It was never found like that, you lying piece of trash. Provide authoritative sources that say precisely just that.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
One can clearly see traces of dark paint. Only in your most alcohol soaked dreams was Narmer blonde and blue eyed Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
The story was that Diop threw acid on the piece and the Museum guards threw him out, look it up, it's in Diops lost letters
Une fois que je suis entré dans la chambre b j'ai rencontré un énorme choc. Il était à la tête du roi Narmer et avec la peau pâle et les yeux bleus. Le premier roi d'Egypte un homme blanc! Je savais que ce serait un gros problème pour mes théories. Je devais agir rapidement pour éliminer ces choses de l'histoire. Rien ne m'a arrêté. Je suis retourné le lendemain avec un petit pot de l'acide chlorhydrique de mon laboratoire. En quelques secondes, je verse de l'acide sur la tête de Narmer. Les gardes hurlaient comme se précipita sur, mais il était trop tard. La couleur misérable avait disparu à jamais. Il n'y aurait pas preuve de plus de blanc Egypte. Il était cher pour moi de soudoyer les officals du musée de garder le silence, mais certains de mes collaborateurs contribué. Des années plus tard, j'ai eu quelques problèmes quand quelqu'un avait découvert que je l'avais trompé le test de dosage de la mélanine pour montrer des concentrations plus élevées de la mélanine. J'ai eu un de mes associés le jeter dans la Seine
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The story was that Diop threw acid on the piece and the Museum guards threw him out, look it up, it's in Diops lost letters
Une fois que je suis entré dans la chambre b j'ai rencontré un énorme choc. Il était à la tête du roi Narmer et avec la peau pâle et les yeux bleus. Le premier roi d'Egypte un homme blanc! Je savais que ce serait un gros problème pour mes théories. Je devais agir rapidement pour éliminer ces choses de l'histoire. Rien ne m'a arrêté. Je suis retourné le lendemain avec un petit pot de l'acide chlorhydrique de mon laboratoire. En quelques secondes, je verse de l'acide sur la tête de Narmer. Les gardes hurlaient comme se précipita sur, mais il était trop tard. La couleur misérable avait disparu à jamais. Il n'y aurait pas preuve de plus de blanc Egypte. Il était cher pour moi de soudoyer les officals du musée de garder le silence, mais certains de mes collaborateurs contribué. Des années plus tard, j'ai eu quelques problèmes quand quelqu'un avait découvert que je l'avais trompé le test de dosage de la mélanine pour montrer des concentrations plus élevées de la mélanine. J'ai eu un de mes associés le jeter dans la Seine
--Cheikh Anta Diop, les lettres perdues, 1987, Université Paris-Sorbonne
More lies, as usual. There is no evidence that what you say is even remotely true. Why don't you just come out as a white person, instead of pretending to be some kind of self-hating black person. Fly under your true colour.
How in the world could Narmer be a blond with blue eyes? The great ancestor was from Upper Egypt.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You may as well say it because according to your absurd logic, Keita and the white supremacists all agree on the features and skin color of the AE since the "nordicist" view wasn't prominent AND because "white supremacists" admitted the AE were black because they called them "brown like Ethiopians"=
^This confused flip flopper thinks my logic (which he can't even paraphrase without resorting to strawman attacks) regarding Keita is absurd because he hasn't read a single Keita paper in his life. In the man's own words:
"A careful reading of the various studies and opinions on the most ancient "Egyptians (and Nubians) placed in the context of modern evolutionary theory and archaeological data (e.g., de Heinzelin 1962; Arkell and Ucko 1965; Arkell 1975; Hassan 1988) suggests that these peoples are fundamentally a part of the African population reticulum"
^Here Keita says that many of the old studies got the features of the early Egyptians right, but need to be put into a modern evolutionary context. This is what I've said since the beginning of this thread; that most of the racism was NOT directed at what they thought the AE looked like.
"As noted previously, other Egyptologists and anthropologists have stated that the Egyptians resembled various East Africans, specifically Nubians and Somali (e.g. Peschel 1888; Breasted 1908; Bohannan 1964). Childe (1953) thought that many Old Kingdom Egyptians resembled the Shilluk, and the Naqada people, the Beja. Drake (1987:332) reviewed numerous volumes of photographs of Egyptian portraits and statuary; using either (old) anthropological or North American social criteria, he found large numbers of Negroids. Petrie's (1939:105) interpretation of Dynasty III as having come from the Sudan is based on portraiture."
^Again, as far as the FEATURES, the PIGMENTATION LEVEL and the CLOSELY RELATED POPULATIONS go, the old(er) literature often got it right—even the white supremacists. Anyone who says otherwise is simply exposing how little they know about the subject.
In most cases the morphological descriptions of early southern "Egyptian" crania fall within Broad to Elongated Saharo-tropical African ranges of variation
^Again, Keita on what he feels most of the descriptions in the old(er) texts are saying.
This review has addressed several issues regarding the biological affinities of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile Valley. The morphological, metric, morphometric and nonmetric studies demonstrate immense overlap with tropical variants
^Here he makes the same observation about the old(er) literature.
As indicated by the analysis of the data in the studies reviewed here, the southern predynastic peoples were Saharo-tropical variants.
Doug is a member of this community since at least 2005 and still can't be trusted with the basics. Makes me wonder where else he's dropping the ball. As we've already seen with that Bronze Age warrior, Doug has no business speaking on bio-anthropological texts. He keeps making a mess of things and doesn't even know how Europeans differ cranio-facially from North Africans.
This flip flopping turd actually believes that most of the literature says that the AE were blue eyed and pale skinned. SMH. How out of touch with reality can you possible be? That's why I've decided to go easy on Doug. He seems a little confused.
quote:Originally posted by Doug: 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.
Says who? Says the flip flopping jackass who watches too much history channel and thinks hollywood execs are scientists.
Come on Swenet you are just digging yourself deeper into a hole. And stop LYING when you say I am misquoting you. YOU just said that all these black folks who have been writing books and engaging in debates all these years were wrong and everything was a big misunderstanding between them and the white supremacists. That is what you just said and you keep saying it, because as you JUST SAID:
quote: ^Again, as far as the FEATURES, the PIGMENTATION LEVEL and the CLOSELY RELATED POPULATIONS go, the old(er) literature often got it right—even the white supremacists. Anyone who says otherwise is simply exposing how little they know about the subject.
That the white supremacists believed the AE were black and that all these folks who have been debating this issue are debating over a misunderstanding of words. The white supremacists never really were disagreeing about the SKIN COLOR of the AE not being like the rest of Africans and they were not trying to segregate the AE from the rest of Africa based on features.
That is what you said you retard.
And basically you are saying all these folks debating this issue on Egyptsearch all these years are wrong and that the white supremacists were really not disagreeing with us on the skin color of the AE. Racism isn't about skin color and black folks are just paranoid.
Come on man. You are simply delusional and you have insulted EVERYBODY who has ever written a book on this or debated this from an African context. You even just said that Keita and most white supremacists before him are in agreement. I don't even know why you even keep going.
Read the following summary on the issue from the Unesco symposium on Ancient Egypt and you will see how these white supremacists are NOT REALLY in agreement with us and you are simply pandering to them and their points of view as being 'objective' when they are not.
quote: The theories advanced
Following in the footsteps of G. Elliot Smith (1923, p. 53-69), and those of Sergi at an earlier date (Sergi, 1895), most Egyptologists (Vandier, 1952, p. 22) take the view that the primitive population occupying the Egyptian and Nubian Nile valley from the predynastic period onwards (Badarian and Amratean or Naqada I), and up to the first dynasty, belonged to a 'dark', 'Mediterranean' or again 'Euro-African' race, often incorrectly called 'Hamitic'. This population is taken to have been leucodermic, i.e. white, although its pigmentation may have been dark, even black; it is subdivided into two groups, one eastern (ancient Egyptians, Bejas, Gallas, Somalis and Danakils) and the other Western (Libyans, ancient Nubians, North African Berbers, the Tuaregs and Tudus of the Sahara, as well as the ancient Guanches of the Canary Islands and, lastly, the Fulani) (Cornevin, 1963, p. 71, 351-3). The distant origin of this human type might be the 'Olduvai man' of East Africa, signs of which are found from the end of the Gamblian period onwards, around 11,000, and which is related to the Combe-Capelle race of Cro-Magnon in Europe (Cornevin, 1963, p. 88, 136; Boule and Vallois, 1952, p. 466). This type, therefore, would appear to be African in origin without being 'Negro' in the usual sense. Indeed, even those Egyptologists who are convinced of the essentially African nature of Egyptian civilization stress the fact that the population which founded this civilization was not 'Negro' (Naville, 1911, p. 199; Bissing, 1929, Frankfort, 1950).
The authors are always at pains to point out that the pure Negro element appears to have been minute in the groups analysed; two skeletons in a hundred, for example, at Naga-ed-Der in early predynastic times, and one in fifty-four in lower Nubia (Massoulard, 1949, p. 396, 410-11), although all anthropolo- gists concur in acknowledging the existence of a 'Negroid' component in the mixed population which constitutes the primitive Egyptian 'ethnic group', at least from neolithic times onwards. It will also be observed that, in spite of the composite character of this population, which is confirmed by all anthro- pologists, it is considered to belong to a single race or branch of humanity. According to a well-known study by H. Junker, true 'Negroes' appeared in the lower Nile valley only from the eighteenth dynasty onwards, around --1600 (Junker, 1921, p. 121-32). Junker's conclusions have been accepted by all Egyptologists, who since 1921 have no longer translated the Egyptian word nehesy by 'Negro' as had formerly been the practice, and translate it instead as 'Nubian'.
If Egyptologists are very nearly unanimous on the composition of the primitive Egyptian race from the end of the neolithic period until the dawn of history (from approximately 5000 to 3300), the same is not true for the protodynastic period and the first dynasties of the Pharaohs. From these periods onwards there is a marked divergence of views. According to some (Naville, 1911; Bissing, 1929; Smith and Jones, 1910, p. 25-6), the Egyptian population remained fundamentally the same before and after the advent of writing; they consider that foreign penetration, anthropologically speaking, was numerically limited in the historical era and the few centuries immediately preceding it (Smith and Jones, 1910, p. 28). Others believe, however, that the speeding up of Egypt's cultural development in the protodynastic period was due to the entry of foreigners into the Egyptian Nile valley (Morgan, 1922, Chapter VI; Pétrie, 1914ft, p. 43; 1926, p. 102-3); this migration, spreading from Asia, either from Mesopotamia or from Elam, is considered to have changed the ethnic composition of the population (Pétrie 1914c). A third hypo- thesis introduced a different ethnic group, presumed not to have come from Asia, or at least not directly, but from the Delta, where it is believed to have been established for an indeterminate length of time and to have developed, before pushing up the Nile, carrying civilization to the natives of the south; this is often called the 'dynastic race* (Derry, 1956).
If Egyptologists are very nearly unanimous on the composition of the primitive Egyptian race from the end of the neolithic period until the dawn 1. cf. A. H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, p. 575, Oxford, 1927. 20 The peopling of ancient Egypt of history (from approximately 5000 to 3300), the same is not true for the protodynastic period and the first dynasties of the Pharaohs. From these periods onwards there is a marked divergence of views. According to some (Naville, 1911; Bissing, 1929; Smith and Jones, 1910, p. 25-6), the Egyptian population remained fundamentally the same before and after the advent of writing; they consider that foreign penetration, anthropologically speaking, was numerically limited in the historical era and the few centuries immediately preceding it (Smith and Jones, 1910, p. 28). Others believe, however, that the speeding up of Egypt's cultural development in the protodynastic period was due to the entry of foreigners into the Egyptian Nile valley (Morgan, 1922, Chapter VI; Pétrie, 1914ft, p. 43; 1926, p. 102-3); this migration, spreading from Asia, either from Mesopotamia or from Elam, is considered to have changed the ethnic composition of the population (Pétrie 1914c). A third hypo- thesis introduced a different ethnic group, presumed not to have come from Asia, or at least not directly, but from the Delta, where it is believed to have been established for an indeterminate length of time and to have developed, before pushing up the Nile, carrying civilization to the natives of the south; this is often called the 'dynastic race* (Derry, 1956).
......
Until 1955, it had been generally accepted that the population of Egypt was 'Caucasoid' (the expression is Cornevin's (1963, p. 103-4, 152)), but Cheikh Anta Diop was instrumental in causing it to be reclassified as 'Negroid' (Diop, 1955, p. 21-253; 1959, p. 54-8; 1960, p. 13-15; 1962a, p. 449-541). A recent publication gives a faithful and extended summary of Cheikh Anta Diop's thesis (Obenga, 1973), which is forcefully expressed: 'In fact, the neo- lithic and predynastic inhabitants of the Egyptian and Nubian valley were Negroes.... Negroes were responsible for building the prehistoric. . . and historic Egypto-Nubian civilizations.' (Obenga, 1973, p. 102.)
The arguments put forward to support the 'Negroid' theory are more often cultural and linguistic, or even literary, than based on scientific anthro- pology (cf. in particular Obenga, 1973, p. 55-6, on the accounts given by Herodotus and Diodorus; p. 221-321 on linguistics ; p. 333-443 on the method of counting and the graphic system). When the evidence of anthropology, concerning hair, for exemple, is called in (Obenga, 1973, p. 59, 124-25), it sometimes clashes with the observations of certain archaeologists and anthro- pologists (Brunton, 1929, p. 466; 1937, p. 20, 26-7; Fouquet, 1896-1897; Smith, 1923, p. 53-69; Massoulard, 1949, p. 408, 410-11).
The theory that the Egyptian population should be classed as Negro has not so far, to my knowledge, been studied critically and in depth by anthropologists. The reproach has been made (Suret-Canale, 1958, p. 54, quoted by Cornevin, 1963, p. 63) that it confuses the different concepts of race and culture. Egyptologists, with one exception (Sainte-Fare-Garnet), although given a brief idea of the current work of Cheikh Anta Diop by the Biblio- graphie Egyptologique Annuelle 1 have not yet made use of his work.
There are thus two theories, both of them categorical. According to some—a great many—the Egyptian population is 'white', 'Mediterranean'. As Vandier sums up: 'It may justly be claimed that the Egyptian race is of Hamitic origin... it is certain... that Negroes did not arrive in Egypt until... late' (Vandier, 1952, p. 22). According to others, as Obenga puts it, 'the Egypt of the Pharaohs, by virtue of the ethnic character and language of its inhabi- tants, belongs wholly, from its neolithic infancy to the end of the native dynas- ties, to the human past of the black peoples of Africa' (Obenga, 1973, p. 445).
And from that quote you see the hypocrisy and contradictions of white European Egyptologists. But somehow YOU think these folks are sane and objective even when they call black people "leucoderms". You are simply confused and really don't know what on earth you are talking about, because even if they say brown they STILL can mean white. And this is the most definitive statement on the subject stands to this very day covering the views of most Egyptologists. Bottom line what they are really saying is "I don't care if their skin was dark or black, I will call them white and see them as whites regardless and this is what I will teach and promote in all my media and all my schoolbooks". And that is what white supremacy is all about. It doesn't matter what the facts are, they can do what they want to do regardless, because the goal is to uphold the superiority of the "white race". And it is on that latter point that is the point of all the debates. They don't want to be challenged on their ability to push their white supremacist agenda.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This population is taken to have been leucodermic, i.e. white,
Didn't you just say that race is off-limits, you flip flopping jackass:
Nobody is talking about race except you. —Doug M
Or are you trying to say that 'leucodermic' and 'white' IN THIS CONTEXT (i.e. older anthropological reports) aren't racial references that are independent of actual skin pigmentation levels?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: although its pigmentation may have been dark, even black; it is subdivided into two groups, one eastern (ancient Egyptians, Bejas, Gallas, Somalis and Danakils) and the other Western (Libyans, ancient Nubians, North African Berbers, the Tuaregs and Tudus of the Sahara, as well as the ancient Guanches of the Canary Islands and, lastly, the Fulani) (Cornevin, 1963, p. 71, 351-3).
Keep on debunking yourself. You are the only one who argued against this with your bizarre obsession re: blue eyed, aryan Egyptians. Like I haven't said this was their position all along. Flip flopping jackass.
"Again, as far as the FEATURES, the PIGMENTATION LEVEL and the CLOSELY RELATED POPULATIONS go, the old(er) literature often got it right—even the white supremacists. Anyone who says otherwise is simply exposing how little they know about the subject." —Swenet
"An additional point is that the vast majority of the racism in Egyptology has been directed into channels other than the ethnic background of the ancient Egyptians. Early writings on the AE phenotypical associations mostly centered on their so-called 'Hamitic' origins. The comparative populations in this 'Hamitic' grouping are still considered their closest relatives today by bio-anthropologists widely cited on egyptsearch.
How by far most of the racism has expressed itself, is in the following, among other things:
1) reluctance to admit or at least consider that the 'Hamitic' grouping consists of groups who are indigenous African in principle. 2) saying civilization was brought in from Sumer and elsewhere. 3) insisting that they couldn't have been 'black' and then pointing to region x in Africa they perceive to be uncivilized. 4) making the the ability to progress in civilization hereditary. 5) explaining unexpected (i.e. "negroid") skeletal remains away as individuals who were 'enslaved' by the ancient Egyptians. 6) explaining Egypto-Nubian conflicts as racial wars. 7) saying 'black Africans' couldn't have crossed the Sahara when it was a desert. 8) ignoring and marginalizing cultural links with inner Africa and magnifying cultural links with the Middle East." —Swenet
And Keita doesn't agree with you. Admit it, jackass. You've never read a single Keita paper in your life.
"A careful reading of the various studies and opinions on the most ancient "Egyptians (and Nubians) placed in the context of modern evolutionary theory and archaeological data (e.g., de Heinzelin 1962; Arkell and Ucko 1965; Arkell 1975; Hassan 1988) suggests that these peoples are fundamentally a part of the African population reticulum"
^Keita clearly states that most of the old reports can be repurposed, using modern scientific understandings, to indicate relatedness to modern dark skinned eastern Saharan people. Do you have any idea what that means, turd? This wouldn't have been possible if these reports said that the AE were pale-skinned, blue-eyed, Aryan blondes. Are you of the bizarre mindset that pale-skinned, blue-eyed people can be repurposed to mean 'dark skinned people in the Sahara today', turd?
Frankfort (1949) long ago stated that Egyptian culture arose from an African substratum. General historians and scholars also paid little attention to the variation in the anthropological reports. This variation clearly contains fundamentally different conceptual orientations in biology, anti-African bias, habitual tradition or some combination of these. Somehow a simplistic consensus view emerged that the Egyptians and even Nubians were simply Mediterranean "Whites". This "consensus" view, transmitted to the public, clearly ignored the complexity and variability in the scientific reports.
That is exactly what your dumbass is doing. You're ignoring the complexity and variability in these scientific reports. They didn't all think that the ancient Egyptians were pale-skinned Aryans.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This population is taken to have been leucodermic, i.e. white,
Didn't you just say that race is off-limits, you flip flopping jackass:
Nobody is talking about race except you. —Doug M
Or are you trying to say that 'leucodermic' and 'white' IN THIS CONTEXT (i.e. older anthropological reports) aren't racial references that are independent of actual skin pigmentation levels?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: although its pigmentation may have been dark, even black; it is subdivided into two groups, one eastern (ancient Egyptians, Bejas, Gallas, Somalis and Danakils) and the other Western (Libyans, ancient Nubians, North African Berbers, the Tuaregs and Tudus of the Sahara, as well as the ancient Guanches of the Canary Islands and, lastly, the Fulani) (Cornevin, 1963, p. 71, 351-3).
Keep on debunking yourself. You are the only one who argued against this with your bizarre obsession re: blue eyed, aryan Egyptians. Like I haven't said this was their position all along. Flip flopping jackass.
"Again, as far as the FEATURES, the PIGMENTATION LEVEL and the CLOSELY RELATED POPULATIONS go, the old(er) literature often got it right—even the white supremacists. Anyone who says otherwise is simply exposing how little they know about the subject." —Swenet
"An additional point is that the vast majority of the racism in Egyptology has been directed into channels other than the ethnic background of the ancient Egyptians. Early writings on the AE phenotypical associations mostly centered on their so-called 'Hamitic' origins. The comparative populations in this 'Hamitic' grouping are still considered their closest relatives today by bio-anthropologists widely cited on egyptsearch.
How by far most of the racism has expressed itself, is in the following, among other things:
1) reluctance to admit or at least consider that the 'Hamitic' grouping consists of groups who are indigenous African in principle. 2) saying civilization was brought in from Sumer and elsewhere. 3) insisting that they couldn't have been 'black' and then pointing to region x in Africa they perceive to be uncivilized. 4) making the the ability to progress in civilization hereditary. 5) explaining unexpected (i.e. "negroid") skeletal remains away as individuals who were 'enslaved' by the ancient Egyptians. 6) explaining Egypto-Nubian conflicts as racial wars. 7) saying 'black Africans' couldn't have crossed the Sahara when it was a desert. 8) ignoring and marginalizing cultural links with inner Africa and magnifying cultural links with the Middle East." —Swenet
And Keita doesn't agree with you. Admit it, jackass. You've never read a single Keita paper in your life.
"A careful reading of the various studies and opinions on the most ancient "Egyptians (and Nubians) placed in the context of modern evolutionary theory and archaeological data (e.g., de Heinzelin 1962; Arkell and Ucko 1965; Arkell 1975; Hassan 1988) suggests that these peoples are fundamentally a part of the African population reticulum"
^Keita clearly states that most of the old reports can be repurposed, using modern scientific understandings, to indicate relatedness to modern dark skinned eastern Saharan people. Do you have any idea what that means, turd? This wouldn't have been possible if these reports said that the AE were pale-skinned, blue-eyed, Aryan blondes. Are you of the bizarre mindset that pale-skinned, blue-eyed people can be repurposed to mean 'dark skinned people in the Sahara today', turd?
Frankfort (1949) long ago stated that Egyptian culture arose from an African substratum. General historians and scholars also paid little attention to the variation in the anthropological reports. This variation clearly contains fundamentally different conceptual orientations in biology, anti-African bias, habitual tradition or some combination of these. Somehow a simplistic consensus view emerged that the Egyptians and even Nubians were simply Mediterranean "Whites". This "consensus" view, transmitted to the public, clearly ignored the complexity and variability in the scientific reports.
That is exactly what your dumbass is doing. You're ignoring the complexity and variability in these scientific reports. They didn't all think that the ancient Egyptians were pale-skinned Aryans.
Opinionated troll dismissed.
I understand English. You on the other hand are fighting the English language yet you STILL sit here and try to lecture somebody about what words mean.
quote:
Frankfort (1949) long ago stated that Egyptian culture arose from an African substratum. General historians and scholars also paid little attention to the variation in the anthropological reports. This variation clearly contains fundamentally different conceptual orientations in biology, anti-African bias, habitual tradition or some combination of these. Somehow a simplistic consensus view emerged that the Egyptians and even Nubians were simply Mediterranean "Whites". This "consensus" view, transmitted to the public, clearly ignored the complexity and variability in the scientific reports.
It doesnt MATTER how simple it is. It means that Keita was rejecting their RACIST VIEWS on the biological features of the AE, which EXPCLICITY INCLUDES SKIN COLOR. You keep trying to spin it and make it seem that Keita is in agreement with them or that somehow they weren't really RACIST because they didn't use the word "Nordics". You are simply being an idiot trying to save face after 25 pages of being shown to be completely and utterly wrong but you sit here and try and claim somehow OTHER people are confused and don't understand what this debate is about.
Which is why you completely ignored this which contradicts everything you have been saying or trying to say about this NOT being about skin color or the white supremacists AGREEING with black scholars on the skin color of the AE. No they are calling these folks white which means JUST what it says, meaning no matter how "black" some of these folks were or are in terms of color, they will prefer to call them WHITE. This is not about confusion over what "hamitic" means. This is not about confusion over what "negro" means. This is not about confusion over what "black" or "white" means. It is about potraying the AE as having the skin complexion of "white" which is the same as white Europeans.
You have been trying to duck and avoid this since page one and doing anything and everything to try and LIE about this fundamental fact.
quote: Following in the footsteps of G. Elliot Smith (1923, p. 53-69), and those of Sergi at an earlier date (Sergi, 1895), most Egyptologists (Vandier, 1952, p. 22) take the view that the primitive population occupying the Egyptian and Nubian Nile valley from the predynastic period onwards (Badarian and Amratean or Naqada I), and up to the first dynasty, belonged to a 'dark', 'Mediterranean' or again 'Euro-African' race, often incorrectly called 'Hamitic'. This population is taken to have been leucodermic, i.e. white, although its pigmentation may have been dark, even black; it is subdivided into two groups, one eastern (ancient Egyptians, Bejas, Gallas, Somalis and Danakils) and the other Western (Libyans, ancient Nubians, North African Berbers, the Tuaregs and Tudus of the Sahara, as well as the ancient Guanches of the Canary Islands and, lastly, the Fulani) (Cornevin, 1963, p. 71, 351-3).
Hence you try and PARAPHRASE this issue and leave out the inherent contradictions and double talk by claiming that somehow these folks actually AGREE with the AE being black, when they EXPLICITLY SAY just the opposite and explicitly CALL THEM WHITE LEUCODERMS, even if they also call them Hamitic, Ethiopian or even "brown skinned". You are simply unable to follow facts and accept them for what they are which is why your argument and point makes no sense and has no validity.
quote: 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." —Swenet
Stop lying and trying to speak for white racists and make them into "objective scholars" when they are perfectly able to defend and elaborate their OWN views without you trying to paraphrase and leave things out.
quote: There are thus two theories, both of them categorical. According to some—a great many—the Egyptian population is 'white', 'Mediterranean'. As Vandier sums up: 'It may justly be claimed that the Egyptian race is of Hamitic origin... it is certain... that Negroes did not arrive in Egypt until... late' (Vandier, 1952, p. 22). According to others, as Obenga puts it, 'the Egypt of the Pharaohs, by virtue of the ethnic character and language of its inhabi- tants, belongs wholly, from its neolithic infancy to the end of the native dynas- ties, to the human past of the black peoples of Africa' (Obenga, 1973, p. 445).
This paper reviews a representative sample of previous studies on the "racial" or biological affinity of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile valley, specifically those called Egyptians. —Keita (1995)
And the conclusion was that most of the papers in the old literature grouped predynastic Egyptians with dark skinned groups in the eastern Sahara:
A review of studies covering the biological relationships of the ancient Egyptians was undertaken. An overview of the data from the studies suggests that the major biological affinities of early southern Egyptians lay with tropical Africans. —Keita (1995)
General historians and scholars also paid little attention to the variation in the anthropological reports. This variation clearly contains fundamentally different conceptual orientations in biology, anti-African bias, habitual tradition or some combination of these. Somehow a simplistic consensus view emerged that the Egyptians and even Nubians were simply Mediterranean "Whites". This "consensus" view, transmitted to the public, clearly ignored the complexity and variability in the scientific reports. —Keita (1995)
"A careful reading of the various studies and opinions on the most ancient "Egyptians (and Nubians) placed in the context of modern evolutionary theory and archaeological data (e.g., de Heinzelin 1962; Arkell and Ucko 1965; Arkell 1975; Hassan 1988) suggests that these peoples are fundamentally a part of the African population reticulum" —Keita (1995)
"As noted previously, other Egyptologists and anthropologists have stated that the Egyptians resembled various East Africans, specifically Nubians and Somali (e.g. Peschel 1888; Breasted 1908; Bohannan 1964). Childe (1953) thought that many Old Kingdom Egyptians resembled the Shilluk, and the Naqada people, the Beja. Drake (1987:332) reviewed numerous volumes of photographs of Egyptian portraits and statuary; using either (old) anthropological or North American social criteria, he found large numbers of Negroids. Petrie's (1939:105) interpretation of Dynasty III as having come from the Sudan is based on portraiture." —Keita (1995)
Fall back, flip flopper.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol @ Doug's advanced stage of stupid.
Keita performed a review of the old literature:
This paper reviews a representative sample of previous studies on the "racial" or biological affinity of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile valley, specifically those called Egyptians. —Keita (1995)
And the conclusion was that most of the papers in the old literature grouped predynastic Egyptians with dark skinned groups in the eastern Sahara:
A review of studies covering the biological relationships of the ancient Egyptians was undertaken. An overview of the data from the studies suggests that the major biological affinities of early southern Egyptians lay with tropical Africans. —Keita (1995)
General historians and scholars also paid little attention to the variation in the anthropological reports. This variation clearly contains fundamentally different conceptual orientations in biology, anti-African bias, habitual tradition or some combination of these. Somehow a simplistic consensus view emerged that the Egyptians and even Nubians were simply Mediterranean "Whites". This "consensus" view, transmitted to the public, clearly ignored the complexity and variability in the scientific reports. —Keita (1995)
"A careful reading of the various studies and opinions on the most ancient "Egyptians (and Nubians) placed in the context of modern evolutionary theory and archaeological data (e.g., de Heinzelin 1962; Arkell and Ucko 1965; Arkell 1975; Hassan 1988) suggests that these peoples are fundamentally a part of the African population reticulum" —Keita (1995)
"As noted previously, other Egyptologists and anthropologists have stated that the Egyptians resembled various East Africans, specifically Nubians and Somali (e.g. Peschel 1888; Breasted 1908; Bohannan 1964). Childe (1953) thought that many Old Kingdom Egyptians resembled the Shilluk, and the Naqada people, the Beja. Drake (1987:332) reviewed numerous volumes of photographs of Egyptian portraits and statuary; using either (old) anthropological or North American social criteria, he found large numbers of Negroids. Petrie's (1939:105) interpretation of Dynasty III as having come from the Sudan is based on portraiture." —Keita (1995)
Fall back, flip flopper.
You lack the ability to comprehend English.
Are you saying that those citations from keita contradict the words written at the UNESCO conference to address the origin and peopling of the Nile Valley? Of course not. Keep on trying to run from the facts. Racists and their views are the basis of this debate going back 200 years and it fundamentally is an issue of skin color. Your attempts to cherry pick and avoid this are asinine.
Fundamentally Egyptology as a whole and an institution DOES NOT agree on the AE as being in any way black, based on skin color as documented in the UNESCO Conference featuring Diop and Obenga. Your attempts to claim that they "really are in agreement" are null and void.
Just because these scientists admitted the OBVIOUS FACTS that the populations came from the South does not mean that they would call them black based on skin color. In fact, they could acknowledge they came from the South and STILL call them white which is exactly the position of Egyptology to this day. But you are confused and don't know what you are talking about so you claim that because they have to admit these folks came from the South that it somehow means they agree on the skin color when they DO NOT. And these folks are not really in agreement with Keita either. He is just taking those parts of their work which reflect objective FACTS and separating it from their racist views that turned these people into "whites".
quote: Professor Diop's theory was rejected in its entirety by one participant.
In the course of the discussion, Professor Obenga added some important points and emphasized the interest of ancient written sources concerning the population of Egypt. Herodotus, in a passage concerning the Colchians which was neither disputed by modern scholarship nor invalidated by the comparative critical study of manuscripts, endeavoured to show, through a series ot critical arguments, that the Colchians were similar to the Egyptians: 'They speak in the same way as they do, they and the Egyptians are the only peoples to practise circumcision, they weave linen like the Egyptians'; these similarities were in addition to two other features which they had in common, their black pigmentation and their crinkly hair.
Professor Leclant maintained that ancient writers used the expression 'burnt face' (Ethiopians) to refer to Nubians and Negroes but not to Egyptians.
Professor Obenga replied that the Greeks applied the word 'black' (melas) to the Egyptians. None of the participants explicitly voiced support for the earlier theory, referred to by Professor Vercoutter in his paper concerning a population which was 'white' with a dark, even black, pigmentation. There was no more than tacit agreement to abandon this old theory.
Two categories of objection were made to the ideas propounded by Professor Diop. These objections revealed the extent of a disagreement which remained profound even though it was not voiced explicitly.
Most of the objections raised were of a methodological nature. Although he hoped that the notion of race would be abandoned and that reference would be made rather to the 'people' of ancient Egypt, Professor Vercoutter agreed that no attempt should be made to estimate percentages, which meant nothing, as it was impossible to establish them without reliable statistical data. He hoped that, before final con- clusions were drawn, a series of research projects would be carried out to study the human remains in museums throughout the world and those found in recent exca- vations. He also suggested that the connection between the rock engravings and those who made them should be established chronologically and anthropologically, thus providing accurate chronological reference points for the history of the peopling. He considered that it would be hazardous to draw conclusions concerning the peopling of Egypt in very ancient times while so much information was still lacking.
Professor Ghallab totally rejected the idea of establishing percentages within the population of ancient Egypt. He considered that it was more important to study hair types than to study skin.
Professor Säve-Söderbergh also stated that it was impossible for anthro- pologists to establish percentages in terms of 'race', a concept which was now in- creasingly being abandoned by anthropologists. Furthermore, what was meant by the homogeneity or heterogeneity of a given population was a matter which required to be defined. Modern physical anthropology was based on research using the statistical method and was therefore a very demanding science which did not lightly come to conclusions.
Professor Sauneron considered that, in view of the existence of chipped pebbles in the old Pleistocene strata of the Theban hills, it could be inferred that human beings had inhabited the Nile valley since very ancient times.
Professor El Nadury thought that the problem could be more readily approach- ed if the neolithic period were taken as the starting point, since the information relating to earlier periods was extremely scanty. In —5,000 there were sedentary populations in the north-western part of the Delta. Migrants were believed to have come from all parts of the Sahara in neolithic times, resulting in an intermingling of ethnic groups. Discussion of this point was resumed later during the discussions on the problem of migrations. Professor El Nadury used the adjectives 'Hamitic' and 'Negro' to denote this two-fold admixture from the Sahara. This mixed component was the basis of the population of Egypt from the neolithic period onwards and without break in continuity until dynastic times. Nagada II had dealings with the west. During the dynastic period, a further element, coming from the north-east and described as Semitic, was added to the population. Professor El Nadury thought it a striking fact that, during the first dynasty, fortifications had been built at Abydos, in all probability for the purpose of preventing immigration from the south towards the north.
Professor Debono added further information: to the east of the Delta, in a region which was then more fertile than it is today, epipalaeolithic material had been found; the users of these artefacts were undeniably in contact with the east. To the west of the Delta, the vast neolithic complex of Merimde was an example of a highly developed, large-scale settlement. Lastly, the El Omari site was situated at the southern tip of the Delta. In the course of subsequent discussion of these points, Professor El Nadury noted that the abundant archaeological material discovered at Merimde was clearly stratified, and showed that the site had been settled gradually by the population.
Professor Shinnie was in agreement regarding the settlement of homo sapiens, but without mentioning the colour of his skin, and dated the first settled population of the Nile valley at about 20,000 years ago. Subsequently, various human groups came from different regions, increasing this population and altering its composition.
Professor Ghallab, who was sharply criticized by Professor Cheikh Anta Diop and Professor Obenga, stated that the inhabitants of Egypt in palaeolithic times were Caucasoids. He went on to say that recent excavations had provided evidence of the existence of men of the 'Bushman' type in the population during the predynastic period. Professor Abu Bakr emphasized that the Egyptians had never been isolated from other peoples. They had never constituted a pure race and it was impossible to accept the idea that in the neolithic period the population of Egypt was entirely black. The population of Egypt in neolithic times was a mingling of men from the west and east, who had been incorrectly called Hamitic. Professor Abu Bakr referred to the case of the yellow-haired, blue-eyed wife of Cheops, as an example of the existence of 'non-black' people in Egypt. Professor Diop regarded this isolated instance as an exception which proved the rule. Professor Abu Bakr considered it possible that black people might have come to Egypt from the Arabian peninsula.
Professor Vercoutter remarked that, in his view, Egypt was African in its way of writing, in its culture and in its way of thinking.
Professor Leclant, for his part, recognized the same African character in the Egyptian temperament and way of thinking. In his opinion, however, the unity of the Egyptian people was not racial but cultural. Egyptian civilization had remained stable for three millenniums; the Egyptians described themselves as REMET (Rome in Coptic) and, particularly in their iconographie representations, drew a distinction between themselves and the peoples of the north and those of the south who differed from them. Professor Obenga denied that Egyptians, in using the word REMET, drew a racial distinction between themselves and their neighbours; he considered the distinction made to be similar to that which led the Greeks to differentiate between themselves and other peoples, whom they termed Barbarians.
Professor Leclant noted that important palaeo-African features in the cultural life of Egypt were worthy of study. As an example, he mentioned the baboon, which was an attribute of the God Thoth, and the frequent appearance in iconography of 'panther' skins as a ritual garment during the worship of Osiris by Horus. In his opinion, however, the Egyptians, whose civilization was culturally stable for three millenniums, were neither white nor Negro.
Professor Vercoutter stated his conviction that the inhabitants of the Nile valley had always been mixed; outside elements coming from west and east had been numerous, particularly in predynastic times.
On the question of ancient sources, particularly Herodotus, which spoke of the Egyptians as black, the only reservations expressed related to the method of reading and interpreting these texts. Professor Vercoutter, in particular, asked in what precise context Herodotus had defined the Egyptians as Negroes.
Professor Diop replied that Herodotus referred to them on three occasions: in speaking of the origin of the Colchians, in speaking of the origin of the Nile floods, and in dis- cussing the oracle of Zeus Amon.
Professor Diop felt that the objections which had been advanced against his ideas did not amount to positive and soundly argued criticisms.
It was not possible to take the discussion further in this field and the symposium was unable to make any clear recommendation on the question at this point in the debate.
According to you all these folks at the UNESCO conference were in agreement on the SKIN COLOR of the AE and Prof Diop and Obenga were simply confused by the words people were using. You seem to feel they really weren't in disagreement at all over skin color.
How in the world could Narmer be a blond with blue eyes? The great ancestor was from Upper Egypt.
The Nordics didn't settle in lower Egypt, they went right past lower Egypt and settled in Upper Egypt, wtf ??? similar situation with the moors
Grombly, 1976, Ancient Egypt, The Pre Dynastic Aryan Colonization [/QB]
LOL SMH
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The story was that Diop threw acid on the piece and the Museum guards threw him out, look it up, it's in Diops lost letters
Une fois que je suis entré dans la chambre b j'ai rencontré un énorme choc. Il était à la tête du roi Narmer et avec la peau pâle et les yeux bleus. Le premier roi d'Egypte un homme blanc! Je savais que ce serait un gros problème pour mes théories. Je devais agir rapidement pour éliminer ces choses de l'histoire. Rien ne m'a arrêté. Je suis retourné le lendemain avec un petit pot de l'acide chlorhydrique de mon laboratoire. En quelques secondes, je verse de l'acide sur la tête de Narmer. Les gardes hurlaient comme se précipita sur, mais il était trop tard. La couleur misérable avait disparu à jamais. Il n'y aurait pas preuve de plus de blanc Egypte. Il était cher pour moi de soudoyer les officals du musée de garder le silence, mais certains de mes collaborateurs contribué. Des années plus tard, j'ai eu quelques problèmes quand quelqu'un avait découvert que je l'avais trompé le test de dosage de la mélanine pour montrer des concentrations plus élevées de la mélanine. J'ai eu un de mes associés le jeter dans la Seine
--Cheikh Anta Diop, les lettres perdues, 1987, Université Paris-Sorbonne
More lies, as usual. There is no evidence that what you say is even remotely true. Why don't you just come out as a white person, instead of pretending to be some kind of self-hating black person. Fly under your true colour.
How in the world could Narmer be a blond with blue eyes? The great ancestor was from Upper Egypt.
That image is only on two sites, a phishing site, and the lioness ephotobay account. I too don't understand this trolling as an "African American woman". lol
Facing Egyptian sculpture Limestone head of a king bought by Petrie, who thought it depicted king Narmer, c.3100BC (UC15989).
The Petrie Museum is rightly famed for the number of objects that have come from documented archaeological excavations. However, not everything in the collection was acquired through fieldwork. Flinders Petrie also prided himself on having a good eye for antiquities and he often took advantage of the Egyptian market to fill in gaps in his artefact sequences. Sometimes he was simply lucky and, as he noted in 1915, ‘good things have turned up in the most unexpected manner’. This is certainly true of a rare sculpture that he acquired in Cairo some time during the early 1900s.
One evening after dinner, Petrie found himself besieged by a lively crowd of antiquities dealers, each cajoling the well-known archaeologist to purchase their curios. In the chaos a stone head rolled out of a bag and on to the floor. When Petrie looked down he found himself staring at ‘the finest piece of 1st dynasty sculpture that is known’. For Petrie this limestone head was a representation of none other than Narmer, considered by many to be the first king to rule all of Egypt. If that identification is correct, it is the earliest known royal sculpture from Egypt.
A century later, Petrie’s original theory has been challenged. Nonetheless, the style of this unusual figure is rare and intriguing. More recently, Egyptologists have scrutinized the anonymous king’s features – the widely spaced eyes and protruding ears – and recognized in them the face of Khufu, the famous Old Kingdom king who was the owner of the Great Pyramid at Giza. Despite Khufu’s association with one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, his image is only securely known from a small and fragmentary ivory statuette now in the Cairo Museum, which was found during Petrie’s excavations at Abydos. Could this Petrie Museum object be the face behind the Great Pyramid? Or is it one of his sons, king Menkaure? http://ucldigitalpress.co.uk/Book/Article/3/23/88/Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] Lol @ Doug's advanced stage of stupid.
Keita performed a review of the old literature:
This paper reviews a representative sample of previous studies on the "racial" or biological affinity of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile valley, specifically those called Egyptians. —Keita (1995)
And the conclusion was that most of the papers in the old literature grouped predynastic Egyptians with dark skinned groups in the eastern Sahara:
So if this is true, why is this author from 2015 saying just the opposite?
quote: If Western scholars and writers believed in physically distinguishable 'races' as late as the 1940s and 1950s, a conventional assumption was that the rulers and bulk of the population of ancient Eguypt were Mediterranean, European or White in appearance, or at least physically not black and African. Thereafter histories of the land would cease to discuss the racial characteristics and mix of pharaonic society: indeed, almost self-consciously, the 'appearance' of ancient Egyptians is omitted from modern surveys. But a long tradition of intellectuals, writers and activists who identified with a black community would present a different perspective on ancient Egypt. These lines of argument emphasize the indigenous origins of civilization in Egypt and therefore within the African continent; the Egyptian contribution to Greek and subsequent civilization; and often specifically argue for a physical black, wholly or partly "negroid" race of ancient Egypt responsible for its innovations.
However, within this genre there is a range in the strength and emphasis of the arguments, with varied approaches in the treatment of physical appearance. To some, the discussion revolves around a 'pure' black African racial category, with additional elements subsequently diluting this. To others, there is more of a social category: just as the underclass once defined as the "American Negro" has racial variability, so the 'fundamentally negro' characteristics of ancient Egypt were within a mixed society. This different writers would vary from a total to a moderate version of the narrative which would come to be defined as 'Afrocentrist' and with variation in detail and degree. The development of these alternative ideas began as a challenge to the racial bias of the Western establishment and continued as part of identity politics.
...
While the origins of this 'black Egypt' movement paralleled and countered popular images of white Egypt in European society, much of its growth and strength have been from the 1950s until now, a period when ideas of separate physical races were rapidly losing their scientific usage.
So I guess this guy is also confused about the words used by the old scholars saying the AE were black whites? Of course not. And note how he has no problem jumping on "Afrocentrics" for promoting "black Egypt" as racists, but at the same time Europeans promoting "white Egypt" are given a pass, notwithstanding all their history of racist literature.....
You are simply in denial and distorting facts as usual. This issue has always been about skin color and the only one confused is you.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what Doug, the king of flip flops and self-defeating quotes is lying about.
Doug's own UNESCO quote applies 'white' to people who look like this (Afar from the Danakil region):
Yet Doug wants to pretend that 'white' used in this context necessarily means blonde hair, pale skin and blue eyes. They're clearly talking about a cranio-facial pattern which they (erroneously) labeled 'white' (i.e. 'Caucasian').
Only Doug the flip flopper is confused about the fact that black skin and 'white race' were not mutually exclusive in this context, precisely because one was a reference to skin while the other one a reference to race:
Hamitic as a term is just as interesting since it changed from meaning "Negro" to dark even black skinned [Mediterranean?] White (Sanders, 1969). —Keita (1995)
Doug, go take your meds.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This population is taken to have been leucodermic, i.e. white, although its pigmentation may have been dark, even black; it is subdivided into two groups, one eastern (ancient Egyptians, Bejas, Gallas, Somalis and Danakils) and the other Western (Libyans, ancient Nubians, North African Berbers, the Tuaregs and Tudus of the Sahara, as well as the ancient Guanches of the Canary Islands and, lastly, the Fulani) (Cornevin, 1963, p. 71, 351-3).
quote: 2. Handsome East African Hamitic Type (from Nelle Puccioni, "Ricerche antropometriche sui Somali," Archivio per I'antropologia, 1911; cited by Seligman in Egypt and Negro Africa). Fully to appreciate the joke, replace Selig- man's wording above by the "official" interpretation:
Handsome type of the paleo-Mediterranean white race to which we owe all black civilizations, including that of Egypt.
... Ham is cursed, blackened, and made into the ancestor of the Negroes. This is what happens whenever one refers to contemporary social relations.
On the other hand, he is whitened whenever one seeks the origin of civilization, because there he is inhabiting the first civilized country in the world. So, the idea of Eastern and Western Hamites is conceived-nothing more than a convenient invention to deprive Blacks of the moral advantage of Egyptian civilization and of other African civilizations, as we shall see. Figure 2 enables us to perceive the biased nature of these theories.
UNESCO did not pervert Diop, pay attention
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote: ... the primitive population occupying the Egyptian and Nubian Nile valley from the predynastic period onwards (Badarian and Amratean or Naqada I), and up to the first dynasty, belonged to a
'dark', 'Mediterranean' or again 'Euro-African' race, often incorrectly called 'Hamitic'.
although its pigmentation may have been dark, even black;
it is subdivided into two groups, one eastern (ancient Egyptians, Bejas, Gallas, Somalis and Danakils) and the other Western (Libyans, ancient Nubians, North African Berbers, the Tuaregs and Tudus of the Sahara, as well as the ancient Guanches of the Canary Islands and, lastly, the Fulani) (Cornevin, 1963, p. 71, 351-3). The distant origin of this human type might be the 'Olduvai man' of East Africa, signs of which are found from the end of the Gamblian period onwards, around 11,000, and which is related to the Combe-Capelle race of Cro-Magnon in Europe (Cornevin, 1963, p. 88, 136; Boule and Vallois, 1952, p. 466). This type, therefore, would appear to be African in origin without being 'Negro' in the usual sense. Indeed, even those Egyptologists who are convinced of the essentially African nature of Egyptian civilization STRESS the fact that the population which founded this civilization was not 'Negro' (Naville, 1911, p. 199; Bissing, 1929, Frankfort, 1950).
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
lioness says: If the world is viewed as a competition between black and white, some people who identify as black would like black to have the widest definition possible for the sake of strength in numbers
Actually white racialists would like to & use the widest definitions of "white" to serve themselves- which is why they came up with the stereotypical "true negro" as the "true" representative of back people when advanced culture, civilization or polities are at issue, why they run away from likewise defining a "true white" as Keita notes, and why you have Cavalli-Sforza some 2 decades ago relying on obsolete 1960/7-s references talkin bout Ethiopians being "white people with black skin." White anthropologists have always used the widest white definitions when it suited them.
But the thing is- black people don't have to reach for any "wider" definition. Whites solved that problem for them by creating and maintaining the "one-drop" rule where it could be deployed to stymie black gains or agency socially, economically, and politically. On top of the one-drop rule is the Euro-American racial hierarchy which defines its content was white on top with non-white in various gradations down the scale. Luso-Hispano zone whites as in Brazil do the same thing using their "mestizo" format.
Again it all depends on whatever self-serving agenda white people are pursuing at the moment. At times they have pushed for EXPANDED whiteness- both in Brazil where the negro was supposed to disappear in time (but the white on top hierarchy would remain), to the US, where formerly "tainted" groups like the Irish became "white" with the "new" whites emerging as among the foremost racist groups in the US.
So white people are the greatest hypocrites if they object to wide definitions of black. When it suits them they can draw the net pretty widely, or narrowly as needed for their agendas.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug says: And note how he has no problem jumping on "Afrocentrics" for promoting "black Egypt" as racists, but at the same time Europeans promoting "white Egypt" are given a pass, notwithstanding all their history of racist literature.....
Of course. It is the same old hypocritical white double game. When it fits their agendas, the "blacks" become "whites" - "whites with black skin."
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug says: ^Again, as far as the FEATURES, the PIGMENTATION LEVEL and the CLOSELY RELATED POPULATIONS go, the old(er) literature often got it right—even the white supremacists.
This is true. As Keita notes when you go back and read some old excavation reports you see the white excavation leaders recognizing "negroid" remains. But by the time some summaries and final writeups are done, whether with new excavations or analyzes of older material, the negroes conveniently "disappear." Ironically, some early archaelogical work actually yields a more balanced picture.
"Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers... "Nutter (1958), using the Penrose statistic, demonstrated that Nagada I and Badari crania, both regarded as Negroid, were almost identical and that these were most similar to the Negroid Nubian series from Kerma studied by Collett (1933). [Collett, not accepting variability, excluded "clear negro" crania found in the Kerma series from her analysis, as did Morant (1925), implying that they were foreign..." --(S. Keita (1990) Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48)
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Anta Diop had, and still has a lot of "white enemies". So I am not that surprised.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
It was not a white who made that post.
What's giving me indigestion is seeing black get a 21st century deconstruction, that's no more than a white caucasoid hamitic hypothesis NE Afr vs true negro update for our times, rolled out by a supposedly conscious and intelligent independent minded student of African studies.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Yes, non-charlatans recorded what they saw in measure yet many interpreted that observed reality out of existance. It took a Sergi to confront them with a simple fact when he said " But if they are black then how can they be white?", as he did in both print and at conference.
Your SOY Keita quote is valuable. It shows what length objective professionals will go when data doesn't conform with expectations, suppress it. We saw Kefi do with the one sample she had to record as possibly L(M,N). She suppressed it in her data analysis and ignored it in her comments.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Swenet says: ^Again, as far as the FEATURES, the PIGMENTATION LEVEL and the CLOSELY RELATED POPULATIONS go, the old(er) literature often got it right—even the white supremacists.
This is true. As Keita notes when you go back and read some old excavation reports you see the white excavation leaders recognizing "negroid" remains. But by the time some summaries and final writeups are done, whether with new excavations or analyzes of older material, the negroes conveniently "disappear." Ironically, some early archaelogical work actually yields a more balanced picture.
"Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers... "Nutter (1958), using the Penrose statistic, demonstrated that Nagada I and Badari crania, both regarded as Negroid, were almost identical and that these were most similar to the Negroid Nubian series from Kerma studied by Collett (1933). [Collett, not accepting variability, excluded "clear negro" crania found in the Kerma series from her analysis, as did Morant (1925), implying that they were foreign..." --(S. Keita (1990) Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48)
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since the bewildered accusation that a "perversion of Diop" had taken place and that "UNESCO didn't pervert Diop", I was waiting to see how long it would take for someone to correct it and point out the fact that Diop did not even write the UNESCO piece in question. No one stepped up. The UNESCO document is basic reading material posted many times here.
Diop didn't even write that. Diop was never brought up in the recent explorations of this subject prior to the bewildered accusation. And this individual makes false, bewildered and completely left field accusations all the time. Don't buy into the see-through strawman attacks from the usual suspects of little understanding.
If you don't understand physical anthropology, my posts aren't always going to make sense to you, the lay people. But I see it as a confirmation that I'm on the right path that reputable African Americans trained in physical anthropology, who have ACTUALLY assessed these skeletal remains, are in essential agreement with my views. Contrary to many spectators in this community, they mostly do not challenge the descriptions of early anthropologists; they simply put them in a MODERN evolutionary context. So who cares about the figments of spectators who don't know what they're talking about.
Beyond the negrophobia and anti-African bias in the old literature (which no one here is denying and which is irrelevant to the subject at hand, namely, Doug's original claim that 'Nordic Egypt' was rampant in these texts) the self-victimization narrative doesn't hold weight. Certain classic ES views on population affinity and North Africa (which I've subscribed to as well in the past) have long been falsified. I'm not going to go in-depth and beyond what I've already posted on this subject due to the permanently lurking strawman attacks, goalpost shifts and false accusations that seem to go mostly unchecked here. But I'm going to say that the usual suspects who make the most noise and spread the most misinformation know what I'm talking about anyway.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Diop was the first to juxtapose picture and text to expose the cognitive dissonance separating objective visual reality from subjective interpretive text declaration of black-skinned whites aka Hamites or caucasoids as due to chagrin at Antériorité des Civilizations Négres
The post I commented on is and remains a deliberate perversion of Diop's 1967 pre-UNESCO presentation.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
If these northeast Africans are not black then there are no African nor diasporan blacks. Some pharaonic 8 STR MiniFiler haplotypes are still found among their people in that geography.
These NE Afrs are not only black. They're more closely related to the other Africans elsewhere on the continent than they are to any other people of any other continent. It is also a fact they're closer to non-Africans than are most other Africans are whether via the non-Afrs OoA inheritance or non-Afrs [proto]historic settling in Africa.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
You see, no need for grandstanding when all can judge the presented materials for themselves thus avoiding poisoned wells and similar fluff unrelated to examining given evidence drama free.
posted
I feel sorry for lay people who are seeking information and instead treated to this incompetence, misinformation and flip floppery. If 'black' is strictly skin pigmentation as the opposition has maintained throughout this thread, how can (African) ancestry be a criterion to establish whether someone has black skin? Pay close attention to how certain personalities are flip flopping between various uses of black right after they were swearing that Doug's dictionary entries and ancient Greek texts describe the default and only legitimate use of the term.
Moreover, note how the Diop quote, brought in as "evidence" that Diop was "perverted" by me (even though I quoted Vercoutter, not Diop), is closer to my interpretation of Vercoutter's "white" than it is to Doug's interpretation. According to Doug, "white" in this context necessarily means pale skin, blue eyes and blonde hair. Diop clearly says that "white" in some contexts has included people with dark skin. This FACT, mirrored by academics who did reviews of the literature and are familiar with what these old texts are saying (e.g. Keita), is something Doug and others have been antagonizing for more than 20 thread pages.
You can see how bewildered the attempt to bring in Diop was by how it debunks Doug instead of the person who supposedly "perverted Diop".
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Diop and others say these peoples are black.
Swenet and others maintain it's incorrect to say they are black even when their skin is darker than Pepsi Cola, behind a definition of black limited to trans-atlantic slavery connection.
There you have it. After 25 pages you the reader take your pick or give your alternate views.
No need to grand stand, poison wells, or coach. Those with minds of their own will make up their own minds. Followers of the cult of personality will heed their Pied Piper of whichever side they most emote.
posted
^this is exactly why I tried to be as careful as possible in those other threads, just too many ways to get tripped up especially when equivocation(stredsing one use of black when others are using different ones) is going on
Also is there any historicity to that "Diop letter" regarding the acid incident? I find that incredibly hard to believe
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Unless I've missed a relapse in her progress, Lioness is just trolling you and Sudaniya. Lioness doesn't believe that AE was Nordic. She has some lingering inclinations towards mixed and "Indian-looking Tut", but not Nordic if her posts are an indication.
The new Lioness can be insightful when she wants to. The key to dealing with the new Lioness is to simply commend her for making good posts and ignore her trolling. Pavlovian psychology (not implying that she's a dog, of course).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
"I was on the whole much pleased, and from what I then saw, have conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race, than I had ever before entertained. Their apprehension seems as quick, their memory as strong, and their docility in every respect equal to that of white children."
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is what Doug, the king of flip flops and self-defeating quotes is lying about.
Doug's own UNESCO quote applies 'white' to people who look like this (Afar from the Danakil region):
Yet Doug wants to pretend that 'white' used in this context necessarily means blonde hair, pale skin and blue eyes. They're clearly talking about a cranio-facial pattern which they (erroneously) labeled 'white' (i.e. 'Caucasian').
Only Doug the flip flopper is confused about the fact that black skin and 'white race' were not mutually exclusive in this context, precisely because one was a reference to skin while the other one a reference to race:
Hamitic as a term is just as interesting since it changed from meaning "Negro" to dark even black skinned [Mediterranean?] White (Sanders, 1969). —Keita (1995)
Doug, go take your meds.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This population is taken to have been leucodermic, i.e. white, although its pigmentation may have been dark, even black; it is subdivided into two groups, one eastern (ancient Egyptians, Bejas, Gallas, Somalis and Danakils) and the other Western (Libyans, ancient Nubians, North African Berbers, the Tuaregs and Tudus of the Sahara, as well as the ancient Guanches of the Canary Islands and, lastly, the Fulani) (Cornevin, 1963, p. 71, 351-3).
Nobody is flip flopping. I am calling you out on your nonsense. You sit here and try to proclaim that there is something wrong with using the word "black" when obviously referring to the skin color of black skinned people, yet turn right around and try and explain away Europeans calling these exact same people "white leucoderms".
So you have a double standard and are trying to force your double standard on other people under the guise of being "objective". Not only that, but you are trying to sit here and claim that the Europeans who OBVIOUSLY lied about calling the skin color of these black people "white" are just doing so from some sort of 'scientifically objective' position and not because of racism and their desire to falsify the skin color of ancient people in Africa. You have gone 25 pages at this trying to make racists sound like they are on the same page with us and trying to make them sound "objective" even when faced with the facts that are just the opposite. And then after ALL OF THAT you claim that the African scholars are the ones who are confused and that there is no disagreement between them and the white European racists and all of this is simply a misunderstanding of words.
You have no point. Your position is baseless and utterly devoid of any value.
As an a perfect example, you seriously try to claim that the folks on the UNESCO panel who called certain Northeast Africans with black skin 'white' were not talking about skin color, even when they reinforce the term white with LEUCODERM which literally is a reference to skin color, which just goes to show how far you will reach in your idiotic attempts to deny the facts and twist logic to suit your position.
quote: Yet Doug wants to pretend that 'white' used in this context necessarily means blonde hair, pale skin and blue eyes. They're clearly talking about a cranio-facial pattern which they (erroneously) labeled 'white' (i.e. 'Caucasian').
And you then have the nerve to sit here and argue why the word black is not valid yet give Europeans a pass on their obvious misuse and abuse of words referring to skin color and claim Africans are the ones who "dont understand anthropology".
GTFOH with that nonsense.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol. Lies emanate from Doug's posts almost to the point of looking like satire. Even in the parts where this liar is quoting me I said that this use of 'white' is erroneous. Then he turns around and claims I said I've condoned it. Every attempt to paraphrase my views is a bald-faced lie. The fact that Doug is willing to go very far with his lies can be shown in the fact that he is going against common ES interpretations in his attempt to lie, troll and flip flop:
quote: Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: "Basic-White" seems to be Angel's way of saying the human prototypes or forebearers of contemporary "whites". Terms like "negroid" are next to worthless scientifically speaking, but one gets the idea of what Angel is trying to get across, and perhaps he may be forgiven, given the time of publication.
True indeed, but this citation bolsters the case against racial categories, so called "pure" Caucasoids never existed and the fact that such traits are noted in Sub-Saharans, Northeast Africans and then in Macedonia supports the hypothesis of a northward migration of Africans perhaps the spread of E3b.
Note that Doug participated in that thread and never protested against this interpretation.
The lies are just too much. You can't even debate here; you have to debate AND correct lies told about you at the same time. But since every point you make during the debate is lied about, you end up basically defending yourself the entire time just so bystanders don't start getting the wrong idea from these lies.
Like I said, I feel sorry for the truth seekers who are misled by these 'veterans' in sheep's clothing. They have no other alternative.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Angel's description of his 'white' that included many prehistoric North Africans:
These descriptions of what "white" in the racial sense entails in Angel (but also many other early anthro works) CLEARLY describe (descendants of) generalized prehistoric populations who share many commonalities with prehistoric northeast Africans. That 'white' in the racial sense is based on this can be seen not just in the provided descriptions, but also in the fact that certain prehistoric northeast Africans have very similar morphologies at Angel's skull regions and are therefore included (by Angel) in this morphological type; type 'A' (see A3/"Eurafrican").
I disagree with this label (i.e. basic white) and the implication that Europeans epitomize or are the source of these commonalities, but I DEFINITELY agree with people who see these commonalities as apomorphic. And I disagree with the people here who still naively see these as homoplastic.
But what I think and Doug's lies about what I think are irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Doug was speaking out of turn peddling his BS claim that this old anthro use of 'white' necessarily entails pale skin, blue eyes and blonde hair:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: When these folks say Caucasiod they mean pure white Aryan, blue blood, pale as snow white folks.
^Incompetent buffoon. Lot of mouth, but little substance in his weak and opinionated posts.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I'm actually surprised all those old-time white supremacist scholars ever admitted that AEs most closely resembled darker Saharans. You'd think they would do what modern Eurocentrics do and claim the lighter-skinned modern Egyptians as ideally representative of AE while writing off the rest as admixed with "Negroid" slaves. In that sense the earlier scientific racists were a step closer to the truth, and more willing to concede as much, than their "followers" today.
posted
Nodnarb. I know you already know this (you cautiously worded your observations about these white supremacists by talking in relative terms), so the following is not a statement for you as much as it is intended to preemptively take away room for Doug to spin his foul lies. (So good job not feeding into his "defending racists" crap and keeping it nuanced).
Doug and others have been desperately attempting to paint this discussion as an attempt on my part to apologize for white supremacists. These people keep lying about me and what this discussion is about, so let's not give them the big break they're looking for by getting distracted re: the real reason why Doug is spinning all these lies:
Doug's internalized self-victimization narrative requires him to lie about these old texts and paint them as racists in EVERY aspect of their coverage of Africa and ancient Egypt. According to Doug, they ALL claimed that the AE were pale skinned and blue eyed.
My only point has been that they were racist in a LOT, but mostly not in terms of the comparative populations they felt were close to the AE. But even so, as you know, this is still no reason to start handing out medals because most of them were STILL racists and anti-African. They were still trying to downplay and obscure in other areas.
Another thing to keep in mind regarding the old literature is that it admitted this mainly about predynastic Egyptians and later Egyptians of the predynastic physical type (e.g. "the old Egyptian type"), not necessarily about all later dynastic Egyptians. So that's another reason to be cautious with their work. That's why in my posts you can see that I've constantly tried to keep the goalpost on what they said about predynastic Egyptians.
But yeah, I agree with you. Generally, the anthropologists trained in bio-anthropology and the ethnic background of the AE obviously made the right call in the aforementioned areas. As Keita said, most of the old reports are consistent with the AE being eastern Saharan once you look past the nominal "white race" BS (i.e. very dark skinned eastern Saharan were, as an intact CLADE, lumped into the so-called "white race"; not just the Egyptians in isolation as Doug is fabricating) and put said reports in a modern evolutionary context. The people in charge with disseminating this to the public completely obscured this layer of complexity. You can't reconstruct this eastern Saharan connection back from the watered down statements of the internet trolls, hollywood, the media and others who are disseminating the information in these old reports to the public.
You can tell from his posts that Doug belongs to this confused bunch who are too challenged and biased to read the old reports in context.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Angel's description of his 'white' that included many prehistoric North Africans:
These descriptions of what "white" in the racial sense entails in Angel (but also many other early anthro works) CLEARLY describe (descendants of) generalized prehistoric populations who share many commonalities with prehistoric northeast Africans. That 'white' in the racial sense is based on this can be seen not just in the provided descriptions, but also in the fact that certain prehistoric northeast Africans have very similar morphologies at Angel's skull regions and are therefore included (by Angel) in this morphological type; type 'A' (see A3/"Eurafrican").
I disagree with this label (i.e. basic white) and the implication that Europeans epitomize or are the source of these commonalities, but I DEFINITELY agree with people who see these commonalities as apomorphic. And I disagree with the people here who still naively see these as homoplastic.
But what I think and Doug's lies about what I think are irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Doug was speaking out of turn peddling his BS claim that this old anthro use of 'white' necessarily entails pale skin, blue eyes and blonde hair:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: When these folks say Caucasiod they mean pure white Aryan, blue blood, pale as snow white folks.
^Incompetent buffoon. Lot of mouth, but little substance in his weak and opinionated posts.
Dude. You should lay off drugs and stop trying to resuscitate a dead argument.
So are you REALLY saying that when they say "white" the European racists were not trying to arbitrarily reassign black Africans to the "white race"? Are you seriously trying to claim that there is 'objective science' that is the basis for calling black Africans "white"?
And don't you not also see that the word black skin is also used by these same people right along with the word white? So right there you have the racists using the term 'black skin' to refer to black people yet you continue to try and divert from the point that black is a reference to skin color just like white is.
But according to your objective science, you claim that when these racists wort the term white leucuderm they did not REALLY MEAN white skinned people. Of course not. And all these movies and reenactments, artwork and other images that they produce with white skinned ancient Egyptians DON'T REALLY represent their view of what "white skin" is.
You are beyond retarded.
Again, this below is the commonly accepted definition of what Egyptology considers as "white" ancient Egyptians:
quote: Following in the footsteps of G. Elliot Smith (1923, p. 53-69), and those of Sergi at an earlier date (Sergi, 1895), most Egyptologists (Vandier, 1952, p. 22) take the view that the primitive population occupying the Egyptian and Nubian Nile valley from the predynastic period onwards (Badarian and Amratean or Naqada I), and up to the first dynasty, belonged to a 'dark', 'Mediterranean' or again 'Euro-African' race, often incorrectly called 'Hamitic'. This population is taken to have been leucodermic, i.e. white, although its pigmentation may have been dark, even black;it is subdivided into two groups, one eastern (ancient Egyptians, Bejas, Gallas, Somalis and Danakils) and the other Western (Libyans, ancient Nubians, North African Berbers, the Tuaregs and Tudus of the Sahara, as well as the ancient Guanches of the Canary Islands and, lastly, the Fulani) (Cornevin, 1963, p. 71, 351-3).
That is the only reference we need to look at. All your attempts to ignore the facts and divert to other works to try and avoid the obvious implications of the word white and what "white race" means are irrelevant.
Again, if these people actually accept that the AE were black Africans why are there so many debates on the topic? Surely you can't be claiming that the white folks on one side of the debate aren't arguing with folks on the other about a question of skin color?
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug, that quote from the earlier ES members rejecting that 'white' in this context necessarily implies skin pigmentation bothers you, doesn't it? You kept talking about "us", but now it's been proven there was never an "us" to begin with as far as the 'white' issue. Who, other than you, is in the "us" camp you were talking about? Your posts are opinionated garbage and lack proper sources.
You're just salty at this point. The old literature's observed cranial commonalities, THOUGH NOT THEIR LABELING OR THE SELF-SERVING PRIORITY EUROPEANS GAVE THEMSELVES IN THIS PICTURE, have been vindicated by population genetics. I can make many of their observations fit modern day genetic revelations by substituting "Basic White" with a term that points to an origin in North Africa. That is Keita's point and that is my point.
I can't make none of your BS fit population genetics. What is your point other than opinionated garbage? Your point that 'white' in this context refers to skin pigmentation is garbage.
Doug. Stop lying about my positions and stop flip flopping.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm supposed to reject these observed cranial commonalities in the old texts, just because they were labeled wrong (e.g. "basic white") or wrongly attributed to some imaginary European source population? Why, just because Doug is insecure and paranoid about the term 'white' and wants to maintain his self-victimization narrative that all of this was all pseudo-science?
Again, the use of 'white' in the old texts does not necessarily refer to skin pigmentation; sometimes it referred to a cranio-facial pattern thought to be ancestral to modern Europeans. See Angel's explanation of his terminology and note that this 'white type' was thought to transcend the boundaries of Europe (even in white supremacists like Coon), proving that 'white' wasn't necessarily a reference to the palest skin pigmentation, let alone combined with blue eyes and blonde hair:
Source: Angel 1971
If you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about, and Doug, we know at this point that you don't, why even bother embarrassing yourself? Just stay in your lane: posting pictures of 'black' Indonesians and Amerindians.
And any other dissenting person on here can try to debate me on this. I know some lurkers are salty for the fact that I refuse to toe the party line. They'll just get debunked, just like Doug.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug, that quote from the earlier ES members rejecting that 'white' in this context necessarily implies skin pigmentation bothers you, doesn't it? You kept talking about "us", but now it's been proven there was never an "us" to begin with as far as the 'white' issue. Who, other than you, is in the "us" camp you were talking about? Your posts are opinionated garbage and lack proper sources.
You're just salty at this point. The old literature's observed cranial commonalities, THOUGH NOT THEIR LABELING OR THE SELF-SERVING PRIORITY EUROPEANS GAVE THEMSELVES IN THIS PICTURE, have been vindicated by population genetics. I can make many of their observations fit modern day genetic revelations by substituting "Basic White" with a term that points to an origin in North Africa. That is Keita's point and that is my point.
I can't make none of your BS fit population genetics. What is your point other than opinionated garbage? Your point that 'white' in this context refers to skin pigmentation is garbage.
Doug. Stop lying about my positions and stop flip flopping.
Why are you avoiding the quote I posted. It states explicitly that these people are talking about skin color when they say white.
Again you keep trying to avoid what I posted by deviating and going somewhere else. You have been playing this game since page one. You were proven wrong and that quote shows you as wrong.
Anybody who would sit here and claim that when white people say "white people" they are not talking about skin color is obviously retarded.
And it doesn't matter what other folks have said, the whites themselves have made it clear for 500 years what "white people" means as they raped and pillaged the earth. Yet here you are trying to salvage your dead argument that somehow there is an "objective scientific" basis for this.
Please, stop making yourself look like a poor loser.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I'm supposed to reject these observed cranial commonalities in the old texts, just because they were labeled wrong (e.g. "basic white") or wrongly attributed to some imaginary European source population? Why, just because Doug is insecure and paranoid about the term 'white' and wants to maintain his self-victimization narrative that all of this was all pseudo-science?
Again, the use of 'white' in the old texts does not necessarily refer to skin pigmentation; sometimes it referred to a cranio-facial pattern thought to be ancestral to modern Europeans. See Angel's explanation of his terminology and note that this 'white type' was thought to transcend the boundaries of Europe (even in white supremacists like Coon), proving that 'white' wasn't necessarily a reference to the palest skin pigmentation, let alone combined with blue eyes and blonde hair:
Source: Angel 1971
If you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about, and Doug, we know at this point that you don't, why even bother embarrassing yourself? Just stay in your lane: posting pictures of 'black' Indonesians and Amerindians.
And any other dissenting person on here can try to debate me on this. I know some lurkers are salty for the fact that I refuse to toe the party line. They'll just get debunked, just like Doug.
Come on man you look bad. You are simply losing on every front and just determined to try and sound like you won something.
Let me ask you something, what is "white" a reference to? You do know that white is a word for a color don't you? And since he is using it, primarily as a reference to European populations, why do you feel that this is not a reference to skin color?
What does "white" refer to here?
The point being that these are pseudo-scientific attempts to create the origins of "white people" in Northern Europe who then expanded into Africa later and got darker but still were "white" because of their ancestry from earlier Europeans. That is what they were trying to claim by suggesting the cranial diversity of Africans implies a "white type" of skull shape. What part of that don't you understand? These skull shapes didn't come from "white" and therefore the whole thing is regarded as garbage in modern anthropology. Yet here you are sitting up here trying to claim that these people are being "objective scholars" and not trying to promote the superiority of "white skinned" races of people in Europe even though they clearly try and associate black African skulls with "white people". How on earth can you even sit here and try to call this garbage "objective science". And then turn right around and argue with other folks calling black Africans black? Come on you can't be serious.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The incompetent fumbler is still squeaking.
Compare Doug's fanatical faith-based devotion to his fantasy that 'white' in these texts necessarily refers to pale skin with what these racists were actually saying re: what it means to be racially 'white':
quote:In the totality of facial features, with a few exceptions, the Upper Pa- laeolithic people may be said to have resembled modern white men. Some, however, probably looked like a certain type of American Indian, notably that of the North American Plains, and of the OnaS and Tehuelche of southernmost South America. This comparison, we must remember, is wholly morphological, since we do not know Upper Palaeolithic man's pigmentation, hair form, or hair distribution.
—Coon 1939
^Coon's comment that he doesn't know their hair, eye and skin pigmentation is significant, because he considers these people racially (i.e. cranially and taxonomically) "white". How does this come even close to Doug's fanatical imagination that 'white' in these old texts referred to skin pigmentation at all times?
Another quote from the racist Coon on the pigmentation of a subset of the "white" race:
quote:Before the Neolithic, the principal branches of the Mediterranean family must already have come into existence. Some Mediterraneans were probably white skinned, and others brown; it is also possible that the differences in hair and eye color which so strongly distinguish living Mediterranean sub-varieties had already come into existence.
—Coon 1939
quote:It can be shown that Sumerians who lived over five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia are almost identical in skull and face form with living Englishmen, and that predynastic Egyptian skulls can be matched both in a seventeenth century London plague pit, and in Neolithic cist-graves in Switzerland. Modern dolichocephalic whites or browns are very similar in head and face measurements and form. The Nordic race in the strict sense is merely a pigment phase of the Mediterranean.
—Coon 1939
Here racist Coon seems to describe the pale skinned varieties of the 'white race' as mere derivatives of darker skinned 'whites'. How does this come even close to Doug's incoherent rant that the racism of these anthropologists was more heavily invested in skin pigmentation than in ideas about perceived racial differences and taxonomies? In his epic stupefaction Doug admits that Coon, Baker etc. had no problems subsuming darkbrown people in South Asia and North Africa into the 'white' race. But then the incompetent tries to act like 'white' in these texts necessarily meant pale skin.
posted
It should be noted that some capable people from this community have ALWAYS discussed the works of racist anthropologists responsibly and ON THEIR OWN TERMS. Keita being a big example. Yet, the fumbling incompetent is fuming and crying over my attempts to make sense of the EXACT SAME views and observations. Doug, WTF are you talking about?
That's why I'm going easy on Doug. He's confused and needs immediate access to his meds. Can someone help him out?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's raining flip flops. And this is all happening in the same post; he literally just said both of these in the span of a couple of seconds. Dementia?
"'White', the way they used it, refers to skin color, Swenet" —Doug M
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And since he is using it, primarily as a reference to European populations, why do you feel that this is not a reference to skin color?
"'White', the way they used it, doesn't refer to skin color, Swenet, but to a biological taxon" —Doug M
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:. The point being that these are pseudo-scientific attempts to create the origins of "white people" in Northern Europe who then expanded into Africa later and got darker but still were "white" because of their ancestry from earlier Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: It's raining flip flops. And this is all happening in the same post; he literally just said both of these in the space of a couple of seconds. Dementia?
"'White', the way they used it, refers to skin color, Swenet" —Doug M
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And since he is using it, primarily as a reference to European populations, why do you feel that this is not a reference to skin color?
"'White', the way they used it, doesn't refer to skin color, Swenet, but to a biological taxon" —Doug M
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:. The point being that these are pseudo-scientific attempts to create the origins of "white people" in Northern Europe who then expanded into Africa later and got darker but still were "white" because of their ancestry from earlier Europeans.
Oh please, the only one flip flopping here is you.
Come on man give it a break. We all know what white people mean when they say white. Only you would sit here and try to convince us that when racists use the word white they aren't talking about skin color.
Maybe we need a thread on when to use white and when not to just so you can argue for 40 pages how racists using the term white don't really mean skin color....
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I've said many times, when the racists and were talking about the cranio-facial commonalities of the 'white race', what they were wrong about is the direction of ancestry (in principle, Eurasia wasn't the source of the convergence between populations in various time periods, but indigenous North Africans were) and the labeling of this ancestry (it wasn't 'racially' European/'white').
Other than that, there is nothing wrong with the observed cranial commonalities. The set of cranio-facial traits they labeled 'Mediterranean', for instance, have been proven to have a real biological underpinning. And BTW, even the racist Coon said the source of this 'race' was a split between Africa and West Asia. Although, again, these concepts need to be placed in a modern evolutionary context, as Keita says.
The fact that Doug is calling everything in these texts 'pseudoscience' proves how stupefied and incompetent he is. Even worse, the fact that Doug tries to boil all this disagreement down to skin color (only to flip flop away from this bizarre position later) shows that his posts are an opinionated mess.
Note that neither Doug, nor anyone else for that matter, will reply in a coherent manner and prove I'm wrong here or elsewhere. Just more opinionated posts and flip flops.
Note the light blue component below (with the oldest attestation so far in the first farmers in Greece and Anatolia, some of which, e.g. Stuttgart, look like indigenous prehistoric North Africans), in various populations in the Mediterranean Basin, indicating that the observed cranial commonalities between various holocene skeletal remains in the circum Med. are not pseudo-scientific.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: As I've said many times, when the racists and were talking about the cranio-facial commonalities of the 'white race', what they were wrong about is the direction of ancestry (in principle, Eurasia wasn't the source of the convergence between populations in various time periods, but indigenous North Africans were) and the labeling of this ancestry (it wasn't 'racially' European/'white').
Other than that, there is nothing wrong with the observed cranial commonalities. The set of cranio-facial traits they labeled 'Mediterranean', for instance, have been proven to have a real biological underpinning. And BTW, even the racist Coon said the source of this 'race' was a split between Africa and West Asia. Although, again, these concepts need to be placed in a modern evolutionary context, as Keita says.
The fact that Doug is calling everything in these texts 'pseudoscience' proves how stupefied and incompetent he is. Even worse, the fact that Doug tries to boil all this disagreement down to skin color (only to flip flop away from this bizarre position later) shows that his posts are an opinionated mess.
Note that neither Doug, nor anyone else for that matter, will reply in a coherent manner and prove I'm wrong here or elsewhere. Just more opinionated posts and flip flops.
Note the light blue component below (with the oldest attestation so far in the first farmers in Greece and Anatolia, some of which, e.g. Stuttgart, look like indigenous prehistoric North Africans), in various populations in the Mediterranean Basin, indicating that the observed cranial commonalities between various holocene skeletal remains in the circum Med. are not pseudo-scientific.
/thread
Come on man leave it alone. We don't need a genetics chart to understand what racists mean when they say white. They mean skin color. That is the only thing that is relevant to this discussion. But you just keep running in circles trying to avoid the fundamental fact that white and black are obviously references to skin color. Invoking Keita and adding a color chart is not going to change the ideology of racism from the past and the pseudo science that went along with it to bolster its credentials. It was not "objective" science, meaning science for the sake of understanding truth. It was science for the purpose of promoting racist ideologies and propaganda based on skin color.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic