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
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.
Here is Doug advocating that scientists should use inaccurate descriptions of people like "white" and at the same time advocates a melanin dosage test if applied "white" would be meaningless. And Diop believed in race and is quoted as saying so!
Then Doug applies an inconsistent double standard and expects scientists to do the same
" Humans have skin color and adjectives like black, white, brown, tan and olive can be used to describe such complexions"
But if a person is African then they can't be brown, tan and olive they are all black.
3) Black in reference to populations in Africa has always been a reference to skin color
Doug insists old European negro sterotypes be applied. Doug has been brainwashed and doesn't even know it. African diversity does include brown people, most of African people in fact
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Racist white French cops ‘black up for negro party’
A group of police officers based in a Paris suburb are under internal investigation after photos of them at a “negro party” with their faces painted black, surfaced on social media.
The pictures show policemen from Kremlin Bicetre ( Paris/France) disguised as blacks.
posted
I see someone can't tell the difference between what Leo Africanus actually wrote and what John Pory his English language translator added both in front of and in back of Africanus' 9 books of The History of Africa; thus revealing no familiarity with that author but who has no more than "frantically googled" for any thing to pull over on the gullible which is why the agenda driven "Africanus" quotes lack citation.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| 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.
Surprisingly that article was written by Palash Ghosh.
I wonder how many Tuareg people Palash Ghosh has met personally?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is no more than using local internal colour designations as If the same as the white West ones.
Except for the Mike111 crowd who've flipped it rational readers And researchers know that Euros internal local use of black means black haired or brown eyed or etc white Euro individuals.
Do I haffe bump the threads showing what we mean Internally by white where some of us call even dark skinned Black Americans white?
Centuries ago we called foreigners and followers of nontraditional ideologies white yet during that time Arabic writers like ibn Butlan label these Saharan's black and Africanus is positing Tawnie Africans and Blacke Africans are biologically of one origin.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| 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.
The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 88 Supplemental Data
A Revised Root for the Human Y Chromosomal Phylogenetic Tree: The Origin of Patrilineal Diversity in Africa
Figure S1. Map Showing Location of the Population Samples Considered in This Study Populations are represented by circles and numbered as in Table S5. Sectors within circles are proportional to the frequency of haplogroup A1a (green), A1b (red) and A2-T (black). Green asterisks indicate countries were haplogroup A1a has previously been observed.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This is no more than using local internal colour designations as If the same as the white West ones.
Except for the Mike111 crowd who've flipped it rational readers And researchers know that Euros internal local use of black means black haired or brown eyed or etc white Euro individuals.
Do I haffe bump the threads showing what we mean Internally by white where some of us call even dark skinned Black Americans white?
Centuries ago we called foreigners and followers of nontraditional ideologies white yet during that time Arabic writers like ibn Butlan label these Saharan's black and Africanus is positing Tawnie Africans and Blacke Africans are biologically of one origin.
"Plenty of analyses by Western officials and journalists these days are structured around simple binaries dividing Mali’s population into north and south, white and black, North African and sub-Saharan, good guys and bad guys. Such crude dualisms need to be dispensed with. Below are a few facts about northern Mali generally, and the Tuareg specifically, that can help in this regard."
[...]
But the Songhay, a sedentary, phenotypically “black” population, are the biggest group in northern Mali. (Arabs or “Moors” make up about four percent of the population in those three regions, and one percent nationally.)
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I see someone can't tell the difference between what Leo Africanus actually wrote and what John Pory his English language translator added both in front of and in back of Africanus' 9 books of The History of Africa; thus revealing no familiarity with that author but who has no more than "frantically googled" for any thing to pull over on the gullible which is why the agenda driven "Africanus" quotes lack citation.
quote: "The mobilization of local ideas about racial difference has been important in generating, and intensifying, civil wars that have occurred since the end of colonial rule in all of the countries that straddle the southern edge of the Sahara Desert. From Sudan to Mauritania, the racial categories deployed in contemporary conflicts often hearken back to an older history in which blackness could be equated with slavery and non-blackness with predatory and uncivilized banditry. This book traces the development of arguments about race over a period of more than 350 years in one important place along the southern edge of the Sahara Desert: the Niger Bend in northern Mali. Using Arabic documents held in Timbuktu, as well as local colonial sources in French and oral interviews, Bruce S. Hall reconstructs an African intellectual history of race that long predated colonial conquest, and which has continued to orient inter-African relations ever since."
--Bruce S. Hall
A History of Race in Muslim West Africa, 1600–1960
posted
I once suggested to a racist white guy, that we should divide whites into racial categories of eye and hair color. The dude went rampant.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know we have talked about other populations on this forum not just those in Africa in relation to the term black. But that aside, when you look at all the threads on this forum that have been created over many years, the bottom line issue is whether the AE would justly be called black people based on their skin color.
I don't think any sane person would argue that skin color is not the crux of the issue regarding the debates over the 'scientific identification' of specific African populations, like the AE or other populations in and outside of Africa in general.
As I said before, if the issue is about skin color of the AE or any other population in Africa, I am going to say what I mean and mean what I say. The AE and most Africans are black Africans. There is nothing "social" about black people in the English language. People have been bamboozled by white folks into being scared so say that the AE or any other population were 'black people'.
So if that is the case then why are people debating and spending so much time on this forum if you aren't going to challenge the status quo?
Folks are contradicting themselves.
Everybody and their grandmother knows what black person means at a fundamental description of skin color.
And then not only that folks will sit here and lie and say that racism in the Americas and Europe are based on 'social definitions' not skin color. Please save me the lame nonsense. Yet everyday on the dam news you have folks called 'black people' and 'white people' and they aren't talking about 'race' in so much as they are talking about skin color. Meaning, she could claim to be 'racially' white but if she was anything other than pale white and more brown or tan or darker she would not be considered as such because skin color is the marker for the 'social' definition of 'race'.
This is a white woman:
And this is what she is labeled as in the media and nobody is confused about what is being referred to when they call her white:
quote:Fisher, who is white, first challenged the program in 2008, after she was denied admission to the state university. The university's "holistic" admission program uses race as one of several factors in the admissions process. She claimed the consideration of race violated her 14th Amendment right to equal protection.
And this woman will be called white in America and she will be called white in Europe and she will also be called white in Africa and this is by 'white people'. So where is this 'social' definition that varies from place to place? And please show me how they are not talking about her skin color when they call her white? You just got a bunch of fakers on this forum pretending to be standing up for telling the truth when it comes to skin color but run and hide when it comes time to put up or shut up. All of a sudden they are so worried about what 'other folks' may think. Please. Then STFU if you are scared to say what you mean and stop lying.
He is called black in America, he is called black in Canada, he is called black in Europe and he would be called black in Africa. And of course they are talking about his skin color. I already provided the definition of 'black people' from a standard English dictionary and it says 'dark skin people, especially from Africa'. It does not say 'a social definition based on social norms and standards'.
According to morons on this thread when white folks say "white power" they don't mean skin color they mean something 'social' so anybody can join their club right?
And when they lynched people or they created apartheid, skin color wasn't the basis of any of it because skin color isn't real now is it? And of course when they called Africans black people they didn't mean skin color? Of course not.....
For the sake of my sanity folks need to stop trying to sound objective. You sound stupid. Folks got their heads so far up white folks behinds they can't see straight, but have the nerve to lecture me about what black means.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
That article doesn't necessarily depict Tuareg self-perceptions. They reflect western perceptions and are typical of western coverage of the area. But if you feel that talking to more Tuareg would have necessarily produced a radically different result in terms of their perceived relatedness to Africans to the south, we can also look at Tuareg self-perceptions:
quote:One of the best things about this whole time has been how happy my team has been, consistently. There has not been a cross face or a bad mood from any of them. They start and end each day in the same way, chatting, smiling and laughing as they crouch around the fire. I know “Africans” are supposed to be happy people, but the Tuareg dismiss all black people from the south as “les Africains” and would be horrified to be lumped in with them. This is a Tuareg thing.
--Hanbury-Tenison
quote:The name of 'Air' in Tamashek signifies 'crossroad, place of meeting.' It has been so called since Imazighen began to people it, coming from the north, the east and the west. Before their arrival, other people originating in faraway Yemen, Ethiopia, archaic Egypt and ancient Nubia made their way to that region, and gave it the archaic name of 'Abzin' a word closely related to Abysinnia which was the ancient name of Ethiopia. The descendants of these ancient populations are said to be of red skin (Ikanawane, red ochre people) and they are found among potters and Inadane, smiths and artisans. Imazighen, themselves of a fairer complexion, were a later arrival who mixed with the original red sknned populations in the mountains of Northern Niger; as time went by, their descendants spread to further regions due to their nomadic lifestyle. Tuareg individuals known as Inadane (guardians of traditional knowledge) are keenly aware of this dual ancient heritage and carefully protect it. In the collective memory of the Tuaregs, the ties that were forged from this union are very powerful.
Helene E. Hagan - Tuareg Jewelry: Traditional Patterns and Symbols
quote:Interestingly, tradition affirms the existence of ancient connections between Ethiopia and the Tuareg. Thus, the mountains of Air in northern Niger allegedly saw various ancestral migrations from Ethiopia (and other regions far to the east), to the extent that the archaic name for the area is Abzin, a word related to Abyssinia, the old name for Ethiopia. The descendants of these early populations are called Ikanawane (“red skin”) and are particularly found among the silversmiths and artisans (inaden) of the Tuareg.
Lloyd D. Graham - The Magic Symbol Repertoire of Talismanic Rings from East and West Africa
An example of a supposedly "red" Tuareg blacksmith (posting this to show that "red" isn't necessarily consistent with how people in the US might construe it):
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: 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:
There is a difference between saying "I don't agree with calling such and such population black" and "I don't agree that black skin exists". Those are two totally different and separate things. Skin color exists and calling skin color by names 'black' or 'white' is not a 'racial' term it is a skin color term. Ancient Greeks, Al Jahiz and many other folks using various terms in reference to black Africans were all talking about skin color. The point being is that skin color exists and it is perfectly legitimate to describe skin color by certain labels, like black or white. The other part of this is when I say black people I generally mean people who are on average very dark, as in the average complexion across the entire group. I am not talking about folks on the fringe who are ambiguous. There is no confusion about what I mean when I say black person. And that is the definition that is in the dictionary which is a very broad generic statement about a population across a continent and other areas of the world where the complexion is generally very dark. There is no real confusion about this and when I say that the AE were black, of course it is meant they were well within the range of complexions found among the majority of Africans who are black Africans.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a confusing, convoluted hot mess Doug's posts have been reduced to.
Doug M dismisses the observations I've made as "defending racists", but he is utterly confused. Even some of the most hardcore racist anthropologists agreed that the dark skinned Egyptians on the Egyptian monuments were in al Jahiz range in terms of skin pigmentation. Like I said before, only the trolling academics and those who have never seriously looked into this deny that the ancient Egyptians would fall into the skin pigmentation range of African Americans.
These early hardcore racist 'scientists' who cluster them with Nubians were far more racist and sophisticated in their racism than trolling Egyptologists who say that the AE were pale or the same as modern Egyptians. They make Egyptologists like Bob Brier (who try to drive a wedge between Nubians and Egyptians), look like saints.
Here is an example of a hardcore racist/white supremacist 'scientist' saying that the dark skinned Egyptians (as contrasted with this author's perception of "Mediterranean" lower Egyptians) had the skin pigmentation of modern day NUBIANS:
quote:Professor Rosellini supposes the Egyptians to have been of a brown, or reddish-brown colour, (rosso-fosco,) like the present inhabitants of Nubia; but, with all deference to that illustrious archaeologist, I conceive that his remark is only applicable to the Austral-Egyptians as a group, and not to the inhabitants of Egypt proper, except as a partial result of that mixture of nations to which I have already adverted, and which will be more fully inquired into hereafter.
--Samuel Morton
As shown again and again, Doug simply has no idea what he's talking about. His last couple of posts here have dumbed down into an unintelligible, spammy mess that have little to do with the matter at hand.
Doug's touted racists, as described by him in his vague descriptions, do not exist or they describe only a small, non-prominent fraction. And in comparison with the aforementioned 'professional' and ideologically driven racists, they are moderately racist or simply incompetent and parroting others. Again, not using 'black' (as generally understood by the US public) in reference to certain populations isn't necessarily racist.
Doug's imaginary pre-white supremacy European consensus in regards to classifying all shades of brown skin as 'black', isn't based in reality either.
Skin color exists and calling skin color by names 'black' or 'white' is not a 'racial' term it is a skin color term.
This is an anthropology forum. It's a science. This is 2015 not the 9th century Arabs or ancient Greeks.
Observation tells us most of the Egyptians in their art were depicted as brown in color. That is irrefutable
The fact that Doug insists that they instead be called black clearly shows his agenda is more than color
For some reason an apple is red an orange is orange but something brown is not brown. All of the sudden the word "brown" doesn't exist a common ordinary color, a color that accurate describes the Egyptian art.
"White" is another term which has no place in anthropology articles.
All that is important is>>
were the Egyptians primarily African in both their paternal and maternal ancestry?
For some reason Africa is not good enough. For some reason skin color is the most important thing to a person's identity
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
were the Egyptians primarily African in both their paternal and maternal ancestry?
For some reason Africa is not good enough. For some reason skin color is the most important thing to a person's identity
As I said in the other thread, personally I'm waiting for full genome sequence of ancient egyptian mummies.
You've probably noticed I often say AE were black African (or something of that sort like AE were related to sub-Saharan and Afro-Americans ,etc) and I often add "based on our current scientific knowledge" or something of that sort.
When I say that for me it's really about waiting for full genome. The haplogroup and autosomal (STR) analysis of Ancient Egyptians mummies put them without a doubt as Africans. Same as archaeological analysis of course. E1b1a and the DNA Tribes analysis of the JAMA and BMJ data make it clear. Those royal mummies from the 18th, 12th(old Paabo study) and 20th dynasty had a lot of African in them and almost more importantly not a lot of Eurasian in them. So based on our current knowledge they were truly Africans in every sense of the word. Indigenous black Africans related to modern sub-Sahara Africans and thus African-Americans. Full genome sequence of royal mummies (before foreign dynasties of course) is the last step.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
That article doesn't necessarily depict Tuareg self-perceptions. They reflect western perceptions and are typical of western coverage of the area. But if you feel that talking to more Tuareg would have necessarily produced a radically different result in terms of their perceived relatedness to Africans to the south, we can also look at Tuareg self-perceptions:
quote:One of the best things about this whole time has been how happy my team has been, consistently. There has not been a cross face or a bad mood from any of them. They start and end each day in the same way, chatting, smiling and laughing as they crouch around the fire. I know “Africans” are supposed to be happy people, but the Tuareg dismiss all black people from the south as “les Africains” and would be horrified to be lumped in with them. This is a Tuareg thing.
--Hanbury-Tenison
quote:The name of 'Air' in Tamashek signifies 'crossroad, place of meeting.' It has been so called since Imazighen began to people it, coming from the north, the east and the west. Before their arrival, other people originating in faraway Yemen, Ethiopia, archaic Egypt and ancient Nubia made their way to that region, and gave it the archaic name of 'Abzin' a word closely related to Abysinnia which was the ancient name of Ethiopia. The descendants of these ancient populations are said to be of red skin (Ikanawane, red ochre people) and they are found among potters and Inadane, smiths and artisans. Imazighen, themselves of a fairer complexion, were a later arrival who mixed with the original red sknned populations in the mountains of Northern Niger; as time went by, their descendants spread to further regions due to their nomadic lifestyle. Tuareg individuals known as Inadane (guardians of traditional knowledge) are keenly aware of this dual ancient heritage and carefully protect it. In the collective memory of the Tuaregs, the ties that were forged from this union are very powerful.
Helene E. Hagan - Tuareg Jewelry: Traditional Patterns and Symbols
quote:Interestingly, tradition affirms the existence of ancient connections between Ethiopia and the Tuareg. Thus, the mountains of Air in northern Niger allegedly saw various ancestral migrations from Ethiopia (and other regions far to the east), to the extent that the archaic name for the area is Abzin, a word related to Abyssinia, the old name for Ethiopia. The descendants of these early populations are called Ikanawane (“red skin”) and are particularly found among the silversmiths and artisans (inaden) of the Tuareg.
Lloyd D. Graham - The Magic Symbol Repertoire of Talismanic Rings from East and West Africa
An example of a supposedly "red" Tuareg blacksmith (posting this to show that "red" isn't necessarily consistent with how people in the US might construe it):
1) it's cool, but I know what the Kel looks like, I know that very well. For this reason, I posted what I posted, several times.
2) What I showed is how the west imposes the terms to segregate ethnic groups (into racial designation). Sometimes based on facial tructure and at times on color complexion. Had the author of that article you've posted, seen this man somewhere in the west, he would never seen him as a white person. Case in point is, the author is talking about people he doesn't really know.
What I noticed in this articles was, that the did not mention specific ethnic groups of the Kel population to explain the history of the Tuareg, they just some random names narratives to "black and with", "master/ slaves".
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Skin color exists and calling skin color by names 'black' or 'white' is not a 'racial' term it is a skin color term.
This is an anthropology forum. It's a science. This is 2015 not the 9th century Arabs or ancient Greeks.
Observation tells us most of the Egyptians in their art were depicted as brown in color. That is irrefutable
The fact that Doug insists that they instead be called black clearly shows his agenda is more than color
For some reason an apple is red an orange is orange but something brown is not brown. All of the sudden the word "brown" doesn't exist a common ordinary color, a color that accurate describes the Egyptian art.
"White" is another term which has no place in anthropology articles.
All that is important is>>
were the Egyptians primarily African in both their paternal and maternal ancestry?
For some reason Africa is not good enough. For some reason skin color is the most important thing to a person's identity
Well several studies in physical and cultural anthropology have shown that the ancient Egyptians were indigenous to Africa. The genetic imprints are only confirmative.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What a confusing, convoluted hot mess Doug's posts have been reduced to.
I told you I was done but you keep responding to me and misrepresenting the point.
The only confusing convoluted hot mess here is you because you keep claiming that the use of the term black is simply not a reference to the various range of brown and black skin tones in Africa and that this is not the crux of the debate over AE and other populations in and outside of Africa. Your claim that using brown and other words indicating various shades of brown is going to please some group of scientists or change the opinions of those who are determined to turn the ancient Egyptians into white people is the problem, because you are avoiding the point that whatever ranges of colors and terms you use to describe them they still wont agree with you. And above all else, you are lying when you say that the word black people doesn't include all those brown colors, as in the colors of Egypt and 'Nubia' as referred to by Al Jahiz and others or the Ancient Egyptians themselves who called themselves 'black people/black nation'. That right there is a bold face lie.
quote: Doug M dismisses the observations I've made as "defending racists", but he is utterly confused. Even some of the most hardcore racist anthropologists agreed that the dark skinned Egyptians on the Egyptian monuments were in al Jahiz range in terms of skin pigmentation.
So are you saying that these hardcore racists are the reason we shouldn't use the term black people in reference to these mummies? And are you seriously claiming that these same 'hardcore racists' still would not call them 'black people' because they wanted to lump them in with populations called 'white people' in Europe based on skin color? Again, if these hardcore racists would not call these mummies 'black people' then you have to ask yourself why and why is it you seem to believe using similar terms to theirs and not calling them 'black people' somehow changes the point? The point is and has always been skin color and whether those skin colors equates to the range of colors labeled in the dam dictionary as black people. If they don't agree with the use of that term it is because they are racist and nothing else, because they don't want these people lumped with the rest of Africans. Therefore, knowing that and knowing that when I debate the issue I am saying that these people were and in many cases today are in the same range of colors as the rest of black Africa, I am making the point that there is no difference in the ranges of browns they use and what is called black. That is the fundamental point.
quote: Like I said before, only the trolling academics and those who have never seriously looked into this deny that the ancient Egyptians would fall into the skin pigmentation range of African Americans.
Most Egyptologists would not call the AE black africans because of the skin color. This is not just a few this is almost all of them. Your dumb behind is trying to sit up here and claim that there is some 'other' reason why they won't use the term black other than skin color, when we all know that this is about skin color and you are now trying to sit up here and lie and claim that suddenly all along we all agree with the Egyptologists and Racists in that we are all referring to the same skin complexions and our debate was merely an issue of semantics and we all mean the same range of browns. BULL SH*T. You are the only one stating this.
quote: These early hardcore racist 'scientists' who cluster them with Nubians were farmore racist and sophisticated in their racism than trolling Egyptologists who say that the AE were pale or the same as modern Egyptians.
How does what you said make any sense? What hardcore racist would ever lump AE and Nubians together in terms of skin color? It is the African scholars and anti-racists who have been lumping so-called Nubian and AE mummies together in terms of skin color. You are absolutely misrepresenting all sides of the issue. Now you are claiming that the hard core racists and the African scholars like Diop are in agreement. In fact you even lied and said Diop wasn't using science to identify skin color in ancient remains and that this debate was more about 'science' for science sake and not about skin color. Come on man, you are seriously going off the deep end here to justify avoiding using a term which is simple straight forward and gets to the point of the skin color of the AE and other Africans. They were black people. Period. The fact that you don't want to use this term as if it changes the point and what this debate is about is the issue. It is about skin color and it is about 'black' and 'white' in terms of the outward skin color of the AE. That is the point no matter you you try and sit here and contradict yourself claiming that European scientists aren't talking about this and have not always been talking about this whether they are 'hardcore racists' or not.
quote: They make Egyptologists like Bob Brier (who try to drive a wedge between Nubians and Egyptians), look like saints.
Here is an example of a hardcore racist/white supremacist 'scientist' saying that the dark skinned Egyptians (as contrasted with this author's perception of "Mediterranean" lower Egyptians) had the skin pigmentation of modern day NUBIANS:
quote:Professor Rosellini supposes the Egyptians to have been of a brown, or reddish-brown colour, (rosso-fosco,) like the present inhabitants of Nubia; but, with all deference to that illustrious archaeologist, I conceive that his remark is only applicable to the Austral-Egyptians as a group, and not to the inhabitants of Egypt proper, except as a partial result of that mixture of nations to which I have already adverted, and which will be more fully inquired into hereafter.
--Samuel Morton
Who is the hardcore racist in this quote? There are actually 3 'scientists' in this quote. One is Brier, one is Rosellini and the other is Morton. You yourself said two of the three do not lump the AE with Nubians and are 'hardcore racists'. So which hardcore racist is saying the AE were close to Nubians? Rosellini is the only one in this quote and I don't see where he is a 'hardcore racist'. The only hardcore racist here is Morton and he says himself that he disagrees with Rosellini, so what on earth are you talking about? In no way shape or form was Morton in agreement with the AE and Nubians being 'brown' black African. You have lied about the opinions of Jahiz, the Greeks and now even the racists. You are a seriously disturbing individual and this is why nothing you say makes any dam sense.
Rosellini produced one of the best works on AE art which makes it clear that the AE were black Africans so you actually have shown yourself to be unreliable in everything you are saying.
quote: As shown again and again, Doug simply has no idea what he's talking about. His last couple of posts here have dumbed down into an unintelligible, spammy mess that have little to do with the matter at hand.
No I think you have no idea what you are talking about. You keep misrepresenting the issue, claiming that all these folks aren't talking about skin color and then misrepresenting the facts on all sides of the debate in order to justify an absurd argument that this isn't about skin color when everybody and their granddaddy knows it is about skin color.
quote: Doug's touted racists, as described by him in his vague descriptions, do not exist or they describe only a small, non-prominent fraction. And in comparison with the aforementioned 'professional' and ideologically driven racists, they are moderately racist or simply incompetent and parroting others. Again, not using 'black' (as generally understood by the US public) in reference to certain populations isn't necessarily racist.
You are a dummy. You are misrepresenting what I said. I said that this debate is about skin color and that those so called 'objective' scientists are not using the term 'black' because of skin color. They absolutely are referring to skin color when they reject the use of the term. You on the other hand are trying to crawl up the crack of their behinds because you are in agreement with them and think that by not saying the word black that somehow they are in agreement with you when they are not in agreement with you and many on this forum. Please show me how changing your terminology have brought you and these 'objective' scholars into agreement on the skin color of the AE? You can't. You are simply blowing so much nonsense out of your behind it is ridiculous. According to you these folks are actually in agreement with us and they aren't. According to you if we just understand the words they use we will see that we are all in agreement and we are not. And this is all about skin color and the fact that the truth is they don't want to call them black Africans because they know full well what black Africans means in terms of skin color and they fundamentally disagree with using that range of skin colors when it comes to the AE. You are simply lying if you claim that they actually believe otherwise.
quote: Doug's imaginary pre-white supremacy European consensus in regards to classifying all shades of brown skin as 'black', isn't based in reality either.
Stop making it up as you go along.
Obviously you are retarded. Only a moron would claim that ancient writers were not referring to the skin colors of Africans as dark using various terms, including 'black' throughout history including the AE themselves. You simply are running away from this simple fact. Not to mention you are going to sit here and claim that these 'objective' Egyptologists do not know what skin color is and are not in disagreement with the AE being labeled as 'black Africans' because of skin color. You are absolutely full of sh*t. What is the debate about then moron? You are the only one making up stuff at this point.
Because according to you this is not a white person and this is not what Egyptologists mean when they say the AE were not black people:
That dude gerard butler PLAYING WHO, what does the Egyptians look like inside that movie...
that person gerard butler?
theres a term that defines majority of those from hollywood
Persons of Interests
quote:
"Persons of interest"
is a term used by U.S. law enforcement when identifying someone involved in a criminal investigation who has not been arrested or formally accused of a crime.
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.
If scientists want to use terms like tropically-adapted in their scientific papers, then that's perfectly fine, but if they were asked [in conversation] whether or not the ancient Egyptians generally had skin tones in the range of most Africans and they said no and claimed that the ancient Egyptians instead resembled the people of modern day Egypt, then I would be suspicious.
Most Africans are visually identifiable shades of brown, with the Dinka and other Nilotics being the only true exception that I can think of... and they actually do resemble the people that were depicted as jet black by the ancient Egyptians... and so a lot of westerners -quite cynically- seem to be saying that since the ancient Egyptians were not as dark as these particular group of Africans, then you can't use the term black on the ancient Egyptians.
Question: What racial terms [if any] do anthropologists use when it comes to the ancient Minoans and Greece in general? I just want to make sure that these scientists are being consistent.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
And this is directed at Doug's misinformation:
Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows I have no intentions to change the views of "racists" so the repeated strawman that I've dropped the term 'black' as a concession to nay sayers is just a fabrication. Nowhere have I ever said that making concessions to nay sayers is going to lead to agreement with the views of this forum. What I did say is that refusing to use accurate terms is going to set you up for convenient strawman fallacies.
How do you even respond to someone who misrepresents everything you say? And when you clarify, he'll misrepresent your clarifications as well. Oh, well.
Earlier on in the conversation, Doug said:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No they accept that the Ancient Egyptians looked like Charleton Heston and not even olive skinned white Europeans.
and
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: When these folks say Caucasiod they mean pure white Aryan, blue blood, pale as snow white folks.
and
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: They are not calling them black because of racism.
^If there is one re-occurring theme in the writings of racist and racialist specialists, it's that AE who were depicted as brown skinned, WERE actually brown skinned and related to Lower Nubians.
Almost all of the racists and racialists who had elaborate racist schemes and ideologies thought that the founding AE had the same level of skin pigmentation as modern day Nubians. Extremely influential racist specialist on this subject like Coon, Baker, Morton, Strouhal, etc. all fit into this category.
Therefore, it makes no sense to say that "refusing to apply 'black skinned' to ancient Egypt" is a sign of white supremacy. The majority of the professionally committed white supremacist specialists of the past have and would gladly throw you that bone.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
See above. It's a misconception that specialists think they AE were pale skinned. As far as I know, this is mostly the position of amateur commentators and academic trolls who have never looked into the matter. The specialists (both the racist and the non-racist) tend to think either that they and their afro-asiatic relatives were mixed or that both are indigenous and in their own clade.
Personally, I would get suspicious if I saw a white academic harp on "tropically adapted" in reference to AE origins. See Raxter's thesis to see what I mean. What I personally look for is an acknowledgment that they were indigenous Africans.
^Time after time again, people have claimed the AE were "negro" or "black" (according to US standards). Time after time again, papers then emerged, conveniently shooting this claim down (it's easy to falsify by performing statistical analysis). The papers cited above were done by authors who got word of these claims and then decided to test these claims.
Note that both authors believe that the AE were dark brown in pigmentation (at least one of them explicitly says this in these papers). In their minds, though, this does not necessarily mean that they were indigenous Africans.
Look it up and make up your own mind about whether the use of old racial terms sets you up for easy strawman attacks.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Therefore, it makes no sense to say that "refusing to apply 'black skinned' to ancient Egypt is a sign of white supremacy". The majority of the professionally committed white supremacist specialists of the past have and would gladly throw you that bone.
It's interesting then that so many Egyptologists and others today demure on the question of whether ancient Egyptians would be regarded as 'black'.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, deary me...what a clumsy attempt at a sleight of hand:
quote: ^Time after time again, people have claimed the AE were "black" (according to US standards) or "negro". Time after time again, papers then emerged, conveniently shooting this claim down. The papers cited above were done to specifically test the claim that the AE were "negro" or "black" (according to US standards) .
Again:
'Elongated' Africans (presumably they would not be called 'negroes', whatever that means) living in the US regard themselves as 'black':
Nearly three-quarters of African immigrants reported their race as "Black.
quote: In 2009, 74.4 percent of the African-born population reported their race as Black, either alone or in combination with another race. African immigrants identified as Black at a much higher rate than the native born (14.0 percent) and the foreign born overall (8.6 percent),and accounted for 33.3 percent of all foreign-born Blacks and 2.7 percent the total Black population in the United States.
Racial self-identification varied widely by African country of origin. For example, nearly all immigrants from Ghana (99.7 percent), Somalia(99.3 percent) , Cameroon (98.8 percent), Nigeria (98.7 percent), and Ethiopia (98.2 percent) reported their race as Black, either alone or in combination with another race, compared to 4.6 percent of Algerians, 5.6 percent of Egyptians, 8.1 percent of Moroccans, 13.8 percent of South Africans, 56.7 percent of Tanzanians, and 65.7percent of Cape Verdeans ."
posted
Egyptologists are specialists on the ethnic background of ancient Egyptians? That's a good one. And note the strawman fallacy. I said the people I mentioned would generally agree that the AE had skin tones that fit in the so-called "black" pigmentation range.
Therefore, it makes no sense to say that "refusing to apply 'black skinned' to ancient Egypt is a sign of white supremacy". --Swenet
For the slow among us:
It says "black skinned", not the 'racially black' trojan horse Carlos Coke tries to slip into conversations.
As for those Somalis, I don't care what some midget named Carlos Oliver Coke thinks. What matters to me is that people in the real world, including African immigrants, know what I mean. They know that 'black' in the US is generally not used as a reference to skin tone only:
In America, blackness simply means African American. I am not African American. I am from Kenya. Benjamin Aigbe Okonofua - “I Am Blacker Than You” - Theorizing Conflict Between African Immigrants and African Americans in the United States
Although conceptions about race in America among academics continue to emphasize local, mutable, and contradictory constructions (Bailey, 2001), the public continues to treat the issue of race as a dichotomy, that is in either White or Black terms. Benjamin Aigbe Okonofua - “I Am Blacker Than You” - Theorizing Conflict Between African Immigrants and African Americans in the United States
The construction and/or enactment of distinct ethnolinguistic identities (including preliminary construction of pseudomigrant identities) by African immigrants signify inherent contradictions within the amorphous “Black” identity that is thought to be a code word for African American. Benjamin Aigbe Okonofua - “I Am Blacker Than You” - Theorizing Conflict Between African Immigrants and African Americans in the United States
Third, because the prevailing system of racial classification lumps African immigrants and African Americans into the Black or African American category without enabling these elements to make clear behavioral and cultural assertions based on their sociohistorical milieus, opportunities and resources can only be accessed as African American. Benjamin Aigbe Okonofua - “I Am Blacker Than You” - Theorizing Conflict Between African Immigrants and African Americans in the United States
quote: As for those Somalis, I don't care what some midget named Carlos Oliver Coke thinks. What matters to me is that people in the real world, including African immigrants, know what I mean. They know that 'black' in the US is generally not used as a reference to skin tone only:
This only gets worse for you, doesn't it Sid?
It's not about what I think, it's what the census return shows.
So now Africans don't regard themselves as black?
Beyond pathetic.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
And don't forget to scroll down to the "similar thread" section. Then you can fade to the background like you always do when you get thrashed.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
People who aren't intellectually challenged (like Carlos Oliver Coke) will know that there is no discrepancy between the so-called "census" and that Somali forum thread I posted, due to the different traditions of 'black' I've talked about here over the last five thread pages.
Of course Somalis are aware of their skin pigmentation. It's not hard to imagine that they will recognize their skin color can be called black. This, however, has nothing to do with 'black' as understood by the American public. The Somalis in that thread are mostly rejecting the latter, not that they have 'black' skin.
quote: Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke: Beyond pathetic.
Yes, I agree. Carlos Oliver Coke is a pathetic midget with Napoleon Complex.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: And this is directed at Doug's misinformation:
Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows I have no intentions to change the views of "racists" so the repeated strawman that I've dropped the term 'black' as a concession to nay sayers is just a fabrication. Nowhere have I ever said that making concessions to nay sayers is going to lead to agreement with the views of this forum. What I did say is that refusing to use accurate terms is going to set you up for convenient strawman fallacies.
How do you even respond to someone who misrepresents everything you say? And when you clarify, he'll misrepresent your clarifications as well. Oh, well.
Earlier on in the conversation, Doug said:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No they accept that the Ancient Egyptians looked like Charleton Heston and not even olive skinned white Europeans.
and
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: When these folks say Caucasiod they mean pure white Aryan, blue blood, pale as snow white folks.
and
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: They are not calling them black because of racism.
^If there is one re-occurring theme in the writings of racist and racialist specialists, it's that AE who were depicted as brown skinned, WERE actually brown skinned and related to Lower Nubians.
NO Swenet. The point is they are talking about skin color. This is the issue you keep trying to duck and dodge. They are talking about skin color and they are NOT calling the AE black because they mean just that, which is they were not the same range of complexions as most Africans.
And on top of that they do NOT call the AE the same as most Nubians. Where do they say that? If they were saying that this wouldn't be a debate that has taken place for so many years. You are absolutely lying through your teeth if you claim these folks are calling the AE brown like "Nubians" because most of these folks call the Nubians BLACK. So you are completely lying and pulling bull sh*t out of your rear end to make an absurd argument. You are trolling. You may sound like you are down with the cause to many folks but really you are not. Because you have shown continually not to want to get to the point. The point is the AE were black people like most Africans and that includes Dinka, "Nubians", Ethiopians, Tutsi, Igbo and all other African ethnic groups. You simply have shown a desire to jump through hoops in order to appease racists rather than just saying what you mean which is "they were black", period.
And for you to sit here and claim that they are using the word brown because they are objective or calling the AE close to the skin color of "Nubians" is a lie. They don't say that or post those who you say do say that because they don't because if that was the case then the debate is over as universally the Nubians are called black.
You are simply sitting here being a mouthpiece for them and not being a mouthpiece for yourself. You are trying to argue THEIR position not your position. Their position is that brown is 'good enough' and that 'black' is not necessary and yes it has everything to do with skin color and NO they absolutely do not mean brown the way anyone else on this forum or anyone else means brown when it comes to the AE or any other African population. Because all black Africans are a shade of brown. And these people are not calling them brown in the sense they were in the same range of color as black Africans. You just want to promote their views as objective and not based on skin color and ULTIMATELY not meaning white folks. Because absolutely that is what they mean and rather than call them out on their hypocrisy you sit here and entertain their nonsense as if somehow what they say is 'objective' and not promoting racist ideologies based on skin color when it absolutely is.
quote: Almost all of the racists and racialists who had elaborate racist schemes and ideologies thought that the founding AE had the same level of skin pigmentation as modern day Nubians. Extremely influential racist specialist on this subject like Coon, Baker, Morton, Strouhal, etc. all fit into this category.
Therefore, it makes no sense to say that "refusing to apply 'black skinned' to ancient Egypt is a sign of white supremacy". The majority of the professionally committed white supremacist specialists of the past have and would gladly throw you that bone.
You are talking insane nonsense. These people are not calling them black because they are not claiming they are in the same range of complexions as most Africans. YOU are trying to appease these folks and make it seem like they are 'close' to what we are talking about when we say black folks and they absolutely are not and they are absolutely not saying in any shape or form that these people were in the same range of colors as most Africans. That is a bold faced lie. You are simply trying to crawl up the behinds of these folks and give them the benefit of the doubt that somehow somewhere maybe they are in agreement with folks here an elsewhere in terms of skin color and no they absolutely are not. These people are hypocritical liars and that is the problem and the only way to expose their hypocrisy and lies is to use the strongest terms possible and get to the dam point. Black people is that term and it gets to the point because it draws out the racism which is the point.
You on the other hand want to allow this B.S. to keep going on by not using language that gets right to the dam point. So they can hide behind words and terms that really are still racist and based on ideologies of white skin color supremacy, but you don't want to challenge them on it and will not draw them out and expose them like you have been exposed as a hypocritical fraud.
There is absolutely nothing misleading or inaccurate about calling most Africans as black Africans having similar shades of brown skin color generally called black. You are simply really not in agreement that the AE were black. Because if you were in agreement and if that was what you meant then you would say it. And that is the point. You don't really want to call the AE black people. And it is because maybe you really agree with them since the terminology they use and the terminology you use are consistent but we know that in terms of real world complexions and skin color obviously they aren't really agreeing with the majority of people calling the AE black folks.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Of course Somalis are aware of their skin pigmentation. It's not hard to imagine that they will recognize their skin color can be called black. This, however, has nothing to do with 'black' as understood by the American public.
What???? And the other African immigrants, and Jamaicans who are black, but have, apparently, nothing to do with 'black' as understood by the American public?
Anson you have a problem.
What do you think the reaction would be if a Hollywood studio made a major film about ancient Egyptian and used Ethiopians and Somalis?
Do you think there'd be no comments on their racial backgrounds?
Do you think the term 'black' would be mentioned in the press and online?
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote: “I don't intentionally provoke debates on the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians any more, but I have had a couple of people on DeviantArt and tumblr asking why the Egyptian characters in my art and stories are black. Should I just ignore them, or is there a way to quickly address them without getting into another long and unproductive argument?”
Sidney Anson replies:
quote: “Ask them what they perceive the red to brown skinned murals to depict if not an Ethiopian-like population (of course, there is more to their population affinities, but since you're talking to lay people, its reasonable to dumb it down to Ethiopian-like). I'm actually curious about their answer to this question. I've heard seasoned Euronuts attempt to answer it with the True Negro approach, and by contrasting the Egyptian figures with supposedly 'real africans', but, presumably, your artistic audience doesn't have access to such data. Ask them and do tell us what they said."
posted
The Somali census trojan horse fails, so now the Carlos Oliver Coke midget tries to change the subject.
The Carlos Oliver Coke midget keeps blundering. He keeps trying to interject in this thread when he thinks he sees an opening, but no. Just like the previous 50 times he tried to rear his head to take sneak shots, Carlos Oliver Coke is going to run off with his tail between his legs again. (Only to resurface later to solicit the same thrashing that made him run off the previous 50 times).
Just wait. Only a matter of time before Carlos Oliver Coke starts calling them "wacist".
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Of course Somalis are aware of their skin pigmentation. It's not hard to imagine that they will recognize their skin color can be called black. This, however, has nothing to do with 'black' as understood by the American public.
What????
And the other African immigrants, and Jamaicans who are black, but have, apparently, nothing to do with 'black' as understood by the American public?
Anson you have a problem.
What do you think the reaction would be if a Hollywood studio made a major film about ancient Egypt and used Ethiopians and Somalis?
Do you think there'd be no comments on their racial backgrounds?
Do you think the term 'black' would be mentioned in the press and online?Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
See above. It's a misconception that specialists think they AE were pale skinned. As far as I know, this is mostly the position of amateur commentators and academic trolls who have never looked into the matter. The specialists (both the racist and the non-racist) tend to think either that they and their afro-asiatic relatives were mixed or that both are indigenous and in their own clade.
Personally, I would get suspicious if I saw a white academic harp on "tropically adapted" in reference to AE origins. See Raxter's thesis to see what I mean. What I personally look for is an acknowledgment that they were indigenous Africans.
^Time after time again, people have claimed the AE were "negro" or "black" (according to US standards). Time after time again, papers then emerged, conveniently shooting this claim down (it's easy to falsify by performing statistical analysis). The papers cited above were done by authors who got word of these claims and then decided to test these claims.
Note that both authors believe that the AE were dark brown in pigmentation (at least one of them explicitly says this in these papers). In their minds, though, this does not necessarily mean that they were indigenous Africans.
Look it up and make up your own mind about whether the use of old racial terms sets you up for easy strawman attacks.
It's clear that contemporary specialists no longer maintain that the ancient Egyptians were pale-skin but some still try to create a racial dichotomy in the Nile Valley between the so called 'Nubians' and the Egyptians.
The Kabyle Berbers are indigenous Africans and so racist specialists could try to lump the ancient Egyptians into this group of indigenous North Africans.
Indigenous is good but I'm a little greedy and so I want this to be accompanied with the affirmation that the ancient Egyptian civilization stems from its predynastic cultures and that these cultures cluster with other African cultures like the Qustul culture and Mesolithic Cultures as far South as Khartoum and that they don't closely cluster with any cultures in Europe or western Asia. It's a bit of a mouth-full I know.
Wasn't that Brace study terribly flawed? And shouldn't we adapt to putting their feet to the fire and making sure that they don't purposely precontrive the studies in their favour?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The Somali census trojan horse fails, so now the Carlos Oliver Coke midget tries to change the subject.
The Carlos Oliver Coke midget keeps blundering. He keeps trying to interject in this thread when he thinks he sees an opening, but no. Just like the previous 50 times he tried to rear his head to take sneak shots, Carlos Oliver Coke is going to run off with his tail between his legs again. (Only to resurface later to solicit the same thrashing that made him run off the previous 50 times).
Just wait. Only a matter of time before Carlos Oliver Coke starts calling them "wacist".
Certain African groups say stuff like that. I've noticed that the Dinka don't group themselves with non-Nilotics and I once heard a Dinka girl say that she no longer wanted to date Dinka men and would rather date African men - she was referring to West Africans. It's just bizarre.
Nilotics think that 'Negro' refers exclusively to Bantus and would be offended if you even suggested that they could be closely grouped with any Bantu group.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: ^A friend of mine, of West African descent, when he worked in Sudan, was asked by a Dinka man whether he was 'black'...????
My friend describes himself as full-featured.
Is your friend light skin? If, so, that's probably why he was asked that question. The Dinka proudly identify as black but don't like the word 'Negro' for some strange reason and associate it with Bantus.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Yep, it happens. Not too long ago I had a conversation with a native South African Bantu speaker on this forum and he said his people don't think of themselves as 'black' in their culture. According to him, they call themselves 'brown' in their language.
It can get confusing really fast (e.g. many Africans have origin myths science doesn't recognize and some place their ancestors outside of Africa). Best thing to do is to simply be aware of these different sentiments instead of dismissing everything as "wasist", like some here tend to do.
As for Brace, his statistical analyses were never debunked. Some of his interpretations of these analyses have been debunked, though. Keita did a similar statistical analysis in his study on 1st dynasty royals. Only a couple % (2% when ran as "unknown", 0% when ran with 1st dynasty royals available as a choice) were classified with West/Central Africans, and the majority were classified with the Kerma and Upper Egyptian skeletal remains.
posted
Black Africans being black have different ways of referring to each other from an ethnic perspective. But if you are simply talking about skin color there is no disagreement when talking about pure skin color comparison that black skin is common among all these populations. Within Africa the distinction is ethnic and that makes sense. But outside Africa where people are not black, it is the primary and most obvious distinction because it stands out visibly. Skin color is obviously not drastically different enough among most Africans for skin color to be a primary reference within African populations. Similarly white people in Europe all are considered white people based on shared skin complexion no matter what ethnic differences and subtleties may exist within European populations.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
You also didn't see the facial reconstructions that an Egyptologist sent me...strange, weren't they Sid?
quote: Indigenous is good
Hmmm. The Egyptologist I refer to even demurred on that.
But he didn't demur on them being called black though did he? So how can they be indigenous and not black? So obviously no matter what when it comes to skin color they are VEHEMENTLY not in agreement with the AE being black people in terms of skin color. They made sure to make the color in the reconstruction as light as possible because that is what they want the AE to look like, which is white people.
All this nonsense about these people calling the AE brown like Nubians is shown by their own reconstructions, reenactments and movies they are lying. Like I said before, black is synonymous with brown in terms of the skin color of most Africans. There is no dichotomy between the two words, yet you got folks sitting here claiming that these white folks using the word brown is somehow really the same shade of brown as seen in any color chart which it is not. But rather than call these folks on their nonsense they sit here and claim that we should change our language as if the issue is words and not skin color. This issue is skin color and that is what this is about and what it has always been about.
Bottom line, the use of the term black people for the skin color of the AE is not misunderstood by these people they just are trying to hide behind language and pretend to be 'objective' as a result of all the controversy and debate over the issue. In fact they now often use the term Caucasoid not even brown because that is absolutely what they mean, but that is really a racial term and I don't hear anybody complaining here about them using those 'racial' terms when engaging with these folks. Yet they will sit here and claim using skin color which is a fact of human biology and not some arbitrary racial category based on some mountains is not valid.
Point blank, this is what they consider as a "brown" indigenous AE:
The absolute point here is that this is not a 'brown' person and certainly anybody who claims that his is not what these white scientists are talking about when they say the AE were not black or that they were 'brown' are simply trying to appease racism and avoid the issue rather than getting to the dam point.
There is no confusion about what they mean in reality but some folks on this forum are just scared to call the issue for what it is which is racism based on skin color.
The tactics of the racists basically has changed from overt to covert. Now they no longer make pronouncements that are overt, rather they hide behind language and try to sound objective but in reality they have not changed their point of view not one bit if it comes down to the fundamental point of skin color. They will always try and defer and divert the discussion into claiming that calling the AE black is a 'racial' discussion and not a 'skin color' discussion in order to try and turn the tables and make everybody arguing with them jump through hoops in a reactionary fashion. No the point is skin color and the racism of these same people regarding skin color. The sooner people accept that the sooner you will get to the point of exposing these folks for the racists they are.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Not too long ago I had a conversation with a native South African Bantu speaker on this forum and he said his people don't think of themselves as 'black' in their culture. According to him, they call themselves 'brown' in their language.
It can get confusing really fast (e.g. many Africans have origin myths science doesn't recognize and some place their ancestors outside of Africa). Best thing to do is to simply be aware of these different sentiments instead of dismissing everything as "wasist", like some here tend to do.
What was their ethnicity? Were their people regarded as 'black' during apartheid? Do you think they would be regarded as 'black' in the US?
I notice that you didn't address my points/ questions on the press and online reaction if Hollywood made a film on ancient Egypt casting Somalis and Ethiopians.
I posted the message twice on this page, second time with the questions in bold, so not sure how you could have missed it.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
Yep, it happens. Not too long ago I had a conversation with a native South African Bantu speaker on this forum and he said his people don't think of themselves as 'black' in their culture. According to him, they call themselves 'brown' in their language.
It can get confusing really fast (e.g. many Africans have origin myths science doesn't recognize and some place their ancestors outside of Africa). Best thing to do is to simply be aware of these different sentiments instead of dismissing everything as "wasist", like some here tend to do.
As for Brace, his statistical analyses were never debunked. Some of his interpretations of these analyses have been debunked, though. Keita did a similar statistical analysis in his study on 1st dynasty royals. Only a couple % (2% when ran as "unknown", 0% when ran with 1st dynasty royals available as a choice) were classified with West/Central Africans, and the majority were classified with the Kerma and Upper Egyptian skeletal remains.
Which fits in with what you've been saying all along... that black isn't perceived by all as necessarily enveloping of all gradients of brown, and isn't universal - not even in Africa, where you would expect that it would reign supreme.
I wonder if the same thing prevails in Europe today. The ancient Greeks seem to have described their skin tone as one that was between black and white:
Aristotle:
“Those who are too Black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively White (like the Scythians) are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two.”
I think that Africans [and those in the diaspora] will have to re-evaluate some of these studies and distill and subject the claims and conclusions to rigorous, acid scrutiny and scalpel-like precision.
The fact that the ancient Egyptians clustered with Kerma is good enough for me, but I doubt that they clustered closely with modern Europeans.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
SMH. My post was barely submitted and it is already subjected to strawman attacks. This is hilarious. How can you be so desperately reaching for points to antagonize like a chicken without a head? I was clearly talking about specialists who have seriously studied the origin of the ancient Egyptians. What does that have to do with the views of a randomly contacted geneticist? Geneticists are automatically qualified to talk about the origins of the AE now, simply because they know genetics? SMH.
quote:Morant shows that the Badarian cranial type is closely similar to that of some of the modern Christians of northern Ethiopia who incidentally do not show negroid characteristics in the skull and also to the crania of Dravidian-speaking peoples of southern India. One might add that living Somalis show a close approximation to this physical type in most respects, and the extremely narrow jaw in which the Badarians seem to reach a world extreme may be duplicated among both Somalis and the inhabitants of southern India. In Europe, the closest parallel to the Badarian type is found among modern Sardinians, but this is not as close as their relationships to other and later Egyptians.
--Coon
^This is coming from racist Coon, mind you. Like I said, it's simply a rampant misconception among illiterate confusion spreaders like Doug M. These paranoid loons think that there is a massive conspiracy among specialists on this topic and that they all believe that the AE weren't in the African American skin pigmentation range.
Yep, it happens. Not too long ago I had a conversation with a native South African Bantu speaker on this forum and he said his people don't think of themselves as 'black' in their culture. According to him, they call themselves 'brown' in their language.
It can get confusing really fast (e.g. many Africans have origin myths science doesn't recognize and some place their ancestors outside of Africa). Best thing to do is to simply be aware of these different sentiments instead of dismissing everything as "wasist", like some here tend to do.
As for Brace, his statistical analyses were never debunked. Some of his interpretations of these analyses have been debunked, though. Keita did a similar statistical analysis in his study on 1st dynasty royals. Only a couple % (2% when ran as "unknown", 0% when ran with 1st dynasty royals available as a choice) were classified with West/Central Africans, and the majority were classified with the Kerma and Upper Egyptian skeletal remains.
Which fits in with what you've been saying all along... that black isn't perceived by all as necessarily enveloping of all gradients of brown, and isn't universal - not even in Africa, where you would expect that it would reign supreme.
I wonder if the same thing prevails in Europe today. The ancient Greeks seem to have described their skin tone as one that was between black and white:
Aristotle:
“Those who are too Black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively White (like the Scythians) are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two.”
I think that Africans [and those in the diaspora] will have to re-evaluate some of these studies and distill and subject the claims and conclusions to rigorous, acid scrutiny and scalpel-like precision.
The fact that the ancient Egyptians clustered with Kerma is good enough for me, but I doubt that they clustered closely with modern Europeans.
Actually you just contradicted yourself. The quote says point blank that the consider white folks in Europe to be white folks and not like black folks from Africa.
You are grasping at straws to even begin to claim that there is a confusion about what black means in reference to Africans or white means in reference to Europeans.
You actually proved the point of what I have been saying that they consider Europeans to fall under the category of 'white people' in terms of skin color and Africans to fall under the umbrella of 'black people' and that is consistent with how those terms are used until this very day.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic