quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: ^Brandon I contorted myself into as many pretzels as I could emphasizing how race varies depending on how we define it, how indigenous Africans have great diversity, etc. But I will not be bullrushed into ceding the fact that the AE were tropically adapted Africans who clustered most closely with other Northeastern Africans but still have commonalities with other Africans.
I also refuse to entertain people calling the Nubians black and not the Egyptians. Not going to happen.
I see that now. To be frank about it, I think those guys just have a deeply ingrained psychological bias that is blinding them to your point of view, nuances and all. And there is where I think it's time to call them out on it. They'll be in denial about it and play the inverted race card (i.e. accuse you of being the racist) of course, but if you can't do anything else, puncture their egos and break them into much-needed self-reflection as much as you can.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
In regards to your article: maybe we just need to come to grips with that adherence to the scientific method is not teachable, no matter what approach one takes. It doesn't work in other science/faith interfaces, so why would it work here?
I understand why you're cynical, but I just wanted to get a more accurate opinion onto widely read social media than what's currently out there. Of course parties invested in the opposition will not listen to me, but there are always readers who are legitimately curious without the racial investments either way. But who knows, maybe I'm just being naive.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Right. I agree that the data needs to be out there for those who are looking. If only that the other side is def not stopping. But I'm talking expectations. It's just something we should think about and keep in mind. We're at a disadvantage.
You can't teach AE ethnic background without using terms like black skin, brown skin, Sahara, North Africa, Africa, neolithic, mtDNA M1, etc. but these terms have already been appropriated by ideologues and carry racial connotations that differ in the lay person's mind from what they actually mean. And people just aren't going to allow anyone to reset their racial connotations.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Especially when they can just brush people off as "Afrocentrists" and completely shut down the discussion. What a joke. I even tried to dance around black as much as possible but got dragged into it anyway so started swinging. But I quoted heavily from this forums Nile Valley database and it seems I made a breakthrough with at least one person but who knows. I'm glad ES is still around if nothing else
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder how much perceived credibility affects openness to different perspectives here. Assuming they don't already have an emotional investment either way, audiences will probably show more willingness to listen to sources they perceive as credible. Ideally that would be someone with anthropological or other relevant academic training, but failing that, you need to show some degree of familiarity with the topics invoked.
On the other hand...forgive me if this causes offense, but I believe most black posters are naturally at a disadvantage when arguing this topic no matter how reasonable their approach. Not only will you be presumed as "Afrocentrists" out to steal others' history, but I've observed that a lot of non-blacks will knee-jerk dismiss anything a black person says that doesn't affirm their prejudices. It's not fair and it's not their fault, but black people don't get taken seriously enough.
Sometimes I wonder whether non-black posters like me and Djehuti would have an edge in the perceived credibility department, if only because we'd be harder to dismiss as "Afrocentric". Even ausar might have had it without needing to fake an Egyptian ethnicity, because he was a white guy all along. But then, I've had opponents accuse me of having some ulterior agenda (usually sexual) even when they knew I was a white dude.
posted
^I don't take offense to that at all Brandon and I think you are absolutely correct. I didn't even cite Keita once as any black scholar or academic is automatically assumed to be "Afrocentrist" unless they De-Africanize Egypt. It's absolutely crazy how acceptable the idea that black people don't even have the *right* to even discuss Egypt, let alone engage in real debate on it. I have felt the disadvantage every single time.
Racist practice doesn't always entail brute force out in the open violence against people of another race, but more often(especially nowadays) takes a much more subtle approach, as the silencing of me and the other two black posters not toting the party line demonstrated.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
HuminBehaviorz says I hear arguments all day every day from Afocentrists claiming that Egyptians were black. I'm aware that we all have our own definitions of black but I'm sure most of us can agree that people generally classify blacks as negroids. In other words: dark skinned people with kinky hair, wide flat noses, broad and round nostrils, and thick lips. I also fully accept the evidence presented that shows a clearly indigenous black/African origin of Egyptian civilization. However even if that's true, I don't think that really is enough to say that "the Egyptians were black." That would be just like saying Jamaicans were white just because the country was founded by the British. Even though Jamaica was founded by whites, it's no longer considered a white country. I think the same goes for Egypt.
Then whites always claim that they were brown (or white). Skeletal records as well as paintings and sculptures depict many different races but it's undeniable that the majority of them depicted brown/red skinned people similar to Berbers, Arabs and of course modern Egyptians. I think everyone just needs to get their head out of their a** and be a bit more open-minded.
Egypt is located in the northeastern corner of Africa, right in the center of Europe, Africa, and Asia. With that being said, Egypt as well as other parts of northeast Africa and the middle east are very multiethnic places multicultural places. Features from Europeans such as light skin, hair and eyes, as well as African features like dark skin and kinky hair and even some mongoloid features can be found within this region of the world. It's a natural melting pot strictly due to it's location.
Last but not least (this is directed at Afrocentrists) blacks that lived in Egypt, Nubia, and other parts of east Africa aren't even related to the ancestors of Western blacks. They belong to the Nilotic ethnic group. They are tall, thin, dark-skinned people with very distinct facial features from western and central Africans (the ancestors of Western blacks). So if you want to claim African history, you should place your focus on our actual ancestors. Putting all of your attention on northeastern Africa would be no different than a British person putting Russian history on a pedestal.
PS: I'm black and a strong supporter of African history. I just want us to come together and do it the right way. I don't condone Afrocentricism. --------------------------
Much of this is a laughable bunch of rubbish. This poster "HuminBehaviorr" gives away his fake pose by talking about "blacks are negroids" which sounds exactly like the white racists we have been dealing with on ES for years. They can't even troll effectively- the same bullshite formulas keep coming out of their mouths. Its doubtful if "HuminBehaviorr" is black. He seems like just another lame white poseur, like the fake “black militants” who appear on cue in various venues to spout ludricrous strawmen, conveniently set up to “refute.” No credible black man who is a "strong supporter of African history" would be uttering the nonsense in his OP. What black person knowledgeable in African history for example subscribes to the notion that black people only look one particular way? The dummy is so clueless he gives away the game right off the bat. His little troll effort is obviously transparent, and easily debunked on 6 counts as we have been doing for years on ES.
1) Sub-Saharan "black" Africans are the most diverse people in the world- with plenty of people and groups having narrow noses, non kinky hair, thin lips etc. Their skin ranges from light brown to jet black, and even pale white in a small number of cases, and in the cases of albinos.
2) The dummy contradicts his own troll opener. He says: "I also fully accept the evidence presented that shows a clearly indigenous black/African origin of Egyptian civilization. However even if that's true, I don't think that really is enough to say that "the Egyptians were black."". Uhm dummy, if evidence as you say: "shows a clearly indigenous black/African origin of Egyptian civilization" how then is that "not enough" to say they were black? Duh...
3) He says: "Skeletal records as well as paintings and sculptures depict many different races but it's undeniable that the majority of them depicted brown/red skinned people". The dummy seems not to realize that the same "skeletal records" show tropical limb proportions clustering with black Africans nearby, whether it be Nubia or further south, along with cranial data showing similar clustering depending on the sampling and study cited. The Nubians are the closest ethnic cousins to the Egyptians- at times the two populations are indistinguishable in the archaeological record. And there are plenty of paintings and sculptures that show dark skinned "Black" Egyptians. Furthermore, the diversity of black Africans INCLUDES brown and reddish-brown skin. Just living in a cool zone for a long time will affect skin color, just as living in the dry arid air of deserts, or at high altitudes for a long period cause adaptations that give narrow noses.
4) He says East African blacks are not related to Western blacks- implying that those western negroes should “know their place.”. What a dummy. They are related by cultural artifacts, cultural practices, tropical adaptations to skeleton, language on some counts, and DNA. The PN2 transition of Haplogroup E for example unites a majority of African males throughout the continent, as just one example. Can't these dummies troll better? Be more creative? And "Nilotic ethnic groups" are black people, dumb bunny. The Nile Basin by the way extends from Kenya in the East, all the way to Republic of Congo in the West and thence the Atlantic ocean.
5) Then the troll trots out the standard line that "West Africans" should focus on their "actual ancestors" not East Africans. Dummies- West Africa was heavily populated by a foundational population originally coming from East Africa via the Sahara and elsewhere- indeed East Africa is a key hub of the OOA migrations out of Africa, but also a hub for key migrations INSIDE Africa. So "East Africans" in that sense are the ancestors of West Africans. West Africans thus have every right to engage with East Africans, or any other Africans if they see fit.
6) Finally, aside from all the above is the sheer hypocrisy of the white lamers and racists. They say that Afro Americans should "stick with West Africa" as if they need some sort of "clearance" from white people about what to study or engage. Curiously, the same white hypocrites do not apply the same rule to themselves- America and Britain are thousands of miles away from Greece, much more so than say Ethiopia to Nigeria. Yet northwest European Anglo-American whites flock to study all things Greek, and to copy from the Greeks. They don't say "let's confine ourselves to Northwest Europe." The white hypocrites only have a "problem" and a double standard when it comes to Africa. Africans apparently are supposed to sit silently and not engage the heritage of their continent, until given approval by self-styled white "role models." And speaking of cultural appropriation, white people have been the biggest hypocrites and appropriators of Egyptian heritage - even consuming the flesh of dead Egyptians in various historical areas for medicinal purposes. Hell even their currency rips off Egyptian iconography. Can anyone say white hypocrisy? I knew you could.
Bu the game has changed. The hypocrites no longer get to dictate to black folk, who need no "clearance" or "permission" or "approval" from "native" Egyptians (bogus or otherwise) or white people to study or make informed comment on the Nile Valley, East Africa or any other part of Africa. They don't need no badges of approval from anyone to study, theorize, apply and comment.
But anyway, ten pages on with the above dumb troll, I am glad to see him being hammered with info from the ES base. Predictably, a large number of allied idiots can't deal with hard data, so they fall back on hollering "nig$#@" in lieu of real debate. As usually happens with these type discussions and forums, the white lamers and racists sooner or later reveal their true colors. But anyway, we have the data, we have the more balanced models and approaches, we have the info repositories. We have end-run and defeated numerous bogus WIkipedia "stealth" edits and admin sandbagging ploys intended to bury and remove credible scholarship. And the base is in place, furnishing the ammo needed to hit hard. In that forum thread, black poster "mansamusa" is holding court and schooling assorted chumps and lamers. That is as it should be.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Currently involved in a 10+ page long debate on Egypt's place in Africa that goes to the question of this very thread:
Unbelievable to me how quickly the racism comes out on even supposedly objective forums, and the denial of African variation is mindboggling
I am sick and tired of the semantic word games and ever shifting goalposts with the word black, and black people presuming to "inform" others of blacks inferiority complexes or "afrocentrist conspiracies" get my goat. As if the history of Egyptology is not rife with delusions, lies, conspiracies and all types of cherry picked evidence
I've decided the best way to frame the issue is to address the AE's origins and what ramifications those would have for how we picture them. In other words, emphasize they came from the interior of the eastern Sahara and so would have been indigenous Africans and therefore darker-skinned, since we know modern Mediterranean "North Africans" have Arab admixture and light-skin alleles of recent West Eurasian origin. You can mention that, in certain traditions, they could be called "black", but clarify that the lay race is a social construct and that not everyone we call "black", even south of the Sahara, is part of the same population substructure.
Sure, some people will still object, and may twist your words into saying AEs were from this or that sub-Saharan population substructure. But that's their distorted interpretation, not yours.
quote:So who would the indigenous Egyptians, who laid the groundwork of what we consider Pharaonic civilization, have been? It is fair to say that, far from being European or even Middle Eastern in appearance, they and their culture would have been native African in origin. Most probably they developed from cattle-herding African tribes roaming the savannas of the Sahara before they turned to desert around 3500 BC. When the time came for these Africans to settle along the Nile and organize themselves into larger chiefdoms that would later merge into the Egyptian nascent state, most of the foundations of classical Egyptian civilization would be laid in the southern part of the country (Upper Egypt, since it is further upriver) before they conquered the northern (Lower, or downriver) reaches.
The biological anthropologist S.O.Y. Keita, perhaps the most specialized in this topic, reports on these:
"Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000–3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians [referring to a Late Period series from 664–341 BC, regarded as a period of decline for Pharaonic Egyptian hegemony] or ancient or modern southern Europeans." ---— S.O.Y. Keita and AJ Boyce, “ The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians”, Egypt in Africa (1996: pp. 25–27
Among modern populations, perhaps the ones who most closely resemble the majority of ancient Egyptians would be those living in northern Sudan, or “Nubia” (with the caveat added that these populations may still have minor Arabic admixture). More distant proxies would come from other Northeast African countries like Somalia and Ethiopia, who nonetheless share the same common Saharan African heritage as the indigenous Egyptians and North Sudanese.
These populations mentioned certainly see themselves as black.
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: ^I don't take offense to that at all Brandon and I think you are absolutely correct. I didn't even cite Keita once as any black scholar or academic is automatically assumed to be "Afrocentrist" unless they De-Africanize Egypt. It's absolutely crazy how acceptable the idea that black people don't even have the *right* to even discuss Egypt, let alone engage in real debate on it. I have felt the disadvantage every single time.
Racist practice doesn't always entail brute force out in the open violence against people of another race, but more often(especially nowadays) takes a much more subtle approach, as the silencing of me and the other two black posters not toting the party line demonstrated.
"I didn't even cite Keita once as any black scholar or academic is automatically assumed to be "Afrocentrist" unless they De-Africanize Egypt."
Very well, said. They have created this strategy where only white is right. Although now they've come up with a "solution" to white academics who write progressive. They start call them Marxist and communists. It's somewhat trendy I think. I even saw Doxie meantion this. And unless a black person not De-Africanize Egypt, he becomes "negrocentric".
I even read on the forum Topix years ago, how this person named Barros demanded to expel black scholars and ban blacks as a whole from academia. This Barros had major trouble with Clyde Winters, This individual Barros, claimed to be an anthropologist. He, Barros confirmed that he challenged Clyde on many occasions and "defeated" him (Clyde). I later came to find out that this person has been and is writing on Egyptsearch.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Annnnd the racists on historum have stopped pretending
What do you mean?
The thread is now closed but posters came out full force declaring Sub-Saharan Africa had no civilizations, were too primitive and stil are today and thus couldn't have founded Egypt.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote: I also refuse to entertain people calling the Nubians black and not the Egyptians. Not going to happen.
Swenet 18/05/2014 Facebook
quote: “Claus [Tropicals Redacted] Your argument in favor of the use of black (i.e. they apply it to Nubians) is reactionary and not based on any practical merit continued use of the term has, given the cards we're dealt. They [academics] aren't wrong in applying the term the way they do. It could be argued that you are forcing a definition on them and calling them out for refusing to use your hi-jacked definition. Anywhere else this wouldn't be accepted either. Sounds like a battle they're not going to let you win and moreover, technically, you'd be the one at fault here, not them. Regardless of whether they have racist motives for refusing to accept your appended definition .”
So Punos, you're being reactionary.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
LMAO. The chronic liar is at it again. Compare the full content of the quote with his poor reading comprehension interpretation of what it says (he's desperately drawing attention to the first and last sentence).
When Kemp tried to pull the "Nubians = black, but Egyptians aren't" angle, I said the following (and this was before I had gained more sympathy for Kemp's position):
quote:It's just a way for him to muddy up the conversation and to delay the inevitable with irrelevant objections. They all do this. They start talking about population affinity of Nubians and use the term 'black' freely, then they start talking about Egyptians and all of a sudden the term itself is scientifically problematic. It's true, but if you're intellectually honest you won't use semantics as a strategic advantage to not have to answer what someone is asking you. He could just as easily have said: "While black is a problematic term, I don't agree with the notion that they were predominantly African in genetic make-up, either", and he'd at least have addressed the heart of the matter.
—Swenet
Anyone familiar with my posts knows I've always rejected this "Nubians = black, but Egyptians aren't" notion, and still do. But, at the same time, I agreed and still agree with Kemp's position that 'black' is problematic (you can see me agreeing with this aspect of Kemp's statement when I say "it's true"). I disagreed with one aspect, and agreed with the other part.
The chronic liar knows this, but he just doesn't know when to stop lying.
You can look at my quote he's posting and see for yourself that that quote doesn't even say what he's making it out to mean. As the quote says, I was criticizing his APPENDED definition of 'black' AND his stupid justifications of using it. No one in this community worth his/her salt subscribes to the liar's appended definition of 'black'.
The liar started making up a definition of 'black' that had no historicity and got schooled. Ever since that day he's been bitter and disgruntled.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 1) Historically, 'black' could refer to (a) jet-black skin (excluding brown skin), (b) a range of brown skin tones (including jet-black skin), (c) (one drop of blood from) a perceived race thought to epitomize African ancestry, (d) swarthy skin, etc.
posted
And BTW, Punos can disagree with me. Who gives a sh!t. Punos is his own man and has his own considerations for why he does or doesn't subscribe to certain views. Part of the reason why the conflict with the liar happened is because the liar tried to impose his fake use of 'black' on academics and because he was deceptive with his trojan horses. I've never seen Punos do that with his use of 'black' so the comparison is moot. Pathetic, really.
The disgruntled liar needs to act his age. He's almost 50 years and still employs kindergarten tactics. Tries to sow discord with gossip but fails every time.
This is exactly how the liar tries to play academics against each other (i.e. with false accusations).
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: ^I don't take offense to that at all Brandon and I think you are absolutely correct. I didn't even cite Keita once as any black scholar or academic is automatically assumed to be "Afrocentrist" unless they De-Africanize Egypt. It's absolutely crazy how acceptable the idea that black people don't even have the *right* to even discuss Egypt, let alone engage in real debate on it. I have felt the disadvantage every single time.
Racist practice doesn't always entail brute force out in the open violence against people of another race, but more often(especially nowadays) takes a much more subtle approach, as the silencing of me and the other two black posters not toting the party line demonstrated.
While I didnt and probably wont read the entire thread I will say two things.
1 - You ran into the problem of coming into the discussion with facts and walls of text. I believe your first post was a block of text. It is likely they will simply scroll past walls of text and even if they read it they will not have the discernment to apply the knowledge as YOU would. IE: Even when they see Brown skinned Africans in Ghana they call "Black"...and pitch black Ghanaians they call Black.....understanding there is a range of skin color that can be applied to the Nile valley will not stick with them. If the dont understand what they see with their naked eye there is not way they can accurately conceptualize abstract science. Science and terms that they haven't ever even heard of.
2 - The question is framed as an either or question. Black or White. To really understand what they know I found it best to speak of influences and migration. You dont want people to feel some kind of way like they are disrespecting you or they are putting themselves in some type of position where they are simply telling you what you want to hear..............or playing down what they really want to say. If there is a person IN THE KNOW, you can simply ask them what are the Non African contributions and let them answer....and then ask what are the African contributions.
I see nothing wrong with the up-playing of the presence of SW Asian Specific domesticated crops and animals as a package coming into the Nile Valley on separate occasions even. Whether they argue an African or Non-African origin of AE, the fact regarding the animal and plants of SW Asian origin hold firm as facts. Once you start to address what is factual......and talk about real migration you can get to the heart of the issues as to what truths or misconceptions they have about cultural links and migrations. As a mater of fact you should TEACH them about the non-African influences and migrations into the Nile Valley. Once you start to do this nearly everything you say will make them look unreasonable.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^thanks for the advice Beyoku, I admit that I did frequently throw out blocks of quotations, but I still feel the bar was set much higher for me and the other posters arguing African origin for AE, and I didn't once deny influences from SW Asia. But influences doesn't make AE less African.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote: When Kemp tried to pull the "Nubians = black, but Egyptians aren't" angle, I said the following (and this was before I had gained more sympathy for Kemp's position) :
Oh dear...funny, because when I asked why Nubians are black, but Egyptians aren't, he seemed to change course:
July 4th 2014:
I ask Barry Kemp: "4) Could you also briefly explain why 'black' is acceptable when applied to 'Nubians', but gives rise to difficulties when applied to skeletally similar Egyptians?"
July 9th
Barry Kemp replied: "I would not call the Nubians a black population. I would say they are simply Nubians."
quote: And BTW, Punos can disagree with me. Who gives a sh!t
You really are all over the place. You can fleck spittle rant about false accusations all you want, the quote's there for all to see.
And why do you keep saying I'm nearly 50/in my 50s, when I'm not???
BTW this is the same individual, who, in a context entirely devoid of any sexual context, accused me of exhibiting the behavior of a paedophile. Yep. That's what he said.
A couple of nights ago he also said that he'd been in conversation with academics about me and threatened to post their comments on this forum, saying he had sufficient correspondence to post "for days"...when I repeatedly asked him to do so, he bottled it. Nothing materialised as far as I'm aware.
This is the same person who knocked against the idea of the Ethiopians and Somalis being black populations, but when I asked him in the course of a thread what the online and press reaction/descriptions would be if Hollywood made a film casting Somalis and Ethiopians as ancient Egyptians, he failed to answer...despite the questions being put to him twenty times... BTW he himself had previously referenced the Ethiopians as a black population ...but then later, after he and I fell out, he'd criticise me for doing the same thing...
This is what we have here.
Erratic.
But more fool me for wasting my time on him.
quote:And BTW, Punos can disagree with me. Who gives a sh!t. Punos is his own man and has his own considerations for why he does or doesn't subscribe to certain views. Part of the reason why the conflict with the liar happened is because the liar tried to impose his fake use of 'black' on academics and because he was deceptive with his trojan horses. I've never seen Punos do that with his use of 'black' so the comparison is moot. Pathetic, really.
The disgruntled liar needs to act his age. He's almost 50 years and still employs kindergarten tactics. Tries to sow discord with gossip but fails every time.
This is exactly how the liar tries to play academics against each other (i.e. with false accusations).
posted
The chronic liar tried to fabricate some sort of fake meaning of 'black' that artificially circumscribes all Africans that suit his fancy (e.g. includes light skinned people like Colin Powell, Goldie, tawny skinned Khoisan but selectively excludes light skinned Berbers) and pays no mind to people outside of Africa with the same range of skin pigmentation.
Needless to say, he got his ass handed to him. Lol! Then he tried to spam my past use of 'black', Djehuti's use of 'black', and now Punos use of 'black' to drum up support/point out inconsistencies. But the 50 year old troll has yet to point out how his appended 'black' relates to these people.
Again, you can see him in this thread deceptively co-signing Doug, but Doug's positions as recorded here and elsewhere reject this willy nilly use of 'black' as well. There is no one on this forum whose posting history can be shown to align with this shaky use of the term. It has no historicity and therefore no legitimacy.
This is what the liar said about the same views he's now posting out of context, like the liar he is:
19 June 2014
quote:Great discussion by the way...keeps us limber.
The same discussion led to his emotional temper tantrum a couple of days later. The same discussion he labeled 'great' now causes him to nitpick my quotes and post them out of context. Who is the erratic one? SMH.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
What changed the erratic liar's mind? Why the sudden change of heart? He certainly didn't think the post he's spamming out of context right now was a problem then. Lol.
quote: The filthy liar back then when he had the opportunity to speak up about the post he's spamming around right now:
quote: Swenet 18/05/2014 Facebook
“Claus [Tropicals Redacted] Your argument in favor of the use of black (i.e. they apply it to Nubians) is reactionary and not based on any practical merit continued use of the term has, given the cards we're dealt. They [academics] aren't wrong in applying the term the way they do. It could be argued that you are forcing a definition on them and calling them out for refusing to use your hi-jacked definition. Anywhere else this wouldn't be accepted either. Sounds like a battle they're not going to let you win and moreover, technically, you'd be the one at fault here, not them. Regardless of whether they have racist motives for refusing to accept your appended definition .”
19 June 2014 Great discussion by the way...keeps us limber.
posted
Note how the chronic liar is taking my posts completely out of context. This, among other things, is the arbitrary willy nilly crap I was responding to in the post quoted above which he's completely taking out of context (he even admits that he is fabricating his own use of 'black'):
18 June 2014
quote:Originally posted by the liar: However, my sense of what is black is far wider than what is in anthropological terms - I've relatives who have the same sort of appearance as Colin Powell, Haile Selassie. I've always regarded these particular family members as black, they self-identify as black, and within the context of the UK, they've always been referred to as such. I think that's where the sociological sense of blackness kicks in - Kemp alludes to this in terms of people's 'street' racial divisions. However, Keita points out that the light-skinned Berbers are indigenous Africans - generally, I wouldn't regard them as 'black'.
I'm not logged in right now so I can't access his other ridiculous left field comments on his use of 'black'. These posts show the extent to which he was making his definition of 'black' up as he was going along. The liar now tries to hide this so he can make it seem like the quoted comments necessarily apply to other folks' use of 'black'.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
These are the weak, child-like reactionary arguments the liar used in that discussion to justify his own willy nilly, fabricated use of 'black':
quote:It's therefore noticeable that the term black is much more readily applied to Nubians, yet we're meant to be more cautious when applying it to Egypt.
quote:Remembered this comment made by Djehuti on Egyptsearch:
quote:In the e-mail correspondence with Barry Kemp, the anthropologist made the equation between Nubians and Black Africans
quote:Tristan makes very good points in the post above yours.
quote:So why did the anthropologists at Amarna and Lawrence Owens make the equation between Nubians and Black Africans?
All his reasons for why his use fabricated use of 'black' is justified can be summed up as "well, they're also doing it", like a confused reactionary puppet who can't think for himself and articulate objective reasons.
As a grownup you're supposed to be able to justify something based on its own intrinsic merits. But this lame can't even begin to justify his arbitrary use of 'black' without somehow referring to what someone else is doing/thinks.
Even on the issue of reactionary, the liar is deliberately taking my post completely out of context... as usual.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the same discussion, the liar made it clear that the dark-skinned Nefertiti reconstruction many here consider to be a decent representation of the ancient Egyptians, bothers him to a degree:
quote:Originally posted by the liar: Gotta say that when I look at that reconstruction of Nefertiti I see a black woman. I understood that they worked on it 'blind' so weren't aware of who they were working on or the political context. She may have been darker, but honestly, I'm not that bothered by it.
^More proof that the liar's fabricated use of 'black' secretly cannot accommodate a huge portion of dynastic Egyptians. The disgruntled lame says he's "not that bothered" by the Nefertiti reconstruction. Lol. Like he has options to 'like' it or not.
He's made similar comments before:
quote:The images are attached- you've no doubt already seen them elsewhere. I find the image of Amenhotep I on page 2 really striking; I've got to admit that I'm thrown by the images of Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III on p.6 and p.7. Can't articulate what it is about the photo of Sitamun that jumps out at me as African. I don't want to talk about the three pictures of Sety I but would rather focus on what I think I can see in the x-ray!
It should be noted that the remains of Amenhotep III, one of the pharaoh he admits he has a hard time reconciling with African', are a decent general representation of an ancient Egyptian. The other pharaoh that apparently challenges his conception of African, Thutmose IV, is actually a good representation of the Amarna family males, according to Harris and Wente.
It's not a mystery what happened in the quote the liar posted. What happened is that it was picked up by others that his fabricated use of 'black' was arbitrary and justified with reactionary arguments (basically his trademark "whataboutism" misdirection). Moreover, it shows that when the lame says that the AE were 'black', he's deliberately deceiving the public considering the fact that he knows he can't or only barely accommodate them under that label.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other lingering questions remain. If the liar's concept of 'black' can easily accommodate all indigenous African variations, both 'negro' and non-'negro', as he claims, why can't he accept that some scholars see the dynastic AE art falling outside the negro morphotype? Why can't the lame tolerate Robins and Shute's statement that, though the AE had "super negroid" limbs, "they weren't negroes" (which is not unlike Hiernaux observation of elongated and broad featured Africans):
quote:Originally posted by the liar: They also try something similar in the introduction of the Robins and Schute (1986) paper on limb lengths, where they concede that the Egyptians had tropical African limb proportions but:
quote:"This does not mean that the ancient Egyptians were negroes; indeed in their art they clearly distinguished between their own facial features and skin colour and those of people from further south."
The defensiveness and racism in this is incredible. I had to recheck the year to make sure I read 1986 and not fucking 1886!
I'm familiar with the contents of the paper in question and I've not been able to detect a single instance of what the delusional loon calls "racism" of a type that belongs in the 1880s. In fact, the whole notion that negrophobic racists would ever associate the AE with Sub-Saharans (by calling their bodyplans "super-negroid"), even if just nominally, seems to me to be irrational and paranoid. His knee jerk reactions are not surprising though, given the indications we already have that this liar is insecure and sensitive about reminders that the AE skeletal remains challenge his concept of 'black'.
Note also the fact that we keep seeing that this lame has a tendency to single out academics for personal reasons and accuse them of racism without any evidence.
Here is the full Robins and Shute quote. Racism?
quote:ROBINS (1983) and ROBINS & SHUTE (1983) have shown that more consistent results are obtained for ancient Egyptian male skeletons if TROTTER & GLESER formulae for negro subjects are used, rather than those for whites which have always been applied in the past. This does not mean that the ancient Egyptians were negroes; indeed, in their art they clearly distinguished between their own facial features and skin colour and those of people from further south. It does, however, suggest that their physical proportions were more like those of modern negroes than those of modern whites, with limbs that were relatively long compared with the trunk, and distal limb segments that were long compared with the proximal segments. If ancient Egyptian males had what may be termed negroid proportions, it seems reasonable to suppose that females did likewise. Consequently, we shall in this paper be concerned only with the applicability of TROTTER & GLESER male and female negro formulae.
posted
Same Robins and Shute quote, different occasion. Robins and Shute really do bring out the paranoid, race-baiting, raging loon in him, don't they? Why, though, if his use of 'black' embraces ALL Africans, no matter what morphotype they belong to?
quote:I now see where Barry Kemp gets his bullshit from:
quote:. . . “ROBINS (1983) AND Robins & SHUTE (1983) have shown that more consistent results are obtained for ancient Egyptian male skeletons if TROTTER & GLESSER formulae for negro subjects are used, rather than those for whites which have always been applied in the past. This does not mean that the ancient Egyptians were negroes; indeed in their art they clearly distinguished between their own facial features and skin colour and those of people from further south.”
. . .
How fucking shameless, warped and confused, . . . .
posted
Here we have the race-baiting loon fishing for confirmation that putative Upper Paleolithic ancestors of the Egyptians were "black people". He was repeatedly told that they were indigenous African as far as we can tell. But the loon kept baiting for me to tell him that they were "black African". WHY was it not sufficient that I repeatedly said "indigenous African", if, as he claims, his use of "black African" can capture ALL indigenous African variations?
quote: The race-baiter: Other question just to get it straight in my head - do the al khiday results prove that what was previously considered 'north African' actually falls within the range of indigenous black African variability? Thanks in advance
Swenet: Yes. What it shows is that what Irish et al call the "Sub-Saharan dental pattern" does not capture the full range of indigenously African dental variability.
Swenet: SSA and NAF are geographical descriptions. This needs to be remembered, because the dental pattern can be both found in northern Africa, and distinct from the dental pattern below the Sahara, and totally indigenous to Africa
The race-baiter: OK. I guess I'm not saying anything new though in suggesting that the North African/SSA distinction, although a geographical one, is racially loaded?
Swenet: So, what I mean is, those terms are tricky. Yes, the alKhiday dental pattern seems to be on remains which appear to be African people. biologically speaking but geographically speaking, there is no record of a SSA sample with this dental pattern. So, what I'm arguing is: biologically SSA, but the pattern belongs to a subset of variation which isn't common to that found in SSA remains so far. Just be aware of that distinction.
The race-baiter: OK, but the fact that al khiday is south of Khartoum suggests that these traits belonged to indigenous black Africans, right?
Note that, back then, I assumed that the liar's phrase 'black African' was a reference to skin pigmentation (which is how I used 'black back then), not to a particular race. That's why I never objected to his baiting attempts to get me to say "black African". Either way, it's clear from his line of questioning that the race-baiter makes a deliberate distinction between "black African" and 'indigenous African', indicating beyond doubt that, despite his claims to the contrary, his use of "black African" is a racial reference and encompasses only a fraction of all indigenous African variability.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
There, that provides the much needed context that the lying race-baiter deliberately withheld when he posted my comments.
The race-baiter has a preference for 'black African' over 'indigenous African', because he likes the extra racial ambiguity that comes with it (so he can usher in his trojan horse). Of course, the race baiter is aware of of the fact that this makes him dishonest, so he has his cute comebacks in case someone calls him out on it. When I noticed that his insistence on "black African" was becoming more problematic, I told him to switch to 'indigenous African', and he objected:
quote:I wasn't going to adapt the term 'black' because that lies at the crux of the debate. They're more comfortable with the term 'indigenous', or 'a people of Africa', but have a visceral, inconsistent reaction to what most everyday people would readily intuit by reading the evidence/discussion; that the AEs were 'black'. I wasn't going to move on that.
However, as we've already seen, the race-baiter would not even settle with "indigenous African" when I used the term and repeatedly tried to bait me into saying "black African", indicating that his use of "black African" is a deliberate preference that he also uses to lie to himself. Moreover, it has been established from this liar's posts that he deliberately avoids the genetic data (also with excuses) because he knows that "black African" doesn't cover the evolutionary complexities. (For instance, when we set out to find "black African" ancestry in groups close to the AE, we sometimes may find only ~35% ancestry that matches this racial description). The liar only cites genetic evidence when he sees an opening to deceive people.
When the liar sees an opportunity to deceive people:
quote: Originally posted by the liar: Could you comment on the finding that the studied modern sample (100) is 80% non-African, with the admixture event following the Islamic conquest?
When the liar is confronted with the fact that the genetic evidence isn't consistent with his "black African" category, he flip flops back to "but, I'm only interested in talking about sociological "blackness".
quote:My view has been that, in British and American sociological terms, most ancient Egyptians would be regarded as black/black Africans. I’ve said this all along.
posted
Well. As I said, you can try and play this game that racists are objective and aren't concerned with skin color all day but when the reality smacks you in the face you see otherwise.
At the end of the day this is about skin color and the only ideology of the racists is that any form of superior culture has to be associated with white skin and the word black has to be associated with inferiority. Hence the reason why the word black is problematic in ancient Egypt.
Yet folks on this forum refuse to admit the fundamental underlying facts that this whole issue is about skin color and white supremacy, which is why their silly appeals to objectivity go nowhere. The people you are trying to appeal to aren't being objective. They are racists...... And it just looks silly to try and water down your argument by being careful with words as if they don't know what the hell they are doing.
You guys should be smarter than that.
Either that or you are simply trying to play both sides of the fence.
In particular, to hear folks keep trying to play this game that black isn't a reference to skin color and then go all over the map trying to introduce all sorts of other anthropological metrics as if those metrics contradict the fact that black is a reference to skin color. Circular logic and circular reasoning.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Well. As I said, you can try and play this game that racists are objective and aren't concerned with skin color all day but when the reality smacks you in the face you see otherwise.
Are you talking about the Historum thread? How many nay sayers and racists claimed that the AE didn't have brown skin? What happened in that thread is basically a prediction of what I said all along. Most nay sayers agreed that the AE had dark (i.e. brown) skin and refused to call it 'black' because they felt 'black' is a racial term. Again, proving that such an understanding exists and is pretty dominant in the West. The dictionary entries of 'black' cited in this thread are simply not in use by default in the West, and that is exactly what these dictionaries acknowledge in their usage notes.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Wow, the Oxford on American use of English language is not in use by default in the West.
Are we now to default definitions as what the LCD man on the street says?
But, oh hell, damn what the dictionaries say. When they disconfirm ideology assert Svengali spin to pooh pooh MerriamWebster Oxford or any other dictionary. "Damn what the dictionary says, listen to me, I know better than that! Who you gonna believe, the Oxford dictionary or me? After all I've interviewed everybody in the West so how does the Oxford dare to say else?"
And please let's ignore the over 2000 year historic use of black in reference to populations. Either that or else let's make reference to exceptional individuals within a population to negate the obvious.
After all the hyperbolic use of melanchroes for a rejuvenated Odysseus' complexion proves Colchians, Egyptians, and Aithiopians complexion was no more than the colour of a north Mediterranean' daily year after year sun tan, right?
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Well. As I said, you can try and play this game that racists are objective and aren't concerned with skin color all day but when the reality smacks you in the face you see otherwise.
Are you talking about the Historum thread? How many nay sayers and racists claimed that the AE didn't have brown skin? What happened in that thread is basically a prediction of what I said all along. Most nay sayers agreed that the AE had dark (i.e. brown) skin and refused to call it 'black' because they felt 'black' is a racial term. Again, proving that such an understanding exists and is pretty dominant in the West. The dictionary entries of 'black' cited in this thread are simply not in use by default in the West, and that is exactly what these dictionaries acknowledge in their usage notes.
What I am saying is that it is completely dishonest to claim that these kinds of heated debates going back over 100 years is simply a case of semantics about a single dam word. That is so completely and utterly false I don't even see how you can even open your mouth to say it. The racists and white supremacists want the AE to be white or as close to white as possible and because they cant be as overt as they used to be, they try to use language that sounds less racist.
But here is the problem with your argument. "Brown" is no better than "black" in terms of settling a disagreement which fundamentally is about the range of skin complexions found in AE. It is just as ambiguous and imprecise and therefore useless if one claims to be trying to achieve clarity in language. One person could claim that brown includes very light tan and thus not be in agreement at all with what someone else calls brown as in very dark chocolate brown. So again, the issue is skin color and no amount of trying to claim it is about semantics will change that.
The other problem with the path of anthropological metrics proving African variability is that it is tied to skin color also. Variability in Africans is about showing how African people with tropically adapted skin colors, or in other words BLACK people, have a large degree of variation in physical features aside from skin color. The point is that it refutes the goal of the racists which is to limit the kinds of skeletal or physical features that can be associated with black skin. African physical feature variability is not a refutation of the word black it is actually just the opposite. Southern Egyptian Nubians, Egyptians in and around Luxor, Bedja Sudanese, Sudanese Dinka, Nuer in Ethiopia, Ethipian Tigray, Somalis, Kenyan Kikuyu, Kenyan Masai, South African Zulus, Nigerian Igbo and many other African populations are all black, even though they have tremendous variability in their physical features.
And lastly, one last issue with the falsehoods implicit in some of your arguments. Black and white as racial terms in the west have always been about skin color. They were used as ways to group folks who had similar skin complexions together as a single group, regardless of ethnic background, language or national origin. Hence, any population from Europe with white skin was labelled white, whether Irish, Scotsman, Italian, Jewish, German, Polish, Russian or so forth. Yes there was still some ethnic tension between some of these groups, but once they got to the Americas they were all still considered as part of the "white race". Conversely any population with black skin, which were primarily Africans from various parts of Africa, were considered blacks and it didn't matter the ethnic group, language or culture that they came from. The skin color was the primary attribute that determined their "race". So it is again dishonest to claim that black and white are racial terms have nothing to do with skin color. They are absolutely references to skin color and the "racial" usage of such terms reinforces that, which has everything to do with why they don't want to use black in Ancient Egypt. They don't want the AE to be lumped together with other Africans as having black skin and therefore contradict all the racist propaganda they have been putting out about folks with black skin.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
You don't have to speculate about what they mean with 'brown', because you can read click on the thread and read the posts of each nay sayer and see what they say.
quote:Originally posted by Pacific Victory: In other words, the average Ancient Egyptian probably looked something like this: We all seem to agree on this by the way, and the only question seems to be whether or not to classify those people as "black", which I find a bit meaningless either way.
Did you actually read the thread before started claiming the outcome of that thread as proof of what you were saying in this thread?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug, you've already been shown that there is no truth to your claim that all white supremacists necessarily rallied around the notion that the AE were "white".
I've posted plenty sources proving otherwise. But since I enjoy seeing you skirt around facts, I'll post some more examples of white supremacists quarreling among themselves and coming to the conclusion that the AE were brown skinned indigenous Africans before there even was such a thing as organized “Afrocentric” or Africanist opposition:
quote: That the skins of Egyptians, in Grecian times, were much darker than those of Greeks and other white races around the Archipelago, there can be no question ; nor that this complexion was accompanied sometimes with curly or frizzled hair, tumid lips, slender limbs, small heads, with receding foreheads and chins, which, by contrast, excited the wonder or derision of the fair-skinned Hellenes. But, while it must be conceded that Negroes, at no time within the reach even of monumental history, have inhabited any part of Egypt, save as captives ; it may, on the other hand, be equally true, that thg ancient Egyptians did present a type intermediate between other African and Asiatic races ; and, should such be proved to have been the case, the autocthones of Egypt must cease to be designated by the misnomer of "Caucasian."
Types of Mankind: Or, Ethnological Researches, Based Upon the Ancient Monuments, Paintings, Sculptures, and Crania of Races, and Upon Their Natural, Geographical, Philological and Biblical History (1854)
quote: "We read the Crania jEgyptiaca, with intense interest, so soon as it was published ; and, down to the time when Lepsius's plates of the IVth, Yth, and Vlth dynasties appeared, we had not ceased to regard Morton's Egyptian type as the true representative of that of the Old Empire ; but the first hour's glance over those magnificent delinea tions of the primeval inhabitants produced an entire revolution in the authors' opinions, and enforced the conviction that the Egyptians of the earliest times did not correspond with our honored friend's description, but with a type which, although not Negro, nor akin to any Negroes, was strictly African — a type, in fact, that supplied the long-sought^for link between African and Asiatic races.
Types of Mankind: Or, Ethnological Researches, Based Upon the Ancient Monuments, Paintings, Sculptures, and Crania of Races, and Upon Their Natural, Geographical, Philological and Biblical History (1854)
What is your excuse now, Doug?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I first read Nott & Glidden in 1973, it and the less well known book Negro Mania.
N&G is available free in entirety online. They are racist to the core.
I cannot understand how anyone cannot see them detach AE from Africa and by brown they mean no more than the Brown Hamitic Caucasian or the Brown Mediterranean race (non-Sergi) or whatever.
posted
@Tukuler^ Thanks for the post above, this exposes the mindset.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
What mindset does it expose, exactly? If you're referring to post #1134, how does said post relate to the points of contention, Ish Gebor?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug, stick to the topic at hand.
You don't have to speculate about what they mean with 'brown', because you can read click on the thread and read the posts of each nay sayer and see what they say.
quote:Originally posted by Pacific Victory: In other words, the average Ancient Egyptian probably looked something like this: We all seem to agree on this by the way, and the only question seems to be whether or not to classify those people as "black", which I find a bit meaningless either way.
Did you actually read the thread before started claiming the outcome of that thread as proof of what you were saying in this thread?
Do you even know that what you are saying is proving my point? Are black people not brown skinned? Again how is this clarifying anything? If black people are people with "brown" skin then how on earth is "brown" better than "black"? Both words are highly subjective and can be interpreted different ways by different people. It is a logical contradiction yet you sit here and keep trying to claim that one word is better than the other when logically they mean the same thing. Black means brown skinned people of Africa and other tropically adapted areas. You keep trying to claim that these people are only arguing because of semantics when everybody knows that the issue is of skin color. All this trying to deny the obvious is simply absurd. You can try and be objective all you want but the point is no matter what words you use the issue is and has always been about skin color. Otherwise why on earth would there be so much debate over a dam word if people SUPPOSEDLY are in agreement on the actual skin color? Either they are in agreement on the issue of skin colors as found in AE or they are not and obviously the reason for these 10 page arguments is over skin color.
Your attempts to deny this and try to play it up as purely semantics are asinine.
It is not an issue of semantics it is an issue of skin color and black is no less valid than any other words to describe the colors of populations in AE just as it is no less valid anywhere else in Africa or elsewhere.
You keep letting these people off the hook with their illogical nonsense by playing along and trying to sound 'objective', when the core issue hasn't really changed one bit. If a brown skinned African in America is black and brown skinned Africans in any other part of Africa is black, then obviously a brown skinned African in AE would also be black. The logical contradiction being that if two different sets of people with the same brown skin are labeled differently based on having the same skin color then what is the difference? Either blacks have brown skin or they don't. If "blacks" are people with brown skin and indigenous African people are ALL shades of brown then all indigenous Africans are black. Period. Otherwise, in order for the opposite to be true, some indigenous Africans would not have brown skin and therefore not be black. But if they don't have brown skin then they cant be brown either.
It is a logical contradiction.
Here is an African man from Swaziland standing outside the oldest mine in the world, used to extract hematite, also called red ochre. Such compounds are the basis of the paint seen in Egyptian art. Note the skin color of this man is brown and matches the brown of the walls of the mine and the hematite and the brown seen in AE art. He is also black.
The point being that the AE in terms of skin color and other features were no different than other Africans, as denoted by the usage of the word black. That has always been the point of debate no matter how you seem to deny the obvious.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Do you even know that what you are saying is proving my point? Are black people not brown skinned?
You didn't read the thread, did you? You completely misinterpreted what he was saying. He was one of several people in the thread who said that darkbrown skin doesn't equate to belonging to the "black race". I know you don't acknowledge that there is such a thing as a "black race", but it's not about what you want. It's about the perceptions that are out there and the associations people generally conjure up in the West TODAY when they hear the word 'black' in relation to people, ethnicity, organizations, culture, etc. No one thinks about an indigenous Australian when they hear "black music". When people say Alicia Keys is half black, no one is going to ask "is the other half Melanesian"?
Moreover, contrary to what you were claiming, it's not uncommon for racists and Eurocentrics to admit that the average AE would have looked like the figures picture below or that these were autochtonous Egyptians.
If your claims in this thread were true, Eurocentrics and other dissenters wouldn't be pointing to these paintings as representing ancient Egyptians.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Do you even know that what you are saying is proving my point? Are black people not brown skinned?
You didn't read the thread, did you? You completely misinterpreted what he was saying. He was one of several people in the thread who said that darkbrown skin doesn't equate to belonging to the "black race". I know you don't acknowledge that there is such a thing as a "black race", but it's not about what you want. It's about the perceptions that are out there and the associations people generally conjure up in the West TODAY when they hear the word 'black' in relation to people, ethnicity, organizations, culture, etc. No one thinks about an indigenous Australian when they hear "black music". When people say Alicia Keys is half black, no one is going to ask "is the other half Melanesian"?
Moreover, contrary to what you were claiming, it's not uncommon for racists and Eurocentrics to admit that the average AE would have looked like the figures picture below or that these were autochtonous Egyptians.
If your claims in this thread were true, Eurocentrics and other dissenters wouldn't be pointing to these paintings as representing ancient Egyptians.
All I am saying is you aren't making any sense trying to defend these folks. What was this 10 page about then? Seriously? Why was Diop at the Unesco conference and why did they reject his findings? Why has did Hawass jump up and make his famous pronouncement about the AE not being black? Why do you have National Geographic and other European magazines still claiming that only the Sudanese pharoahs in the 25th dynasty were black? And on and on and on.
No, you are not going to sit here and tell me to my face that all these folks have been debating this for over 100 years because of silly semantics. No, they have been debating it because fundamentally the issue is skin color. And no, these people know full well why they are debating this issue so much and it is not because of semantics or any misunderstanding of anthropology.
No this debate is about skin color, it has been about skin color for over 100 years and it is not an issue of SEMANTICS.
Your attempts to say that the racists actually believe the AE had the same complexion as black Africans is absurd. Because if they REALLY believed the AE had brown skin then how on earth could they be against using the term black with such determination and energy? What was the 10 page debate about? The word "black", but not skin color? Are you serious?
These people using the word "brown" does not mean that they are in agreement with other folks on the ACTUAL skin color of AE people. My point being that this debate is primarily about whether or not the AE had the same skin colors as the rest of Africans all of whom are called black. This is the debate and the reason they reject the word black is because they are saying that the AE did not have the same skin color as Africans. That has ALWAYS been the crux of the issue. My argument with you is you keep trying to say this is an issue of semantics and not an issue of skin color. No, it is an issue of skin color and no matter what words you use, they are not really in agreement that the AE had skin colors anywhere close to other Africans. THAT is why they reject the word black and this has been shown time and time again by their own arguments yet you sit here and keep trying to say that it is about words not skin color. The words they use are absolutely clear. When they say the AE were not black they are talking about skin color.
And on that note, I don't have to read the whole 10 page thread. Your own example post is enough to prove what I am saying is correct and that you try to be objective but miss the whole point:
quote:Originally posted by Pacific_Victory It seems like the only real argument here is about the definition of the word black.
As far as I can tell, everyone agrees that the native Egyptian population was of African origin, genetically closest to other eastern African populations such as Nubians and Ethopians.
It is clear from the artistic evidence that the Egyptian population of pharoanic times was rather diverse with regards to skin color, but the most common seems to have been a ruddy brown color somewhere between the dark black of central Africa and the olive of the Meditteranean. This was salted with substantial admixtures of both dark subsaharan Africans and Eurasians from Arabia and the Levant.
Point 1, the AE were > 95% indigenous Nile Valley Africans with little to no mixture with Levantines. So this person is rehashing the point that has been the crux of the debate all along. The AE were not MIXED with Levantines and therefore they were black because of being PURE indigenous Africans like all other Africans. This person is not saying anything different than what the racists have always been saying, yet YOU keep claiming they are in agreement when they are not, especially not with me anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Pacific_Victory The average Egyptian's skin color was probably very close to the color they usually depicted themselves as in their art. Something like this shade:
Point 2, note the usage of the terms "very close" and "something like". Of course they cannot deny the obvious colors used in the artwork of AE, so they use weasel words to give themselves room to include a WIDE RANGE of colors in whatever definition they want to call "brown". You seem to agree with this but my point is this is not actually sign of any agreement on anything. Because there are plenty of black Africans who are the same shade of brown as shown in that portrait, especially in America and those black folks in America ARE more mixed with white folks. So again, if the AE were brown and all black people are actually a shade of brown, why is there so much of a debate? This is what you should be asking ANYBODY who puts up such a fight over this. Because I know dam well they haven't been fighting this so hard because of misunderstandings on semantics of words.
quote:Originally posted by Pacific_Victory We have no reason to doubt that this is accurate coloring, especially because their depictions of skin color of whites and subsaharan blacks is pretty close to the reality.
So if the shade they use to depict Nubians is accurate:
And the shade they use to depict Libyans and Syrians (1st and 3rd) is accurate: Click the image to open in full size.
Why would we think that the Egyptians lied about their own coloring? They were a predominately ruddy brown people with admixtures of both white and black. On average darker than Eurasians and lighter than subsaharans. Seems obvious.
Point 3, again he reiterates this idea that the AE were mixed and intermediate in terms of skin color when my point is that the average skin color of the AE was no different that the average skin color of black Africans anywhere in Africa. And at no time did the AE depict any sub saharan Africans in their art. All of those so-called Nubians were either above or within the Sahara and none of them were "sub saharans". Meaning that black skin was present in the Nile valley right up to and INTO Egypt proper and not separated from Egypt by the Sahara desert.
And not to mention the fact that most black Africans aren't as dark as those jet black Sudanese in the picture. And if that is the only color that represents "black" skin, then most Africans aren't black. But we know that the word black doesn't mean literally black skin and that this is simply a red herring which again you should have challenged but you didn't as most black people are shades of brown.
quote:Originally posted by Doug: All I am saying is you aren't making any sense trying to defend these folks.
I don't see how I'm defending white supremacy when I disagree with you on something they supposedly did, that only you accuse them of. Who else other than you claims that white supremacists in anthropology and Egyptology universally claimed that the AE were blonde, blue eyed and pale skinned? I've literally never heard of your claim that this is somehow a consensus among white supremacists. I would say it's a myth, but that would give it too much credit because no one with familiarity with the literature would say that that is the consensus.
quote:Originally posted by Doug: No, you are not going to sit here and tell me to my face that all these folks have been debating this for over 100 years because of silly semantics.
Of course it's not all about silly semantics. I've already told you why not. You keep talking about trolls, liars, ignorant people and proponents with vested interests in Hollywood, Egyptology and elsewhere who have no training in this area and are not even authorized to speak on the matter.
When you eliminate these opinionated Eurocentrics, then yes, the refusal to use 'black' in reference to the AE will boil down more or less to what you call "semantics" (I personally don't think it's semantics, but if you want to call it that...). Not that you still won't find examples of negrophobic Eurocentrics here and there trying to pull a fast one, but the confusion as far as who today approaches the predynastic AE in appearance would be resolved. And they would mostly point to darkbrown skinned Nile Valley people, not Nordics, as you've claimed.
I gave you many opportunities to prove me wrong, but you never did. Again, post the prominent, widely cited Eurocentrics with training in bio-anthropology and the ethnic background of the predynastic Egyptians, who didn't identify their sister populations among the dark skinned people in North Africa, if not early on in their career, then at some later point when they had access to more data.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug. Any reason in particular why you so far avoided my quotes of white supremacists who said that the AE were indigenous Africans? According to what you've claimed so far, these white supremacists should all be claiming that the AE were blonde, blue eyed and pale skinned—not that they were indigenous Africans. So how is it possible that I'm quoting one such white supremacist academic right now?
quote:Dr. Prichard, in denning the Abyssinians, has taken much pains, as we have said, to prove that they, together with families generally of the eastern basin of the Nile, down to Egypt inclusive, not only are not Negro, but were not originally Asiatic races , display ing somewhat of an intermediate type, which is nevertheless essen taily African in character. To us, it is very gratifying to see this view so ably sustained ; because, regarding it as an incontrovertible fait, we have made it the stand-point of our argument respecting the origin of the ancient Egyptians, whose effigies present this African type on the earliest monuments of the Old Empire more vividly than upon those of the New. This autochthonous type, as we shall prove, ascends so far back in time, is so peculiar, and withal so connected with a primordial tongue — presenting but small incipient affinity with Asiatic languages about 3500 years b. c.— as to preclude every idea of an Asiatic origin for its aboriginally-Nilotic speakers and hieroglyphical scribes.
Types of Mankind: Or, Ethnological Researches, Based Upon the Ancient Monuments, Paintings, Sculptures, and Crania of Races, and Upon Their Natural, Geographical, Philological and Biblical History (1854)
quote:Ancient Crania, from Thebes; by Morton termed " Negroid Heads," -whereas to us they yield rather the Old Egyptian type.
Types of Mankind: Or, Ethnological Researches, Based Upon the Ancient Monuments, Paintings, Sculptures, and Crania of Races, and Upon Their Natural, Geographical, Philological and Biblical History (1854)
In fact, I've just quoted more than two white supremacists. Prichard and the authors who just agreed with Prichard.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Ancient Egyptian civilization spans millennia. I can't give percentages. The founding Africans weren't free of Aamu in their northeast. Tehenu it seems had the far north first. Documents like Narmer's Pallette show all were subdued by the kingdom. We know the affiliation Lower Nubia and proto-Dynastic Egypt had. All four elements * Remetu * Aamu * Nehesu * Tjemehu were eligible for judgement and resurrection in the New Kingdom afterworld even though foreign not nationalized as many were in all ages of the civilization.
Chancellor Williams 1974 chronicled Egypt's creaming over time. It was ever increasing in number and territory though I can't quality his concept of an off-white and 'mulatto' team up against the blacks. He even accepts each 'side' had supporters not of their remote ancestry.
[....] Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lioness: This is 2016 "white" and "black" are relics of a pre-gentetics era
Right. And I find it very suspicious that certain people here who insist on/don't speak out against 'black' in the pan-African racial sense (see Tropicals Redacted's pathetic willy nilly use of 'black') aren't posting the genomes of darkbrown skinned Middle Nile Valley people to prove that they are predominantly 'black' in this racial sense. Yes, they are predominantly indigenous African, but I don't see how one can translate this racial concept of 'black' to their genomes. It just doesn't work without invoking hybridism and population replacement.
I've asked many times for people here to explain these genomes under the "black race" paradigm and all I get is silence. I've asked many times why there is such a small genetic footprint of "black Africans" in the neighbors of ancient Egypt (Syria and Palestine) and all I get is silence. How is it possible for so little ancient "black African" ancestry to be detected there (~3-5% according to Moorjani et al 2011) if the genomes of the ancient Egyptians are supposed to have been dominated by ancestry that is consistent with "black Africans" as opposed to an indigenous Saharan component? Dynastic Egypt lasted for 3000 years and that's not counting predynastic Egypt, the neolithic or the epipalaeolithic. All these periods have evidence of Egyptian presence there, but all we get is 3-5%? Right..
That's why I think that many people here secretly know what I'm talking about re: my qualms with 'black' and the need to distinguish various uses of the term; they're simply LYING and toeing the party line. I don't think everyone who does this is necessarily lying, but if you're supposed to be a 'big time' population genetics buff and you're silent on this issue/don't take the initiative to talk about it, I think you're suspect. Either that, or they don't know what they're talking about when they post all that genetics stuff.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What mindset does it expose, exactly? If you're referring to post #1134, how does said post relate to the points of contention, Ish Gebor?
I am not talking about any particular post on here. I am speaking of the consensus in general.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lioness: This is 2016 "white" and "black" are relics of a pre-gentetics era
Right. And I find it very suspicious that certain people here who insist on/don't speak out against 'black' in the pan-African racial sense (see Tropicals Redacted's pathetic willy nilly use of 'black') aren't posting the genomes of darkbrown skinned Middle Nile Valley people to prove that they are predominantly 'black' in this racial sense. Yes, they are predominantly indigenous African, but I don't see how one can translate this racial concept of 'black' to their genomes. It just doesn't work without invoking hybridism and population replacement.
I've asked many times for people here to explain these genomes under the "black race" paradigm and all I get is silence. I've asked many times why there is such a small genetic footprint of "black Africans" in the neighbors of ancient Egypt (Syria and Palestine) and all I get is silence. How is it possible for so little ancient "black African" ancestry to be detected there (~3-5% according to Moorjani et al 2011) if the genomes of the ancient Egyptians are supposed to have been dominated by ancestry that is consistent with "black Africans" as opposed to an indigenous Saharan component? Dynastic Egypt lasted for 3000 years and that's not counting predynastic Egypt, the neolithic or the epipalaeolithic. All these periods have evidence of Egyptian presence there, but all we get is 3-5%? Right..
That's why I think that many people here secretly know what I'm talking about re: my qualms with 'black' and the need to distinguish various uses of the term; they're simply LYING and toeing the party line. I don't think everyone who does this is necessarily lying, but if you're supposed to be a 'big time' population genetics buff and you're silent on this issue/don't take the initiative to talk about it, I think you're suspect. Either that, or they don't know what they're talking about when they post all that genetics stuff.
Some people prefer the statement "The Egyptians were black" to "The Egyptians were African"
This is because Western civilization has brainwashed us to think skin color is more important than ancestry
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yes that, and also other lay folk may think there is only one monolithic African ancestry, and that the term 'black' (in the racial sense) can therefore cover all this ancestry. If ignorance is the reason, then that's excusable. If you don't know, you simply don't know. But some use 'black' (as in: a pan-African 'race') with the intention to obscure and deceive.
The types of African ancestry that left Africa via Egypt after the initial OOA are mostly Maghrebi-like (light green) and what has been called 'Ethio-Somali' (dark green). (See the Druze, Palestinians, Bedouins, Turks, below). Early farmer genomes from >7000 years ago also reveal that the main type of African ancestry in Europe and the Middle East conforms to what I just mentioned.
On the other hand, across the Bab el Mandeb (see Yemen and Qatar samples below) we see see that Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan input roughly equals the amount of Ethio-Somali and Maghrebi-like input. If the posters with literal interpretations of DNA Tribes were right, Syrians should have an African component that looks like the Afro-Qatar sample (lots of light and dark blue). Instead, we see that Egypt's northern and eastern neighbors mostly have light and dark green. There is no close affinity between dark and light blue on the one hand and light and dark green on the other hand, although purple ("Ethiopic", meaning, Omotic) bridges the gap somewhat in terms of phylogenetic relationships.
Edited from Hodgson et al 2014 (K=12). Note that I don't agree with Hodgson et al that both types of ancestry are completely non African. This can be easily disproved.
Instead of obscuring ancient Egyptian ancestry with unlikely interpretations of DNA Tribes Amarna results (e.g. South Africa, which couldn't be more distant from Egypt) and misleading use of 'black' (most people will not think of Ethio-Somali and Maghrebi-like genetic material when they hear the racial use of 'black'), they should own up to this fact and move on. Parts of the popular narrative many people here subscribed to in 2009 (including myself) has long been falsified.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
With regards to Hodgson's Maghrebi component (looking at Fig. 2 here), don't you think it odd that it's found in highest concentration in Northwest Africans like Tunisians that are mostly depigmented and have actual Eurasian (not pre-OOA) ancestry? Not that there isn't some indigenous Saharan ancestry bundled up in there, but I doubt it's predominant. I also notice it's found in some southern European samples that lack a comparable Ethio-Somali component, which is odd since presumably all these West Eurasians would have "basal Eurasian" ancestry. I think the trend you noted could partly be explained by travel during the Islamic age, which would have presumably established commercial and cultural ties between Maghrebis and populations in the Levant (which would have been easier to access than southern Arabia).
I do agree with you the Ethio-Somali component can be attributed to indigenous Saharans though.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
With regards to Hodgson's Maghrebi component (looking at Fig. 2 here), don't you think it odd that it's found in highest concentration in Northwest Africans like Tunisians that are mostly depigmented and have actual Eurasian (not pre-OOA) ancestry? Not that there isn't some indigenous Saharan ancestry bundled up in there, but I doubt it's predominant. I also notice it's found in some southern European samples that lack a comparable Ethio-Somali component, which is odd since presumably all these West Eurasians would have "basal Eurasian" ancestry. I think the trend you noted could partly be explained by travel during the Islamic age, which would have presumably established commercial and cultural ties between Maghrebis and populations in the Levant (which would have been easier to access than southern Arabia).
I assume the hapolgroup corresponding to a "Maghrebi component" is none other than E-M81
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic