quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Ancient Egyptians called themselves blacks and were blacks. Either that is true or it is not. Just like the Ancient Greeks were white and called themselves white.
There is nothing else to it.
This is one case of a simple black vs white debate where it is totally and wholly appropriate.
To say that race is a social construct is one thing, but to claim that skin color is not real because race is a social construct is bullsh*t. Skin color is just as real as any other aspect of human biology and there is nothing 'unscientific' about using words to describe skin color. Calling certain ranges of skin color white is no less accurate or valid than calling other ranges of skin colors black. This usage of colors to describe human skin complexion is not new and is not based on 'racism'. It is based on observed facts. Now to argue that the Egyptians or any other population weren't black is to argue that their skin complexion was not within the range of what could be considered black.
I'm against this 19th century racialist sort of thing but anyway here's the link for curiousity's sake dividing the wolrd into two categories is idiotic Dienekes Pontikos
Who said anything about dividing the world into categories? That has nothing to do with the dam question. Stick to the point. Were the ancient Kemetians black or not? And why are you bringing up an avowed racist? When I say racist, I mean they hate anything to do with black skin when it can be shown to be 'superior' in any regard relative to white skin. And that is from their own writings on the issue, this is not something coming from black folks. So why are you even entertaining this nonsense? If they are against racism then they should be debating with white folks who created the construct.
All this going all over the world to avoid answering a simple dam question.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I posted this because of the calculator. I have noticed that quite a few academics have him linked on there page. The reason why, I don't know.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I posted this because of the calculator. I have noticed that quite a few academics have him linked on there page. The reason why, I don't know.
They have it linked because Europeans created the concept of race based on craniometry and other "metrics". All of it is total garbage that they use to divide up the world as they see fit based on their racist views. Again, I don't know why folks are trying so hard to give these folks a pass for their B.S.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
And since he didn't question this premise, that black is not just "anyone with dark brown skin" but in fact it's a race then we must assume tropicals redacted believes that blacks and whites are races
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
I'll repeat again. The reason why scientist do NOT use black or any other racial terms is because "race" itself is NOT repeat NOT scientifically defined. Its mostly a social constructs. Now do social constructs have validity in science? No.
This is false logic and displays an ignorant double standard. When one looks at the genetic table of White Europeans, you see completely different genes and haplogroups for some populations.
Take for instance the Basque, the Basque look superficially mediterranean and White, yet they are primarily of Haplogroup R1b and have zero to none of Haplogroup R1a. They have a distinct genepool and geneset then the rest of Europe and predates other White European groups with haplogroup R1a and are very inbred and are one of the oldest European groups.
Yet these same White European academics state that the Basque are part of a "greater" White European race and are lumped with a European "white race" that includes Poles, Czechs, Germans, Lithuanians etc etc. And furthermore they are presented as proof by these lying academics that Whites originate from Europe. When they have nothing to do with other White Europeans who are hybrids of recent Central Asian migrants.
Yet these SAME academics have a double standard and have no qualms about saying that these black Indians and Black Chinese ARE NOT ACTUALLY BLACK BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT GENES, DESPITE LOOKING COMPLETELY BLACK ON THE OUTSIDE!
So the obvious conclusion is that there is a double standard at work here, and none of what your professors are saying is actually true but sunk in personal and racial agenda's with no basis in reality.
And African genes ARE EXTREMELY DIVERSE! One SINGLE AFRICAN VILLAGE, is more genetically diverse and further apart, then another African village/tribe a couple of miles away! They could be more further apart then a European is to a Chinaman genetically.
Therefore, the BLACK INDIAN ISLANDERS, and BLACKS ELSEWHERE, are just variations of the BLACK GENETIC DIVERSITY that is inherent and part of the genetics of people from BLACK AFRICA!
I don't think your professors and you yourself grasp this concept...
quote: Now not denying that there are some bias/bigoted anthropologist that still hold onto refuted ideas such as YAP being Eurasian or most of African diversity being attributed to Eurasian. But all in all race is just not accepted in science.
I mean Coons racist ideas are not even looked at anymore in anthropology. Caucasoid and Negroid are NO LONGER used in a racial sense. Its not just "black" thats not used, but white too!
Actually it is, there are still "professional" blogs and forums that still use those terms and terminologies. For example, they call Black looking people from Asia and Oceania as "negrito's".
quote: Keita doesn't use the term black either, is he a racist?
Now with Historians this would be a different story in my opinion.
And just to be clear I am person who PROUDLY identifies as black. We just have to be careful when and when not to use racial social terms is all I am saying.
No it's not racist or false to use term "black" at all, if these people in question were black skinned in the first place. After all, even geneticists and anthropologists like Spencer wells, and others still throw around the term "black" and "black skinned" here and there, just go watch Spencer's latest documentary.
Oh and Horus, just because science and genetics have disproved concepts of blackness and race DOES NOT MEAN that the social implications of it or the politics of blackness/whiteness is going to GO AWAY ANY TIME SOON!
Even with genomic science, people ARE STILL GOING TO SUBSCRIBE to old misconceptions and social categories of RACE from THE AVERAGE GUY to HIGH LEVEL POLITICIANS JUST LIKE IN THE U.S TODAY NO MATTER WHAT!
Did genomic science advances in race stop cops from racially profiling and killing innocent blacks or employers/college administrates denying people with black skin certain rights and prestigious positions/jobs TO THIS DAY?
Even with advances from genomic science, did it stop White liberals who preach racial equality and know all this genomic science, from MOVING AWAY FROM MAJORITY BLACK FILLED AREAS OR FROM BLACK SKINNED PEOPLE IN GENERAL because of the fact that they had black skin despite knowing race is a "social construct"?
Does it stop people like Jared Taylor and HBD bloggers from saying that people with dark skin had lower IQ'S and can't fit into civilization? Hell no!
So it's irrelevant whether these "black skinned" people have different "genes" or not. Because society and the majority of the world's civilizations and peoples, still operate on "social constructs" on the highest levels of society, then so should we and adapt accordingly and use it accordingly.
No one really gives a **** about genes in real life except for monarchies, and if you have black skin then you are treated as someone with black skin no matter your genes or where you are from.
And it's using this logic, that professional academics and historians use the concept of skin color and the social construct of "race" to tie Europe to a some sort of a mythical lineage and continuity of "western" civilization that includes non-white European civilizations and peoples like the Assyrians/Babylonians/Phoenicians/Egyptians/GREEKS/Etruscans when no such thing exists.
It's a play on words and a double standard tactic, using the same logic as you Horus, modern Western Europeans and White Europeans in general are descendants of Ancient Greeks and Roman civilizations because of supposed "common genes".
But MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT GREECE OR ETRUSCANS DESPITE CLAIMING THEIR CIVILIZATIONS! Modern Greeks HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT GREEKS!
All of these White Europeans are recent migrants and invaders from Eurasia that have no genetic lineage to Ancient Greeks. Ancient Greece and Roman civilizations HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS ON A GENETIC CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS!
Yet does it stop White academics from claiming "ancient Greece" as a "white civilization" when that in itself is dubious? Hell no!
But compare this with Egypt, where you have BLACK SKINNED people from around the Egyptian area, WHO DO HAVE GENES AND LINEAGES THAT DIRECTLY COINCIDE WITH ANCIENT EGYPTIAN GENES! But are ignored by academics.
Yet you have a hybrid mulatto Roman/Greek/Arab/Turk/Black/Germanic/Eurasian population IN EGYPTIAN CITIES TODAY who claim they are descendants of THE ACTUAL EGYPTIANS WHEN NO SUCH THING IS POSSIBLE! Yet these people's opinions are taken more seriously.
So yes, black and dark skin does matter even to these lying professors and scientists you talk with, no matter the genes and blacks outside Africa are blacks for all intents and purposes and DEFINITELY SO ARE ANCIENT EGYPTIAN BLACKS!
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
All of these White Europeans are recent migrants and invaders from Eurasia that have no genetic lineage to Ancient Greeks. Ancient Greece and Roman civilizations HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS ON A GENETIC CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS!
You don't know what the ancient Greek haplgroups are, you are just blowing hot air. You are going to have to look it up now
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I posted this because of the calculator. I have noticed that quite a few academics have him linked on there page. The reason why, I don't know.
They have it linked because Europeans created the concept of race based on craniometry and other "metrics". All of it is total garbage that they use to divide up the world as they see fit based on their racist views. Again, I don't know why folks are trying so hard to give these folks a pass for their B.S.
Hey Doug could you make more big posts on the African and Asian origins and basis of "western civilization"? I have printed numerous arguments of yours because they were so good.
The current belief is that Africa had no advanced cvilizations or advanced tech that influence civilizations like Ancient Egypt and that matched with Ancient civilizations like Greece, Rome, China, Persia etc etc. And that these Africans had no influence on Europe.
However African civilizations in Africa had already entered the Iron age and discovered Iron BEFORE WHITE EUROPEANS, and this was used by Hannibal for his Carthaginian army.
They were more wealthier and more advanced then all of Northern Europe and Western Europe combined during the Medieval era. Could you please do future posts elaborating and explaining this.
Even on forums like Historum, the misconceptions that Africans had no other advanced civilizations like Egypt and not on par with Egypt or Eurasian cvilizations still run amok. And also that Africans did not influence Europeans or were more advanced or just as advanced as them during the Medieval ages.
I know this is OT, but you have made GREAT posts here on this forum in past debunking Eurocentrists on Africa, and I'm still searching for more of them and they are gems.
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I posted this because of the calculator. I have noticed that quite a few academics have him linked on there page. The reason why, I don't know.
They have it linked because Europeans created the concept of race based on craniometry and other "metrics". All of it is total garbage that they use to divide up the world as they see fit based on their racist views. Again, I don't know why folks are trying so hard to give these folks a pass for their B.S.
Old on, I don't give them a pass nor credits. And he's I know it's B.S.
I have devoted a few pages on this while you were gone.
All of these White Europeans are recent migrants and invaders from Eurasia that have no genetic lineage to Ancient Greeks. Ancient Greece and Roman civilizations HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS ON A GENETIC CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS!
You don't know what the ancient Greek haplgroups are, you are just blowing hot air. You are going to have to look it up now
Yes I do, Ancient Europeans and Ancient Greek genes are not found in many cases, in modern Greeks and White Europeans in general TODAY!
Just by studying history, one has to conclude that MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS HAVE PRETTY MUCH NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT GRECO-ROMANS!~
Modern White Europeans ARE PRETTY MUCH ALL DESCENDANTS OF EURASIAN MIGRANTS AND INVASIONS!
All one needs to do, is just DO A GOOGLE SEARCH!
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I would direct you to the Thread proving the right Worshipful Almighty Whitey academicians Have never abandoned Caucasian as descriptor For the whites and it's Corollary Caucasoid for Blacks and others they Want to appropriate.
But I'm still waiting your Comments on my posts Which request So far You've ignored who Knows why
Tukuler, your mailbox is full, can you empty the box a bit. I need too messages you.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
All of these White Europeans are recent migrants and invaders from Eurasia that have no genetic lineage to Ancient Greeks. Ancient Greece and Roman civilizations HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS ON A GENETIC CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS!
You don't know what the ancient Greek haplgroups are, you are just blowing hot air. You are going to have to look it up now
Yes I do, Ancient Europeans and Ancient Greek genes are not found in many cases, in modern Greeks and White Europeans in general TODAY!
Just by studying history, one has to conclude that MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS HAVE PRETTY MUCH NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT GRECO-ROMANS!~
Modern White Europeans ARE PRETTY MUCH ALL DESCENDANTS OF EURASIAN MIGRANTS AND INVASIONS!
All one needs to do, is just DO A GOOGLE SEARCH!
As I said you don't know what the haplogroups of the ancient Greeks are. You don't know anything about the genetics, you are just bullshitting
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
All of these White Europeans are recent migrants and invaders from Eurasia that have no genetic lineage to Ancient Greeks. Ancient Greece and Roman civilizations HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS ON A GENETIC CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS!
You don't know what the ancient Greek haplgroups are, you are just blowing hot air. You are going to have to look it up now
Yes I do, Ancient Europeans and Ancient Greek genes are not found in many cases, in modern Greeks and White Europeans in general TODAY!
Just by studying history, one has to conclude that MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS HAVE PRETTY MUCH NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT GRECO-ROMANS!~
Modern White Europeans ARE PRETTY MUCH ALL DESCENDANTS OF EURASIAN MIGRANTS AND INVASIONS!
All one needs to do, is just DO A GOOGLE SEARCH!
Of course this lioness knows about population replacements in Europe. The people in southern Europe carry small snippets of these older populations.
All of these White Europeans are recent migrants and invaders from Eurasia that have no genetic lineage to Ancient Greeks. Ancient Greece and Roman civilizations HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS ON A GENETIC CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS!
You don't know what the ancient Greek haplgroups are, you are just blowing hot air. You are going to have to look it up now
Yes I do, Ancient Europeans and Ancient Greek genes are not found in many cases, in modern Greeks and White Europeans in general TODAY!
Just by studying history, one has to conclude that MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS HAVE PRETTY MUCH NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT GRECO-ROMANS!~
Modern White Europeans ARE PRETTY MUCH ALL DESCENDANTS OF EURASIAN MIGRANTS AND INVASIONS!
All one needs to do, is just DO A GOOGLE SEARCH!
Of course this lioness knows about population replacements in Europe. The people in southern Europe carry small snippets of these older populations.
quote: Bogucki agrees that climate change might have been a trigger for the change in Europe's genetic makeup, but he thinks it was only a factor and not the sole cause.
One thing that is clear from the genetic data is that nearly half of modern Europeans can trace their origins back to this mysterious group.
"About [4,500 B.C.], you start seeing a diversity and composition of genetic signatures that are beginning to look like modern [Central] Europe," Cooper said. "This composition is then modified by subsequent cultures moving in, but it's the first point at which you see something like the modern European genetic makeup in place."
Whatever prompted the replacement of genetic signatures from the first pan-European culture, Cooper is clearly intrigued. "Something major happened," he said in a statement, "and the hunt is now on to find out what that was."
See Ish Gebor? I AM RIGHT AND I WAS RIGHT!
Europe's original black/brown population WAS KILLED off by PLAGUES and CLIMATIC/WEATHER SHIFTS! Even these scientists agree that climatic shifts resulted in change in genetic makeup of Europeans.
These modern White Europeans are simply albino Central Asians and the albino's of original Europeans.
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I am not talking about rock art. This issue has nothing to do with rock art. We are talking about the overwhelming amount of facts from all disciplines which is how you reach a conclusion on something like ancient Egypt. Like I said the facts are clear that Egyptology as an institution has been founded as an arm of white supremacy since its creation. The artifacts, rock art, language, physical remains, colors of the spectrum, language are not the problem, it is the racists that are the problem. I am just calling it like it is. Whether 'some' of these folk feel they are being 'objective' or not is irrelevant to the overall point.
The facts and information needed to reach a conclusion on the skin color of the ancient Egyptians are available and unambiguous. And from that one can easily answer the question with a simple yes or no. There is no need for 'other'. And there is only one right answer. Now these same scientists have no problem answering this question with a simple yes or no when it comes to Rome, Greece and so forth, but when it comes to Egypt suddenty yes or no becomes a problem, when it is just as simple as Greece or Rome. Where they are were they not a black population? It is a simple cut and dry question with a simple cut and dry answer. If you don't need to invoke rock art and all these other 'scientific' terms for Greece and Rome or anywhere else why do you need it in Egypt? You don't. It is not that dam complex. [/qb]
Like I said, if it were true that the findings so far are enough to throw around terms like 'black', there would be a major difference in how people related to the ancient Egyptians are covered. There is no such difference. Living Africans related to ancient Egyptians receive very similar treatment in bio-anthropology and by reporters.
Look at how the Malian and Darfur conflicts are reported. People are making the exact same racial distinctions between both sides in each conflict. But the Janjaweed and Tuareg are pastoralists, traders, etc and live relatively simple lives (compared to ancient Egyptians) and so explain how exactly racism is involved in the narratives of the ethnic backgrounds of these parties. We see the same "somewhat black, but fundamentally different" and "Arab" or "North African" descriptions thrown around in coverage of these conflicts. The people referred to with such labels are often brown to dark brown skinned, but often differ in their physiognomies and facial features in the same way the ancient Egyptians would have.
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.
etc.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
And since he didn't question this premise, that black is not just "anyone with dark brown skin" but in fact it's a race then we must assume tropicals redacted believes that blacks and whites are races
All of these White Europeans are recent migrants and invaders from Eurasia that have no genetic lineage to Ancient Greeks. Ancient Greece and Roman civilizations HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS ON A GENETIC CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS!
You don't know what the ancient Greek haplgroups are, you are just blowing hot air. You are going to have to look it up now
Yes I do, Ancient Europeans and Ancient Greek genes are not found in many cases, in modern Greeks and White Europeans in general TODAY!
Just by studying history, one has to conclude that MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS HAVE PRETTY MUCH NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT GRECO-ROMANS!~
Modern White Europeans ARE PRETTY MUCH ALL DESCENDANTS OF EURASIAN MIGRANTS AND INVASIONS!
All one needs to do, is just DO A GOOGLE SEARCH!
Of course this lioness knows about population replacements in Europe. The people in southern Europe carry small snippets of these older populations.
quote: Bogucki agrees that climate change might have been a trigger for the change in Europe's genetic makeup, but he thinks it was only a factor and not the sole cause.
One thing that is clear from the genetic data is that nearly half of modern Europeans can trace their origins back to this mysterious group.
"About [4,500 B.C.], you start seeing a diversity and composition of genetic signatures that are beginning to look like modern [Central] Europe," Cooper said. "This composition is then modified by subsequent cultures moving in, but it's the first point at which you see something like the modern European genetic makeup in place."
Whatever prompted the replacement of genetic signatures from the first pan-European culture, Cooper is clearly intrigued. "Something major happened," he said in a statement, "and the hunt is now on to find out what that was."
See Ish Gebor? I AM RIGHT AND I WAS RIGHT!
Europe's original black/brown population WAS KILLED off by PLAGUES and CLIMATIC/WEATHER SHIFTS! Even these scientists agree that climatic shifts resulted in change in genetic makeup of Europeans.
These modern White Europeans are simply albino Central Asians and the albino's of original Europeans.
I am not sure about the albino thing, but I do agree with the population replacement.
quote: Given our results, it remains possible that the PWC represent remnants of a larger northern European Mesolithic hunter-gather complex. However, it appears unlikely that population continuity exists between the PWC and contemporary Scandinavians or Saami. Thus, our findings are in agreement with archaeological theories suggesting Neolithic or post-Neolithic population introgression or replacement in Scandinavia.
--Helena Malmström
Ancient DNA Reveals Lack of Continuity between Neolithic Hunter-Gatherers and Contemporary Scandinavians
And since he didn't question this premise, that black is not just "anyone with dark brown skin" but in fact it's a race then we must assume tropicals redacted believes that blacks and whites are races
If Nearly three-quarters of African immigrants reported their race as "Black"
Then>>
three-quarters of African immigrants reported their race as "Black"
So that means according to the questioner and answerer race exists, the black race and the white race, etc
Now if you have an alternate meaning for race meaning " any person with dark skin" that's on you not on what this poll was about
If they wanted to ask "are you dark skinned" they would have asked.
So let's not play games and invent a new term "social race".
"Social race" is not a term anybody uses, stop it
You've got an inconsistent double standard. You say "there are no races" then as soon as these African immigrants say they are of the black race you applaud it, no questions asked
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: What about genocides ??
you mean the imaginary ones Mike makes up or the real ones that are historical ?
kdolo and Mindovermatter, you are in the wrong lane. Mike stays in AE forum, that's the historical revisionist forum where such perspectives are the 'norm'. Nobody is going to buy any of that alternative history stuff here. Here they basically discuss mainsteam anthropology but arguing over the details, not switching everything 360 ala paranoid fantasy albino-land
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Like I said, if it were true that the findings so far are enough to throw around terms like 'black', there would be a major difference in how people related to the ancient Egyptians are covered. There is no such difference. Living Africans related to ancient Egyptians receive very similar treatment in bio-anthropology and by reporters.
Look at how the Malian and Darfur conflicts are reported. People are making the exact same racial distinctions between both sides in each conflict. But the Janjaweed and Tuareg are pastoralists, traders, etc and live relatively simple lives (compared to ancient Egyptians) and so explain how exactly racism is involved in the narratives of the ethnic backgrounds of these parties. We see the same "somewhat black, but fundamentally different" and "Arab" or "North African" descriptions thrown around in coverage of these conflicts. The people referred to with such labels are often brown to dark brown skinned, but often differ in their physiognomies and facial features in the same way the ancient Egyptians would have.
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.
Where by far most of the racism has come in is the following, among other things:
1) reluctance to admit or at least consider this is indigenous African variation. 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
etc.
I will add that Eurocentrics and other supporters of orthodoxy don't simply stop at saying AE didn't look exactly like broad-featured SSAs. That is something many "Afrocentrics" wouldn't even dispute. Instead the orthodoxy goes even further and claim AEs in general looked like stereotyped "Mediterranean" or "Semitic" people with olive skin. They may very well consider dark-skinned Saharans to be "racially" different from "black" sub-Saharans as you have said. But from what I've seen, most of them still wouldn't hold these darker Saharans as representative of the AE type. If I had to guess, they probably assume dark Saharans are simply hybrids between Mediterraneans/Middle Easterners and SSAs, so in their view AEs with dark skin would necessarily have significant SSA ancestry. Maybe too much for their comfort, if they really happen to be racist.
It seems to me that the average layperson's perception of Africa is simplistically binary; they divide it into an "Arab" north and a "black" sub-Sahara and figure that any phenotype that doesn't fit into either the Arab or sub-Saharan stereotype must represent admixture. If anyone is going to communicate to the public on how AEs would have looked, I say it's important to get them up to speed on how different African populations would have looked rather than crutching on stereotyped terminology.
Posts: 7073 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If my radar over the years is anything to go by, I think that's mostly people who have been influenced by early Hollywood films that depicted AE as light skinned and publications like National Geographic and other amateurs. Egyptologists who were making up crap as they went along also did this.
The most influential and widely cited racists and racialists like Morton, Coon, Elliot Smith, Sergi, Petrie, etc. considered dark skinned eastern Saharans to be the main founding populations of predynastic (upper) ancient Egypt. They then considered both to be partly or entirely non-African. Other prominent racists in that discipline who said that the Egyptians would have been pale or light skinned (I can't recall any, but maybe others can) would have just been trolling. See Keita's many summations of the literature for a quick overview on what these authors wrote. Terms like "Negroid" and links with certain African groups, especially eastern Saharan groups, were a recurring theme. Often they just didn't considered them indigenous (in principle) and were still dismissive in regards to certain facts.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If my radar over the years is anything to go by, I think that's mostly people who have been influenced by early Hollywood films that depicted AE as light skinned and publications like National Geographic and other amateurs. Egyptologists who were making up crap as they went along also did this.
Perhaps that's the case for many laypeople. But you have to admit some individuals who ought to know better get awfully invested in that image if it came entirely from the movies. The only analog that comes to my mind is how certain dinosaur fans are resistant to the idea of Velociraptors and other dromaosaurid dinosaurs having feathers---and even in that case, the problem is exacerbated by the cultural prejudice that birds are less "scary" than reptiles.
Movies can distort the public image of the past for sure, but usually that's because the public doesn't know any better. For the public to grow so attached to the misconceptions, there must be something extra that pushes them away from the reality. What would you say that is?
Posts: 7073 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's examine it with specifics. Who are these professional Egyptologists and physical anthropologists who considered founding AE populations to have been pale or olive colored and how frequent are they?
Even known racist Coon used a dark skinned male with a profile consistent with many Africans as representative of the Kharga oasis. He could have easily picked the more Middle Eastern-looking plates.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Let's examine it with specifics. Who are these professional Egyptologists and physical anthropologists who considered founding AE populations to have been pale or olive colored and how frequent are they?
Excuse me, but I wasn't referring to any specific professionals, but rather various armchair historians and nerds I and others have encountered throughout the Internet. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
Posts: 7073 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The misunderstanding is not that serious though, lol. But nah, you said it right, looking back. I was thrown of by when you said 'orthodoxy' and thought you were referring to the establishment Doug was talking about.
It sounds like you're describing people like ES' trolls. That's why I said that professionals who have seriously looked into this and say that representative AE were pale or olive colored are simply trolling. The only thing I can think of that perpetuates that idea is hollywood and media coverage (e.g. National Geographic). The Nordicists claim to Egypt is almost completely restricted to internet communities (at least nowadays).
Many of them don't even believe what they say in public. Ask Beyoku about that PM conversation on one of the troll forums where one of the mods admitted that, contrary to their posts, they don't believe that the AE weren't African.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Anybody who is says that "black" is a term Egyptologists should use and that it means a range of skin color alone, not race, needs to get serious about what they saying and be able to look at the above chart and determine anything up to a certain number is black and beyond it is not black
If tropicals redacted, Tukuler and Doug can't do that then applying the term "black" is pure political rhetoric, not something scientists should be involved with
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Anybody who is says that "caucasoids" is a term Egyptologists should use and that it means a range of phenotype alone, not race, needs to get serious about what they saying and be able to look at the above chart and determine anything up to a certain number is caucasoids and beyond it is not caucasoids
If tropicals redacted, Tukuler and Doug can't do that then applying the term "caucasoids" is pure political rhetoric, not something scientists should be involved with
If we're going to do quizzes, let's do it the right way. This has gone on for way too long. This is especially for Doug, since he pretends it's either 'yes' or 'no'.
Name the branches on this dendrogram (which is based on measurements) in modern western racial terms without tripping up or copping out:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I am not talking about rock art. This issue has nothing to do with rock art. We are talking about the overwhelming amount of facts from all disciplines which is how you reach a conclusion on something like ancient Egypt. Like I said the facts are clear that Egyptology as an institution has been founded as an arm of white supremacy since its creation. The artifacts, rock art, language, physical remains, colors of the spectrum, language are not the problem, it is the racists that are the problem. I am just calling it like it is. Whether 'some' of these folk feel they are being 'objective' or not is irrelevant to the overall point.
The facts and information needed to reach a conclusion on the skin color of the ancient Egyptians are available and unambiguous. And from that one can easily answer the question with a simple yes or no. There is no need for 'other'. And there is only one right answer. Now these same scientists have no problem answering this question with a simple yes or no when it comes to Rome, Greece and so forth, but when it comes to Egypt suddenty yes or no becomes a problem, when it is just as simple as Greece or Rome. Where they are were they not a black population? It is a simple cut and dry question with a simple cut and dry answer. If you don't need to invoke rock art and all these other 'scientific' terms for Greece and Rome or anywhere else why do you need it in Egypt? You don't. It is not that dam complex.
Like I said, if it were true that the findings so far are enough to throw around terms like 'black', there would be a major difference in how people related to the ancient Egyptians are covered. There is no such difference. Living Africans related to ancient Egyptians receive very similar treatment in bio-anthropology and by reporters.
Look at how the Malian and Darfur conflicts are reported. People are making the exact same racial distinctions between both sides in each conflict. But the Janjaweed and Tuareg are pastoralists, traders, etc and live relatively simple lives (compared to ancient Egyptians) and so explain how exactly racism is involved in the narratives of the ethnic backgrounds of these parties. We see the same "somewhat black, but fundamentally different" and "Arab" or "North African" descriptions thrown around in coverage of these conflicts. The people referred to with such labels are often brown to dark brown skinned, but often differ in their physiognomies and facial features in the same way the ancient Egyptians would have.
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.
etc.
What you said makes no sense. I asked a simple straight forward question and it has a simple yes no answer. All this other stuff is simply irrelevant. You are simply deviating from the point. Were the ancient Egyptians a black African population. Yes or no. It is a simple question with a simple answer.
All this other stuff is simply nonsense but rather than calling it nonsense you want to claim that there is some 'logical' reason why this nosense shouldn't be called for what it is: nonsense. All those folks you pointed out are black Africans yet are you seriously claiming that somehow there is some reason not to call their skin complexion black? Pray tell what reason is that? Or is that too complex to understand why skin color being black among MOST indigenous African populations has ALWAYS been an accepted fact no less accepted than MOST Europeans having white skin. There is nothing more complex to it than that and trying to subdivide and categorize these populations in order to create other terminologies that do not change the fundamental fact of common shared skin complexion among black Africans is simply NON SENSE.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
. I asked a simple straight forward question and it has a simple yes no answer. All this other stuff is simply irrelevant. You are simply deviating from the point. Were the ancient Egyptians a black African population. Yes or no. It is a simple question with a simple answer.
If you indicate which shades are black and which are not maybe Swenet can answer
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Like I said, if it were true that the findings so far are enough to throw around terms like 'black', there would be a major difference in how people related to the ancient Egyptians are covered. There is no such difference. Living Africans related to ancient Egyptians receive very similar treatment in bio-anthropology and by reporters.
Look at how the Malian and Darfur conflicts are reported. People are making the exact same racial distinctions between both sides in each conflict. But the Janjaweed and Tuareg are pastoralists, traders, etc and live relatively simple lives (compared to ancient Egyptians) and so explain how exactly racism is involved in the narratives of the ethnic backgrounds of these parties. We see the same "somewhat black, but fundamentally different" and "Arab" or "North African" descriptions thrown around in coverage of these conflicts. The people referred to with such labels are often brown to dark brown skinned, but often differ in their physiognomies and facial features in the same way the ancient Egyptians would have.
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.
Where by far most of the racism has come in is the following, among other things:
1) reluctance to admit or at least consider this is indigenous African variation. 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
etc.
I will add that Eurocentrics and other supporters of orthodoxy don't simply stop at saying AE didn't look exactly like broad-featured SSAs. That is something many "Afrocentrics" wouldn't even dispute. Instead the orthodoxy goes even further and claim AEs in general looked like stereotyped "Mediterranean" or "Semitic" people with olive skin. They may very well consider dark-skinned Saharans to be "racially" different from "black" sub-Saharans as you have said. But from what I've seen, most of them still wouldn't hold these darker Saharans as representative of the AE type. If I had to guess, they probably assume dark Saharans are simply hybrids between Mediterraneans/Middle Easterners and SSAs, so in their view AEs with dark skin would necessarily have significant SSA ancestry. Maybe too much for their comfort, if they really happen to be racist.
It seems to me that the average layperson's perception of Africa is simplistically binary; they divide it into an "Arab" north and a "black" sub-Sahara and figure that any phenotype that doesn't fit into either the Arab or sub-Saharan stereotype must represent admixture. If anyone is going to communicate to the public on how AEs would have looked, I say it's important to get them up to speed on how different African populations would have looked rather than crutching on stereotyped terminology.
No they accept that the Ancient Egyptians looked like Charleton Heston and not even olive skinned white Europeans. You only need to look at hollywood or more recently many of the reenactments on the history channel to see that. The only difference being the history and discovery channel started using more Arab actors in some of these shows versus Europeans.
When these folks say Caucasiod they mean pure white Aryan, blue blood, pale as snow white folks.
That has ALWAYS been the agenda of the white supremacists concerning Egypt.
I mean if folks who have been on this board supposedly for so long don't at least understand this simple fact, then it is no wonder they hard time distinguishing facts from objective nonsense.
posted
I think somewhere along the line this has become about something else than I thought it was. The people you're talking about don't classify populations based on skin color alone. The west uses 'black' to mean 'race', not skin color. Most people have no concept of lumping all dark skinned populations into 'black', just like they don't recognize East Asians into 'white'. If you live in the west, you should already know this.
Specify which Egyptologists and bio-anthropologists you're talking about. When asked whether the above Sudanese had the same range of skin colors as African Americans, who in the establishment would disagree? Name names. I can't comment on free-floating rumors and accusations.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I think somewhere along the lines this has become about something else entirely. The people you're talking about don't classify populations based on skin color alone. The west uses 'black' to mean 'race', not skin color. If you live in the west, you already know this.
Specify which Egyptologists you're talking about. When asked whether the above Sudanese had the same range of skin colors as African Americans, who in the establishment would disagree? Name names..
Swenet. Stop. You simply are digging the hole deeper for yourself. White folks in Europe have been calling Africans black since before the concept of genes existed. Examples: Negro, Maure/Moor, Ethiop and so on. This absurd desire to give white folks a pass is annoying.
The definition of black from TWO standard English dictionaries:
quote: Dictionary 1black adjective \ˈblak\
: having the very dark color of coal or the night sky
: very dark because there is no light
: of or relating to a race of people who have dark skin and who come originally from Africa How many of these commonly misspelled words can you spell? » Full Definition of BLACK 1 a : of the color black b (1) : very dark in color <his face was black with rage> (2) : having a very deep or low register <a bass with a black voice> (3) : heavy, serious <the play was a black intrigue> 2 a : having dark skin, hair, and eyes : swarthy <the black Irish> b (1) often capitalized : of or relating to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin <black Americans>
quote: (also Black) Of any human group having dark-colored skin, especially of African or Australian Aboriginal ancestry: black adolescents of Jamaican descent
You're mixing up completely different things. Why not throw in there that medieval Europeans once called Spanish looking folk 'black'? You need to specify and distinguish between different traditions, time periods and cultures when each use was in vogue. You also need to specify the skin color range associated with each use. You can't just throw out a bunch of past traditions of 'black' throughout time and use that to argue that this is what black means today in the west. This is a perfect example of pedestrian analysis.
If you're saying that that dictionary entry is consistent with daily use of black in the modern West, prove it. Post statistics, surveys, etc.
People like Sade are called 'black' in the West, while dark skinned Hindus aren't. None of your dictionary entries take such modern daily use into account.
And what if I would start to post dictionary entries you conveniently left out. Then what?
quote:4. also Black a. A member of a racial group having brown to black skin, especially one of African origin. b. An American descended from peoples of African origin having brown to black skin; an African American.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're mixing up completely different things. Why not throw in there that Europeans once called Spanish looking folk 'black'? You need to specify and distinguish between these different traditions and the time periods they were in vogue. This is a perfect example of pedestrian analysis.
If you're saying that that dictionary entry is consistent with daily use of black in the modern West, prove it. Post statistics, surveys, etc.
Look, the first thing is to look at the color chart and first establish the minimum shade to be black. You or Doug could come up with the number, anything else, Spanish this or that is just icing on the cake. This has to be approached with the basics like Tukuler says, what the skin tones are qulaify as black, as per the Greek authoriies
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
You're mixing up completely different things. Why not throw in there that medieval Europeans once called Spanish looking folk 'black'? You need to specify and distinguish between different traditions, time periods and cultures when each use was in vogue. This is a perfect example of pedestrian analysis.
If you're saying that that dictionary entry is consistent with daily use of black in the modern West, prove it. Post statistics, surveys, etc.
People like Sade are called 'black' in the West. None of your dictionary take such modern daily use into account.
No Swenet, you are mixing stuff up. The term black as a description of skin color has been used for THOUSANDS of years. Whether or not there have been other usages is irrelevant. There have ALWAYS been people who used their eyeballs and called Africans with black skin black. Period. Just like there have always been people who have called folks with white skin white. You are simply failing to prove otherwise, as if to claim that someone can't see black skin and simply call it for what it is. People weren't using melanin dosage charts, cue cards, genetic sampling or skull measurements to simply describe the outward appearance of the people they saw. And it was no less accurate then than it is now.
The only people who have a problem with this simple fact are those with an agenda.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're mixing up completely different things. Why not throw in there that Europeans once called Spanish looking folk 'black'? You need to specify and distinguish between these different traditions and the time periods they were in vogue. This is a perfect example of pedestrian analysis.
If you're saying that that dictionary entry is consistent with daily use of black in the modern West, prove it. Post statistics, surveys, etc.
Look, the first thing is to look at the color chart and first establish the minimum shade to be black. that comes before Spanish this or that. If Doug can't come up with step 1 then the whole black concept is out the window, It's built on color as the fundamental so let's deal with that
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Look at my earlier posts in this thread. There were times (more towards the common era) when even the Greeks and Hebrews were extremely selective in who they applied 'black' to. Is this necessarily racist?
These terms change over time. We see it ancient Greece, in ancient Israel, etc. In Egypt we see different attitudes and descriptions about the same populations, throughout time. In a certain place in India Marco Polo documented that darker skin was prized. Today Indians don't identify by color in that way. This speaks for itself. You can't take 3000 years of written history and expect people who have NO CONCEPT of such history, to know what the heck you're talking about.
If modern Egyptians refuse to call themselves 'black' in accordance with what you say their ancestors did during dynastic Egypt. Is that racist? Inconsistent? Bespeaking of ill will towards other Africans? They probably don't even know about that tradition. Same goes for many northern Sudanese who today may consider themselves primarily Arab. What you're trying to do doesn't even make sense.
Build a credible case, come with specific examples I can actually comment on (as opposed to free-floating abstract accusations about unnamed racists) then come back and we can have a discussion.
And for your information, many racists said things that are consistent with the idea of there being black skinned founding populations in ancient Egypt. So you're wrong on that account as well. Many racists also call lower Nubians 'black' in terms of skin pigmentation and also sometimes in terms of race. You're clearly not well-read on this subject if you think the vault lines of this discussion in Egyptology or bio-anthropology are necessarily always around skin pigmentation. They're mostly around race, since even jet-black Somalis don't escape the 'Caucasoid' label.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Everybody wants to say "black" is not a race it's just color, a range of brown.
Yet when asked what the range is, no one can answer
--because they were BSing when they said it was just color.
"Black people" is a concept Europeans came up with to justify them calling themselves white, It's a duality system
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Does that mean he isn't racist? If he can be racist while using the term 'black' in reference to Egyptians, what makes you think someone who uses the term differently can't be non-racist?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Look at my earlier posts in this thread. There were times (more towards the common era) when even the Greeks and Hebrews were extremely selective in who they applied 'black' to. Is this necessarily racist?
These terms change over time. We see it ancient Greece, in ancient Israel, etc. In Egypt we see different attitudes and descriptions about the same populations, throughout time. In a certain place in India Marco Polo documented that darker skin was prized. Today Indians don't identify by color in that way. This speaks for itself. You can't take 3000 years of written history and expect people who have NO CONCEPT of such history, to know what the heck you're talking about.
If modern Egyptians refuse to call themselves 'black' in accordance with what you say their ancestors did during dynastic Egypt. Is that racist? Inconsistent? Bespeaking of ill will towards other Africans? They probably don't even know about that tradition. Same goes for many northern Sudanese who today may consider themselves primarily Arab. What you're trying to do doesn't even make sense.
Build a credible case, come with specific examples I can actually comment on (as opposed to free-floating abstract accusations about unnamed racists) then come back and we can have a discussion.
And for your information, many racists said things that are consistent with the idea of there being black skinned founding populations in ancient Egypt. So you're wrong on that account as well. Many racists also call lower Nubians 'black' in terms of skin pigmentation and also sometimes in terms of race. You're clearly not well-read on this subject if you think the vault lines of this discussion in Egyptology or bio-anthropology are necessarily always around skin pigmentation. They're mostly around race, since even jet-black Somalis don't escape the 'Caucasoid' label.
Swenet, I am not talking about race, how words change over time and nothing else. I am referring to the fundamental fact that people have skin color and that throughout history have and will use words to describe that skin color. And the original point is whether the word black was appropriate in its usage for ancient Egyptian people. You keep going all over the map to avoid that simple point. I know what I said and I kept it simple as possible but YOU refuse to stick to the point. What was the skin color of that ancient population and was black an accurate description of that color AND did the AE or any other ancient population in or outside the Nile valley use color references in reference to the AE or other populations in Africa as BLACK PEOPLE.
It is a simple yes or no question. All that other stuff is irrelevant.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I already said many times that according to several traditions, including the al Jahiz one, the early Greek tradition, the ancient Egyptians would be 'black'. They would NOT be black according to the late Greek tradition, according to some Greek authors.
quote:"if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients." --Strabo
quote:"For in the correspondingly situated places on our side of the equator, that is those on the Summer Tropic, people do not yet have the color of the Aithiopians, and there are no rhinoceros and elephants; but in places not much to the south of these, moderately black people are to be found, such as those who live in the "Thirty Schoinoi" [region in lower Nubia] outside of Soene. Of the same type, too, are the people of Garame, whom Marinos also says (and indeed, for this very reason) live neither right on the Summer Tropic nor to the north, but entirely to the south of it. But in places around Meroe people are already quite black in color, and are at last pure Aithiopians, and the habitat of the elephants and more wonderful animals is there." --Ptolemy
And I don't agree with you that people are necessarily racist for having different traditions. I think that's one of the most retarded ideas to have ever been subscribed to by Egyptsearch members.
I've shown pictures of Elamites to my family once, back when 'black' was still a part of my vocabulary. They said the figures depicted weren't 'black' and were disappointed because they thought it would mean a link to Africa when I announced I would show it to them. They are never going to call Dravidians black the same way they call themselves 'black'. My Caribbean folks know what I mean. In our countries, they are our neighbors and we interact with them everyday.
Wake up. Wipe the cold out your eye. Your points make no sense to anyone outside of minorities who see racism everywhere. You can't hold people accountable for what they don't know.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I already said many times that according to several traditions, including the al Jahiz one, the early Greek tradition, the ancient Egyptians would be 'black'. They would NOT be black according to the late Greek tradition, according to some Greek authors.
And I don't agree with you that people are necessarily racist for having different traditions. I think that's one of the most retarded ideas to have ever been subscribed to by Egyptsearch members.
I've shown pictures of Elamites to my family once, back when 'black' was still a part of my vocabulary. They said the figures depicted weren't 'black' and were disappointed because they thought it would mean a link to Africa when I announced I would show it to them.
Wake up. Wipe the cold out your eye. Your points make no sense. You can't hold people accountable for what they don't know.
Swenet, you are all over the place and getting yourself confused. You say that skin color is not used as a way to describe people all over the world and you failed. You tried to claim that the word black is not understood when used as a reference to skin color and failed. Now you are trying to claim that because usage of terms change over time that skin color is not still a way of describing a population which can and is used by a great many people all over the world to this day. So now what? Are you going to answer the question or not? Were the ancient Egyptians black or not? And what did they say on the topic? It isn't a hard question and a simple yes or no will suffice.
And the reason I know you wont answer it is because you already know the answer and you simply are trying to avoid it.
And when I say racists I am talking about people who wrote in their OWN WORDS that they were racist and that they understood race to be the division of the world between the white race as the superior race and everyone else being somewhere on a scale inferior to WHITE PEOPLE based on skin color as how they identified race. That is fact and ancient Egypt was the cornerstone of their attempts to prove this.
You are simply running all over the map to deny and avoid the obvious.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You say that skin color is not used as a way to describe people all over the world and you failed.
This is false, traditional peoples all over the word DO NOT use skin color as ethnic categorization. Colorism is a European invention
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Skin color is not race. Because there are no 'races' in humans doesn't mean humans don't have skin color and that they cant be described using names like black or white. The reason white European scientists don't want to use the term black is because from the very beginning of the study of anthropology and Egyptology European racists have been using Egypt as the basis for their claims of biological superiority. So even if they don't use 'race' anymore they will not admit that the ancient Egyptians were black people, meaning having an outward complexion that can be defined as black.
And bottom line, these people are hypocrites, because the exact same people claiming that they don't want to use the word black when it comes to Egypt have no problem using it elsewhere in Africa or for those descendants of African slaves who live in Europe or the Americas. So again, it is not the terminology or the science that is the issue, it is the racism.
The word black has been used as a reference to humans since long before racism became an issue. And specifically the ancient Egyptians called themselves black as a pejorative no less. So whatever these folks come up with is irrelevant.
I have no problem calling a spade a spade and rejecting the nonsense of Europeans or anyone else when it comes to facts that are obvious. And the absurd part is that after all these hundreds of years of Europeans writing openly racist books of so called 'science' about 'races' all over the planet and the superiority of the white 'race', we got silly folks sitting here trying to claim that European scientists are objective and we must follow their nonsense wherever it goes rather than just calling it for what it is.
Doug do you have any references where the Egyptians directly referred to themselves as black? I mean besides the definition of KMT (which I've seen fiercely debated)
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Skin color is not race. Because there are no 'races' in humans doesn't mean humans don't have skin color and that they cant be described using names like black or white. The reason white European scientists don't want to use the term black is because from the very beginning of the study of anthropology and Egyptology European racists have been using Egypt as the basis for their claims of biological superiority. So even if they don't use 'race' anymore they will not admit that the ancient Egyptians were black people, meaning having an outward complexion that can be defined as black.
And bottom line, these people are hypocrites, because the exact same people claiming that they don't want to use the word black when it comes to Egypt have no problem using it elsewhere in Africa or for those descendants of African slaves who live in Europe or the Americas. So again, it is not the terminology or the science that is the issue, it is the racism.
The word black has been used as a reference to humans since long before racism became an issue. And specifically the ancient Egyptians called themselves black as a pejorative no less. So whatever these folks come up with is irrelevant.
I have no problem calling a spade a spade and rejecting the nonsense of Europeans or anyone else when it comes to facts that are obvious. And the absurd part is that after all these hundreds of years of Europeans writing openly racist books of so called 'science' about 'races' all over the planet and the superiority of the white 'race', we got silly folks sitting here trying to claim that European scientists are objective and we must follow their nonsense wherever it goes rather than just calling it for what it is.
Doug do you have any references where the Egyptians directly referred to themselves as black? I mean besides the definition of KMT (which I've seen fiercely debated)
You answered the question yourself. And the debates are simply that debates which are irrelevant if you investigate the facts. KM is the only word in the Egyptian language for black as a color. The Egyptians identified their nation and the people of that nation using the word black in their own language. There was no other population anywhere on the planet in or outside Africa who they referred to explicitly the term 'black/km' other than themselves as a people and nation. The color black was sacred to them and very much part of their identity and world view. But of course racists and misguided 'theorists' simply want to deny the facts because it doesn't suit their agenda. There is no real debate about KM meaning the color black, the debate is whether that term in its use as the name of the country in ANY way applied to the skin color of the population. At the end of the day all of this is about skin color and the whole issue of this thread and others like it is to try and pretend that skin color doesn't exist and that people cannot be identified by their skin color and that words can't accurately be used to describe that skin color, as in black or white.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Egyptians called themsleves black because they lived in Africa and people in Africa like the Nubians weren't black, So the Egyptians had to distinguish themsleves as the blacks of the region
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic