradicts everything you have been saying and reinforces everything I have been saying since page one.
quote: Egyptologists, particularly in North America, cannot escape the fact that ancient Egyptian culture has become a 'black Issue'. The view that Egypt was a fundamentally black civilization - often described as an "Afrocentric" position is important to many Africans and African Americans because it gives both Africans and black people a much more significant statek in the emergence of early civilizations. Many Afrocentrics regard the standard Egyptological study of "Egypt" as so tainted that they will only refer to the country by the Ancient Egyptian toponym Kemet ....
There is no doubt that some Egyptologists in the past have been guilty of racist interpretations of the Egyptians. At the most heinous end of the scale, Grafton Elliot Smith suggested in 1909 that 'the smallest infusion' of Negro-blood immediately manifests itself in a dulling of initiative and 'drag' on the further development of the arts of civilization. It is also difficult to read the theories advanced by Flinders Petrie concerning the establishment of pharaonic Egypt by and invading Near Eastern or even European 'master race' without being aware of his right wing political views and the fact that he was an enthusiastic member of the Eugenics movement, which was dedicated to 'improving' human stock by 'the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations' (according to its founder, the anthropologist Sir Francis Galton). Bryan Emry's espousal of invasion theories concerning early Egypt, on the other hand, was no doubt influenced more by the diffusionist ideas of Gordon Childe, but also by pre-war British colonialism in Egypt and Sudan.
However, to assume, as many Afrocentrics appear to do, first that much conventional Egyptological thought is still infected by such racism, and second that the very existence of such prejudice in some way proves that, contrary to much of the visual and written evidence, ancient Egyptians were both black and African, seems a little unjustified. Perhaps the last word on this should be left to C. Loring Brace:
The 'race' concept did not exist in Egypt, and it is not mentioned in Herodotus, the bible, or any of the other writings of classical antiquity. Because it was neither biological nor social justification, we should strive to see that it is eliminated from both public and private usage. Its absence will be missed by no one, and we shall all be better off without it. RIP
Again, the horses are dead so stop beating them up. He is not saying that the AE looked anything like 'black' people in anyway and he applies 'black and African' in the same sentence as if to say black and African don't always go together or in other words explicitly implying that black is a reference to skin color. Not to mention avoiding the issue of the skin color of the AE in terms of very detailed observations of both modern Egyptians and other Africans along the Nile and comparing them to the portraits which is what should be part of any true form of anthropological study... but I digress.
posted
The book is online. Interested parties can go and verify for themselves that when Shaw disapproves of "black", he talks about the western racial use of the term.
quote:I cannot leave the subject of the identity of the Egyptians as a nation without attempting to tackle the very contemporary question of the extent to which the ancient Egyptians should be regarded as racially and ethnically ‘black’. How justified are such writers as Martin Bernal and Cheikh Anta Diop in regarding Egypt as an essentially ‘black’ civilization culturally appropriated and misrepresented by white Europeans? In 1981 Diop confidently asserted that ‘Egyptians were Negroes, thick-lipped, kinky-haired and thin-legged’. Although it is certainly true that some surviving Egyptian mummies or depictions of ancient Egyptians fit this description, the fact is that most of both the former and the latter are anthropologically and visually quite different to Diop’s description.
--Ian Shaw, Ancient Egypt A Very Short Introduction (2004)
No different from what I've tried to convey here:
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: A subset of dynastic Egyptian samples squeezed in between Abyssinians and Cretans, Etruscans and Sardinians and showing considerable ties with the biblical inhabitants of the Judaean city of Lachish. No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown).
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The book is online. Interested parties can go and verify for themselves that when Shaw disapproves of "black", he talks about the western racial use of the term.
quote:I cannot leave the subject of the identity of the Egyptians as a nation without attempting to tackle the very contemporary question of the extent to which the ancient Egyptians should be regarded as racially and ethnically ‘black’. How justified are such writers as Martin Bernal and Cheikh Anta Diop in regarding Egypt as an essentially ‘black’ civilization culturally appropriated and misrepresented by white Europeans? In 1981 Diop confidently asserted that ‘Egyptians were Negroes, thick-lipped, kinky-haired and thin-legged’. Although it is certainly true that some surviving Egyptian mummies or depictions of ancient Egyptians fit this description, the fact is that most of both the former and the latter are anthropologically and visually quite different to Diop’s description.
--Ian Shaw, Ancient Egypt A Very Short Introduction (2004)
No different from what I've tried to convey here:
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: A subset of dynastic Egyptian samples squeezed in between Abyssinians and Cretans, Etruscans and Sardinians and showing considerable ties with the biblical inhabitants of the Judaean city of Lachish. No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown).
And he also states that black is a valid reference to other Africans just not the AE.
So again, he is not agreeing with the AE looking anything like other Africans who are black.
You are simply denying the obvious. He is rejecting black as a reference to skin color.
But you can pretend whatever you like in your fairy tale imagination which is what you have been spewing on this thread for 15 pages trying to deny the obvious that this rejection of the word black is a rejection of skin color in AE being anything like other Africans who are black and this is the whole reason for the whole debate over this topic for 200 years.
How many ways can someone say the AE weren't black, which includes their skin color, before you will accept that this is what they are saying? He is not saying they were 'dark' like other Africans called "black", because if he was he would have said they were black then. Because he has no problem using the term black for other Africans. So this just shows you trying to twist these peoples words to mean just the opposite of what they are saying is what has made this go on for 15 pages..... He is saying that the AE did NOT have skin colors like other Africans who are normally called black, which means no shade of brown darker than light tan, which is consistent with everything I have been saying on this thread since page one. But you have been denying this since page one as if to say they 'really' mean dark like black Africans some other way. No they don't.
quote: However, to assume, as many Afrocentrics appear to do, first that much conventional Egyptological thought is still infected by such racism, and second that the very existence of such prejudice in some way proves that, contrary to much of the visual and written evidence, ancient Egyptians were both black and African, seems a little unjustified. Perhaps the last word on this should be left to C. Loring Brace:
And if this person is a 'competent scholar' why is it OK for him to use the word black for other Africans just not the AE then? Why is that 'competent' scholarship for other Africans but not the AE? You are simply tying yourself in knots trying to defend these racists. Nowhere in his book is he calling the AE dark brown in any kind of way as an alternative to the word black. He is rejecting the word black as also rejecting the idea that they were anything close to dark brown.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Ian Shaw, Ancient Egypt A Very Short Introduction (2004)
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Nowhere in his book is he calling the AE dark brown in any kind of way as an alternative to the word black. He is rejecting the word black as also rejecting the idea that they were anything close to dark brown.
thousands of portrayals of individual Egyptians show that the population as a whole ranged across a wide spectrum of complexions, from light to dark brown and black. -- Ian Shaw, Ancient Egypt A Very Short Introduction (2004)
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I had no idea that modern bio-anthropologists peddled such scientifically bereft nonsense.
The flip flops you're talking about are entirely within the bounds of science. Often they do it deliberately and due to denial, but it's not like it's contra science in and of itself. As I've said earlier, most scientific disciplines cannot tell if Coon and Baker or we are right.
*Yes, if Levantines would settle in the tropics, they would darken gradually and become more like Nubians in their cranio-facial features. *Yes, there is evidence for mixed populations who cranio-facially approximate the ancient Egyptians (namely, Dravidians, who are ANI/ASI mixed).
On a fundamental level, most branches of science don't favor one ancient Egyptian origin narrative of the ancient Egyptian over the other.
The only way you can prove OUR position over their position is by analyzing all the data and seeing which theory stands when the dust settles. If you don't have all the data at your disposal, but just a few pieces of the puzzle, their theory is as good as ours or almost as good from the perspective of science.
Again, examples of what science can prove:
*that the AE had levels of pigmentation that were way out of the range of Europeans and swarthy people and in the range of African Americans *that the AE were phenotypically close to Nubians and closely related Africans *that the AE so far have mainly shown haplogroups and autosomal genetic material that occurs more in Africans *that the AE spoke a language that belongs to a phylum that has more speakers in Africa
What science can't prove on a fundamental level:
*That any of this, including haplogroup E, M1, etc. did or didn't arrive on the African continent as a result of backmigration.
Yes, we know they didn't backmigrate (at least in the case of E we're very determined), but we didn't arrive at that conclusion because there is a gene somewhere that talks to you when you ask it if it's African or Asian.
One can only arrive at this conclusion by looking at all the data and carefully applying ockham's razor. Only when you do that you can see that science supports our case more than theirs. But that's a matter of analysis, not the raw "cutting edge" findings. And it's not a self-evident matter. Just because we've come to the conclusion over the years that it's self evident to us doesn't mean that it's self-evident to all observers.
These 'standoffs' are very common in science. In fact, they're natural to science because all sciences start with making descriptions about natural phenomena and not being able to see the larger patterns of what things mean in the larger scheme. Everything from evolution to physics gets demystified like this over time and mostly based on skillful analysis and ockham's razor, not based on any specific set of findings.
That makes sense and so I agree.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another video from the Metropolitan Museum showing clearly how Egyptology clearly and openly promotes white supremacy and racism. This is what they mean when they reject the AE as black. They feel that Victor Mature is what Horemheb actually looked like.
quote:Moses film attacked on Twitter for all white cast. Since when are Egyptians not white? All I know are.
And this is not rejected by any white Egyptologist in any real sense.
Because in their minds they are the Ancient Egyptians and the black local Egyptian population does not even exist in the Eye of Eternity or Train of Horus or the Party of the Gods... In other words they are liars.
Another Egyptologist in the Tomb of Horemheb with the locals and the only pale white person there is who? HIM. But Victor Mature is a splitting image of Horemheb. https://youtu.be/7jrjNcBNF7A?t=3642
Note not only do the monuments not match the Victor Mature neither do modern Egyptians from Upper Egypt or any of Egypt.
The point being is that none of these modern European depictions of ancient Egypt match either the skin tone and complexion of Egyptians today, who range from light skinned to very dark brown or those of the past who would have been on average dark brown in skin complexion. When they say brown they do not mean brown like the brown seen in Upper Egypt to this day.
So bottom line this whole discussion is about the basics of anthropology. Where are the picture books of local Egyptian "types" created by Europeans from the late 19th to early 20th century? Wny aren't those not used as the basis for understanding the features in Egypt today and how they relate to the poulation and features of the past as seen in the ancient artwork? That should be part of any basic anthropological study. But they don't do this and the reason there aren't many photos is because either they are kept in private or institutional collections away from the public or because they knew that the populations don't match the European phenotype they keep trying to pass off as Ancient Egyptian. This is all intentional and deliberate and this is why they don't call the AE black.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Another video from the Metropolitan Museum showing clearly how Egyptology clearly and openly promotes white supremacy and racism. This is what they mean when they reject the AE as black. They feel that Victor Mature is what Horemheb actually looked like.
quote:Moses film attacked on Twitter for all white cast. Since when are Egyptians not white? All I know are.
And this is not rejected by any white Egyptologist in any real sense.
Because in their minds they are the Ancient Egyptians and the black local Egyptian population does not even exist in the Eye of Eternity or Train of Horus or the Party of the Gods... In other words they are liars.
Another Egyptologist in the Tomb of Horemheb with the locals and the only pale white person there is who? HIM. But Victor Mature is a splitting image of Horemheb. https://youtu.be/7jrjNcBNF7A?t=3642
Note not only do the monuments not match the Victor Mature neither do modern Egyptians from Upper Egypt or any of Egypt.
The point being is that none of these modern European depictions of ancient Egypt match either the skin tone and complexion of Egyptians today, who range from light skinned to very dark brown or those of the past who would have been on average dark brown in skin complexion. When they say brown they do not mean brown like the brown seen in Upper Egypt to this day.
So bottom line this whole discussion is about the basics of anthropology. Where are the picture books of local Egyptian "types" created by Europeans from the late 19th to early 20th century? Wny aren't those not used as the basis for understanding the features in Egypt today and how they relate to the poulation and features of the past as seen in the ancient artwork? That should be part of any basic anthropological study. But they don't do this and the reason there aren't many photos is because either they are kept in private or institutional collections away from the public or because they knew that the populations don't match the European phenotype they keep trying to pass off as Ancient Egyptian. This is all intentional and deliberate and this is why they don't call the AE black.
HOREMHEB
Victor Mature as Horemheb, of Italian/ Swiss background Peep his fro. He seems to have straightened it down with hair grease at other times
^^ Here he is again looking reddish brown with the goddess Hathor. Interestingly there is also a small light skinned man head glyph and a darker head one also in the top middle
The Europeans like playing Egyptians with their actors.
Yet Africa has a whole huge continent of independent countries. They've been independent for 55 years, they have a film industry, they have African millionaires and billionaires
So why the hell aren't our damn billion black people in Africa making movies on ancient Egypt with African actors ???
There's the problem
-expecting some other culture to rep you right
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the first time I agree with lioness, in that we [Africans] have utterly failed to protect our interests by not using native Egyptians in inspired films for global audiences, but more importantly for African audiences.
Horemheb could easily be played by black Egyptians in Luxor, Esna, Edfu, Kom Ombo, Aswan, the Red sea coast, the Siwa Oasis and the village at Malqata. Europeans and Middle-Easterners have no business playing the AE in any sense but it's all our fault; we're too busy killing each other and destroying our countries, which makes it difficult to challenge the 'west' in its insistence on appropriating African history.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand the Egyptian civilization has been dead for 2000 years while other African cultures have survived to the present day and many Africans seem uninterested in ancient Egypt
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really DID NOT expect this thread to get 15 pages... Can't you guys just come to a agree-disagreement? I mean both parties have made good points, but whats the point in keep arguing and banging your head on the desk when you know the other will NEVER agree with your argument?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
What did you take away from the points that were raised, BBH or anyone else for that matter?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I really DID NOT expect this thread to get 15 pages... Can't you guys just come to a agree-disagreement? I mean both parties have made good points, but whats the point in keep arguing and banging your head on the desk when you know the other will NEVER agree with your argument?
Both parties didnt make good points. Doug is basically lying. Doug claimed that learned scholars are saying AE had Pale White Skin and look like Nordics then he quotes folks that say AE was light, Brown and Black.
Doug lied saying race does not exist and all populations with dark skin = Black because Black is only a skin color. He then proceeds to argue that some population that are Black skinned are not "Black"......flip flopping and instead referring to the Racial Model of Black when he can include and exclude on a whim.
Doug then attempts to play the 'crowd appeal tactic' where he accuses those that dont agree with him of supporting Euro-centrism. Because you know....black people need to stick together..'sure that will get passive readers on my side.'
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[/qb]
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic