Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Originally posted 07 March, 2006 by alTakruri:
quote: "And they said, 'The number of blacks is greater than the number of whites, because most of those who are counted as whites are comprised of peoples from Persia, the mountains, Khurasan, Rome, Slavia, France, and Iberia, and anything apart from them is insignificant.
But among the blacks are counted * Zanj * Ethiopians * Fezzani * Berbers * Copts * Nubians * Zaghawa * Moors
the people of * Sind * the Hindus * the Qamar * the Dabila * the IndoChinese and those beyond them.
The sea is more extensive than the land, and the islands in the sea between IndoChina and Zanzibar are full of blacks, like the * Sarandib * Kalah * Amal * Zabij and its islands up to Hindustan and IndoChina * Kabul and those coasts.
"They said, 'The Arabs come from us -- not from the whites -- because of the similarity of their colour to ours. The Hindus are more yellow in color than the Arabs, yet they are counted among the black peoples."
Abu Uthman Amr ibn Bahr al-Jahiz Kitab Fakhr as-Sudan 'Ala al-Bidan Baghdad: self-published, 815 C.E.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ hearsay written in Arabic by an Arab about other people doesn't count
It has to be self identified, primary source
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
BTW, in general I think it's a bad idea to go down that road of self-identifications.
yes, even then where is a standard? Some figure of antiquity, in another culture, eyeballing and beginning the trend of racial categorization by skin "black" and "white"
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^What the heck do you mean "hearsay", why don't you actually refute what he posted.
I've actually seen that quote many times.
"They said" is hearsay as opposed to "I say"
Now, if somebody were to make such a remark in the 9th century, which groups are "black" and which groups are "white" there is no scientific basis to it, no methodology. It is no better than some anonymous person in a forum giving opinion on who is black and who is not. In other words, just opinion, proof of absolutely nothing
Anways those groups listed by the author(Al Jahiz iirc) weren't just HIS mere opinions, but groups that were considered "black" back during the authors time. The author was just noting that.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^What is the point of that picture?
Anways those groups listed by the author(Al Jahiz iirc) weren't just HIS mere opinions, but groups that were considered "black" back during the authors time. The author was just noting that.
His grandfather was reportedly African and these ethnic profiles of the Zanj and others are flamboyant rhetoric and not like his more scientific treatises on animals and so on.
As for the picture, it relates to the the theme of the thread. Look at these to individuals and ponder " When to use "black" and when not to..."
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: His grandfather was reportedly African and these ethnic profiles of the Zanj and others are flamboyant rhetoric and not like his more scientific treatises on animals and so on.
Okay? Wasn't it said that Al Jahiz was a Zanj who were those from the Eastern coast of Africa? And who's being scientific? Again he was noting how people grouped "black" and "white" during his times.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: As for the picture, it relates to the the theme of the thread. Look at these to individuals and ponder " When to use "black" and when not to..." [/QB]
No, this thread is about excluding racial terms as black from bio-anthropology(since in science we don't use those terms), but including it in historical discussions like this one with Al Jahiz.
I don't know why you're doing this skin color game, when we know the man on the right is "racially" black, while the other is not. Yeah Al Jahiz was most likely using "black" in terms of skin complexion, but that was during his time but more importantly excluding dark skinned East Indians he was almost accurate.
But another thing, he did include these type of people under "blacks."
And claimed they were among the "fairest" of the black people. Hinting that the definition of black him and his people went by had variation in skin color.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Who looks like the ancient Egyptians in terms of craniofacial structure?
Is it: group a (tropically adapted people in the skin pigmentation range of African Americans), group b (coastal North Africans), group c (coastal North Africans and West Eurasians with varying degrees of resemblance to OOA Africans and post-OOA North African ancestry) group d (speakers of Afro-Asiatic languages and nearby groups)
No matter how you try to slice it (a, b, c or d), you're not going to get a neat Africa/Eurasia binary distinction. Therefore, any use of 'black' that pretends that such a binary distinction is real is misleading at best or deliberately deceptive in the case of some trolls who are deliberately lying. (The same goes for people who say group c is a 'Caucasoid' cluster). People who use 'black' to refer to skin pigmentation are off the hook as far as that problem is concerned, but as I've pointed out many times, when you look at how these people use 'black' they flip flop all the time depending on convenience. They have some explaining to do as well. I'm definitely not buying that they're using it solely to refer to skin pigmentation.
But I'm getting tired of repeating myself at this point. You either have done your homework on this anthro-stuff or you haven't. No in betweens. And the "vets" who made all this noise in this thread are clearly not in a position to be teaching anyone anything on this subject. They don't get to pontificate about what was racism or deliberate denial in anthro texts as far as the modern human taxons that were devised.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
I don't know why you're doing this skin color game, when we know the man on the right is "racially" black, while the other is not. Yeah Al Jahiz was most likely using "black" in terms of skin complexion, but that was during his time but more importantly excluding dark skinned East Indians he was almost accurate.
You've got to be kidding. We have a 30 page thread here where Doug argues that "black" is skin color alone and Tukuler also endorses that view, B L A C K every time
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Are you kidding me? Doug and Tukuler can argue for themselves. My responds to YOU is about Al Jahiz and his grouping of "black" people. You said his statements are just "hearsay" because you don't like what it says, but you also don't cite any sources from other writers that refutes what Al Jahiz said.
Again can you cite sources that states Al Jahiz statement was just "hearsay?"
I don't care whether Al Jahiz was using a racial or skin complexion version of black, show me a source that states his grouping of "black" people at that time was just hearsay.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^^Are you kidding me? Doug and Tukuler can argue for themselves. My responds to YOU is about Al Jahiz and his grouping of "black" people. You said his statements are just "hearsay" because you don't like what it says, but you also don't cite any sources from other writers that refutes what Al Jahiz said.
Again can you cite sources that states Al Jahiz statement was just "hearsay?"
I don't care whether Al Jahiz was using a racial or skin complexion version of black, show me a source that states his grouping of "black" people at that time was just hearsay.
It's in the quote "And they said..." When you see that phrase, it is hearsay by definition, obviously
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^^Are you kidding me? Doug and Tukuler can argue for themselves. My responds to YOU is about Al Jahiz and his grouping of "black" people. You said his statements are just "hearsay" because you don't like what it says, but you also don't cite any sources from other writers that refutes what Al Jahiz said.
Again can you cite sources that states Al Jahiz statement was just "hearsay?"
I don't care whether Al Jahiz was using a racial or skin complexion version of black, show me a source that states his grouping of "black" people at that time was just hearsay.
It's in the quote "And they said..." When you see that phrase, it is hearsay by definition, obviously
I admit this is true, but I have not seen any other writer during that time or any modern writer discredit Al Jahiz grouping of blacks around the world.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^^Are you kidding me? Doug and Tukuler can argue for themselves. My responds to YOU is about Al Jahiz and his grouping of "black" people. You said his statements are just "hearsay" because you don't like what it says, but you also don't cite any sources from other writers that refutes what Al Jahiz said.
Again can you cite sources that states Al Jahiz statement was just "hearsay?"
I don't care whether Al Jahiz was using a racial or skin complexion version of black, show me a source that states his grouping of "black" people at that time was just hearsay.
It's in the quote "And they said..." When you see that phrase, it is hearsay by definition, obviously
I admit this is true, but I have not seen any other writer during that time or any modern writer discredit Al Jahiz grouping of blacks around the world.
Why are you referring to this quote as " Al Jahiz grouping of blacks around the world." ?
If this quote was his grouping he would not say "they say"
I also recommend reading the whole thing not just a small piece of it
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tukuler, like Doug believes thr world is comprised of two races, "blacks" and "whites". Whites are Europeans and blacks are everybody else. Therefore whites are vastly outnumbered. Therefore when all non-Europeans realize their blackness and unify, it should not be too difficult to overthrow the whites.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^What is the point of that picture?
Anways those groups listed by the author(Al Jahiz iirc) weren't just HIS mere opinions, but groups that were considered "black" back during the authors time. The author was just noting that.
Al Jahiz was clear of who he spoke, he spoke of the ethnic groups and tribes. Lioness is now posting random pictures, of unidentified individuals who's ethnic group nor background we don't know. The usual picture spam. Completely irralivant.
quote:there are black tribes among the Arabs, such as the Banu Sulaim bin Mansur, and that all the peoples settled in the Harra, besides the Banu Sulaimare black.
--Al-Jahiz (776-869): Al-Fakhar al-Sudan min al-Abyadh (Superiority Of The Blacks To The Whites)
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^^Are you kidding me? Doug and Tukuler can argue for themselves. My responds to YOU is about Al Jahiz and his grouping of "black" people. You said his statements are just "hearsay" because you don't like what it says, but you also don't cite any sources from other writers that refutes what Al Jahiz said.
Again can you cite sources that states Al Jahiz statement was just "hearsay?"
I don't care whether Al Jahiz was using a racial or skin complexion version of black, show me a source that states his grouping of "black" people at that time was just hearsay.
It's in the quote "And they said..." When you see that phrase, it is hearsay by definition, obviously
I admit this is true, but I have not seen any other writer during that time or any modern writer discredit Al Jahiz grouping of blacks around the world.
Why are you referring to this quote as " Al Jahiz grouping of blacks around the world." ?
If this quote was his grouping he would not say "they say"
I also recommend reading the whole thing not just a small piece of it
You clearly know what I meant. The STATEMENT itself was still by Al Jahiz himself. So your point? Why nitpick?
And again while it MIGHT be hearsay I still have not seen other writer during his time or modern disagree with that source.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^What is the point of that picture?
Anways those groups listed by the author(Al Jahiz iirc) weren't just HIS mere opinions, but groups that were considered "black" back during the authors time. The author was just noting that.
Al Jahiz was clear of who he spoke, he spoke of the ethnic groups and tribes. Lioness is now posting random pictures. The usual picture spam. Completely irralivant.
quote:there are black tribes among the Arabs, such as the Banu Sulaim bin Mansur, and that all the peoples settled in the Harra, besides the Banu Sulaimare black.
--Al-Jahiz (776-869): Al-Fakhar al-Sudan min al-Abyadh (Superiority Of The Blacks To The Whites)
She mostly now trying to say its all "hearsay" and so not valid. Though again I still have not seen other writers especially modern discredit the source.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^What is the point of that picture?
Anways those groups listed by the author(Al Jahiz iirc) weren't just HIS mere opinions, but groups that were considered "black" back during the authors time. The author was just noting that.
Al Jahiz was clear of who he spoke, he spoke of the ethnic groups and tribes. Lioness is now posting random pictures. The usual picture spam. Completely irralivant.
quote:there are black tribes among the Arabs, such as the Banu Sulaim bin Mansur, and that all the peoples settled in the Harra, besides the Banu Sulaimare black.
--Al-Jahiz (776-869): Al-Fakhar al-Sudan min al-Abyadh (Superiority Of The Blacks To The Whites)
She mostly now trying to say its all "hearsay" and so not valid. Though again I still have not seen other writers especially modern discredit the source.
That is the typical Eurocentric approach, when they are loosing it.
Al Jahiz is/ was very specific and detailed.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
The STATEMENT itself was still by Al Jahiz himself.
The statement was written by al-Jahiz and the statement says that some people "they" had a particular opinion. Who is the they? Is it all people of Basra? Is it all Zanj people? They are monolithic in opinion? Do some of them have their own writing in their own language?
And for all of the words written in that piece (comprising a lot more than the small segments you have read) it is no better than you or I applying either "black" or "white" to ethnic groups, pure opinion nothing more, no methodology whatsoever.
So these ancient people saying this or that or Al Jahiz himself saying this or that pertaining to this subject has no value whatsoever. It's completely subjective.
If your goal is to divide the world into two pieces "black" and "white" you need no old writings
You need to have a methodology that can be measured.
So you look at a black and white photo of someone and if they are are gray and that gray is 51% black then they are black and if it's 51% white they are white. Endless semantics and rhetoric is not science, it's people masturbating over skin color, endless masturbation
Doug had said that "black" is color alone, either "black" or "white" That is the two choices.
Tukuler has said the same thing, yet in practice his version of "black" is someone of an ethnic group whose skin is described as "black" by old writers. So they could be light skinned but as long as an old writer said the skin of their ethnic group was black they are a black. -However if they are part of more than one ethnic group, who is really encompassed in an ethnic group and he multitude of ethnic groups not described in these writings it presents a big problem to this old text approach.
At least Doug's approach to dividing the world into two races could employ actual applied measurement
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
No hearsay involved anywhere.
"They said " is a citation where they = Zanj, I.e., "The Zanj said".
But you need familiarity with the work itself beyond mere mining stand alone quotes.
Regardless, the point is clear East Africans had what has erroneously been posited as a 18th - 20th century Euro construct.
Neither 9th century Zanj nor later post renaissance Euros thought all these B L A C K s were recently biological relatives. Even 'modern' race science said no such thing nor posit discrete racial divisions but see interconnection.
More like clouds than like a tree describes our human family.
Lioness is now posting random pictures, of unidentified individuals who's ethnic group nor background we don't know.
Doug says that the term "black" or "white" is based on color alone. Therefore their ethnic group is completely and totally irrelevant. One only need to measure how dark their skin is and make an assessment.
Divisive as that is one could use scientific methods to analyze how dark or light a person's skin color is, choose a dividing line and then give each range name "black" or "white"
Yet determining what the boundaries of an ethnic groups is and ascribing it "black" or "white" is much more vague and subjective and is much further complicated by the fact that huge masses of people, probably almost all people in this forums are comprised of more than one so called "ethnicity" -and it certainly is not color alone
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: But see, "Black" itself is a European construct imposed onto all those dark-skinned populations. It's not like these groups would have called themselves "Black" absent European colonial influence. So don't kid yourself into believing the appropriation of a European adjective is "decolonization" in the least.
That said, I must confess to having "sinned" by calling AE and related populations "Black" despite my earlier resolving not to. Partly it may be out of an earlier habit, and partly it may be because years of influence from ES are hard for me to shake off. But I've also found that "Black" is a convenient shorthand for indigenous Africans and their Diasporan offshoots. It's far from a perfect word and I wouldn't use it in the context of anthropological discourse. But it's a shortcut everyone recognizes even if there's disagreement on what precisely it means. [/QB]
I agree that the western use of 'black' is a tradition of its own. Presumably you can see this in that 'negro' originally referred to dark skin. 'Negro' has a Latin (European) origin and is now found in many European languages. And since no one has proved there is continuity with al Jahiz and early Greek purely skin pigmentation based use of 'black', it's just retarded to even bring those earlier traditions up to make some sort of sloppy argument that "the western use is a conspiracy and deliberately breaks with tradition".
As if people in the West are descendants of early Greeks or al Jahiz. These people have no idea how weak their arguments are. It would be one thing to simply say you don't recognize the narrow western use of 'black' and that you stick to an ancient tradition of the term that's just as legitimate, but these people always have to take it a step further and lie. That's when you end up with Doug's bizarre claim that 'black' ALWAYS refers to skin pigmentation.
The statement was written by al-Jahiz and the statement says that some people "they" had a particular opinion. Who is the they? [/QB]
See Tukulor's recent post. "They" refers to the Zanj.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
If you read the work bitch you'd know. Stop pretending to know more about it than those who have read it and other Arabic and Hebrew notice.
All you have is rhetoric though volumes exist from all points in history on which populations are of what colour you fail to produce any contradictory record, no, not even one.
Chain rattler fluff. That's that lyin'ass stuff.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
The STATEMENT itself was still by Al Jahiz himself.
The statement was written by al-Jahiz and the statement says that some people "they" had a particular opinion. Who is the they? Is it all people of Basra? Is it all Zanj people? They are monolithic in opinion?
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] No hearsay involved anywhere.
"They said " is a citation where they = Zanj, I.e., "The Zanj said".
Saying a whole ethnic group has a particular opinion is not a citation.
A citation is where a named person says something and it's quoted verbatim.
Also you are claiming that the "they say" = " the Zanj" yet you have not quoted the portion of text that would prove that that is who "they" is or to prove that the "they" is indicated anywhere in the text as opposed to never being clarified
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
"And they said, 'The number of blacks is greater than the number of whites, because most of those who are counted as whites are comprised of peoples from Persia, the mountains, Khurasan, Rome, Slavia, France, and Iberia, and anything apart from them is insignificant.
"And they said, 'The number of blacks is greater than the number of whites, because most of those who are counted as whites are comprised of peoples from Persia, the mountains, Khurasan, Rome, Slavia, France, and Iberia, and anything apart from them is insignificant.
But among the blacks are counted * Zanj * Ethiopians * Fezzani * Berbers * Copts * Nubians * Zaghawa * Moors
the people of * Sind * the Hindus * the Qamar * the Dabila * the IndoChinese and those beyond them.
The sea is more extensive than the land, and the islands in the sea between IndoChina and Zanzibar are full of blacks, like the * Sarandib * Kalah * Amal * Zabij and its islands up to Hindustan and IndoChina * Kabul and those coasts.
"They said, 'The Arabs come from us -- not from the whites -- because of the similarity of their colour to ours. The Hindus are more yellow in color than the Arabs, yet they are counted among the black peoples."
Abu Uthman Amr ibn Bahr al-Jahiz Kitab Fakhr as-Sudan 'Ala al-Bidan Baghdad: self-published, 815 C.E.
that is improper citation, no publication given, no translator
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: If you read the work bitch you'd know. Stop pretending to know more about it than those who have read it and other Arabic and Hebrew notice.
I have read much more of that text Jahiz text but it is irrelevant what I have read. You are presenting this in public. You have edited this and other texst and formatted things in list form. That is not the original format. That is why it is only fair to the readership that you do what Is Gebor does, post the quotation in original form and the publication it is from. That is minimum for the readership
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
It irks the afraid of B L A C K crowd when they're shown historical continuity recognizing Asian and African B L A C K s be it Sanskrit Hebrew Greek Latin Arabic Romance or Germanic including the Oxford dictionary.
posted
So if we go backwards in time was their a point at which people were afraid to be Negro but overcame that as proud to be Negro? and now we are beyond that point and people must not be afraid to be black?
The "black" thing is largey reminiscing over the 60s, JB, Panthers and the 68 Olympics. Yet "Black" in actuality is politically weak. It';s marketing for Beyonce now. There is no connection to Africa, a landmass with sovereign countries and resources and this is why you don't find Chinese people being proud of being "yellow" or native Americans being "red". Some kind of illusion has occurred that one is privileged if identified by color, that Europeans claiming "white" must be the key to their power-not
And these other people like dark skinned East Indians in America. The vast majority have no interest in affiliating with AAs and identifying as blacks, get real, and on a genetic level they are closer to light skinned Europeans, colorism paradigms are obsolete
"black" is comfortable because people are ashamed of being Africa but Africa is coming up fast.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So if we go backwards in time was their a point at which people were afraid to be Negro but overcame that as proud to be Negro?
Good question. Another good question is when 'negro' went from just a range of brown skin on the one hand, to jetblack skin + a set of bodily features on the other hand. In my view this happened several times. You can see Ptolemy already do this when he says that pure Aethiopians and 'black' people aren't in the Fezzan, Upper Egypt and northern Sudan but in the tribes near Meroe. This is presumably a reference to people related or ancestral to modern day southern Sudanese.
So much for the fairy tale that the narrow western use of 'black' has no ancient precedent and was a conspiracy.
The lying on this forum by certain individuals is really obnoxious.
quote:"For in the correspondingly situated places on our side of the equator, that is those on the Summer Tropic, people do not yet have the color of the Aithiopians, and there are no rhinoceros and elephants; but in places not much to the south of these, moderately black people are to be found, such as those who live in the "Thirty Schoinoi" [region in lower Nubia] outside of Soene. Of the same type, too, are the people of Garame, whom Marinos also says (and indeed, for this very reason) live neither right on the Summer Tropic nor to the north, but entirely to the south of it. But in places around Meroe people are already quite black in color, and are at last pure Aithiopians, and the habitat of the elephants and more wonderful animals is there."
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Let's learn more of the 9th century Zanj worldview on B L A C K thanks to al~Jahiz we have this over one thousand year old African take on the topic. Below is just another except, find and download as many differing translations of the complete book.
The Zanj say: The Prophet (p.b.u.h.) said: I was sent to the red and the black. And everybody knows that the Zanj, Abyssinians and Nubians are surely not white nor red but definitely black.
We know that Allah, the Most Powerful and Exalted, sent His Prophet (to the people), all of them: Arabs and non-Arabs (ajam) alike. And if he (Muhammad) said: I was sent to the ruddy (Al-ahmar) and the dark-skinned (al-aswad), then in his view we are neither ruddy nor light-skinned (bid); so he was sent to us. Indeed, his use of the dark-skinned refers to us, as the people (of our community) are in one of these categories (i.e. either ruddy or dark-skinned). Therefore, if the Arabs are ruddy, then they belong to the Byzantines (Rum), Slavs (Saqaliba), Persians and Khurasanis. But if they belong to the dark-skinned peoples, then they are a sub-category of our stock. So they are called medium- complexioned and brownish-black (sumr sud) when they are classified with us, as the Arabs use the masculine gender to refer to a group consisting of females and males and if the Prophet – may Allah be pleased with him – knew that the Zanj, Ethiopians and Nubians were not ruddy or light-skinned, rather dark-skinned, and that Allah Most High sent him to the dark-skinned and the ruddy, then surely he made us and the Arabs equals.
Thus to this day the white-reds (Greeks and Turks) classify both Arab and African colloquially as nigger as nearly do USA whites prefacing it with sand yet all the while counting them white when it comes to the census.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So if we go backwards in time was their a point at which people were afraid to be Negro but overcame that as proud to be Negro?
Good question. Another good question is when 'negro' went from just a range of brown skin to jetblack skin + a set of bodily features. In my view this happened several times. You can see Ptolemy already do this when he says that pure Aethiopians and 'black' people aren't in the Fezzan, Upper Egypt and northern Sudan but in the tribes near Meroe. This is presumably a reference to people related or ancestral to modern day southern Sudanese.
So much for the fairy tale that the narrow western use of 'black' has no ancient precedent and was a conspiracy.
The lying on this forum by certain individuals is really obnoxious.
quote:"For in the correspondingly situated places on our side of the equator, that is those on the Summer Tropic, people do not yet have the color of the Aithiopians, and there are no rhinoceros and elephants; but in places not much to the south of these, moderately black people are to be found, such as those who live in the "Thirty Schoinoi" [region in lower Nubia] outside of Soene. Of the same type, too, are the people of Garame, whom Marinos also says (and indeed, for this very reason) live neither right on the Summer Tropic nor to the north, but entirely to the south of it. But in places around Meroe people are already quite black in color, and are at last pure Aithiopians, and the habitat of the elephants and more wonderful animals is there."
--Ptolemy
Interesting!
Some people have it that black in Ancient times only referred to skin color alone. And I'm not talking about the people in this thread, but Eurocentrics that hold this view online.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest, the Ptolemy quote still looks like he's referencing gradations in skin color to me. I don't see facial features mentioned in that passage, but I do see mention of skin color getting dark as you move southward. So I believe he is still working with a strict, color-based definition of "black" that disagrees with the modern Western usage.
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: To be honest, the Ptolemy quote still looks like he's referencing gradations in skin color to me. I don't see facial features mentioned in that passage, but I do see mention of skin color getting dark as you move southward. So I believe he is still working with a strict, color-based definition of "black" that disagrees with the modern Western usage.
That is exactly what I just posted a strict, color-based definition of "black"
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: What would your opinion of that be?
It would remove a lot of what is problematic with the term and it would be much more objective (in the sense that it would at least be based on an agreed-upon standard).
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: To be honest, the Ptolemy quote still looks like he's referencing gradations in skin color to me. I don't see facial features mentioned in that passage, but I do see mention of skin color getting dark as you move southward. So I believe he is still working with a strict, color-based definition of "black" that disagrees with the modern Western usage.
You're right that he doesn't explicitly mention facial features. But notice that he simultaneously speaks of two clines and that both go from north to south. One cline concerns levels of skin pigmentation and another cline concerns what he calls "pure Aethiopians".
How do you interpret both clines? If you interpret both as strictly based on skin pigmentation, it seems to me that it would make that sentence redundant.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Indeed. I too got that he was referring to facial features also. Notice how he uses the word "type."
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Notice how he uses the word "type."
You're on point with that one. I completely overlooked that. But Nodnarb made me less certain about my reading. It would be interesting to get the views of a classical scholar to be a 100% certain as sometimes things get lost or added in translation.
What makes me read "pure Aethiopian" as a reference that includes facial features is that it was usually reference to people (who were dark), not to their dark skin color in and if itself. (For dark skin color the Greeks used 'melas' and related words). If Ptolemy's "Aethiopian" describes people here you'd have to read "pure" as also meaning that only the tribes around Meroe fully matched that Aethiopian appearance.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: What would your opinion of that be?
It would remove a lot of what is problematic with the term and it would be much more objective.
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: To be honest, the Ptolemy quote still looks like he's referencing gradations in skin color to me. I don't see facial features mentioned in that passage, but I do see mention of skin color getting dark as you move southward. So I believe he is still working with a strict, color-based definition of "black" that disagrees with the modern Western usage.
You're right that he doesn't explicitly mention facial features. But notice that he simultaneously speaks of two clines and that both go from north to south. One cline concerns levels of skin pigmentation and another cline concerns what he calls "pure Aethiopians".
How do you interpret both clines? If you interpret both as strictly based on skin pigmentation, it seems to me that it would make that sentence redundant.
To me it seemed like he was saying, "These people are very black in color and therefore are pure Aethiopians." But I see where you're coming from.
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Notice how he uses the word "type."
To me that read, "those other people are of the same 'moderately black/dark' type as the Lower Nubians".
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Read it again. Him correlating "type" with skin color would be redundant. When he says "of the same type", he is most likely referring to more than just skin color. Like different looks he noticed.
posted
^One thing that also favors reading two separate clines in that Ptolemy text is that there is a Greek tradition of describing Nile Valley Aethiopians like tall Nilo-Saharan speakers. I don't think Ptolemy's audience would have been able to read "pure Aethiopian" in isolation of that context so that it only reads 'jetblack skin'. By the time of Ptolemy, Greek geographers and historians had documented the appearance of Nile Valley Aethiopians for hundreds of years.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Limestone, painted and gilded H. 72 cm; W. 50 cm; thickness 14 cm
Succession[
The elder of his two sons, Ptolemy VI Philometor (181–145 BC), succeeded as an infant under the regency of his mother Cleopatra the Syrian. Her death was followed by a rupture between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid courts, on the old question of Coele-Syria.
This stela comes from the Bucheum, the cemetery of the sacred bulls of Armant on the west bank of the Nile in Upper Egypt.
At the top of the stela the whole scene is dominated by a winged sun disk. Below this is a scarab, and the emblem of Osiris, flanked by two uraeus serpents. Two lateral images show Anubis.
In the middle we can see Buchis, and in front of him the King Ptolemy V offers the bull the sekhet, the symbol of the fields.
In the end of the stela inscriptions contains Ptolemy’s and Queen Cleopatra’s dedication to the sacred bull that was born in year 11 of their reign and died in year 25.
British Museum, London. 200 B.C. This relief shows a scene of an offering where the Pharaoh Ptolemy V offers the spiritual inner eyes of Horus, to Horus, seated on the throne. Horus was the son of Isis and Osiris. They form the fundamental triad of the Egyptian religion. Traditionally, Horus is considered the first Pharaoh of Egypt and at later times, the spiritual King where the Pharaoh is only his representative. This sculpture originates from the Ptolemaic period which began when Alexander the Great conquered Egypt from the Persians in 332 B.C. The Pharaohs of this period were Greek but even so they not only respected the Egyptian traditions but also dedicated large funds for the reconstruction of many temples especially in Upper Egypt like the temple of Hathor at Dendera, the temple of Horus at Edfu and the temple of Khnum at Esna.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Could someone explain to me what exactly is the "sub-saharan norm" as far as phenotypic expression? Considering the sheer diversity even within "Sub-Saharan Africa" what is the metric for that statement that bifurcates them from Northeast Africans?
The"norm" would be extremely wide- including narrow noses and light brown skin. Just like Europe gets to have a big range, from pasty pale whites of the north to dark Southern Europeans. The best "norm" to recognize is that sub-Saharan Africans have the highest phenotypic diversity, and cannot be pigeonholed, as is standard practice in popular culture and in many parts of academia,
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Lioness is now posting random pictures, of unidentified individuals who's ethnic group nor background we don't know.
Doug says that the term "black" or "white" is based on color alone. Therefore their ethnic group is completely and totally irrelevant. One only need to measure how dark their skin is and make an assessment.
Divisive as that is one could use scientific methods to analyze how dark or light a person's skin color is, choose a dividing line and then give each range name "black" or "white"
Yet determining what the boundaries of an ethnic groups is and ascribing it "black" or "white" is much more vague and subjective and is much further complicated by the fact that huge masses of people, probably almost all people in this forums are comprised of more than one so called "ethnicity" -and it certainly is not color alone
Al Jahiz spoke of root and origin. You post random pictures. It makes no sense.
But all times sake:
Head of a Beduin from Syria KhM 3896b TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I looked hard for this
came up with:
__________________________________
Male head with Negroid features : ( CE12093 ) Hometown : The seabed in the vicinity of the tip of the Nao (La Caleta ) Size : 22.5 x 16.5 cm (8.9 inches x 6.5 inches) Dating: sixth century B.C. Museum Museum of Cádiz
Cultural Context / Iron Old Style . Phoenician- Punic Hometown Playa de La Caleta , Cádiz ( m ) ( Cadiz Northwest Coast (district) , Cádiz ( province): Punta del Nao Underwater Archaeological Survey , Rodicio Mera, Antonio Specific / Site Location Playa La Caleta
________________________________________ It's 9 inches tall maybe it's not a jar or pithos.
Also jars and vases have a lip edge at the hole, if not liquids leak on the body of the vessel at the end of a pour
Maybe it's not a not a storage container
Could it be a thymiaterion ( ncense burner) ? But those are usually more bowl like at top, or a bowl with a lid. function unknown
it's a beautiful sculpture
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So if we go backwards in time was their a point at which people were afraid to be Negro but overcame that as proud to be Negro?
Good question. Another good question is when 'negro' went from just a range of brown skin on the one hand, to jetblack skin + a set of bodily features on the other hand. In my view this happened several times. You can see Ptolemy already do this when he says that pure Aethiopians and 'black' people aren't in the Fezzan, Upper Egypt and northern Sudan but in the tribes near Meroe. This is presumably a reference to people related or ancestral to modern day southern Sudanese.
So much for the fairy tale that the narrow western use of 'black' has no ancient precedent and was a conspiracy.
The lying on this forum by certain individuals is really obnoxious.
quote:"For in the correspondingly situated places on our side of the equator, that is those on the Summer Tropic, people do not yet have the color of the Aithiopians, and there are no rhinoceros and elephants; but in places not much to the south of these, moderately black people are to be found, such as those who live in the "Thirty Schoinoi" [region in lower Nubia] outside of Soene. Of the same type, too, are the people of Garame, whom Marinos also says (and indeed, for this very reason) live neither right on the Summer Tropic nor to the north, but entirely to the south of it. But in places around Meroe people are already quite black in color, and are at last pure Aithiopians, and the habitat of the elephants and more wonderful animals is there."
--Ptolemy
Can you post the original text and or source. Thanks in advance.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Head of an "Ethiopian" depicted in Hellenistic mode
All black Africans were termed Ethiopians by the ancient Greeks, and Greek artists had defined for them a distinct iconography well before the cosmopolitan Hellenistic period, when, especially in Ptolemaic Egypt, regular contact came about. (See the Timeline of Art History essay Africans in Ancient Greek Art http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/afrg/hd_afrg.htm)
This beautiful head of an "Ethiopian" was created as an attachment for some luxurious object of Hellenistic Greek type. A gold plug remains in the top of the head, and on the back twin loops were broken away. Possibly the head was part of a richly ornamented serving dish: for example, on one elaborate dish from Pompeii a head with a loop and ring decorates the rim next to the handle.
Lioness is now posting random pictures, of unidentified individuals who's ethnic group nor background we don't know.
Doug says that the term "black" or "white" is based on color alone. Therefore their ethnic group is completely and totally irrelevant. One only need to measure how dark their skin is and make an assessment.
Divisive as that is one could use scientific methods to analyze how dark or light a person's skin color is, choose a dividing line and then give each range name "black" or "white"
Yet determining what the boundaries of an ethnic groups is and ascribing it "black" or "white" is much more vague and subjective and is much further complicated by the fact that huge masses of people, probably almost all people in this forums are comprised of more than one so called "ethnicity" -and it certainly is not color alone
Al Jahiz spoke of root and origin. You post random pictures. It makes no sense.
The thread topic is not Al Jahiz or root and origin. Read the initial post, observe the pictures and wake up
quote:Originally posted by Doug The only thing I have been saying is that black as a reference to skin color
Therefore one can simply look at a RANDOM picture of a person and determine if the person is black or not.
If you get into root or origin to define "black" then you are using a color word and that is what makes no sense, Again, East Indians are more genetically similar to light skinned Europeans therefore if they are to be regarded as "black" it has no relation to root and origin. This is above your head son, stop the cheeerleading
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic