...
EgyptSearch Forums
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Post New Topic  New Poll  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » When to use "black" and when not to... (Page 28)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 41 pages: 1  2  3  ...  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  ...  39  40  41   
Author Topic: When to use "black" and when not to...
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
@BBH

I understand you better now, yes. But notice that when you say "instead scientific discussions vs historic discussions" you're, in fact, referring to two or more distinct uses of 'black'.

The early ancient Greek use of 'black' is skin pigmentation-based and the racial use of 'black' is not or only marginally based on skin pigmentation. That's why African American albinos can still be racially 'black' according to racial typology even if they're depigmented. And why, as Beyoku observed in this thread, some races are imagined to cover much of the human skin pigmentation spectrum.

This has all been covered a lot in this thread. All I can say is re-read the thread, bruh.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
@Swenet

Noted. And I'm going to give the thread another read. I mean there were good discussions in this thread though most of it heated. Still a good read.

Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
originally posted by the lioness:


http://www.raceandhistory.com/manu/vanish3.htm

^I reread the links and other Ampim texts.

Interestingly, Manu Ampim repeatedly uses 'black' in a way so-called 'vets' INSISTED FOR 25 THREAD PAGES is not how the term is used in the real world. A cursory look at works of other Afrocentric writers reveals the same thing.

Lol. How can you be so washed up and in denial that you're willing to lie to yourself for 25 thread pages that 'black' is only used in reference to skin color?

It's still unclear to me just who Doug is talking about when he keeps saying "we", "us" etc. No authority agrees with you. Speak for yourself. Stop trying to puff up your credibility by talking about "us". No one who hasn't had the chance to think about the pitfalls associated with the term uses 'black' exclusively as a reference to skin pigmentation. Hiding behind a dictionary entry doesn't make that fact go away.

Anybody who says black is skin color alone would need to indicate on a color chart of graduating tones what is black and what is not black. If they can't do that then it's not about color.
It's about whim. They apply the term whenever you feel like with no standard. Therefore the application of the term is pure opinion.

Anybody who says black is skin color alone makes the issue very simple. All you have to do then is refer to a color chart. If somebody cannot refer to examples of color then it's just a rhetorical game. They are not serious

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
^They're just going to say it covers at least 10% to 50% in the chart below. But you can already see the can of worms that opens in that case. The % of skin reflectance of the African inhabitants of Namaqualand extends to 40%-50%, but they overlap with Tibetans. So you'd have to call the swarthy segments of these populations 'black' as well, which would conflict with certain agendas many have.

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
 -


^Apparently Khoi and San skin can get even lighter.

Also see Relethford's several papers on skin reflectance and human variation in skin pigmentation.

San kid who would presumably clock in at ~40-50%:
https://liveforphotography.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/sized_afrika2008_1225.jpg

A seemingly representative picture of the Sunwar people from Nepal for reference what their range might look like in person (compare with skin reflectance chart):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Sunuwar-udhauli-2014.jpg

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
d.p.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
EDIT: You know what, never mind. I don't think anyone here (excepting a certain troll who's gone MIA) is trying to force their vocabulary onto anyone else. No point asking for validating your own personal word choices.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
I just want to be sure about something.

Does anyone participating in this thread
posit that Egypt was 100% black at any
period after the proto-dynastic?

My question is separate from the fact
of Egypt's African cultural origins of
SudanoSahara antecedents or their
adaptation of 'SW Asian' crops or
animals.

Over all dynasties 100% can't be, they had contact with foreign people. But over all, it was indignious, that is was students tell us.

Btw, can you translate these hieroglyphs?


 -

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Punos_Rey
Administrator
Member # 21929

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Punos_Rey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
I just want to be sure about something.

Does anyone participating in this thread
posit that Egypt was 100% black at any
period after the proto-dynastic?

My question is separate from the fact
of Egypt's African cultural origins of
SudanoSahara antecedents or their
adaptation of 'SW Asian' crops or
animals.

No, surely there was some outside presence if nothing else from SW Asia(whom I don't consider "black" even if some of their ancient populations were very dark). My problem with this specifically is how people use even the slightest presence of foreign input to "prove" AE was not an indigenous development. It's like I can drop just *one* SW Asian into AE and all of a sudden its a mixed society. That rule applies to NO OTHER civilization which is crazy as no large civilization existed in a vacuum insulated from its neighbors. Europeans adopting gunpowder which originated in China and was crucial to European conquests hasn't made those European empires Chinese. Ancient Greece and Rome surely weren't 100% ethnic Greek or ethnic Italian due to the far reaching and multiethnic sense of their empires. Yet when it comes to them, Alexander and his Macedonians, Genghis Khan and the Mongols, absolutely no one(well outside of certain characters..) questions their indigeneity or where they came from. Its crap.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
We should have a thread about the theory of how many white foreigners and/or white neighborhoods?

 -

It's rare to see anyone painted lighter than this fellow.

Evidence of late has suggested that while white skin predates humanity a white race is younger. Damn near younger and further away... however I always bet on humanity. Yes I think Africans came to the Americans many times over before nations and from different nations right before and long before Columbus. By the same human ingenuity I think primitive white people from the crap lands of Asia traveled to the Nile and were greeted with respect for having made such a journey.

I'm not quite sure the older cartonage represent white people because of some of the reconstruction on the faces. However from what I understand Nefertiti's family was from Asia so the journey is possible. It's worth mentioning that Egyptians were numerous in Asia, she seemed to be the mixed chick of the Amarna mummies and most of her depictions were indistinguishable from other Egyptians.

One what do you base these claims?
The length of time and proximity.

There are enough images of white people in Sumer which was a trade caravan away from the Nile Valley. I see race as 100% opinion so if someone views albinos as white I won't argue. It makes more sense than calling an albino black. So if someone wan't to say there were always white people in North Africa or Egypt meh whatever just don't be hypocritical with images of white or multiracial Egypt.

[Big Grin] Societies idea of multiracial Egypt is what we should see with Greeks.
 -

 -

#racism.
Rahotep's glyphs came from a crackerjack box.

Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Originally posted by Tukuler:
I just want to be sure about something.

Does anyone participating in this thread
posit that Egypt was 100% black at any
period after the proto-dynastic?

My question is separate from the fact
of Egypt's African cultural origins of
SudanoSahara antecedents or their
adaptation of 'SW Asian' crops or
animals.


--------------------------------------------------------------


A bit of a recap for new readers in this reply, because I
do not often run across as strong rebuttals and
exposure of Eurocentric hypocrisy as there should be.
Too often some rebuttals consist of simply saying words to the
effect - "you are racist" and then vacating the field,
rather than hammering them hard across the spectrum.

For consistency- Europe must be considered "mixed race"
No society would be 100% "pure" over time - even less so societies
in that North African, Medit, Middle Eastern zone.
If DNA is a guide for example, numerous southern Europeans
are "mixed race."


 -

 -

And it goes back to ancient times- it is nothing recent..

Double standards
Those who go around talking bout "mixed race" in Egypt are
hypocritical if they do not likewise apply the same standard
to Europe and call Greeks, Italians etc "mixed race."
Their refusal or avoidance of the issue exposes the race hypocrisy
that motivates them. Its like the true negro standard pointed
out by Keita. Academics who use it likewise do not go on
to define a "true white" - say a Nordic up in Sweden,
exposing their hypocrisy.

 -


Pointing out hypocrisy
We must always point out that hypocrisy and double
standard- just like Diop did. Pious denials about the irrelevance
of race are fine, IF THEY WERE APPLIED CONSISTENTLY. But
they are not- again as Keita points out- some in the academic literature piously decry race, then
re-introduce in in new guises. See his critique of Cavalli-Sforza.


If genotypes are all how come they use phenotypes when it suits them ?
Another dodge used is to wave away phenotypes and say only genotypes count.
Sounds scientific and all, but why then do conservative academics
and pundits CONTINUE TO INSIST on phenotype when it suits them?
When it is time to bash black folks culture or achievements
they always pull "negro" phenotypes out. It is only when
the dreaded black phenotypes can be credited with the positive than
many then want to holler about genotype, so as to downplay or dismiss.
Furthermore, assorted "hereditatians", "HBD" types are always
yapping about "the reality of biological race." Fine. Why then
do they try to run away from the implications of ancient Africans in
ancient Europe? Or African DNA in today's Europe from long ago?
If "the negro" is static and unchanging, with discrete racial
boundaries, why are you changing your tune when the above is applied?
Again, we must never cease pointing out Eurocentric hypocrisy.


-----------------------------------------------------------

Light skin color is nothing special in Africa
The "true negro" fallacy is the standard ploy- sometimes used
with skin color re Egypt, as if everybody supposed to
be jet black in Africa as the "true" color of "the African."
But this too is false and again exposes the double standards at play.
Light skin color for example is nothing special in West Africa, or
Africa as a whole.
 -


And the very definition of the term "negro" traditionally
acknowledges a variety of skin colors.
Interesting how some
rail against "modern pc definitions" but then themselves want
to deny the traditional definitions when it suits them.
 -

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 -

When it suits Eurocentric interests they never ceased to invoke
the "one drop rule" with all its "tainted" associations.

But how come when the one-drop rule is applied across the board
and black folk can be credited with something positive then
there is a "problem"? Why is "one drop" fine until it
is applied in ancient Egypt? Can we again say white hypocrisy?


Calling the ancient Egyptians black is reasonable say some Egyptologists
Now in 2001, the mainstream Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt finally
got around to acknowledging that to call the ancient Egyptians
black, based on the standard European understanding of, and application of the "one drop" was quite reasonable.
This is not "Afrocentrics" saying it. Now they tried to water down
what they say- but they had to come around to acknowledging
what "the Afrocentrics" have been saying all along.

 -


--------------------------------------------------------------


Ancient Egypt it could be said was PREDOMINANTLY an African civilization-
with links to many areas of the Mediterranean and Middle East,
and a change in that predominance at the later phases of
the Dynastic era,
when Hyskos, Persians, Greeks, Romans and Arabs took over.
Again to recap- today's Egyptians are not direct descendants
of the ancients.
And aside from these conquests and migrations, a place like
Egypt, near one of the busies crossroads on earth,
linking Asia, Europe, Arabia, the Medit etc would always
see a minority of other types- whether they be traders,
war captives, slaves, diplomats, nomads, etc. No one is gong about
"denying" this, as bullshiit strawmen allege. But
"later phases" does not mean African influence disappeared,
as Ramses and others show.

 -

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kdolo
Member
Member # 21830

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for kdolo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
'today's Egyptians are not direct descendants
of the ancients.'

bull.

There are certain to be inhabitants who are descendants of the ancients, they are probably the inhabitants of the South and going South.

The northerners are mixed or turks and arabs.


This the new cop out argument i have been seeing lately. I am sure any studies done focus on people in the North to manipulate the outcome

--------------------
Keldal

Posts: 2818 | From: new york | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Marry Lefkowitz's one drop assertion is that familiar cognitive dissonance of racism. One drop by European standards is genetically 6%. Charles Barkley is 75% black genetically. He is lighter than most depictions of Ancient Egyptians and he is not considered one drop black by any of the legal or cultural definitions in any state. The only people who question his blackness are black people because of how he sucks up to white daddy.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
We should have a thread about the theory of how many white foreigners and/or white neighborhoods?

 -

It's rare to see anyone painted lighter than this fellow.

Evidence of late has suggested that while white skin predates humanity a white race is younger. Damn near younger and further away... however I always bet on humanity. Yes I think Africans came to the Americans many times over before nations and from different nations right before and long before Columbus. By the same human ingenuity I think primitive white people from the crap lands of Asia traveled to the Nile and were greeted with respect for having made such a journey.

I'm not quite sure the older cartonage represent white people because of some of the reconstruction on the faces. However from what I understand Nefertiti's family was from Asia so the journey is possible. It's worth mentioning that Egyptians were numerous in Asia, she seemed to be the mixed chick of the Amarna mummies and most of her depictions were indistinguishable from other Egyptians.

One what do you base these claims?
The length of time and proximity.

There are enough images of white people in Sumer which was a trade caravan away from the Nile Valley. I see race as 100% opinion so if someone views albinos as white I won't argue. It makes more sense than calling an albino black. So if someone wan't to say there were always white people in North Africa or Egypt meh whatever just don't be hypocritical with images of white or multiracial Egypt.

[Big Grin] Societies idea of multiracial Egypt is what we should see with Greeks.

http://i.artfile.ru/s/716554_230413_48_ArtFile_ru.jpg

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/A8bn6onCO8k/hqdefault.jpg

#racism.
Rahotep's glyphs came from a crackerjack box.

How come this length of time and proximity, doesn't reflect in anthropology?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kdolo:
'today's Egyptians are not direct descendants
of the ancients.'

bull.

There are certain to be inhabitants who are descendants of the ancients, they are probably the inhabitants of the South and going South.

The northerners are mixed or turks and arabs.


This the new cop out argument i have been seeing lately. I am sure any studies done focus on people in the North to manipulate the outcome

It is no "cop out" it is established fact. Are some moderns
a holdover? Sure, I agree, particularly in the south, traditionally
the "darker" region, and no one "denies" that- as bogus strawmen
try to make out. But the bulk of today's Egyptians
are Arabized mixes or part of the Arab, Maghreb, Levantine,
and European migrations since the fall of the dynasties,
not direct, pristine, allegedly "pure" descendants
of the ancients as a substantial number of modern
Egyptians try to make out. Many like the idea of "purity" so they
can "distance" themselves from "anything African." But they
fail here too. Could it be argued that the moderns are "mixed" descendants
with the Arabs, etc etc? Sure, and I have no big objection
to that argument- only to point out that the "mixture" would
ALSO INCLUDE BLACKS.

It is interesting how many seek to talk about modern mixes
to make a continuity/descendant argument but then want to exclude
or airbrush blacks from their allegedly pristine, exclusive "club."
To reiterate, any "argument from admixture" must also include
the blacks as part of the "original" pool that mingles with Arabs, Syrians etc.


 -

 -


 -

^^Modern Egyptians "distancing" themselves from the blacks thru prayer...

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
^^^Then why the heck did you have a problem with that 2009 Omran study I posted and claimed that I was a "dupe account", when that same study proved that modern Egyptians are DISTANT from the Ancients. 2009 Omran study even had the same STRs that were used used in the DNAtribes one on the Amarna mummies

D18S51 and D21S11 for example were used in DNAtribes study of the Amarna mummies.

So again why did you have a problem when I posted it? I tried asking you, but you kept ignoring me while throwing subliminal at me.

I just want a answer, thats all.

Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
Charles Barkley is 75% black genetically.

There you have it. A use of 'black' completely divorced from skin pigmentation, which we've been told over 25 thread pages doesn't exist.

We've been told westerners religiously stick to the dictionary's pigmentation-based use of 'black' in real life. Right. [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
We should have a thread about the theory of how many white foreigners and/or white neighborhoods?

 -

It's rare to see anyone painted lighter than this fellow.

Evidence of late has suggested that while white skin predates humanity a white race is younger. Damn near younger and further away... however I always bet on humanity. Yes I think Africans came to the Americans many times over before nations and from different nations right before and long before Columbus. By the same human ingenuity I think primitive white people from the crap lands of Asia traveled to the Nile and were greeted with respect for having made such a journey.

I'm not quite sure the older cartonage represent white people because of some of the reconstruction on the faces. However from what I understand Nefertiti's family was from Asia so the journey is possible. It's worth mentioning that Egyptians were numerous in Asia, she seemed to be the mixed chick of the Amarna mummies and most of her depictions were indistinguishable from other Egyptians.

One what do you base these claims?
The length of time and proximity.

There are enough images of white people in Sumer which was a trade caravan away from the Nile Valley. I see race as 100% opinion so if someone views albinos as white I won't argue. It makes more sense than calling an albino black. So if someone wan't to say there were always white people in North Africa or Egypt meh whatever just don't be hypocritical with images of white or multiracial Egypt.

[Big Grin] Societies idea of multiracial Egypt is what we should see with Greeks.

http://i.artfile.ru/s/716554_230413_48_ArtFile_ru.jpg

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/A8bn6onCO8k/hqdefault.jpg

#racism.
Rahotep's glyphs came from a crackerjack box.

How come this length of time and proximity, doesn't reflect in anthropology?
How doesn't it?
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
@Fourty2Tribes, ^Not that I know of. Do you know?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
As soon as Doug is asked to back up the alleged "flip flops" he's accused me of, he's nowhere to be seen.

Also note how deliberately silent Doug was every time I proved him wrong about his fabrication that Eurocentric bio-anthropologists were engaging in pseudo-science when their measurements seemingly supported their argument.

The Eurocentric scholars who assigned dark skinned Africans to the "white race" were doing the same thing Doug is doing when he's assigning precolonial non-African populations in the tropics to his 'black' category. But now it turns out that he is even going a step further than that. Here, in Doug's own words:

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Wow Clyde. It seems you have come full circle after disagreeing with me on this when I said it in the past.

But that said, I still don't rule out direct contact from Africa over the centuries before European contact. The problem is finding the evidence. Not only that, I also believe there was contact with other parts of the world as well.... but that is a whole different subject.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=011346;p=1#000003

^Over the last 25 thread pages he ranted on and on about Eurocentric appropriation. Look what he says in the other forum (note that he was careful not to ever say that here). This lunatic is obviously engaging in appropriation as well. But he thinks he's somehow a special snowflake. Uniquely victimized by Eurocentric appropriation.

[Roll Eyes]

The point is that people have skin color and therefore just like anything else that has visible color, you use words to describe it. Your point over the course of this thread is to claim that common words are not enough to convey meaning when used in language. When someone says the person has "black skin", what comes to mind? According to you and your absurd contradictory logic, somehow this simple phrase conjures very confusing and ambiguous concepts in a persons brain and renders them unable to understand that the phrase is referring to the skin color of a person in a certain shade of colors. And as you said, no matter what word you use, whether dark, brown or "other" you cannot sit here and describe every single shade of skin color found on Africans with a unique word. Nobody has ever tried to do this and nobody does it to this day. Therefore, the word black is used to refer to the various shades of brown skinned Africans and other populations outside of Africa with similar skin colors. This is the dictionary definition. Your argument is to say that there is something wrong with the dictionary definition, which is the commonly accepted definition and somehow that people don't understand the meaning of such a term in common language. Especially when the phrase "black skin" is used specifically to avoid the desire to claim that someone may be confused by "racial" concepts, even though racial concepts are closely related to skin color.

Again, the bottom line point here, notwithstanding your attempts to deny and avoid it, is that the whole debate over ancient Egypt is a debate over the skin color of the majority of the ancient population. That is the fundamental point. Race, racism and white supremacy are the reasons for this debate and not Africans or the dictionary definition of words like black. This is fundamentally an issue of people trying to change facts to suit their agenda and luring gullible folks who don't know better (or should know better) into supporting their nonsense by sounding "objective" or "unbiased" when they are everything but.

Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
originally posted by the lioness:


http://www.raceandhistory.com/manu/vanish3.htm

^I reread the links and other Ampim texts.

Interestingly, Manu Ampim repeatedly uses 'black' in a way so-called 'vets' INSISTED FOR 25 THREAD PAGES is not how the term is used in the real world. A cursory look at works of other Afrocentric writers reveals the same thing.

Lol. How can you be so washed up and in denial that you're willing to lie to yourself for 25 thread pages that 'black' is only used in reference to skin color?

It's still unclear to me just who Doug is talking about when he keeps saying "we", "us" etc. No authority agrees with you. Speak for yourself. Stop trying to puff up your credibility by talking about "us". No one who hasn't had the chance to think about the pitfalls associated with the term uses 'black' exclusively as a reference to skin pigmentation. Hiding behind a dictionary entry doesn't make that fact go away.

Swenet, you are off the rails. We have established very early on in this thread the the word "black" relative to the skin color of Africans has been used for thousands of years. Yet you have tried your best over the course of this thread to claim that these ancient uses of "black", including the ancient Egyptians own use of the term "black", ie. KMT are somehow "different" from modern usages of the term also as a reference to skin color. To that point all of these usages are consistent with the dictionary definition of the word black in reference to skin color, yet you still sit here and try to claim that somebody on this forum or African scholars "invented" this usage of the term black as a reference to skin color.

Give up and stop lying.

Your only point on this thread is basically to claim that skin color in places like Ancient Egypt are too complex to be understood by simple language terms as if Ancient Egyptian or other human skin color is that hard to describe using language. This isn't rocket science. Skin color is an observable fact of nature and there is absolutely nothing non scientific about describing skin color in terms easily understood with words describing colors. Actually the cognitive challenge here is one of white racists being able to conjure the thought of black skin in ancient Egypt, let alone admit it in human speech, which leads them to try and come up with ways to create alternate visions of ancient Egypt and other populations which more suit their own mental vision. Of course, you seem to support this notion as somehow "objective" scientific reasoning. I call it nonsense racist rhetoric and mind games.

Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Lol. Doug made sure he stopped short of addressing my last post to him:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009335;p=26#001270

Instead, he's cooking up new imaginary accusations. Let's point them out again and watch how he'll just repeat and rinse filling his posts with rabid delusions:

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
The point is that people have skin color and therefore just like anything else that has visible color, you use words to describe it. Your point over the course of this thread is to claim that common words are not enough to convey meaning when used in language.

Prove that was ever my point using direct quotes.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
When someone says the person has "black skin", what comes to mind? According to you and your absurd contradictory logic, somehow this simple phrase conjures very confusing and ambiguous concepts in a persons brain and renders them unable to understand that the phrase is referring to the skin color of a person in a certain shade of colors.

Note the lie he sneaked in there (of course "black skin" refers to skin, but 'black' itself doesn't necessarily refer to skin).

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Therefore, the word black is used to refer to the various shades of brown skinned Africans and other populations outside of Africa with similar skin colors.

That black is used to describe skin color here and there is an irrelevant red herring. The issue at hand is whether that's the only use of the term 'black'. Prove it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Again, the bottom line point here, notwithstanding your attempts to deny and avoid it, is that the whole debate over ancient Egypt is a debate over the skin color of the majority of the ancient population.

Maybe in Hollywood, the media and among trolls on the internet, but you were talking about white supremacists in science. Among the academics discussed throughout this thread, this simply wasn't true. And we'll see that in a minute when you're going to skirt around answering how these Giza reserve heads should be classified ethnically:
 -

http://www.almendron.com/artehistoria/wp-content/uploads/head.jpg

There is no skin color paint here for Eurocentric observers to manipulate (the busts are unpainted or the paint has faded), but the problem of 'racial' ambiguity is still there. But, of course, you already know this. Denial is just your way of coping.

And for the people who try to disown these ancient Egyptians: you're not going to worm out of this by saying that they look 'racially' ambiguous because they were admixed. This is completely irrelevant. African Americans are admixed as well; they generally look unambiguous enough to be called 'black' in the West and contrasted with 'whites'.

The word 'black' doesn't cover the complexities of African biodiversity. Even if you try to stick to the more objective skin pigmentation-based use of the term, at some point you're going to run into problems that can be avoided. The newbies can be forgiven for not realizing this. But if you're a "vet" and you still vehemently deny this, you're washed up and need to retire. Also, if you've been repeatedly told this in one-on-one coaching over a time span of years (like the troll who calls himself "Tropicals Redacted") and you still try to sweep this under the rug, you're a liar and you need to retire as well.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
There you have it. A use of 'black' completely divorced from skin pigmentation, which we've been told over 25 thread pages doesn't exist.

We've been told westerners religiously stick to the dictionary's pigmentation-based use of 'black' in real life. Right. [Roll Eyes] [/QB]

People are being disingenuous
 -

Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
@Fourty2Tribes, ^Not that I know of. Do you know?

Not until later. I contend that archelogical measurements while interesting and worthy of study can only generally determine the modern definitions of race. The two brothers with 'Caucasoid' and 'negroid' skulls was enough for me. The recreations looked like two everyday black brothers.

 -

I do wonder about this. I;ve seen this image aplenty but it looks like a recreation. If this is truly a representation of skin color this is the oldest depiction of white people ever.

Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
People are being disingenuous

Right. How people can supposedly live in the West and walk away with the idea that 'black' only denotes skin pigmentation in everyday use is beyond me.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
@Fourty2Tribes, ^Not that I know of. Do you know?

Not until later. I contend that archelogical measurements while interesting and worthy of study can only generally determine the modern definitions of race. The two brothers with 'Caucasoid' and 'negroid' skulls was enough for me. The recreations looked like two everyday black brothers.

 -

I do wonder about this. I;ve seen this image aplenty but it looks like a recreation. If this is truly a representation of skin color this is the oldest depiction of white people ever.

In my family we have supposed 'caucasoid' and 'negroid' features. Yet we make up one family. This is why I laugh at such presentations.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
People are being disingenuous

Right. How people can supposedly live in the West and walk away with the idea that 'black' only denotes skin pigmentation in everyday use is beyond me.
Indeed. The American/Western use of black does also doesn't go by the "true negroid" concept.

Not only that, but I am hearing that the American/Western use of "black" is becoming more common with other non-Western blacks.

@Ish Gebor

If you mind me asking, but does your family go by the western definition of "black."

Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
^ yes. But I do have Indian friends who consider themselves black too.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
^ yes. But I do have Indian friends who consider themselves black too.

So the Indian friend considers himself as the same as Africans?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Sudaniya. In regards to Nofret and Rahotep. You're probably aware of a third option, i.e. allegations of forgery. If not you can read more about it here:

http://www.raceandhistory.com/manu/book.htm

^And I'm posting this for the sake of nuance. Personally, I think strong allegations require extraordinary evidence. But everyone should make up their own mind.

Thanks for the link, Swenet. I do think that it may be a fake but since there is no definitive evidence for this position, I will have to defer judgement. Was Rahotep's mother from Upper Egypt or the Delta?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
What kind of bullshit is this
with the unpainted artifacts
that it can't be told what
colour the subject is?

It's really quite simple
is the image of someone
known to be a member
of a black people?

Inner African albinos for
instance are blacks only
a fool says they are white
because they are well
known not to originate
from a white people.

Its as stupid as lioness
one off examples of
kinky haired non-blacks
Never a crowd scene of
Richard Simmons people
because his kinky hair is
an anomaly far from the
norm.

Egyptians have been known
as B L A C K S by themselves
Hebrews Greeks Romans
Arabs Zanj and others
throughout time and
so shall they remain
B L A C K for the
rest of time
except for those
following the blatantly
Eurocentric view of
late that we can't tell
what color grouping
they belonged to or
they are a colour
all their own.

That and the reworking of
the True Negro myth that
only one inner African
phenotype is really
representative of
black and that we
must ignore facts like
most East Indians are
B L A C K and called so
in neighboring countries.

For those of us not suffering
a Simon Says psychosis and
are not ashamed of our colour
there is never a doubt about
when to use B L A C K, there
is never a time nor insta ce
not to use B L A C K.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
 -

 -

quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:


It's really quite simple
is the image of someone
known to be a member
of a black people?


partially

It's difficult to determine by looking how many memberships a person might have

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 11 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
[Roll Eyes] ?




http://matthewwilliamsellis.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/FAVOURITE-PHOTOS-OF-MOROCCO/G00004YrANpKF9qo/I0000YTtoPtoDidg/C0000iAqX9r4Hj2s


http://www.saamr.org/#!kwesi/cc83

Look-a-like.

http://matthewwilliamsellis.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Morocco-Essaouira/G0000NRDAsfKO2hc/I0000EU2DZJU_oE4/C0000iAqX9r4Hj2s

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
^ yes. But I do have Indian friends who consider themselves black too.

So the Indian friend considers himself as the same as Africans?
We never spoke like that, about the issue.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Sudaniya. In regards to Nofret and Rahotep. You're probably aware of a third option, i.e. allegations of forgery. If not you can read more about it here:

http://www.raceandhistory.com/manu/book.htm

^And I'm posting this for the sake of nuance. Personally, I think strong allegations require extraordinary evidence. But everyone should make up their own mind.

Thanks for the link, Swenet. I do think that it may be a fake but since there is no definitive evidence for this position, I will have to defer judgement. Was Rahotep's mother from Upper Egypt or the Delta?
No idea. But that possibility (intermingling with northern nobility) might explain the heterogeneity among Rahotep's siblings and nephews (e.g. ranging from Khufu to Prince Hemiunu). But I don't know their origins so the reverse (Sneferu being a northerner and intermingling with southern nobility) could just as well be true.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
People are being disingenuous

Right. How people can supposedly live in the West and walk away with the idea that 'black' only denotes skin pigmentation in everyday use is beyond me.
Indeed. The American/Western use of black does also doesn't go by the "true negroid" concept.

Not only that, but I am hearing that the American/Western use of "black" is becoming more common with other non-Western blacks.

How do you see the western use of the word in your view? What phenotypes and lineages are included and what isn't? And based on what?

To be clear, for our intents and purposes it's not important in and of itself what western lay people think about the 'taxonomy' of various tropically adapted people. But it becomes important in light of the agendas and sleight of hand involved in anthro topics.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
@Swenet

See this thread my good friend.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009245

That's how I view it.

Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
^Ok. Got it. You see the modern day western use of 'black' as similar to Jim Crow era perceptions.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Sudaniya. In regards to Nofret and Rahotep. You're probably aware of a third option, i.e. allegations of forgery. If not you can read more about it here:

http://www.raceandhistory.com/manu/book.htm

^And I'm posting this for the sake of nuance. Personally, I think strong allegations require extraordinary evidence. But everyone should make up their own mind.

Thanks for the link, Swenet. I do think that it may be a fake but since there is no definitive evidence for this position, I will have to defer judgement. Was Rahotep's mother from Upper Egypt or the Delta?
No idea. But that possibility (intermingling with northern nobility) might explain the heterogeneity among Rahotep's siblings and nephews (e.g. ranging from Khufu to Prince Hemiunu). But I don't know their origins so the reverse (Sneferu being a northerner and intermingling with southern nobility) could just as well be true.
I couldn't possibility dismiss the possibility that Sneferu was from the North but the South was historically dominant and so I would bet that Sneferu was from the South. The North was incredibly fortunate to have been conquered and dominated by the South; the North was a primitive and disunited backwater that was not responsible for any of the technical and cultural achievements of ancient Egypt.


I found a pathetic forgery on Wikipedia. It's been ascribed to Sneferu.


"[Reign of] Sneferu. Year. The building of Tuataua ships of mer wood of a hundred capacity, and 60 royal boats of sixteen capacity. Raid in the Land of the Blacks, and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats... The bringing of forty ships of cedar wood (or perhaps "laden with cedar wood")..."

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I still don't believe that any truly reasonable grounds have been provided for precluding the use of black on the ancient Egyptians. What could possibly justify avoiding this word for the ancient Egyptians? Their hair? Their nose and lips? Their varying shades of brown skin? These are all features that the ancient Egyptians share with Sudanese, Somalis and other Africans in Northeast Africa and the Sahel... features that are indigenous to Africa.

People argue and insist that nobody is literally black, but nobody is also literally white, so why is why is "white" appropriate for all Europeans whereas "black" must be limited to a certain group of Africans per the insistence of Europeans!?

Black is a legitimate word and cannot be held hostage to the wholly self-serving and limited use of black that Northwest Europeans would like us to use.

Europeans are going to lose their significance in the coming decades so we should just completely disregard everything they have to say about anything.


I don't think that modern European academics would ever hesitate to call the ancient Greeks and Romans "white".

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Again, the bottom line point here, notwithstanding your attempts to deny and avoid it, is that the whole debate over ancient Egypt is a debate over the skin color of the majority of the ancient population.

Maybe in Hollywood, the media and among trolls on the internet, but you were talking about white supremacists in science. Among the academics discussed throughout this thread, this simply wasn't true. And we'll see that in a minute when you're going to skirt around answering how these Giza reserve heads should be classified ethnically:
 -

http://www.almendron.com/artehistoria/wp-content/uploads/head.jpg

There is no skin color paint here for Eurocentric observers to manipulate (the busts are unpainted or the paint has faded), but the problem of 'racial' ambiguity is still there. But, of course, you already know this. Denial is just your way of coping.

And for the people who try to disown these ancient Egyptians: you're not going to worm out of this by saying that they look 'racially' ambiguous because they were admixed. This is completely irrelevant. African Americans are admixed as well; they generally look unambiguous enough to be called 'black' in the West and contrasted with 'whites'.

The word 'black' doesn't cover the complexities of African biodiversity. Even if you try to stick to the more objective skin pigmentation-based use of the term, at some point you're going to run into problems that can be avoided. The newbies can be forgiven for not realizing this. But if you're a "vet" and you still vehemently deny this, you're washed up and need to retire. Also, if you've been repeatedly told this in one-on-one coaching over a time span of years (like the troll who calls himself "Tropicals Redacted") and you still try to sweep this under the rug, you're a liar and you need to retire as well.

These people don't look ambiguous to me. They look like us. People look like this in North Sudan and Somalia. They would only be "ambiguous" if people were evoking Bantus.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, the Land of the Blacks translation is faulty
but what's your evidence the Palermo Stone
Royal Annals isn't an authentic relic?


quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:

I found a pathetic forgery on Wikipedia. It's been ascribed to Sneferu.


"[Reign of] Sneferu. Year. The building of Tuataua ships of mer wood of a hundred capacity, and 60 royal boats of sixteen capacity. Raid in the Land of the Blacks, and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats... The bringing of forty ships of cedar wood (or perhaps "laden with cedar wood")..."

I assume all fragments of the Royal Annals
are authentic primary document artifacts
but what makes you say this Seneferu
record held in Palermo isn't real?


 -

Ta Nahhas outlined in red at bottom.
Words for captive, female, and how
many of them outlined in red at top.


And this is not offered in challenge
as Lioness will poison it but in spirit
of discussion to increase knowledge
as I want to learn anything about a
Palermo Stone validity controversy
that I did not know before.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Yes, the Land of the Blacks translation is faulty
but what's your evidence the Palermo Stone
Royal Annals isn't an authentic relic?


quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:

I found a pathetic forgery on Wikipedia. It's been ascribed to Sneferu.


"[Reign of] Sneferu. Year. The building of Tuataua ships of mer wood of a hundred capacity, and 60 royal boats of sixteen capacity. Raid in the Land of the Blacks, and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats... The bringing of forty ships of cedar wood (or perhaps "laden with cedar wood")..."


what is the Egyptian word on the stone?

Wallace Budge said in his book Literature of the Ancient Egyptians

quote:

The earliest known annals are found on a stone which is preserved in the Museum at Palermo, and which
for this reason is called “The Palermo Stone”; the Egyptian text was first published by Signor A. Pellegrini in
1896....


Raid in the Land of the Blacks (i.e. the Sudan), and the bringing
in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand
cattle, sheep, and goats.



and


EDICT AGAINST THE BLACKS

This short inscription is dated in the eighth year of the reign of Usertsen III. “The southern frontier in the
eighth year under the Majesty of the King of the South and North, Khakaura (Usertsen III), endowed with life
for ever. No Black whatsoever shall be permitted to pass [this stone] going down stream, whether travelling
by land or sailing in a boat, with cattle, asses, goats, &c., belonging to the Blacks, with the exception of such
as cometh to do business in the country of Aqen[1] or on an embassy. Such, however, shall be well entreated
in every way. No boats belonging to the Blacks shall in future be permitted to pass down the river by the
region of Heh.”


________________________


Here is a reference to the Palermo glyphs

http://egypt-grammar.rutgers.edu/Artifacts/Palermo%20Stone.pdf


Here they translate "Land of the Nubians" rather than "Land of the Blacks"

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Shut up with you recycling refuted
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006880;p=1#000030
thread you posted years ago. I'm
moving ahead not allowing your
static no growth mark time march
to halt progress.

You know what word's on the Royal
Annals (Palermo Stone) or are you
just a useless data miner what can't
as much as read that you find?

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Yes, the Land of the Blacks translation is faulty
but what's your evidence the Palermo Stone
Royal Annals isn't an authentic relic?


quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:

I found a pathetic forgery on Wikipedia. It's been ascribed to Sneferu.


"[Reign of] Sneferu. Year. The building of Tuataua ships of mer wood of a hundred capacity, and 60 royal boats of sixteen capacity. Raid in the Land of the Blacks, and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats... The bringing of forty ships of cedar wood (or perhaps "laden with cedar wood")..."


sudaniya, ignore Tukuler. He is asking you for evidence the Palermo Stone isn't an authentic yet at the same time when he says the translation is faulty and did not give YOU evidence.
So the plane is still in the hanger.

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Sudaniya. In regards to Nofret and Rahotep. You're probably aware of a third option, i.e. allegations of forgery. If not you can read more about it here:

http://www.raceandhistory.com/manu/book.htm

^And I'm posting this for the sake of nuance. Personally, I think strong allegations require extraordinary evidence. But everyone should make up their own mind.

Thanks for the link, Swenet. I do think that it may be a fake but since there is no definitive evidence for this position, I will have to defer judgement. Was Rahotep's mother from Upper Egypt or the Delta?
No idea. But that possibility (intermingling with northern nobility) might explain the heterogeneity among Rahotep's siblings and nephews (e.g. ranging from Khufu to Prince Hemiunu). But I don't know their origins so the reverse (Sneferu being a northerner and intermingling with southern nobility) could just as well be true.
I couldn't possibility dismiss the possibility that Sneferu was from the North but the South was historically dominant and so I would bet that Sneferu was from the South. The North was incredibly fortunate to have been conquered and dominated by the South; the North was a primitive and disunited backwater that was not responsible for any of the technical and cultural achievements of ancient Egypt.


I found a pathetic forgery on Wikipedia. It's been ascribed to Sneferu.


"[Reign of] Sneferu. Year. The building of Tuataua ships of mer wood of a hundred capacity, and 60 royal boats of sixteen capacity. Raid in the Land of the Blacks, and the bringing in of seven thousand prisoners, men and women, and twenty thousand cattle, sheep, and goats... The bringing of forty ships of cedar wood (or perhaps "laden with cedar wood")..."

http://egypt-grammar.rutgers.edu/Artifacts/Palermo%20Stone.pdf


here's another translation, "Nubians" instead of "Blacks"


 -
 -

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Again, the bottom line point here, notwithstanding your attempts to deny and avoid it, is that the whole debate over ancient Egypt is a debate over the skin color of the majority of the ancient population.

Maybe in Hollywood, the media and among trolls on the internet, but you were talking about white supremacists in science. Among the academics discussed throughout this thread, this simply wasn't true. And we'll see that in a minute when you're going to skirt around answering how these Giza reserve heads should be classified ethnically:
 -

http://www.almendron.com/artehistoria/wp-content/uploads/head.jpg

There is no skin color paint here for Eurocentric observers to manipulate (the busts are unpainted or the paint has faded), but the problem of 'racial' ambiguity is still there. But, of course, you already know this. Denial is just your way of coping.

And for the people who try to disown these ancient Egyptians: you're not going to worm out of this by saying that they look 'racially' ambiguous because they were admixed. This is completely irrelevant. African Americans are admixed as well; they generally look unambiguous enough to be called 'black' in the West and contrasted with 'whites'.

The word 'black' doesn't cover the complexities of African biodiversity. Even if you try to stick to the more objective skin pigmentation-based use of the term, at some point you're going to run into problems that can be avoided. The newbies can be forgiven for not realizing this. But if you're a "vet" and you still vehemently deny this, you're washed up and need to retire. Also, if you've been repeatedly told this in one-on-one coaching over a time span of years (like the troll who calls himself "Tropicals Redacted") and you still try to sweep this under the rug, you're a liar and you need to retire as well.

These people don't look ambiguous to me. They look like us. People look like this in North Sudan and Somalia. They would only be "ambiguous" if people were evoking Bantus.
What was the purpose of these reserve heads? From what I read, it's unclear what they mean. The suggestion is symbolism. But you're right, in appearance they do look like what you will in in North Sudan etc...


Logically this is the conclusion:


quote:
"The ancient Egyptians were not 'white' in any European sense, nor were they 'Caucasian'... we can say that the earliest population of ancient Egypt included African people from the upper Nile, African people from the regions of the Sahara and modern Libya, and smaller numbers of people who had come from south-western Asia and perhaps the Arabian penisula."
--Robert Morkot (2005). The Egyptians: An Introduction. pp. 12-13


 -

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Battlefield Palette

Naqada III
Date3100BC (circa)


The lower half of a palette of grey mudstone: together with a cast of another fragment in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. The palette is decorated on both faces with scenes in low relief. On one face, two long-necked gazelles (gerenuk) are browsing on a central date-palm. Behind the head of one animal (on the Oxford fragment) is a bird with a hooked beak, possibly a form of guinea-fowl. The other face bears a scene showing prisoners and the casualties of battle, the latter being preyed upon by vultures, ravens and a lion. It has been suggested that the lion represents the king defeating his enemies, but it may simply be intended as a scavenger like the vultures. Near the top of the main fragment, a bound captive stands in front of a figure clad in a long cloak, whilst the smaller (Oxford) fragment bears two figures of captives gripped by the standards of the ibis and the falcon. The space towards the top of the palette seems to have been devoted to more representations of the slain. On the right-hand edge of the Oxford fragment, in front of the two captives, is the circular plain area surrounded by a raised ridge, derived from cosmetic palettes. The defeated people are bearded, have curled hair, and are circumcised. A cast of the fragment in the Ashmolean Museum is attached.

 -

 -

I had said earlier that the nature of the hair here can't be told if it's curly hair or afro hair in particular.
Nobody knows who these people are.
They appear to have penis sheaths which have led to some speculate that they are Libyans but penis sheaths are not unique to LIbyan only, if I am not mistaken and Libyans are depicted in much or Egyptian art as straight haired.
Another proposal I had seen in a book is that that they are Nubians. sudaniya what do you think?

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yawn^ Now the people who have inhabited the Naqada region are all of a sudden unknown. lol sure!


http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/02/afe.html

Naqada III art work. lol

 -

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
btw Doug's lurking
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 41 pages: 1  2  3  ...  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  ...  39  40  41   

Post New Topic  New Poll  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3