The ancient DNA taken from Ancient Egyptian mummies give us everything we need to determine the population affiliations of Ancient Egyptians with modern populations.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^ As they say: Use DNA stupid!!
The ancient DNA taken from Ancient Egyptian mummies give us everything we need to determine the population affiliations of Ancient Egyptians with modern populations.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Of course it doesn't say nothing about bone structure, however, looking at the bone structure we can see different traits in these men.
One of the determinations to call people black, or not, was based on "bone structure".
But that is the point. Skin color is not bone structure and when one says black person they aren't talking about bone structure. You keep introducing stuff that has nothing to do with the use of the term as a reference to skin color. And to reiterate and reinforce they are talking about skin color, the poster says "taking the COLOR out of Britain" not taking the "bone structure" out of Britain.
Dam I don't understand what part of this you fail to comprehend.
And at the end of the day the whole debate about ancient Egypt boils down to skin color and nothing else. Everybody knows this, from the so-called 'objective' scholars to the most hard core racists, yet you got clowns on this forum sitting here saying that it isn't about that.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
To call any one of them black is a racial concept. It's only applied to humans so we know it's not pure observation. Brown animlas or brown objects ae not black.
In the United States the top two people would not call themsleves black in casual converstaion or on the U.S. census. And in Brazil they even have a racial categpry called "pardo" menaing brown.
In America only the man in the bottom picture would call himself black because he has an afro. That is how it works in America and everybody knows it. The man in the bottom picture is classified as black the others are nit
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And at the end of the day the whole debate about ancient Egypt boils down to skin color and nothing else.
It's more than this.
Anta Diop, for example, didn't just claim Ancient Egyptians were black skinned people but determined linkages (cultural, historical, etc) with basically all African populations.
Modern historians can also see a lot of linkage and similarities with modern African people (divine kingship, origin of headrest, religion, musical instruments, worldview, etc) and Ancient Egyptians.
In term of determining scientifically the ethnic affiliations of Ancient Egyptians with modern populations DNA is still the strongest. Unrelated people can share the same skin color, some facial features or limb proportion but they can't share the same DNA. Thus far, the DNA taken from Ancient Egyptian mummies (JAMA, BMJ, DNA Tribes, Paabo) certainly show an affiliations with modern African populations.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Of course it doesn't say nothing about bone structure, however, looking at the bone structure we can see different traits in these men.
One of the determinations to call people black, or not, was based on "bone structure".
But that is the point. Skin color is not bone structure and when one says black person they aren't talking about bone structure. You keep introducing stuff that has nothing to do with the use of the term as a reference to skin color. And to reiterate and reinforce they are talking about skin color, the poster says "taking the COLOR out of Britain" not taking the "bone structure" out of Britain.
Dam I don't understand what part of this you fail to comprehend.
And at the end of the day the whole debate about ancient Egypt boils down to skin color and nothing else. Everybody knows this, from the so-called 'objective' scholars to the most hard core racists, yet you got clowns on this forum sitting here saying that it isn't about that.
The promotional flyer in the campaign is not what I focused on, the text happened to be there, because it was there.
What I am my purpose was, is to show that all these men are considered black males in modern society. Yet have different bone structure. If one was to make a reconstruction on them, one could have argued that one is not black and the other is etc....This is how anthropology has formed its basis.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
To call any one of them black is a racial concept. It's only applied to humans so we know it's not pure observation. Brown animlas or brown objects ae not black.
In the United States the top two people would not call themsleves black in casual converstaion or on the U.S. census. And in Brazil they even have a racial categpry called "pardo" menaing brown.
In America only the man in the bottom picture would call himself black because he has an afro. That is how it works in America and everybody knows it. The man in the bottom picture is classified as black the others are nit
That's nice and dandy. But only one of them had ancestry in america recently which resulted in this segregation.
Yesterday I saw an interview on the origins of Hip Hop, with the Black Spades. One of guys being interviewed was of PR-descent explaining racism towards PR during the 60's, being called n-gg-r. etc.
And Brazil has a lot of categories, not just pardo. And eventually we get back to what Doug stated, on top of the pile is who? The branco. The same branco who created these devisions in the first place. And we can read the multiple reports from Black women from Brazil, on the treatment of these people who are supposed "pardo". While they themselves say we are negra.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Of course it doesn't say nothing about bone structure, however, looking at the bone structure we can see different traits in these men.
One of the determinations to call people black, or not, was based on "bone structure".
But that is the point. Skin color is not bone structure and when one says black person they aren't talking about bone structure. You keep introducing stuff that has nothing to do with the use of the term as a reference to skin color. And to reiterate and reinforce they are talking about skin color, the poster says "taking the COLOR out of Britain" not taking the "bone structure" out of Britain.
Dam I don't understand what part of this you fail to comprehend.
And at the end of the day the whole debate about ancient Egypt boils down to skin color and nothing else. Everybody knows this, from the so-called 'objective' scholars to the most hard core racists, yet you got clowns on this forum sitting here saying that it isn't about that.
The promotional flyer in the campaign is not what I focused on, the text happened to be there, because it was there.
What I am my purpose was, is to show that all these men are considered black males in modern society. Yet have different bone structure. If one was to make a reconstruction on them, one could have argued that one is not black and the other is etc....This is how anthropology has formed its basis.
You posted the flyer so you focused on it. Now why on earth you missed the OBVIOUS point of the flyer is simply an example of how some folks on this forum are going too far in avoiding the obvious. These people are called black because of their skin color. Your theoretical story about some scientists later on using their skeletal structure basically is irrelevant. Black people as a term is based on skin color and nothing else. As for bone structure, notice how nobody claims that the remains of Africans "South of the Sahara" aren't black based on 'bone structure', even though that bone structure is very variable. The point being that white people created the science of so-called anthropology based on using cranial measurements to 'prove' the ancient Egyptians were white people. It was not objective and it was ultimately all about skin color. Your refusal to admit this is simply nonsense. Humans have skin color and there are various ways to determine the skin color of ancient populations and YES anthropologists do make determinations of skin color based on analysis of human remains, but it is not an exact science and is very subjective based on the history of racism in anthropology. Any future scientist looking at the bones of these people and claiming that they were not black would be easily proven wrong by this poster. But you seem to want to sit there and suggest we should give those scientists the benefit of the doubt rather than just saying they are wrong. Not to mention the idea that people with eyeballs who see these people in life are incorrect in calling them black or that the term is scientifically inaccurate as if it doesn't reflect the facts.
quote: Samuel George Morton is often thought of as the originator of "American School" ethnography, a school of thought in antebellum American science that claimed the difference between humans was one of species rather than variety and is seen by some as the origin of scientific racism.
Morton argued against the single creation story of the Bible (monogenism) and instead supported a theory of multiple racial creations (polygenism). Morton claimed the Bible supported polygenism, and within working in a biblical framework his theory held that each race had been created separately and each was given specific, irrevocable characteristics.
After inspecting three mummies from ancient Egyptian catacombs, Morton concluded that Caucasians and Negroes were already distinct three thousand years ago. Since the Bible indicated that Noah's Ark had washed up on Mount Ararat, only a thousand years ago before this, Morton claimed that Noah's sons could not possibly account for every race on earth. According to Morton's theory of polygenesis, races have been separate since the start.
Morton claimed that he could define the intellectual ability of a race by the skull capacity. A large volume meant a large brain and high intellectual capacity, and a small skull indicated a small brain and decreased intellectual capacity. He was reputed to hold the largest collection of skulls, on which he based his research. He claimed that each race had a separate origin, and that a descending order of intelligence could be discerned that placed Caucasians at the pinnacle and Negroes at the lowest point, with various other race groups in between.[7] Morton had many skulls from ancient Egypt, and concluded that the ancient Egyptians were not African, but were Caucasian. His results were published in three volumes between 1839 and 1849: the Crania Americana, An Inquiry into the Distinctive Characteristics of the Aboriginal Race of America and Crania Aegyptiaca.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And at the end of the day the whole debate about ancient Egypt boils down to skin color and nothing else.
It's more than this.
Anta Diop, for example, didn't just claim Ancient Egyptians were black skinned people but determined linkages (cultural, historical, etc) with basically all African populations.
Modern historians can also see a lot of linkage and similarities with modern African people (divine kingship, origin of headrest, religion, musical instruments, worldview, etc) and Ancient Egyptians.
In term of determining scientifically the ethnic affiliations of Ancient Egyptians with modern populations DNA is still the strongest. Unrelated people can share the same skin color, some facial features or limb proportion but they can't share the same DNA. Thus far, the DNA taken from Ancient Egyptian mummies (JAMA, BMJ, DNA Tribes, Paabo) certainly show an affiliations with modern African populations.
That is wrong. Diop did his work to refute the racists who were claiming that the ancient Egyptians were white people. You are seriously denying history to claim that his work was not about proving the skin color of these ancient people USING multiple lines of evidence. It is still about skin color.
To sit here and claim otherwise is retarded.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
All those men you posted are BLACk according to the one drop rule.
George Lopez is an American comedian, actor, and television personality. His father was a Mexican immigrant, from Nayarit. His mother was born in Los Angeles, of Mexican descent. On his show, Lopez Tonight, he undertook a DNA test, which stated that he is of 55% European, 32% Native American, 9% East Asian, and 4% sub-Saharan African ancestry.
Posts: 2818 | From: new york | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
Modern historians can also see a lot of linkage and similarities with modern African people (divine kingship, origin of headrest, religion, musical instruments, worldview, etc) and Ancient Egyptians.
In term of determining scientifically the ethnic affiliations of Ancient Egyptians with modern populations DNA is still the strongest. Unrelated people can share the same skin color, some facial features or limb proportion but they can't share the same DNA. Thus far, the DNA taken from Ancient Egyptian mummies (JAMA, BMJ, DNA Tribes, Paabo) certainly show an affiliations with modern African populations.
Keep in mind that DNA is only ONE line of evidence. Limb proportions are another and are just as valid as DNA if not more so. And DNA can involve a lot of guesstimates sometimes with ranges in tens of thousands of years plus/minus. It is hardly a beacon of accuracy. Skeletal material may also have to be estimated but at least it is found on the ground, in specific locations, with specific cultural contexts, and can be dated and measured scientifically, and/or in connection with the cultural context. It can be just as valid, sometimes more so than DNA guesswork tens of thousands of years- off or on. In fact one measure of the credibility of DNA is how well it matches the fossil/material record. Where there are discrepancies, the DNA guesswork is sometimes suspect. It is naive to look at DNA as some sort of paragon of science or accuracy. It is only one tool or line of evidence among many.
Unrelated people can share the same skin color, some facial features or limb proportion but they can't share the same DNA.
Explain your statement more. Here are 3 questions:
1- What's your definition of "unrelated people"?
2- Give an example of peoples who are unrelated.
3- If people from tropical environments on the same continent show similar limb proportions, aren't they related in the sense of coming from the same tropical environment, on the SAME CONTINENT?
Aren't they related CONTINENTAL POPULATIONS with similar adaptive features? Western Africans and NE Africans in the form of Egyptians for example are both in the African continent, and related via showing similar patterns of limb proportions. By this we know that claims of cold-climate "Hamites" sweeping into the Nile Valley are false, for the skeletal material shows heat adapted populations. Conclusion: We don't need DNA to establish the case. The skeletal record has ALREADY done so.
So why should DNA command attention as the be all and end all?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Stop wasting my time and your own time. What you're bringing up has already been dealt with. All your claims have already been falsified. Your way of trying to keep your points 'relevant' is by repeatedly ignoring what I say and spamming already debunked claims.
Also, your debate style has the undertone that people should take your word for everything you say. You haven't even once posted evidence to back up your claims. Not even the many outrageous ones.
When you debate someone, the underlying understanding is that opponents leave behind points that have already been dealt with. Not Doug M.
Debating you is like wack-a-mole.
Greco-Roman writings completely undermine his claim that the black vs white dichotomy has been universal and constant throughout time. He doesn't even acknowledge the existence of these writings or respond to my posts. He just talks over them with a barrage of opinionated rants and then repeatedly talks about how right he is that these terms were universal. SMH.
Here is an early (1497) pre white supremacy European description of certain Khoisan groups. You have to be pretty confused to think it's self-evident that all onlookers would independently come to the conclusion that the Khoisan referred to below, must be lumped in with 'Aethiopians', 'moors', 'blacks', 'negro', etc. Completely preposterous.
quote:The inhabitants of this country are tawny-coloured [baço]. Their food is confined to the flesh of seals, whales, and gazelles, and the roots of herbs. They are dressed in skins, and wear sheaths over their virile members. They are armed with poles of olive wood to which a horn, browned in the fire, is attached. Their numerous dogs resemble those of Portugal, and bark like them.
--Da Gama
^To claim it would be self-evident for people to indiscriminately lump all dark skinned people into 'black' a la al Jahiz, is completely false. And Doug, don't think I didn't notice how you nitpicked your dictionary definition of 'black' and ignored dictionaries that also focus on the US use of the term.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Doug M What part of "more than this" and he "didn't just" don't you understand?
@zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
quote:Explain your statement more. Here are 3 questions:
1- What's your definition of "unrelated people"?
2- Give an example of peoples who are unrelated.
3- If people from tropical environments on the same continent show similar limb proportions, aren't they related in the sense of coming from the same tropical environment, on the SAME CONTINENT?
1) Probably the same one as yours and everybody else 2) Every humans are related but Ancient Egyptians are more related to African-Americans than to modern Europeans or West Asians for example. 3) Yes, they are related by geographical location and limb proportions (and possibly more).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Of course it doesn't say nothing about bone structure, however, looking at the bone structure we can see different traits in these men.
One of the determinations to call people black, or not, was based on "bone structure".
But that is the point. Skin color is not bone structure and when one says black person they aren't talking about bone structure. You keep introducing stuff that has nothing to do with the use of the term as a reference to skin color. And to reiterate and reinforce they are talking about skin color, the poster says "taking the COLOR out of Britain" not taking the "bone structure" out of Britain.
Dam I don't understand what part of this you fail to comprehend.
And at the end of the day the whole debate about ancient Egypt boils down to skin color and nothing else. Everybody knows this, from the so-called 'objective' scholars to the most hard core racists, yet you got clowns on this forum sitting here saying that it isn't about that.
The promotional flyer in the campaign is not what I focused on, the text happened to be there, because it was there.
What I am my purpose was, is to show that all these men are considered black males in modern society. Yet have different bone structure. If one was to make a reconstruction on them, one could have argued that one is not black and the other is etc....This is how anthropology has formed its basis.
You posted the flyer so you focused on it. Now why on earth you missed the OBVIOUS point of the flyer is simply an example of how some folks on this forum are going too far in avoiding the obvious. These people are called black because of their skin color. Your theoretical story about some scientists later on using their skeletal structure basically is irrelevant. Black people as a term is based on skin color and nothing else. As for bone structure, notice how nobody claims that the remains of Africans "South of the Sahara" aren't black based on 'bone structure', even though that bone structure is very variable. The point being that white people created the science of so-called anthropology based on using cranial measurements to 'prove' the ancient Egyptians were white people. It was not objective and it was ultimately all about skin color. Your refusal to admit this is simply nonsense. Humans have skin color and there are various ways to determine the skin color of ancient populations and YES anthropologists do make determinations of skin color based on analysis of human remains, but it is not an exact science and is very subjective based on the history of racism in anthropology. Any future scientist looking at the bones of these people and claiming that they were not black would be easily proven wrong by this poster. But you seem to want to sit there and suggest we should give those scientists the benefit of the doubt rather than just saying they are wrong. Not to mention the idea that people with eyeballs who see these people in life are incorrect in calling them black or that the term is scientifically inaccurate as if it doesn't reflect the facts.
quote: Samuel George Morton is often thought of as the originator of "American School" ethnography, a school of thought in antebellum American science that claimed the difference between humans was one of species rather than variety and is seen by some as the origin of scientific racism.
Morton argued against the single creation story of the Bible (monogenism) and instead supported a theory of multiple racial creations (polygenism). Morton claimed the Bible supported polygenism, and within working in a biblical framework his theory held that each race had been created separately and each was given specific, irrevocable characteristics.
After inspecting three mummies from ancient Egyptian catacombs, Morton concluded that Caucasians and Negroes were already distinct three thousand years ago. Since the Bible indicated that Noah's Ark had washed up on Mount Ararat, only a thousand years ago before this, Morton claimed that Noah's sons could not possibly account for every race on earth. According to Morton's theory of polygenesis, races have been separate since the start.
Morton claimed that he could define the intellectual ability of a race by the skull capacity. A large volume meant a large brain and high intellectual capacity, and a small skull indicated a small brain and decreased intellectual capacity. He was reputed to hold the largest collection of skulls, on which he based his research. He claimed that each race had a separate origin, and that a descending order of intelligence could be discerned that placed Caucasians at the pinnacle and Negroes at the lowest point, with various other race groups in between.[7] Morton had many skulls from ancient Egypt, and concluded that the ancient Egyptians were not African, but were Caucasian. His results were published in three volumes between 1839 and 1849: the Crania Americana, An Inquiry into the Distinctive Characteristics of the Aboriginal Race of America and Crania Aegyptiaca.
The reason why I posted those flyers was because of the facial traits. Not because of the campaign. Nowhere did I say they aren't black. Or did I? It was the intend from the beginning to show the facial differences in these black men.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Stop wasting my time and your own time. What you're bringing up has already been dealt with. All your claims have already been falsified. Your way of trying to keep your points 'relevant' is by repeatedly ignoring what I say and spamming already debunked claims.
Also, your debate style has the undertone that people should take your word for everything you say. You haven't even once posted evidence to back up your claims. Not even the many outrageous ones.
When you debate someone, the underlying understanding is that opponents leave behind points that have already been dealt with. Not Doug M.
Debating you is like wack-a-mole.
Greco-Roman writings completely undermine his claim that the black vs white dichotomy has been universal and constant throughout time. He doesn't even acknowledge the existence of these writings or respond to my posts. He just talks over them with a barrage of opinionated rants and then repeatedly talks about how right he is that these terms were universal. SMH.
Here is an early (1497) pre white supremacy European description of certain Khoisan groups. You have to be pretty confused to think it's self-evident that all onlookers would independently come to the conclusion that the Khoisan referred to below, must be lumped in with 'Aethiopians', 'moors', 'blacks', 'negro', etc. Completely preposterous.
quote:The inhabitants of this country are tawny-coloured [baço]. Their food is confined to the flesh of seals, whales, and gazelles, and the roots of herbs. They are dressed in skins, and wear sheaths over their virile members. They are armed with poles of olive wood to which a horn, browned in the fire, is attached. Their numerous dogs resemble those of Portugal, and bark like them.
--Da Gama
^To claim it would be self-evident for people to indiscriminately lump all dark skinned people into 'black' a la al Jahiz, is completely false. And Doug, don't think I didn't notice how you nitpicked your dictionary definition of 'black' and ignored dictionaries that also focus on the US use of the term.
No Swenet, you are simply using absurd logic to claim that the word 'black people' in general has not been consistently used for thousands of years to refer to people of the African continent. Whether or not other terms have been used and whether or not specific populations have been included in that is another matter entirely.
YOUR point if you haven't grasped this argument by now is that 'black people' has some vague and ambiguous meaning to the point where people don't understand what you mean when you say it. MY point is that fundamentally yes people understand what you mean when you say it, because skin color is a fact of life, specifically the skin color of most Africans as included in the definition of the term according to the standard English dictionary.
You simply are claiming that this fundamental definition is not 'good enough' in the English language to describe a population in Africa (or outside Africa) with dark skin. My argument is that it is perfectly good enough for communicating what is being said. That is from a communication perspective. But whether people AGREE on that term being used for specific populations is different point altogether. And on that point, my argument has been consistent that racists are the most vocal when it comes to using this term when it comes to ancient Egypt because they are concerned about skin color specifically. And on top of that European science has always been in support of that agenda, therefore the changes in terminology on the part of Europeans and how they categorize and label Africans is suspect to me and therefore does not require a change in language on my part to address inconsistencies, hypocrisy and racism on the part of the wider European academic community.
YOU on the other hand keep trying to bend and twist to respond to the whims of these folks which is absurd, because at the end of the day, the goal hasn't changed. They still want to have the power to categorize folks in a way that supports white supremacy, which ALL boils down to skin color. That has not changed. And this takes me back to why the word black people is perfectly viable in language because it describes skin color which can be observed and understood as to what is being commented on.
You are simply making excuses because you know full well what is meant when saying the ancient Egyptians were 'black people' especially by folks on this board. There is no confusion about it or ambiguity about it. Yet you sit up here and claim there is some reason this term isn't good enough to understand what the hell is being said by folks on this forum. And you pretend that nobody else understands what is being said, even those 'white objective scholars' you keep bringing up, which is nonsense.
We aren't talking about ancient Greeks right now We aren't talking about Al Jahiz right now in the current day. We are talking about communications between people in the here and now. The only reason Al Jahiz or the Greeks have been brought up is to show that over thousands of years people with dark skin have been labeled as black in various languages and various ways as a reference to skin color. You have not disproven that. You just keep changing the goalpost in order to avoid the point that black people is a perfectly viable and acceptible term to use to describe populations in Africa and elsewhere. Now if there is a disagreement on specific groups then that is a whole different discussion requiring facts or evidences related to such populations, but that does not mean that the word 'black people' is not a basic and common adjective for skin color that cannot and should not be used in language as a reference to said skin color.
You simply are getting yourself confused because you are open to entertaining nonsense from European people....
quote: Here is an early (1497) pre white supremacy European description of certain Khoisan groups. You have to be pretty confused to think it's self-evident that all onlookers would independently come to the conclusion that the Khoisan referred to below, must be lumped in with 'Aethiopians', 'moors', 'blacks', 'negro', etc. Completely preposterous.
First, that is not pre white supremacy, unless you mean American racism. White supremacy started in Europe from long before America colonized or the United States created. And that is something you need to understand. White Supremacy and racism is a EUROPEAN ideology exported and taken around the world by Europeans. And second, this passage only proves that Europeans have used language to describe skin colors in reference to an African population, which actually proves my point. Now they are inconsistent and contradictory in its usage because MOST Europeans would certainly lump Khoisan and other Southern Africans with black people. But then again, according to the Spanish and Portuguese they have always had multiple 'categories' for populations based on skin color and you see this in all Spanish and Portuguese colonies. Not to mention that Vasco Da Gama and the Portuguese colonized large parts of Southern Africa and oppressed the native 'black people' including these 'tawny' San people, as a part of white supremacy. The English and Boer colonists most certainly lumped all these people together as 'black Africans'. And to even claim otherwise because of some obscure passage is straight bullsh*t. Are you even serious? And you are saying that I should not call the Khoisan black people because of this? Seriously? Tawny is a color reference to skin color and it does not exclude these people from also being called 'black Africans', just as black populations all over Africa come in different shades. And ultimately it still all boils down to skin color being used in language and as the basis of racism/white supremacy. You make no damn sense.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Of course it doesn't say nothing about bone structure, however, looking at the bone structure we can see different traits in these men.
One of the determinations to call people black, or not, was based on "bone structure".
But that is the point. Skin color is not bone structure and when one says black person they aren't talking about bone structure. You keep introducing stuff that has nothing to do with the use of the term as a reference to skin color. And to reiterate and reinforce they are talking about skin color, the poster says "taking the COLOR out of Britain" not taking the "bone structure" out of Britain.
Dam I don't understand what part of this you fail to comprehend.
And at the end of the day the whole debate about ancient Egypt boils down to skin color and nothing else. Everybody knows this, from the so-called 'objective' scholars to the most hard core racists, yet you got clowns on this forum sitting here saying that it isn't about that.
The promotional flyer in the campaign is not what I focused on, the text happened to be there, because it was there.
What I am my purpose was, is to show that all these men are considered black males in modern society. Yet have different bone structure. If one was to make a reconstruction on them, one could have argued that one is not black and the other is etc....This is how anthropology has formed its basis.
You posted the flyer so you focused on it. Now why on earth you missed the OBVIOUS point of the flyer is simply an example of how some folks on this forum are going too far in avoiding the obvious. These people are called black because of their skin color. Your theoretical story about some scientists later on using their skeletal structure basically is irrelevant. Black people as a term is based on skin color and nothing else. As for bone structure, notice how nobody claims that the remains of Africans "South of the Sahara" aren't black based on 'bone structure', even though that bone structure is very variable. The point being that white people created the science of so-called anthropology based on using cranial measurements to 'prove' the ancient Egyptians were white people. It was not objective and it was ultimately all about skin color. Your refusal to admit this is simply nonsense. Humans have skin color and there are various ways to determine the skin color of ancient populations and YES anthropologists do make determinations of skin color based on analysis of human remains, but it is not an exact science and is very subjective based on the history of racism in anthropology. Any future scientist looking at the bones of these people and claiming that they were not black would be easily proven wrong by this poster. But you seem to want to sit there and suggest we should give those scientists the benefit of the doubt rather than just saying they are wrong. Not to mention the idea that people with eyeballs who see these people in life are incorrect in calling them black or that the term is scientifically inaccurate as if it doesn't reflect the facts.
quote: Samuel George Morton is often thought of as the originator of "American School" ethnography, a school of thought in antebellum American science that claimed the difference between humans was one of species rather than variety and is seen by some as the origin of scientific racism.
Morton argued against the single creation story of the Bible (monogenism) and instead supported a theory of multiple racial creations (polygenism). Morton claimed the Bible supported polygenism, and within working in a biblical framework his theory held that each race had been created separately and each was given specific, irrevocable characteristics.
After inspecting three mummies from ancient Egyptian catacombs, Morton concluded that Caucasians and Negroes were already distinct three thousand years ago. Since the Bible indicated that Noah's Ark had washed up on Mount Ararat, only a thousand years ago before this, Morton claimed that Noah's sons could not possibly account for every race on earth. According to Morton's theory of polygenesis, races have been separate since the start.
Morton claimed that he could define the intellectual ability of a race by the skull capacity. A large volume meant a large brain and high intellectual capacity, and a small skull indicated a small brain and decreased intellectual capacity. He was reputed to hold the largest collection of skulls, on which he based his research. He claimed that each race had a separate origin, and that a descending order of intelligence could be discerned that placed Caucasians at the pinnacle and Negroes at the lowest point, with various other race groups in between.[7] Morton had many skulls from ancient Egypt, and concluded that the ancient Egyptians were not African, but were Caucasian. His results were published in three volumes between 1839 and 1849: the Crania Americana, An Inquiry into the Distinctive Characteristics of the Aboriginal Race of America and Crania Aegyptiaca.
The reason why I posted those flyers was because of the facial traits. Not because of the campaign. Nowhere did I say they aren't black. Or did I? It was the intend from the beginning to show the facial differences in these black men.
True, but I don't see this thread being about bone structure it is about using the word 'black people' as a reference to skin color. And more specifically whether we should blindly jump through hoops to avoid certain words because of the convoluted logic of white academia or science.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: True, but I don't see this thread being about bone structure it is about using the word 'black people' as a reference to skin color. And more specifically whether we should blindly jump through hoops to avoid certain words because of the convoluted logic of white academia or science.
And I would ask the question as to why we shouldn't challenge them when, in their work, they deny something that's entirely reasonable to infer--that most indigenous ancient Egyptians were 'black'.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^tropicals redacted is lying. The academia already acknowledged than Ancient Egyptians were black Africans indigenous to the region.
For those curious about this, here's a few mainstream Egyptology publications which acknowledge the indigenous African origins of Ancient Egyptians. So Ancient Egyptians were not people who came from Europe or the Middle East to create the Ancient Egyptian state in Africa. They were for the most part indigenous black Africans who never left Africa and related to modern day Sub-Saharan Africans and thus African-Americans.
Here's the real bottom line (published by a reliable source - The Oxford university press)
"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as `black' while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans." --Source: The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. 2001. p. 27-28
Same thing with the archaeological/cultural continuity which demonstrate that Ancient Egyptians are indigenous Africans. Even displaying "strong similarities to modern African cultures".
"Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns , appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons. [...] Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization"[/b] - The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press (2001). p.28
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt above does a good summary. Here's many other reliable academic sources (not afrocentrists or racist eurocentrists from another era):
posted
I don't even know what all this argument is about. It doesn't make any sense to me. The early Greeks like Herodotus and Aristotle described the ancient Egyptians as black, and later Greek scholars could easily see that the 'Aethiops' were darker than the Egyptians, but that doesn't distract from the blackness of the ancient Egyptians.
A great deal of non-African foreigners may have have flooded into Egypt by the time the Romans took Egypt. This was long after the time of Herodotus.
Even with that being said, if a person was to be shown a Dinka and and an indigenous Egyptian from Luxor, Esna, Edfu, Aswan, the Siwa Oasis and the Red Sea coast, most people would understand that they were just different gradients of black.
You can describe the ancient Egyptians as black in a social sense, but I guess I can understand why an anthropologists might want to use 'tropical', just as long as they make it clear that these 'tropical' people [ancient Egyptians] are related to other tropical populations just South of them and that they ultimately originate from the South.
Even people from the Western desert would have originated from the South. There is to be no compromise on emphasizing the South.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I don't even know what all this argument is about. It doesn't make any sense to me. The early Greeks like Herodotus and Aristotle described the ancient Egyptians as black, and later Greek scholars could easily see that the 'Aethiops' were darker than the Egyptians, but that doesn't distract from the blackness of the ancient Egyptians.
A great deal of non-African foreigners may have have flooded into Egypt by the time the Romans took Egypt. This was long after the time of Herodotus.
Even with that being said, if a person was to be shown a Dinka and and an indigenous Egyptian from Luxor, Esna, Edfu, the Siwa Oasis and the Red Sea cost, most people would understand that they were just different gradients of black.
You can describe the ancient Egyptians as black in a social sense, but I guess I can understand why an anthropologists might want to use 'tropical', just as long as they make it clear that these 'tropical' people [ancient Egyptians] are related to other tropical populations just South of them and that they ultimately originate from the South.
Even people from the Western desert would have originated from the South. There is to be no compromise on emphasizing the South.
I agree with this. Although modern egyptologists don't use words like tropical and prefer to say they were indigenous Africans, which is what the were of course. The source of the population of Ancient Egypt. The source of the religions, political structure, scientific knowledge and curiosity. The Ancient Egyptians origin is in Africa: Sudanese/southern part of Egypt, Green Sahara, Nabta Playa, Tasian, Badarian, Naqada culture.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Doug came with a Spanish casta painting as if it has authority while at the same time criticizing white supremacy. That doesn't make sense at all. Furthermore the damn painting doesn't even have the word the Spanish word for black on it "negro" Europeans didn't even call themselves white until a few hundred years ago
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^tropicals redacted is lying. The academia already acknowledged than Ancient Egyptians were black Africans indigenous to the region.
For those curious about this, here's a few mainstream Egyptology publications which acknowledge the indigenous African origins of Ancient Egyptians. So Ancient Egyptians were not people who came from Europe or the Middle East to create the Ancient Egyptian state in Africa. They were for the most part indigenous black Africans who never left Africa and related to modern day Sub-Saharan Africans and thus African-Americans.
Here's the real bottom line (published by a reliable source - The Oxford university press)
"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as `black' while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans." --Source: The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. 2001. p. 27-28
Same thing with the archaeological/cultural continuity which demonstrate that Ancient Egyptians are indigenous Africans. Even displaying "strong similarities to modern African cultures".
"Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns , appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons. [...] Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization"[/b] - The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press (2001). p.28
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt above does a good summary. Here's many other reliable academic sources (not afrocentrists or racist eurocentrists from another era):
The crux of the issue here is that white scientists have conned you to believing that 'black' as used in "the West" is a social term. This proposes the absurd idea that 'black' as used in the West is not primarily based on skin color. That is fundamentally and primarily FALSE. Black as used in the west for Africans is a reference to skin color and social status and treatment based on skin color. But they have played this game of trickery in trying to claim that if someone says 'black person' somehow they are applying a social rule as opposed to simply talking about skin color which is the basis of the term going back long ago prior to the existence of America.
But folks on this forum and elsewhere are playing along with this, claiming that saying some African population is 'black' is somehow trying to apply American 'racial terms' as opposed to simply referring to the skin color of said population. That is pure and absolute propaganda on the part of the scientists who are fundamentally claiming that skin color is a non existent entity when it comes to humans. Which all of us know is false. Skin color is a fact of biology no less significant in human biology than any other aspect of that physiology.
And also not only does it contradict observed reality, it also contradicts the historical facts of the SAME scientific community using skin color as the basis of their racial schemes in the past. And rather than just admit that European scientists are part of the racist agenda, they now spin the tables around say that simply using a term like 'black people' is tantamount to being racist which is so inane and insidious as to be laughable. But folks like some on this forum are open to such nonsense trickery and go for it rather than simply calling it out for what it is.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the term 'black people' when it comes to labeling the skin color of populations in Africa and elsewhere. These people just are playing games with the issue of ancient Egypt and imposing all sorts of barriers and obstacles to avoid the fundamental issue which is skin color, which is what this debate has been about since the Europeans discovered Egypt and imposed their racist ideologies on ancient Egypt which are absolutely based on skin color. But you got folks on this forum and on this thread who claim these folks don't see skin color or know what the hell skin color is meant when someone says 'black African'. Come on man give it up already. These people aren't stupid. They are playing mind games with you and you go for it.
You chasing your tail and jumping through hoops to please these folks is not going to change the point that white racists in and outside of academia have an agenda to make ancient Egypt white people meaning the palest and lightest looking European white folks. And this is why no matter what terms they uses in their 'objective scientic analysis' the end result will always have the AE looking like white Europeans. It isn't an issue of language or words and until you focus on that and stop focusing on distractions and mind games the sooner you will get to the point.
There have been black people on this planet since before white Europeans or any other population existed. So how the hell do 'black people' only exist in an American 'social context'? Some of you people are denying the existence of the very same people you claim to be representing. And that shows what happens when you follow the nonsense ideologies of folks who are clearly against 'black people'.
Another example of white European scientists basing schemes on skin color:
quote: Most of these degenerations, Blumenbach argued, arose directly from differences in climate and habitat--ranging from such broad patterns as the correlation of dark skin with tropical environments, to more particular (and fanciful) attributions, including a speculation that the narrow eye slits of some Australian aborigines may have arisen in response to "constant clouds of gnats . . . contracting the natural face of the inhabitants." Other changes, he maintained, arose as a consequence of customs adopted in different regions. For example, nations that compressed the heads of babies by swaddling boards or papoose carriers ended up with relatively long skulls. Blumenbach held that "almost all the diversity of the form of the head in different nations is to be attributed to the mode of life and to art." ... Blumenbach established a special library in his house devoted exclusively to black authors, singling out for special praise the poetry of Phillis Wheatley, a Boston slave whose writings have only recently been rediscovered: "I possess English, Dutch, and Latin poems by several [black authors], amongst which however above all, those of Phillis Wheatley of Boston, who is justly famous for them, deserves mention here." Finally, Blumenbach noted that many Caucasian nations could not boast so fine a set of authors and scholars as black Africa has produced under the most depressing circumstances of prejudice and slavery: "It would not be difficult to mention entire well-known provinces of Europe, from out of which you would not easily expect to obtain off-hand such good authors, poets, philosophers, and correspondents of the Paris Academy."
Nonetheless, when Blumenbach presented his mental picture of human diversity in his fateful shift away from Linnaean geography, he singled out a particular group as closest to the created ideal and then characterized all other groups by relative degrees of departure from this archetypal standard. He ended up with a system that placed a single race at the pinnacle, and then envisioned two symmetrical lines of departure away from this ideal toward greater and greater degeneration. ... Blumenbach then presented all human variety on two lines of successive departure from this Caucasian ideal, ending in the two most degenerate (least attractive, not least morally unworthy or mentally obtuse) forms of humanity--Asians on one side, and Africans on the other. But Blumenbach also wanted to designate intermediary forms between ideal and most degenerate, especially since even gradation formed his primary argument for human unity. In his original four-race system, he could identify native Americans as intermediary between Europeans and Asians, but who would serve as the transitional form between Europeans and Africans?
The four-race system contained no appropriate group. But inventing a fifth racial category as an intermediary between Europeans and Africans would complete the new symmetrical geometry. Blumenbach therefore added the Malay race, not as a minor, factual refinement but as a device for reformulating an entire theory of human diversity. With this one stroke, he produced the geometric transformation from Linnaeus's unranked geographic model to the conventional hierarchy of implied worth that has fostered so much social grief ever since.
I have allotted the first place to the Caucasian . . . which makes me esteem it the primeval one. This diverges in both directions into two, most remote and very different from each other; on the one side, namely, into the Ethiopian, and on the other into the Mongolian. The remaining two occupy the intermediate positions between that primeval one and these two extreme varieties; that is, the American between the Caucasian and Mongolian; the Malay between the same Caucasian and Ethiopian. [From Blumenbach's third edition.]
Scholars often think that academic ideas must remain at worst, harmless, and at best, mildly amusing or even instructive. But ideas do not reside in the ivory tower of our usual metaphor about academic irrelevance. We are, as Pascal said, a thinking reed, and ideas motivate human history. Where would Hitler have been without racism, Jefferson without liberty? Blumenbach lived as a cloistered professor all his life, but his ideas have reverberated in ways that he never could have anticipated, through our wars, our social upheavals, our sufferings, and our hopes.
Your summation of my positions is not entirely accurate. Better than the previous ones, but still lacking. I also see a lot of goal post shifts going on. Basically, what it boils down to:
1) My position is that 'black' as applied by al Jahiz (where black has no primary or special connection with Africa as it equally includes dark skinned people in Asia) is broadly consistent with your use, my ***PAST*** use of the term and that of the more reputable ES veterans. As you know, this use is purely based on the range of brown skin pigmentation. This is the application of the term that is most defensible in terms of rationality and consistency, although it's still problematic for several reasons (some of which I've already mentioned).
2) Most people today in the West don't understand the term that way. Doug M, you want to attribute this solely to white supremacy, so when examples from other cultures/earlier times are posted showing that they also don't understood/understand the term as explained in point 1, you ignore said posts and/or change the topic (see how you started flip flopping with the example of Da Gama).
There is no shortage of online forums where discussions between proponents of point 1 and point 2 play out.
Often, there is little to no apparent motive for racism towards Africans in these conversations.
3) To reduce proponents of point 2 automatically to adherents of racism towards Africans is not only paranoid and laughably simplistic (this use of the term is not even specific to Europeans or to recent times), but it also suggests to me that you're in no shape to discuss this topic. You simply haven't done your homework on this one.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a book out there discussing the origins of the Midianites (the tribe Mozes supposedly married into) and how they were considered 'black' by the Hebrews and were said to live in regions in Arabia where ancient documents typically documented the presence of dark skinned people.
The book went on to talk about how, as time went on, more and more dark skinned Asians were excluded from this ancient 'black' category. This continued until dark skinned people were thought to be restricted to Africa. The author pin pointed the rough time period when a travelers to this part of the Hijaz region no longer seemed to have a memory of earlier traditions of them being related to Africans on the other side of the Red Sea. This is not because they disappeared, because there are still brown skinned Arabs in that region, today.
Some authorities consider this gradual narrowing of terms related to 'black' (or 'Cush' in this case) in the Middle East the reason why authors of the bible placed certain Cushite tribes (e.g. like Dedan and Sheba) sometimes in the lineage of Shem as opposed to Ham.
Unfortunately, despite my efforts today, I can't find this book anymore. But what it shows, contrary to claims expressed here, is that there is nothing universal self-evident about skin color terms and that racism is not necessarily the underlying intent of ancient or modern day restrictive use of 'black'.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Your summation of my positions is not entirely accurate. Better than the previous ones, but still lacking. I also see a lot of goal post shifts going on. Basically, what it boils down to:
1) My position is that 'black' as applied by al Jahiz (where black has no primary or special connection with Africa as it equally includes dark skinned people in Asia) is broadly consistent with your use, my ***PAST*** use of the term and that of the more reputable ES veterans. As you know, this use is purely based on the range of brown skin pigmentation. This is the application of the term that is most defensible in terms of rationality and consistency, although it's still problematic for several reasons (some of which I've already mentioned).
2) Most people today in the West don't understand the term that way. Doug M, you want to attribute this solely to white supremacy, so when examples from other cultures/earlier times are posted showing that they also don't understood/understand the term as explained in point 1, you ignore said posts and/or change the topic (see how you started flip flopping with the example of Da Gama).
There is no shortage of online forums where discussions between proponents of point 1 and point 2 play out.
Often, there is little to no apparent motive for racism towards Africans in these conversations.
3) To reduce proponents of point 2 automatically to adherents of racism towards Africans is not only paranoid and laughably simplistic (this use of the term is not even specific to Europeans or to recent times), but it also suggests to me that you're in no shape to discuss this topic. You simply haven't done your homework on this one.
Please show me where 'black people' is not understood by MOST PEOPLEin America as referring to the majority population of the African continent. You are really reaching if you claim this is your argument after stating that 'black people' is an American 'social term'. You are just reaching and groping for straw men to keep throwing around to justify your aim of appeasing racists, as if anybody would even buy that nonsense. Why is there so much concern about a single word? No matter what words you use white racists will have a problem with ancient Egyptians being lumped with 'black Africans'. Your attempts to rephrase and change approach is not going to change their racism no matter what language you use. I prefer to address the core of the issue which is and has always been skin color. Your attempts to pretend that this is not the issue are the problem. You keep jumping all over the map to avoid this fundamental issue is the point because you keep trying to deny that it is the issue.
No that is not a misrepresentation of your points.
In fact, you keep representing my point, which is that Al Jahiz and other folks have used skin color as the basis of reference for Africans. It doesn't matter what population he was referring to, the point is people have used skin color as a reference for populations for people in and outside of Africa. You keep trying to claim that people don't use skin color as a description of populations in Africa. You keep trying to claim that racists don't use skin color as the basis of racism. And then the most insulting part is you then go on to claim that skin color doesn't exist because of 'racism' as talking about a persons skin color suddenly equates to racism.
Stop trying to avoid the point. Race and racism is based on skin color and most Americans understand what is meant when you say 'black person' in reference to Africa. That nonsense you keep making up to justify your absurd position is getting annoying, because now you are just outright lying.
You have not proven that black people is not a valid reference to black Africans. You are simply trying to say that you agree with whatever white folks say and if they say the ancient Egyptians or whatever other population is 'whatever they want to call them' and you will agree with that. And I am saying that to hell with them and their racism I don't need to stop using a term which is simple and plain because they are racist. I prefer to address THEM and THEIR RACISM. You prefer to appease and kiss their behinds. I do not pretend for one second that this issue in reference to Egypt or any other part of Africa is an issue of language it is fundamentally an issue of racism based on skin color.
So you are just trolling.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I don't even know what all this argument is about. It doesn't make any sense to me. The early Greeks like Herodotus and Aristotle described the ancient Egyptians as black, and later Greek scholars could easily see that the 'Aethiops' were darker than the Egyptians, but that doesn't distract from the blackness of the ancient Egyptians.
A great deal of non-African foreigners may have have flooded into Egypt by the time the Romans took Egypt. This was long after the time of Herodotus.
Even with that being said, if a person was to be shown a Dinka and and an indigenous Egyptian from Luxor, Esna, Edfu, the Siwa Oasis and the Red Sea cost, most people would understand that they were just different gradients of black.
You can describe the ancient Egyptians as black in a social sense, but I guess I can understand why an anthropologists might want to use 'tropical', just as long as they make it clear that these 'tropical' people [ancient Egyptians] are related to other tropical populations just South of them and that they ultimately originate from the South.
Even people from the Western desert would have originated from the South. There is to be no compromise on emphasizing the South.
I agree with this. Although modern egyptologists don't use words like tropical and prefer to say they were indigenous Africans, which is what the were of course. The source of the population of Ancient Egypt. The source of the religions, political structure, scientific knowledge and curiosity. The Ancient Egyptians origin is in Africa: Sudanese/southern part of Egypt, Green Sahara, Nabta Playa, Tasian, Badarian, Naqada culture.
Why not just call them black people? Isn't that ultimately what you mean? Why beat around the bush? If that is what you mean then just say that. Maybe the issue here is that some people don't really mean 'black people'. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true as much argument they give over a word.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Why not just call them black people? Isn't that ultimately what you mean? Why beat around the bush? If that is what you mean then just say that. Maybe the issue here is that some people don't really mean 'black people'. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true as much argument they give over a word.
I don't know why you reply to me about it but Ancient Egyptians were black people (based on our current scientific knowledge) as every other African civilizations including the Kushite empire, Wagadu/Ghana, Zulu, etc. Ancient Egyptians were not a special case of black or African people. They were black people as any indigenous Africans. It's been determined genetically and by modern archaeology.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Please show me where 'black people' is not understood by MOST PEOPLEin America as referring to the majority population of the African continent.
This (making it about minority/majority) is obviously a goal post shift as well as a strawman. You've already been falsified on all fronts. You either haven't read my posts or you're deliberately mixing them up to create confusion.
But, to answer your question (and I have already talked about this several times), all one has to do is look at how Tuareg and more southern Malian people are covered by western media to see how 'black' is understood by the West:
quote:Regardless of the ideological differences between MNLA, Ansar Dine and AQIM, they are primarily led by non-black Tuaregs and Arabs, distinguished by their lighter skin complexions and sharper facial features, in contrast with their enemies -- black Africans who compose the bulk of the Malian government’s military.
You're in denial about racial views in the West. There is a whole range of phenotypes that they don't consider 'black', even if they're in al Jahiz pigmentation range. And everyone here who isn't in Camp Denial with you can see that.
quote:Your attempts to pretend that this is not the issue are the problem. You keep jumping all over the map to avoid this fundamental issue is the point because you keep trying to deny that it is the issue.
Laughably transparent misrepresentation of what I've said for the last couple of days. I said this modern day western use of 'black' has been convenient historically for racists, but that I'm simply not convinced that all proponents of this view are racists. You, on the other hand, are making sweeping paranoid generalizations, by saying that ALL proponents of this view are necessarily and automatically racist. At least when you're not back peddling and shifting the goal post by flip flopping to the position that, not Petrie et al, but only people who create a racial hierarchies are racist. Lol. Simpleton.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: Djehuti sez (28/11/2006):
quote: This nonsense about a combination of "Sub-Saharan" dental traits with "North African" crania again only show the ridiculous fallacy of there being an actual division between the said regions 'North Africa' and 'Sub-Sahara'.
When will other anthropologists (since some have already wisened up) realize that anthropologically there was no division between populations living to the south and north of the Sahara?!
Indigenous (black) African peoples are native to all parts of the continent and migrations and geneflow have occurred between them.
Interesting. Djehuti if you're still around, do you still hold these^ views?
There you have it for those who can't see the bigger picture and who try to reduce this conversation to a petty squabble over nothing.
Carlos Oliver Coke's denialism and refusal to cope with the fact that the Sahara was among the first regions to be settled by AMHs and the implications of this. Carlos' insecurities and neediness prevent him from accepting that indigenous prehistoric Saharans weren't (recent) Sub-Saharan Africans. That is one of the facts he desperately tries obfuscate with his trojan horses and calculated use of racial language.
Note that anyone in 2015 who holds the views Carlos Oliver Coke is fishing for here (quite comically) is either light years behind current scientific findings or is in denial about them. In Carlos Oliver Coke's case, it's both.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Anatomically Modern Human. That is, prehistoric humans who are our recent ancestors or closely related cousins. It's a useful term to exclude archaic humans who were also humans, but in another clade.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Anatomically Modern Human. That is, prehistoric humans who are our recent ancestors or closely related cousins. It's a useful term to exclude archaic humans who were also humans, but in another clade.
Thanks.
Also didn't Haplogroup "A" AKA Y-DNA Adam arose near the Sahara? And the carry is like the most recent ancestor for human males?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
But anyways I know the early homo-sapiens would have lived in the Sahara, but wouldn't the "oldest" origin for modern human be East or South Africa?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Please show me where 'black people' is not understood by MOST PEOPLEin America as referring to the majority population of the African continent.
This (making it about minority/majority) is obviously a goal post shift as well as a strawman. You've already been falsified on all fronts. You either haven't read my posts or you're deliberately mixing them up to create confusion.
Then why do you keep brining it up then? Why are you objecting to using the word black in reference to Africans? I am still trying to understand why you keep beating a dead horse. Most Africans are black Africans. What part of that do you have a problem with? Why do you keep bringing up all these objections and rebuttals if you agree? Otherwise.....
quote: But, to answer your question (and I have already talked about this several times), all one has to do is look at how Tuareg and more southern Malian people are covered by western media to see how 'black' is understood by the West:
quote:Regardless of the ideological differences between MNLA, Ansar Dine and AQIM, they are primarily led by non-black Tuaregs and Arabs, distinguished by their lighter skin complexions and sharper facial features, in contrast with their enemies -- black Africans who compose the bulk of the Malian government’s military.
You're in denial about racial views in the West. There is a whole range of phenotypes that they don't consider 'black', even if they're in al Jahiz pigmentation range. And everyone here who isn't in Camp Denial with you can see that.
quote:Your attempts to pretend that this is not the issue are the problem. You keep jumping all over the map to avoid this fundamental issue is the point because you keep trying to deny that it is the issue.
Laughably transparent misrepresentation of what I've said for the last couple of days. I said this modern day western use of 'black' has been convenient historically for racists, but that I'm simply not convinced that all proponents of this view are racists. You, on the other hand, are making sweeping paranoid generalizations, by saying that ALL proponents of this view are necessarily and automatically racist. At least when you're not back peddling and shifting the goal post by flip flopping to the position that, not Petrie et al, but only people who create a racial hierarchies are racist. Lol. Simpleton.
And why are you bringing up the contradictions of "the west"? Are you saying that we shouldn't use the term 'black Africans' because folks in the west are "contradictory"? Who cares about what they think? Why are you so dam concerned about what they think given that they are historically racist. I mean for goodness sake give up this dam argument. white people are racist and racism is based on skin color. Therefore they will use whatever means at their disposal to define African populations to suit their agenda. Are you suggesting that all of history of racism in Europe and America which was so predominant over 500 years is not in play in all of this? Seriously you are purely delusional and as I said bending over backwards to give white people the benefit of the doubt. I don't. And there is nothing about what they do in terms of use and abuse of language to change the fact that 'black people' is a perfectly acceptable and logical term in reference to populations in and out of Africa. At the end of the day this is what this thread is about. I am not jumping through hoops to fit into the various and sundry ways Americans, Europeans and other white folks try and redefine terms when it comes to Africans, which is what you are doing.
And bottom line, are you saying that we shouldn't call the ancient Egyptians black people because 'some people' in America or Europe don't like it? And that this is a perfectly reasonable and objective, non racist point of view that we should take seriously to the point of not using the term to refer to the AE? And above all else, are you seriously saying that this whole debate about AE that we spend so much time on this forum talking and debating about is NOT about skin color? And what is the point of posting on this forum if you are just going to go along with whatever these folks decide to say regarding Africans? You simply are not making any sense.
You keep saying the same thing over and over and still the bottom line point is racism is based on skin color and 'black people' or 'white people' have been and will continue to be used as references to the skin color of various populations. Your bullsh*t argument that this is not commonly used in America is a total flat out nonsense lie as you can turn on the news in any city in America or many other programs on almost any day and here them talking about 'black people' and 'white people' daily. That nonsense you are talking about is garbage you are pulling out the crack of your behind. And when they say black people they are talking about Africans. When they say white people they are talking about Europeans. Europeans are generally 'white people' in terms of skin color. Africans are generally black people in terms of skin color. Those two terms and those two populations are linked in common language all over Europe and America and your argument that this is not the case is nonsense drivel you just keep droning on about because you just wont accept that you lost the debate a long dam time ago.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The early breakaway orange and red lineages have been found in and/or near Africa. The yellow and light green ones have been found among the Khoisan. Only the dark green one has been found in East Africa.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
The early breakaway orange and red lineages have been found in and/or near Africa. The yellow and light green ones have been found among the Khoisan. Only the dark green one has been found in East Africa.
I heard there is still a small frequency of A in SOME North African groups.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
My observations in between 2014 and now on this forum in regards to this topic are there for everyone to see. Post them here and refute them. You can't. We've seen you consistently fail to disprove my observations. So why not just leave it alone? The only reason I'm still replying to you is because you're misrepresenting my views, not because you've demonstrated where something I've said is false.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
The early breakaway orange and red lineages have been found in and/or near Africa. The yellow and light green ones have been found among the Khoisan. Only the dark green one has been found in East Africa.
I heard there is still a small frequency of A in SOME North African groups.
Yes, my bad. Instead of just saying "Africa", the above post should say North Africa, as in:
"The early breakaway orange and red lineages have been found in and/or near ***North*** Africa." Click on the link to see said orange and red NRY 'A' lineages.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
My observations in between 2014 and now on this forum in regards to this topic are there for everyone to see. Post them here and refute them. You can't. We've seen you consistently fail to disprove my observations. So why not just leave it alone? The only reason I'm still replying to you is because you're misrepresenting my views, not because you've demonstrated where something I've said is false.
You haven't responded to anything because you don't want to answer a simple yes or no question. So stop running and stand up like a man and dodging the dam question.
Is black people not a valid word to apply to the ancient Egyptian population or any other population in Africa based on skin color?
Yes or No.
If you answer that I will give you some slack.
Otherwise you are trolling and I am done with you.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
My observations in between 2014 and now on this forum in regards to this topic are there for everyone to see. Post them here and refute them. You can't. We've seen you consistently fail to disprove my observations. So why not just leave it alone? The only reason I'm still replying to you is because you're misrepresenting my views, not because you've demonstrated where something I've said is false.
You haven't responded to anything because you don't want to answer a simple yes or no question. So stop running and stand up like a man and dodging the dam question.
Is black people not a valid word to apply to the ancient Egyptian population or any other population in Africa based on skin color?
Yes or No.
If you answer that I will give you some slack.
Otherwise you are trolling and I am done with you.
That's a good one. Classic chest thumping and back talking when in defeat. I don't need your "slack" nor am I going to jump through your hoops. I've already explained that there are different traditions of 'black' and that according to some ancient traditions they were 'black' and according to other ancient traditions a shade of brown with certain Nubians being "true black". Only to have you perform your usual bizarre antics. You either refute my posts or you can't. Simple.
All these attempts to sidetrack the discussion are just to distract from your inability to deal with the subject matter at hand.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Your bullsh*t argument that this is not commonly used in America is a total flat out nonsense lie as you can turn on the news in any city in America or many other programs on almost any day and here them talking about 'black people' and 'white people' daily.
Here he says that the argument between me and him is about whether the West uses "black" in conversation and in the media. WTF? His other posts contain the same spaced out cuckoo allegations. They get more spacey with every post. How can you be so astronomically far off track in regards to what this discussion is about?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The early breakaway orange and red lineages have been found in and/or near Africa. The yellow and light green ones have been found among the Khoisan. Only the dark green one has been found in East Africa.
Correction: of all the NRY 'A' lineages considered, only the dark green one has been found in East Africa.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Noticing some differences between the merenpath second glyph (?) and the Rameses second glyph (T rope). Not sure what this means:
Sidney Anson/Swenet replied:
quote:
Its astonishing, that this b!tch just can't cope with the idea that Egyptians were depicted in this manner. It's mind boggling, how someone can be so terrified by the possibility, that the Egyptians actually did this, that they will desperately latch onto every oppertunity to descredit and falsify anything that hints at the Egyptians thinking of themselves as alligned with fellow black Africans .
Yes, if there is one thing one can say that has been consistent about Lioness, it is that she has always been uncomfortable with Ancient Egyptians saying they're unapologetically African. Her anxieties have also reared their ugly heads when the texts accompanying the images discussed here, were brought to her attention, and those who have seen her angsts come out when I included that text in my Youtube video, know this.
I can honestly and gladly say that I'm done going back and forth on this forum with those wackjobs. Should've made this decision a long time ago.
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Okay as a "newbie" I noticed a ranging war going on and I want to include my 2 cents. Before I go on I hope I do not misinterpret both camps arguments.
In my opinion using the term, "black" is not useless. It's just that the term or ANY modern day racial terms have any use in science/anthropology. And trying to make them relevant in that field is futile. Scientific Anthropologist refrain from using racial terms. "Race" is not biologically defined and this is nothing new. So I don't get why SOME people on here are having a hard time grasping this. No anthropologist will out right say the Ancient Egyptians were "black"! That is just a fact neither would they say the Ancient Egyptians were white or whatever.
Keita for example who is a well known anthropologist refrains from using racial terms. He never in any of his works outright said the Ancient Egyptians were "black" and yet by reading his work and using common sense we know what he is saying.
Anyways poster Swenet hit the nail with this post from that Sir Clair Drake thread.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
A subset of dynastic Egyptian samples squeezed in between Abyssinians and Cretans, Etruscans and Sardinians and showing considerable ties with the biblical inhabitants of the Judaean city of Lachish. No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown). And in the occasion they do use 'black' in a racial sense (usually when they speak in an informal context), they're likely to say that they think that the ancient Egyptians were half black/half non-black based on their position in cranio-facial analysis.
This is the obvious peril/risk you run when you engage opponents trying to repurpose and reinvigorate old prejudiced terms (i.e. "black" as applied in the west) as opposed to focusing on the real issue, i.e., the question whether they were indigenous Africans or not. Of course, someone's position in multivariate space is going to determine how lay people perceive their "race", so the "forget science, I'm just focusing on what lay people would say" escape, is a deliberately deceptive fallacy. Craniofacial analysis uses measurements that the lay public intuitively uses when assigning race.
But to expand on further what Swenet meant...
Who are those people? Are they African? If that was your answer than you are wrong! Those are the Adamanese people of Indian. They look what you would call "black" or even "black African". Yet they are not only NOT African, but distant from Africans.
These mixed Dominicans are more "African" than those Adamanese will ever be.
Yet the Adamanese people are "blacker" in terms of phenotype.
This is why Swenet, Keita and other anthropologist refrain from using black in scientific discussions. This is the mess you run into. And from experience with arguments with laymen it's been a very frustrating time explaining to them how "black" Asians/pacific Islanders are distant from Africans.
Now I don't think the term black is completely irrelevant. The idea is separating historic discussions from scientific discussions.
History is different, because history is well just history.... Saying we shouldn't use "black" in a historical discussion is like saying we shouldn't use black when having a historical discussion about the Civil Rights or the Haitian revolution. History is just the study of past events and even what terms they used back then.
For example I don't not see a problem with arguing that the Ancient Egyptians were black in a historical discussion considering that Greek and Roman writers referred to them and the Nubians as black(though not a racial sense like modern times), but still black nonetheless.
Also using black in historical discussions involving the Moors is not only relevant, but very important considering the term "Moor" meant black.
My point is we should know when and when not to use "black" in discussions. Basically by separating historical discussions from scientific ones.
Again just my 2 cents.
Crux of my argument if not understood by now.
1) Black skin is not a 'racial term'. It is a skin color 2) Humans have skin color and adjectives like black, white, brown, tan and olive can be used to describe such complexions. 3) Black in reference to populations in Africa has always been a reference to skin color 4) Skin color is not race. There is only a single human race. 5) Racism is based on skin color but skin color is not race. 6) The debate about Ancient Egypt, among other populations in and outside of Africa, is about skin color, no more and no less. 7) Diop and most other black folks leading the charge against racists and their views on Egypt in particular and Africa in general were all talking about skin color. Diop most notably using the melanin dosage test to reinforce the point that it is about skin color. 8) At the end of the day if the debate is about skin color, then why pretend it is about anything else? 9) Genetics, skeletal metrics, biological chemistry, limb ratios and environmental factors all are facts and evidences that ultimately can be used to determine the skin color of an ancient population. That is a standard part of anthropology. 10) Skin color is and has always been part of anthropological study. 11) Therefore if you are debating the skin color of an ancient population in anthropological terms, then words like 'black people' or 'white people' are actually valid ways of calling out the skin color of the populations at hand, depending on the facts or evidence available. 12) In Europe, America and other parts of the world colonized or conquered by white people, skin color has always been part of the way Europeans segregated themselves from those they conquered. 13) Terms for populations based on skin color are absolutely well understood in such societies dominated by European colonists. There is no confusion on anybodys part when someone says black people, white people or even Negroes in the language of said societies. They all understand it is a reference to skin color. 14) White power as a universal term related to white supremacy is absolutely unambiguous and clear on what they mean and what they are referring to with that term.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
More early European/North African usages of 'black'. These are interesting in light of the so far unsubstantiated claim that the 19th century use of 'black' was a collective conspiracy that supposedly broke with "3000 years of European tradition" of lumping all brown skinned people as 'black'.
Just a couple of examples of how Leo Africanus apllied 'black' in one of his works, published in 1550:
quote:They [Zenaga Berbers] have since migrated across the Sahara, and, still calling themselves Zanega and speaking a Berber dialect, are dangerous neighbours to the black people of the Senegal.
quote:Moreouer it maketh a separation betweene nations of sundrie colours: for the people on this side [north] are of a dead ash-colour, leane, and of a small stature; but on the farther side [south] they are exceeding blacke, of tall and manly stature, and very well proportioned : howbeit neere vnto the riuer on either side, they are of a meane colour, complexion, and stature betweene both the aboue mentioned.
quote:From thence the Abassin [Abyssinian] borders trend south somewhat crookedly in manner of abowe, as farre as the kingdome of Adea (from the mountaines whereof springeth a riuer called by Ptolemey* Raptus which falleth into the sea about Melinde) for the space of two hundred and fiftie nine leagues; next vnto the which borders, inhabite certaine Gentiles of blacke colour, with curled haire.
quote:The people of Adel [place in Ethiopia] are of the colour of an oliue [brown[?]], being very warlike, notwithstanding that the greatest part of them want weapons.
quote: Barbora likewise, a citie of the Moores [Muslims], standeth in this kingdome of Adel, and hath a commodious hauen, whereunto resort many ships laden with merchandize, from Aden in Arabia, and from Cambaya vpon the riuer of Indus. The citizens are blacke people, and their wealth consisteth most of all in flesh.
quote:The inhabitants of Magadazo [Mogadishu(?)] are of an oliue-colour [dark shade of brown(?)], and some of them blacke, like vnto the nations adioining, and they go naked from the girdle-stead vpward, and speak the Arabian toong.
quote:The inhabitants [of Zanzibar] are for the most part black, with curled haire, being Idolaters, and much addicted to sorcery and witchcraft.
quote:They [inhabitants of Zanzibar's northern coast] are of a colour inclining to white, and some blacke people they haue also among them, which are for the greatest part Idolaters: howbeit all of them pretend a kinde of ciuilitie both in their apparel], and in the decencie and furniture of their houses. The women are white, and sumptuously attired after the Arabian fashion with cloth of silke.
quote:The people of this place [place in southern Africa] called in the Arabian toong Cafri, Cafres, or Cafates, that is to say, lawlesse or outlawes, are for the most part exceeding blacke of colour, which very thing may be a sufficient argument, that the sunne is not the sole or chiefe cause of their blacknes; for in diuers other countries where the heate thereof is farre more scorching and intolerable, there are tawnie, browne, yellowish, ash-coloured, and white people; so that the cause thereof seemeth rather to be of an hereditarie qualitie transfused from the parents, then the intemperature of an hot climate
quote:All the kingdomes and countries by vs before described, from the cape of Buena esperanca, to the riuer last mentioned [southwest to West Africa], are inhabited by blacke people. The most northerly are the Gialofi, who spread themselues between the two foresaid riuers for the space of flue hundred leagues eastward: so that the riuer Senaga is the vtmost northern bound of Negros, or nations extremely blacke; howbeit vpon the bankes thereof are found people of sundry colours, by reason of the varietie of women.
Leo Africanus - The History and Description of Africa And of the Notable Things Therein Contained (1550)
So, so far we have the following skin color based classifications, per Leo Africanus:
Exceedingly black, extremely black, negro black with curled hair black olive [shade of dark brown(?)] brown tawny yellowish ash-coloured [swarthy(?)] white
More observations:
--Leo Africanus spoke of a latitudinal cline along which "negro" and Berber speaking people were situated. In the middle of this cline, there were brown skinned people whom Leo didn't treat as 'black'.
--the northernmost limit of the "negro" variety of Leo's black skinned people was pin-pointed by him as somewhere in the Sahel. This is broadly consistent with Ptolemy's placement of "pure" black skinned people.
I think I've made my point that historically speaking, there is nothing necessarily intuitive or self-evident about indiscriminately lumping various brown skinned people into a 'black' category. Only in conversation with certain people you're going to run into staunch denialism when you make this observation.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I understand what Swenet has been saying all along... he simply appreciates the fact that scientists are not going to use subjective social terms in lieu of objective scientific terminology.
Swenet has said nothing to suggest that he doesn't believe that the ancient Egyptians could be described as black despite being considerably lighter than some of the populations that lay to the south of them - populations that were depicted as dark as the Dinka, Nuer and Nuba -- some of the darkest people on earth.
Some of the 'Nubians' in Lower Nubia were depicted with the same skin tone as the ancient Egyptians, but nobody in their right mind would suggest that they aren't black.
The Italians, Spaniards and Greeks are considerably darker than the Swedes and Norwegians but everybody understands that they are all white. The same has to apply in the Nile valley.
The first group of soldiers are darker than the second but they would be both described as black.
Nobody could describe queen Tiye and Amenhotep III as anything but black:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: 1) Black skin is not a 'racial term'. It is a skin color
How can this be true when there are arguments about certain Africans and whether are not they are "Black"...even when they are dark skinned? The fact that you are having this discussion should tell you everyone does not use the term as you use it. Are you not familiar with the anthropological tradition of "Black" that EXCLUDES Pygmies and Khoisan ("pygmoid" and "Capoid")?
quote: The africa encountered by the first European explorers in the fifteenth century was already home to five human races: blacks, whites, Pygmies, Khoisan, and Asians. The only race not found in Africa is the aboriginal Australians and their relatives.
Some people are so paranoid and needy that they feel compelled to force their variant of 'black' onto academics and others. Disagreement immediately results in indignation and crybaby reactions. Their hidden agendas won't allow them to acknowledge that there simply are different traditions of the term.
Depending on the tradition you adhere to, you can prefer that all shades of brown skin should be called 'black' (al Jahiz), that only jet-black skin should be called 'black' (e.g. Ptolemy and Leo Africanus) or that a perceived racial grouping should be considered 'black' (e.g. United States).
It speaks for itself that merely saying that population x wouldn't classify as 'black' in the US tradition, doesn't mean that they wouldn't classify as such in another tradition.
At least in the Egyptian case, the worst that will often happen is that some of these nay-sayers are going to say "they weren't black, but a shade of brown". NO serious non-trolling academic is going to look at this and say it's not dark brown:
In terms of skin pigmentation, why someone would get teary eyed over the difference between 'brown' and 'black' is beyond me. I'd have to invoke some sort of hidden agenda for it to make sense.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic