quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Lewaya, Relax... Me n swenet are not in cahoots, but you have a lot of digging to do ...and I don't trust you enough to help you fight this fight... Apparently people like to misuse information here.
DO YOU BELIEVE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS WERE MORE EURASIAN THAN NON EURASIAN ???
Posts: 54 | From: va | Registered: Dec 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Not interested in anecdotes. "Black" on the Luscan Scale as used by physical anthropologists e.g. Carleton Coon is 29-36. You're trying to move the standard boundary for your own agenda. Show me a single anthropologist who thinks 24 or 25 is black.
Why are there thousands of artworks depicting many Egyptians as medium to dark brown and why are most of the Pharoahs depicted medium to dark brown?
I've been on Stormfront, VNN and the reverse, i.e. black nationalist/Afrocentric forums. All people do from both is cherry pick images off Google - those on Stormfront cherry-pick the lightest they can find, while Afrocentrists just spam the darkest. I'm not interested in going down this route. Me posting the Nefertiti bust was just to falsify the "black Egypt" theory, the fact is I recognise the variation/skin cline in Nile Valley. Note however I've never tried to lump Egyptian pigmentation as "white" - I've stuck to finer categories like light brown / medium brown and dark brown. Only dark brown would be "black". The average Nubian was dark brown, not Egyptian. This is in Snowden, Brace et al etc. Are all those cross-disciplinary classicists and physical anthropologists wrong?
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Lewaya, Relax... Me n swenet are not in cahoots, but you have a lot of digging to do ...and I don't trust you enough to help you fight this fight... Apparently people like to misuse information here.
DO YOU BELIEVE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS WERE MORE EURASIAN THAN NON EURASIAN ???
Holistically? ...no
....and can someone redirect Cass to the race of kemet thread please, he seems to have forgotten the details of the first 7-8 pages or so.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
You're right. But that's different from people who are deliberately misinterpreting DJ's use of 'black' (and my past use of the term) as referring to ancestry/race. The same intellectual midgets are also taking ancient Greek use of 'melas' and translating it to the western use of 'black', which has heavy SSA connotations that these ancient authors had no awareness of. They're also doing the same thing with 'Cush', going as far as to say that Eden being encircled by Cushites to the north, west and east must mean Eden was in Africa. This, despite the fact that the bible clearly says Eden was to the east (from its audience's perspective). Against all evidence, we're supposed to think that, because these Cushites were dark skinned, this whole setting of Adam and Eve must have been imagined to take place in Africa.
I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with saying that the ancient Greeks would have described AE pigmentation as heavily pigmented and consistent with their artwork. But that doesn't translate to the racial baggage that 'black' carries today. They're taking ancient pigmentation-based terms and using it to sneak in their own agenda. And when academics refuse to get on board with defining AE on their terms (why should it specifically have to be THEIR terms?) they want to throw a tantrum and publish emails.
You're right that "black" has often been associated with obsolete racial typology. It certainly seems awkward to call AE "black" while acknowledging that race is a social construct that isn't useful for biological anthropology. On the other hand, I do find it can be a convenient shorthand for darker-skinned Africans in certain contexts. For instance, if you're discussing racial tension between light-skinned North Africans of predominantly Eurasian ancestry and darker-skinned Africans with more indigenous ancestry, you can't really use "African" by itself for either team.
But that's how I see things personally. Not going to blackmail anyone into agreeing with me the way Carlos Coke would.
Yep. And I think that's why we all use/used it. It's a convenient shorthand especially since we don't have the right terminology yet to refer accurately to populations. And now with recent findings piling up rapidly, it's getting even worse. I'm out here use my own terms like pre-Toba because the right terms don't exist. So every time I talk about these populations I have to explain what I mean.
But these mental midgets have no clue. They will call Aterians 'black' in the western sense without even having a notion that that's inappropriate for several reasons. Some even call Neanderthals 'black'. This is why I've always been against amateurs and lay people trying to talk Anthropology because they read three forum posts. Some of these people will then try to lecture you on topics even though they're updating their arguments every time you say something. Then they will act like they knew it all along even though you can clearly track the progress in their post since the day before. Every time there is a debate you can see them using terms you used and try to lecture people on their newfound information as if they've given it any thought. They're just parroting and not from books or papers, but from guys online. This is what Amun Ra used to do and so I know exactly when some newbie is doing this.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Not interested in anecdotes. "Black" on the Luscan Scale as used by physical anthropologists e.g. Carleton Coon is 29-36. You're trying to move the standard boundary for your own agenda. Show me a single anthropologist who thinks 24 or 25 is black.
Why are there thousands of artworks depicting many Egyptians as medium to dark brown and why are most of the Pharoahs depicted medium to dark brown?
I've been on Stormfront, VNN and the reverse, i.e. black nationalist/Afrocentric forums. All people do from both is cherry pick images off Google - those on Stormfront cherry-pick the lightest they can find, while Afrocentrists just spam the darkest. I'm not interested in going down this route. Me posting the Nefertiti bust was just to falsify the "black Egypt" theory, the fact is I recognise the variation/skin cline in Nile Valley. Note however I've never tried to lump Egyptian pigmentation as "white" - I've stuck to finer categories like light brown / medium brown and dark brown. Only dark brown would be "black". The average Nubian was dark brown, not Egyptian. This is in Snowden, Brace et al etc. Are all those cross-disciplinary classicists and physical anthropologists wrong?
When you see males in Egyptian art in military groupings, when you see the Pharaohs the vast majority are depicted medium to dark brown. It's harder to find light brown unless you go to later periods. You have to go out of your way to find that
Akhenaten with Nefertiti
Seti I
Rameses II , relief, Brooklyn Museum
^^ this is not cherry picked. This is typical for Egyptian males depicted in the art. Yet you are out there saying they were light brown.
Start looking at a lot more Egyptian art. Then men are more commonly not light brown, and check the Pharoahs as well. You are slanting things toward light brown and that is not honest. And the women are not all categorically lighter either as we see the female above.
Black people want a little acknowledgment of realistic skin tone in history. Instead just a year ago, Joel Edgerton is playing Ramesses, showing cultural inaccuracies haven't changed since the 1950's.
You are being reactionary to some people who might exaggerate in the other direction, you call Afrocentric.
Stop being reactionary and try to be fair. You don't have to use the word "black" But "light brown" is not right
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
You're never going to get agreement on this. This is why I've said a long time ago that I'm going to stop using the term without trying to persuade others. Others can use it if they want to. I see the politics and so I'm dropping it. Others here can pretend that only the Eurocentric opposition is doing these spin antics all they want, but parties on both sides are doing it.
I love sitting back and pointing out how aDNA is exposing them. Somehow people here think only Europeans have to make adjustments after the discovery that Labrana wasn't white.
Personally, if someone were to ask me about AE appearance and affinities right now, I would say "some would consider them 'black'". That phrasing would address the many conflicting definitions of the term while emphasizing that most AE wouldn't have looked like the stereotypical tan-skinned "North African Arab". Of course, I'd also name related populations in Northeast Africa to avoid painting a stereotyped "True Negro" image of AE.
That said, in my experience even simply calling AE "African"---without using any color terminology at all---is going to provoke accusations of "Afrocentrism" from certain people. In the end the bias against an African Egypt is still going to be there no matter what vocabulary you use.
The point is that racism as defined by 19th century Europeans is heavily based on skin color. That is the problem. Not black folks use of the word black. Trying to make black folks jump through hoops when pointing out the racism of denying the skin color of Ancient Egypt is simply designed to try and make it seem like black folks somehow invented the concept of race and racism. ALL of which was created by and defined by SELF DESCRIBED white people?
As discussed before on this forum, using the term black for AE simply reflects that they were in the darkest ranges of skin complexion as is typical for MOST indigenous Africans. Notice the same folks who are so upset about the word black are PRIMARILY upset about it being used in Egypt. They have no problem using it elsewhere in Africa or in other parts of the world with African populations or other places with populations of similar complexion. This reveals the hypocrisy. It has nothing to do with words and everything to do with not associating ancient Egypt with the darker shades of human skin color. That is ALL this issue has been about for the last 200 years.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point is that racism as defined by 19th century Europeans is heavily based on skin color. That is the problem. Not black folks use of the word black. Trying to make black folks jump through hoops when pointing out the racism of denying the skin color of Ancient Egypt is simply designed to try and make it seem like black folks somehow invented the concept of race and racism. ALL of which was created by and defined by SELF DESCRIBED white people?
Some might suggest the terms "black" and "white" as identities is innately a racist concept
When one takes "white skinned people" and deletes the skin part to "white people" it becomes an identity because it's no long describing just the skin but the whole person, similarly "black"
These things were concepts designed before we were born. It's become a tradition
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
You're never going to get agreement on this. This is why I've said a long time ago that I'm going to stop using the term without trying to persuade others. Others can use it if they want to. I see the politics and so I'm dropping it. Others here can pretend that only the Eurocentric opposition is doing these spin antics all they want, but parties on both sides are doing it.
I love sitting back and pointing out how aDNA is exposing them. Somehow people here think only Europeans have to make adjustments after the discovery that Labrana wasn't white.
Personally, if someone were to ask me about AE appearance and affinities right now, I would say "some would consider them 'black'". That phrasing would address the many conflicting definitions of the term while emphasizing that most AE wouldn't have looked like the stereotypical tan-skinned "North African Arab". Of course, I'd also name related populations in Northeast Africa to avoid painting a stereotyped "True Negro" image of AE.
That said, in my experience even simply calling AE "African"---without using any color terminology at all---is going to provoke accusations of "Afrocentrism" from certain people. In the end the bias against an African Egypt is still going to be there no matter what vocabulary you use.
The point is that racism as defined by 19th century Europeans is heavily based on skin color. That is the problem. Not black folks use of the word black. Trying to make black folks jump through hoops when pointing out the racism of denying the skin color of Ancient Egypt is simply designed to try and make it seem like black folks somehow invented the concept of race and racism. ALL of which was created by and defined by SELF DESCRIBED white people?
Complete dummy. By that logic deny all of taxonomy, including species. Also no one invented "racism", it is wired in the brain or innate. Just google studies/research on this.
It is self explanatory and has nothing to do with race because there is no such thing as race. Humans have skin color and it is perfectly legitimate to identify populations by their skin color. People do it all the time. That is not necessarily racist. And from an anthropological perspective it is nothing more than a general description of outward appearance.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Ancient Egyptians were the same pigmentation as populations at their latitude. I already posted reflectance spectroscopy data for this. The skin colour cline runs from the Nile Valley, starting at the Mediterranean coast and Egyptian Delta, to Middle Egypt, to Upper Egypt, to Lower Nubia and to Upper Nubia. This cline was light brown > medium brown > dark brown. The Egyptians distinguished themselves to their southern neighbours based on skin colour - so they couldn't have been dark brown, but light brown (Lower and Middle Egyptians) to medium brown (Upper Egyptians).
"Afrocentrists claim that Egyptian civilization was a "black" civilization, and this is not accurate... Most scholars believe that ancient Egyptians looked pretty much like today’s Egyptians - that is, they were brown, becoming darker as they approached the Sudan (Snowden 1970, 1992; Smedley 1993)." (De Montellano, 1995)
"Ancient Egyptians, like their modern descendants, varied in complexion from a light Mediterranean type, to a light brown in Middle Egypt, to a darker brown in southern Egypt." (Snowden, 1997)
As Snowden observes people living on the Mediterranean coastal strip in Egypt would have been indistinguishable (to the casual observer at least) to southern European pigmentation. If these people are "black", then so are southern Europeans.
Frank Snowden was not an authority on ancient Egyptian civilization and is not a anthropologist, so citing him is worthless. It's clear that you have to ignore the fact that ancient Egyptians came from further South -- in the tropics of the Sahara.
The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east . They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food. " (Christopher Ehret (1996) "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture." In Egypt in Africa Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press
The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)
Upper Egyptians and "Nubians" stem from a common origin and were virtually indistinguishable and since the overwhelming demographic majority were from Upper Egypt, most Egyptians would have resembled these people, and if you want to assert that they were not black, go ahead in your futile attempt to align them with Mexicans and others.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Black as a "racially" or biological term of classification varied based on context as well as who you are speaking to, we all know this. You can't go to the Caribbean or Africa and accurately describe someone below a color grade of 24 black, no matter how big the lips, wide the nose, kinky the hair and dark their parents might be. ...same-thing for India, and Korea (-minus a few shades).
The problem at it's root isn't color, but race. Arguing about interpretation of the word "black" is a mere smokescreen. A good portion of people don't desire to subscribe to the Idea of race and within those that do, No one wants to agree on the parameters at which we classify each other.
This rolls over to how we chose Identify ourselves and gives space for semantic manipulation in which we classify subjects racially based on a varying degree of pigment. this is because of the fact that in the western world we apply color scheme to racial categorization; Black, brown, white, yellow, red... we confuse ourselves *purposefully* when we seek to associate or dissociate ourselves and others from a group in question.
An Amerindian can be well darker than an African, but they're considered red, A Chinese man can be well lighter than an Iberian, but the Chinese man would be considered yellow.
It's never been about color... It's politics, It's vanity. How it relates to Aegyptians is one in the same... To my knowledge they're Pigmented indigenous Africans, So in the western world... I would say they're black cause they fit the open criteria for such a classification....
- Outside of western racialist classification, color; white/brown/red/black is described in relation of average pigmentation - Within Western racialism, color is representative of ancestry by region.
...it can not get any simpler. A Dravidian can be called black by a paki, to an american that same Dravidian will be considered "brown." why is this so hard for people to grasp here.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Not interested in anecdotes. "Black" on the Luscan Scale as used by physical anthropologists e.g. Carleton Coon is 29-36. You're trying to move the standard boundary for your own agenda. Show me a single anthropologist who thinks 24 or 25 is black.
Why are there thousands of artworks depicting many Egyptians as medium to dark brown and why are most of the Pharoahs depicted medium to dark brown?
I've been on Stormfront, VNN and the reverse, i.e. black nationalist/Afrocentric forums. All people do from both is cherry pick images off Google - those on Stormfront cherry-pick the lightest they can find, while Afrocentrists just spam the darkest. I'm not interested in going down this route. Me posting the Nefertiti bust was just to falsify the "black Egypt" theory, the fact is I recognise the variation/skin cline in Nile Valley. Note however I've never tried to lump Egyptian pigmentation as "white" - I've stuck to finer categories like light brown / medium brown and dark brown. Only dark brown would be "black". The average Nubian was dark brown, not Egyptian. This is in Snowden, Brace et al etc. Are all those cross-disciplinary classicists and physical anthropologists wrong?
When you see males in Egyptian art in military groupings, when you see the Pharaohs the vast majority are depicted medium to dark brown. It's harder to find light brown unless you go to later periods. You have to go out of your way to find that
Akhenaten with Nefertiti
Seti I
Rameses II , relief, Brooklyn Museum
^^ this is not cherry picked. This is typical for Egyptian males depicted in the art. Yet you are out there saying they were light brown.
Start looking at a lot more Egyptian art. Then men are more commonly not light brown, and check the Pharoahs as well. You are slanting things toward light brown and that is not honest. And the women are not all categorically lighter either as we see the female above.
Black people want a little acknowledgment of realistic skin tone in history. Instead just a year ago, Joel Edgerton is playing Ramesses, showing cultural inaccuracies haven't changed since the 1950's.
You are being reactionary to some people who might exaggerate in the other direction, you call Afrocentric.
Stop being reactionary and try to be fair. You don't have to use the word "black" But "light brown" is not right
That's a very good critique, lioness. Thank you.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Elmaestro: - Within Western racialism, color is representative of ancestry by region.
Wrong. Western Racialism sees differences in skin color as denoting separate and distinct sub species of humans which also identifies inherent biological traits unique to each, such as level of intellect and so forth. This then leads to an inherent "ranking" of races based on the most desirable traits within each group. And of course, at the top is whites and at the bottom is blacks.
That is racialism or racism.
Identifying someone based on regional differences in features is not inherently racial. Everybody does that because outward differences in appearance are easy to identify. That is what the AE did in their tomb art. Differences in human features that vary from region to region are a fact of nature and simply part of natural human diversity, but that does not imply that humans have separate sub species, because they don't.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
We have been brought up to think a certain way. If we like that way we don't question it. We won't ponder if people were colors in earlier periods of history because society has taught us to love being a color. It's like a merit badge you wear that the system gives you.
If we like identifying people as colors "yellow people" "white people" "black people"etc then we won't question it.
You would even have to explain it to a young child, why in every other case they would be calling brown colored things brown but in the case of humans of certain types calling them black. And you can also discern a distant difference in calling someone "black skinned person" or "yellow skinned person" form being a "black person" or a "yellow person" where is describes the whole person as an identity when such people could be form any number of cultures. When you delete the proper object of the description, the skin, you connote race, even if you don't use the word "race" explicitly
You would have to explain that the left square is black and the right square is brown
-except when applied to humans (or perhaps living in Brazil or some place where they have a "pardo" (brown) category. - or even the U.S. where "mulatto" used to be a state recognized category) Or yet other places like Africa where people are categorized by tribe rather than as a color..
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Humans have skin color and it is perfectly legitimate to identify populations by their skin color.
No that is not legitimate that is the foundation of racism. You can't identify populations by skin color alone
Tibetan man
Few people question the assumptions and premises they were taught
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
You're right. But that's different from people who are deliberately misinterpreting DJ's use of 'black' (and my past use of the term) as referring to ancestry/race. The same intellectual midgets are also taking ancient Greek use of 'melas' and translating it to the western use of 'black', which has heavy SSA connotations that these ancient authors had no awareness of. They're also doing the same thing with 'Cush', going as far as to say that Eden being encircled by Cushites to the north, west and east must mean Eden was in Africa. This, despite the fact that the bible clearly says Eden was to the east (from its audience's perspective). Against all evidence, we're supposed to think that, because these Cushites were dark skinned, this whole setting of Adam and Eve must have been imagined to take place in Africa.
I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with saying that the ancient Greeks would have described AE pigmentation as heavily pigmented and consistent with their artwork. But that doesn't translate to the racial baggage that 'black' carries today. They're taking ancient pigmentation-based terms and using it to sneak in their own agenda. And when academics refuse to get on board with defining AE on their terms (why should it specifically have to be THEIR terms?) they want to throw a tantrum and publish emails.
You're right that "black" has often been associated with obsolete racial typology. It certainly seems awkward to call AE "black" while acknowledging that race is a social construct that isn't useful for biological anthropology. On the other hand, I do find it can be a convenient shorthand for darker-skinned Africans in certain contexts. For instance, if you're discussing racial tension between light-skinned North Africans of predominantly Eurasian ancestry and darker-skinned Africans with more indigenous ancestry, you can't really use "African" by itself for either team.
But that's how I see things personally. Not going to blackmail anyone into agreeing with me the way Carlos Coke would.
Yep. And I think that's why we all use/used it. It's a convenient shorthand especially since we don't have the right terminology yet to refer accurately to populations. And now with recent findings piling up rapidly, it's getting even worse. I'm out here use my own terms like pre-Toba because the right terms don't exist. So every time I talk about these populations I have to explain what I mean.
But these mental midgets have no clue. They will call Aterians 'black' in the western sense without even having a notion that that's inappropriate for several reasons. Some even call Neanderthals 'black'. This is why I've always been against amateurs and lay people trying to talk Anthropology because they read three forum posts. Some of these people will then try to lecture you on topics even though they're updating their arguments every time you say something. Then they will act like they knew it all along even though you can clearly track the progress in their post since the day before. Every time there is a debate you can see them using terms you used and try to lecture people on their newfound information as if they've given it any thought. They're just parroting and not from books or papers, but from guys online. This is what Amun Ra used to do and so I know exactly when some newbie is doing this.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Within human biology and the earths environment humans only come in one range of colors, white on the very light end and black on the very dark end. ALL humans are somewhere within that range of colors. Hence there are populations on the planet that can rightly be called black and others that can rightly be called white. All human skin color is determined by the amount of melanin, which by definition means "black" from the root "mela".
Not to mention all human populations ultimately started out as black.
Therefore to claim that skin color has no biological or scientific basis and that black and white aren't valid as adjectives describing it is simply a falsehood.
There are no blue, orange, green or purple humans.
Not ironically Khem as in KMT means the same thing chemically as the AE recognized carbon "the black element" as the key to life on earth and the universe......
Of course one of the purposes of scientific racism was to deny these facts and muddy the waters so to speak.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't know where the Proto-Afroasiatic homeland was, so your 1996 quote is useless. It makes more sense to me Afroasiatic in Egypt arrived together with agriculture and domesticates from the Levant (as a farming language dispersal hypothesis), but I don't know. There is no scholarly consensus on this. Yea, no doubt though an Afrocentrist will put it in Africa. Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Within human biology and the earths environment humans only come in one range of colors, white on the very light end and black on the very dark end. ALL humans are somewhere within that range of colors. Hence there are populations on the planet that can rightly be called black and others that can rightly be called white. All human skin color is determined by the amount of melanin, which by definition means "black" from the root "mela".
Not to mention all human populations ultimately started out as black.
There are no blue, orange, green or purple humans.
Most of the world is to some degree brown but for argument's sake we will pretend that brown doesn't exist in humans. Instead people are either black or white so logically the following is the split according to Dougian philosophy>
quote: The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians by Professor S O Y keita and Professor A J Boyce
Assuming migration per generation was about 5 to 7 percent in middle Egypt this could explain things easily.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Tibetans didn't look like that 100 plus years ago and when an African mixes with east Asian people they can produce similar looking people. I can't post images so well. The guy on the right in the second image is half African.
quote: The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians by Professor S O Y keita and Professor A J Boyce
Assuming migration per generation was about 5 to 7 percent in middle Egypt this could explain things easily.
So 5 to 7 percent migration rates into Egypt could explain why modern Egyptians are more Sub Saharan than ancient Egyptians were
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Within human biology and the earths environment humans only come in one range of colors, white on the very light end and black on the very dark end. ALL humans are somewhere within that range of colors. Hence there are populations on the planet that can rightly be called black and others that can rightly be called white. All human skin color is determined by the amount of melanin, which by definition means "black" from the root "mela".
Not to mention all human populations ultimately started out as black.
Therefore to claim that skin color has no biological or scientific basis and that black and white aren't valid as adjectives describing it is simply a falsehood.
There are no blue, orange, green or purple humans.
Not ironically Khem as in KMT means the same thing chemically as the AE recognized carbon "the black element" as the key to life on earth and the universe......
Of course one of the purposes of scientific racism was to deny these facts and muddy the waters so to speak.
lol.
Black isn't just skin colour to you though. You've been caught with pants down on this issue, I've seen it in several threads.
Is the Egyptian football team black?
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: The Tibetans didn't look like that 100 plus years ago and when an African mixes with east people they can produce similar looking people. I can't post images so well.
quote:Now tell me would the people who have a problem calling the the AE black people have a problem calling the Romans white?
Yes. The ancient Greeks and Romans did not consider themselves white and distinguished themselves to more northern European tribes/peoples based on pigmentation. Now what?
Also, just look up the old immigration policies of the US. At one point northern Europeans were favoured over southern Europeans, and the latter were not considered white. And they were not considered white because of their darker phenotypes.
I've been on places like Stormfront for years. Although that website purports to support pan-European unity, none exists. Just go to the individual country sections for the Swedes, English etc. most see Italians as "wogs". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog
In England we have a saying - "The wogs begin at Calais". Google it.
quote:Wog is a slang word in the idiom of Australian English and British English, usually employed as an ethnic or racial slur and considered derogatory and offensive.
In British English, wog is an offensive racial slur usually applied to black, Middle Eastern or South Asian/Maritime Southeast Asian peoples. In Australian English, wog is a term used as a racial slur mostly for people from Southern Europe and the Mediterranean region in general, including the Mediterranean region of the Middle East ( i.e. the Eastern Mediterranean or the Levant and North Africa).
wog definition:
British a person who is not white.
Australian a foreigner or immigrant, especially one from southern Europe.
Not all Europeans = white, and not all Africans = black. This simple fact is problematic for your politics.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: We don't know where the Proto-Afroasiatic homeland was, so your 1996 quote is useless. It makes more sense to me Afroasiatic in Egypt arrived together with agriculture and domesticates from the Levant (as a farming language dispersal hypothesis), but I don't know. There is no scholarly consensus on this. Yea, no doubt though an Afrocentrist will put it in Africa.
Ah, I see only a crazy "Afrocentric" would place an African majority language phylum with the oldest branches of Afroasiatic and the most diversity... in Africa.
Nice try , but it's generally accepted by mainstream academia that Afroasiatic has its origins in Africa and that the youngest branch -Semitic- is the only branch that has a non-African origin out of all the Afroasiatic language groups.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Within human biology and the earths environment humans only come in one range of colors, white on the very light end and black on the very dark end. ALL humans are somewhere within that range of colors. Hence there are populations on the planet that can rightly be called black and others that can rightly be called white. All human skin color is determined by the amount of melanin, which by definition means "black" from the root "mela".
Not to mention all human populations ultimately started out as black.
Therefore to claim that skin color has no biological or scientific basis and that black and white aren't valid as adjectives describing it is simply a falsehood.
There are no blue, orange, green or purple humans.
Not ironically Khem as in KMT means the same thing chemically as the AE recognized carbon "the black element" as the key to life on earth and the universe......
Of course one of the purposes of scientific racism was to deny these facts and muddy the waters so to speak.
lol.
Black isn't just skin colour to you though. You've been caught with pants down on this issue, I've seen it in several threads.
Is the Egyptian football team black?
It's well understood that the best representatives of the ancient Egyptians are the indigenous people in Upper Egypt in Esna, Luxor, Edfu, Kom Ombo and Aswan. The people of Lower Egypt are derivatives of over a millennia of invasions, migration and settlement from half a dozen "Eurasian" populations. Looking to modern Egyptians from Lower Egypt for the ancients is foolhardy.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians by Professor S O Y keita and Professor A J Boyce
Assuming migration per generation was about 5 to 7 percent in middle Egypt this could explain things easily.
So 5 to 7 percent migration rates into Egypt could explain why modern Egyptians are more Sub Saharan than ancient Egyptians were
Yes although the region of Middle Egypt could've recieved these "SSA" influences from Upper Egyptians further south (and Kushites). How do I at least theorize this? Because Ramses III was from Waset and shared DNA found in SSA.
The Amarnas from hundreds of years prior also descended from families in upper Egypt and have affinities with SSA. Slavery is not likely for reasons I've stated already. Greater affinities for people labeled SSA is shown after masking out dna from the Islamic expansion. So I doubt that "SSA" affinity is from the 19th century.
All this goes both ways too. From earlier periods to the third intermediate, and from then to now migrations could change demographics. We don't even know what the author is calling "Sub Saharan" because the populations that made Egypt predates it's full return but I'll suppose it's non-African if only to express my confusion on why this is such a big deal.
Kmt civilization was of local origin, there is still plenty of evidence to support this. This bit of data can only make inferences on the time periods and locations it covers. Middle Egypt in that time period could've had more DNA that the author is attributing to North Africa or the Middle East compared what's there right now. A lot of people (especially white supremacist Eurocentrics) are not placing the data within the context of established information and are running with the hope for claims of Eurasian influences. They want to broaden what this could potentially imply for the entire history of Egypt but cannot, no matter what it says. The remains are not old enough to dispel the in-situ theory most popular right now.
For all we know the author could be suggesting North African DNA was in larger quantity, and they will likely try to take such labels and suggest they aren't authentically African. But assuming the author is discussing the presence of non-African DNA, I am wondering if migration and mixing per generation could have been enough to change the demographics of Middle Egypt by the time the author states. At first, I'd made a thread before all this wondering if there was ever a period of mass migration. But according to this no mass migrations needed to have ever taken place. If you had say 6-7% or even 10% migration rate per generation, and about 3.5% rate of reproduction, this could explain the change population demographics over time. It would mean lower and middle Egypt were experiencing periods of migration and mixing prior to Greek/Roman. Prior to the Third Intermediate period, Egypt not only faced foreign rulership, but extended territories of control into the Middle East. I would be of no surprise if Near East and African influences waxed and waned over time periods in certain regions and were not static after Egypt established itself as a world power.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians by Professor S O Y keita and Professor A J Boyce
Assuming migration per generation was about 5 to 7 percent in middle Egypt this could explain things easily.
So 5 to 7 percent migration rates into Egypt could explain why modern Egyptians are more Sub Saharan than ancient Egyptians were
By "Sub-Saharan", I assume they are not including North Sudanese, because a significant portion of North Sudan is in the Sahara.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another fuchging idiot who has no clue. Europeans are more African than non-African. also eben YRI carry non-African and Eurasian ancestry. why? because there is no such thing as "Eurasian" ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Lawaya:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Lewaya, Relax... Me n swenet are not in cahoots, but you have a lot of digging to do ...and I don't trust you enough to help you fight this fight... Apparently people like to misuse information here.
DO YOU BELIEVE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS WERE MORE EURASIAN THAN NON EURASIAN ???
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Even though I disagree with some of your sources/how you're reading them, I love how you are quickly integrating these different ideas and coming up with your own explanations and turning things into a coherent whole with your own analysis. The key point here is coherent. Everyone can slap a few quotes together like Akachi, but you're making sense. Keep it up.
Especially this point is huge, IMO:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: From earlier periods to the third intermediate, and from then to now migrations could change demographics.
and:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: I would be of no surprise if Near East and African influences waxed and waned over time periods in certain regions and were not static after Egypt established itself as a world power.
In other words, in 5000 years some ancient Egyptian regions/communities could have gone from:
1) looking like predynastic Egyptians (e.g. Badarians and Naqadans), to 2) more like a hybridized population (e.g. perhaps this ancient sample, although, again, we're not sure if it's really that hybridized; all we can do is speculate), to 3) back to more African-like, or, at least, going back in that direction to a degree (e.g. modern Egyptians are more African-like due to post-Roman migration from SSA).
I can easily post skeletal evidence that this could have happened in some regions. This is one of the reasons why I said earlier that a result of 0% L lineages in some samples can easily happen without big implications for AE as a whole.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said the same thing not too long ago here about Egyptians from Siwa and other oases:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
My man looking like Morgan Freeman in Robin Hood. With the freckles and everything.
The phenotypical diversity of Siwans is striking. We see the same thing in the Khargha Oasis. You got the coastal Maghrebi looking Siwans (for the lack of a better term) and the more 'African' looking ones, with both often (but not always) having corresponding lighter and darker skin. The fact that these people live side by side for so long in the middle of the desert without becoming more homogeneous suggests that one of these has been intermingling more with new arrivals than the other.
Or maybe they're both diluted just as much and genetically unrepresentative of the ancient inhabitants. In this scenario the subset with more 'African' features simply look more like the ancient inhabitants but don't have this look because they're less diluted. Kellis burials and other ancient oasis inhabitants show commonalities with Nubian samples in Roman times (indicating migration from elsewhere on the continent, not necessarily northern Sudan) so more 'African' phenotypes don't always have to be a direct link to the ancient inhabitants.
quote:The results of the inter-regional comparison of trait frequencies demonstrate an overall affinity with North African populations, especially with several early Upper Egyptian and contemporary Lower Nubian groups. Despite these similarities, however, the Kellis assemblage remains relatively distinct in relation to the comparative groups. This is consistent with a geographically isolated population experiencing limited gene-flow.
Whatever their exact origin, these modern Siwans with darker skin and certain facial features would still be closer in phenotype to the original oasis Egyptians: Tomb of Bannentiu in Bahariya Oasis [/qb]
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [qb] Yep, this is why I brought up this same issiue back in 2011, now I feel vindicated in my skepticism of the usage of black.
Kudos. You were already making adjustments as early as 2011. In fact, threads like these prove that most of the serious posters had already decided that, out of the many uses, the purely pigmentation-based use of 'black' is the only one that can be defended. Very few serious mainstream posters used the term 'black' as a synonym for some sort of 'African race'. Maybe some still slipped up every now and then, but there was a general agreement that, ideally, it should be about one's level of pigmentation. In that sense the AE would be 'black' obviously [meaning a range of brown that includes jetblack]. But the problem is that you will always have people slipping in some trojan horse and making it about 'race'.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is a good chance at least a large proportion of the sampled mummies will be from the Fayyum area. That's more or less in Middle Egypt (i.e. the area between the Delta and southern Egypt), and I know there's been a ton of Ptolemaic and Roman-era material recovered there. I am not sure about the Third Intermediate to Late Period mummies, but if all this stuff is coming from Middle Egypt after 1000 BC, the number of archaeological sites that could have supplied it must be very limited indeed.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Another fuchging idiot who has no clue. Europeans are more African than non-African. also eben YRI carry non-African and Eurasian ancestry. why? because there is no such thing as "Eurasian" ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Lawaya:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Lewaya, Relax... Me n swenet are not in cahoots, but you have a lot of digging to do ...and I don't trust you enough to help you fight this fight... Apparently people like to misuse information here.
DO YOU BELIEVE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS WERE MORE EURASIAN THAN NON EURASIAN ???
YOU STILL CALLING NAMES THE QUESTION WASNT ABOUT DO EURASIAN ANCESTRY EXIST THE QUESTION WAS WHAT HE BELIEVE BECAUSE THE TERM EURASIAN IS A LABEL THAT WE TALKING ABOUT AND ALSO WHAT WHITES RACIST BELIEVE IN WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT
Posts: 54 | From: va | Registered: Dec 2014
| IP: Logged |
This has already been done, i.e. if you look at anthro literature such as Coon, "black" is used from 29-36, which Coon (1939) describes as the "chocolate-brown class". I already provided quotes that show this. Since these are fuzzy catagories, sometimes you get 28 or even 27 also called "black", but it virtually never covers the light brown skin shades that Afrocentrists try to categorize as black to fit their politics.
So then, I take it you agree that the ancient Egyptians were indeed black, at least royals such as these.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: We all know what 'black' is, which is a description of skin color and says nothing about ancestry
In an ideal world, yes. But we also see that some are, in fact, using it as a Trojan horse. The lunatic who is going around demanding academics describe AE as 'black' in a racial/ancestry sense was using YOUR posts to justify this ancestry-based use of 'black'. When I told him your use is different from his, he lost it and threw a tantrum. I don't think you understand how deceitful and low some of these people are.
Yeah, I know who you're referring to. Well I guess anyone (especially those suffering from neuroses) can take anything anyone else says out of context.
quote:I'll send you something later in regards to what you asked (gradual change in AE). I'm trying to stay away from this topic on ES.
Why? Doesn't this thread entail the very topic??
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lawaya: Egyptians were black most of them just weren't west Africans
"most of them"?? So which few were West African??! LOL
This is just nonsense from the other (extreme Afrocentric) side. Since when does being black African mean sub-Saharan West African or even Central African "Bantu"??! This is the other side of the arugment that is just as ridiculous as North Africans not being black but "Caucasoids" closer related to modern Middle Easterners and Europeans.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lawaya: Egyptians were black most of them just weren't west Africans
"most of them"?? So which few were West African??! LOL
This is just nonsense from the other (extreme Afrocentric) side. Since when does being black African mean sub-Saharan West African or even Central African "Bantu"??! This is the other side of the arugment that is just as ridiculous as North Africans not being black but "Caucasoids" closer related to modern Middle Easterners and Europeans.
I don't know why people insist on peddling the fantasy that the ancient Egyptians were West African or were closely related to them when the ancient Egyptians were clearly Northeast Africans. The relation was distant and very far in time. You have no idea just how much this irks me.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lawaya: Egyptians were black most of them just weren't west Africans
"most of them"?? So which few were West African??! LOL
This is just nonsense from the other (extreme Afrocentric) side. Since when does being black African mean sub-Saharan West African or even Central African "Bantu"??! This is the other side of the arugment that is just as ridiculous as North Africans not being black but "Caucasoids" closer related to modern Middle Easterners and Europeans.
I don't know why people insist on peddling the fantasy that the ancient Egyptians were West African or were closely related to them when the ancient Egyptians were clearly Northeast Africans. The relation was distant and very far in time. You have no idea just how much this irks me.
Ok. But are you prepared to admit AE's were closer to Europeans than west/central/south sub-Saharan Africans? The same applies to most or all north Sudanese/Nubians because of closer geographical distance. On most maps the true size of Africa is not shown clearly.
quote:Originally posted by Cass: As I posted in my first thread: a prediction of the isolation-by-distance model in population genetics is ancient Egyptians will be closest genetically to their nearest geographical neighbours, but since Europe is smaller than Sub-Saharan Africa, that populations from Europe and east Mediterranean, will plot closer than many Sub-Saharan African populations.
As expected (although I was mocked for saying this) Nubian skeletal samples from northern Sudan plot closer to Zalavar+Berg+Norse than Sub-Saharan populations such as Zulu.
"Indeed, in nine cases a European population measured by Howells provided the closest match to one of the Nubian specimens studied by Williams et al. (2005)." (Bulbeck, 2011)
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Ok. But are you prepared to admit AE's were closer to Europeans than west sub-Saharan Africans? The same applies to most or all north Sudanese/Nubians because of closer geographical distance.
Geographic distance does NOT equal genetic distance. I don't know how many times this has been explained to you.
quote:Originally posted by Cass: As I posted in my first thread: a prediction of the isolation-by-distance model in population genetics is ancient Egyptians will be closest genetically to their nearest geographical neighbours, but since Europe is smaller than Sub-Saharan Africa, that populations from Europe and east Mediterranean, will plot closer than many Sub-Saharan African populations.
Size of a geographic region is a non-issue. The issue is populaition affinities based on recent ancestry as well as gene-flow.
quote:As expected (although I was mocked for saying this) Nubian skeletal samples from northern Sudan plot closer to Zalavar+Berg+Norse than Sub-Saharan populations such as Zulu.
"Indeed, in nine cases a European population measured by Howells provided the closest match to one of the Nubian specimens studied by Williams et al. (2005)." (Bulbeck, 2011)
Could you elaborate more on this? If craniometrically the Nubians align more with Europeans especially Nords then it is no surprise because Brace (1995) said the same thing and even Somalians group closer to English than 'typical' Sub-Saharan West Africans. But again, what does this have to do with genetic relations??
By the way, I notice you ignored my question as to whether you consider the Egyptians as black based on the Luschan color scheme. Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Within human biology and the earths environment humans only come in one range of colors, white on the very light end and black on the very dark end. ALL humans are somewhere within that range of colors. Hence there are populations on the planet that can rightly be called black and others that can rightly be called white. All human skin color is determined by the amount of melanin, which by definition means "black" from the root "mela".
Not to mention all human populations ultimately started out as black.
Therefore to claim that skin color has no biological or scientific basis and that black and white aren't valid as adjectives describing it is simply a falsehood.
There are no blue, orange, green or purple humans.
Not ironically Khem as in KMT means the same thing chemically as the AE recognized carbon "the black element" as the key to life on earth and the universe......
Of course one of the purposes of scientific racism was to deny these facts and muddy the waters so to speak.
lol.
Black isn't just skin colour to you though. You've been caught with pants down on this issue, I've seen it in several threads.
Is the Egyptian football team black?
The point is that nobody would object to calling some of these people white, except the most racist Nazis in Europe who believe white is to be preserved for only the "purest" populations of Northern Europe with no admixture from outside groups. But that doesn't mean that white as a description of very light skin is not an accurate label. However, the idea here is that even if the lightest skinned Egyptians and Arabs are technically "white", Europeans will still treat them as "non whites" when they migrate to Europe. Even as these same Europeans claim close kinship to the ancient populations of Egypt and the Euphrates. Ironically enough the Europeans don't want to call them as white because they know that these people have a "mixed" ancestry including populations who had black skin at some point. The FUNNIEST part is that Europeans also have a mixed ancestry and most of their ideas of race are based on denial of this fact.
Meaning that if "black" is a racial term then so is "white". But people use these terms every day and IT IS A REFERENCE TO SKIN COLOR. Skin color is not race. Skin color is a fact of human biology.
If there is a racial component to this then it is primarily a side effect of Europeans and their scientific racism because truly RACISM originates in Europe. And this starts specifically with European scientists defining RACE based on human physical features and then basing ideas of superiority on certain said features. This is not something originating in Africa, Asia or anywhere else. That does not mean that in language and general use "black" or "white" are strictly racist. It just means that in the modern world race is still part of the mindset of many within the Western world and no matter what language or words you use it will still be there. So I don't run away from certain words because I know that this won't change those who have a racist mindset.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now tell me would the people who have a problem calling the the AE black people have a problem calling the Romans white?
Yes. The ancient Greeks and Romans did not consider themselves white and distinguished themselves to more northern European tribes/peoples based on pigmentation. Now what?
Also, just look up the old immigration policies of the US. At one point northern Europeans were favoured over southern Europeans, and the latter were not considered white. And they were not considered white because of their darker phenotypes.
I've been on places like Stormfront for years. Although that website purports to support pan-European unity, none exists. Just go to the individual country sections for the Swedes, English etc. most see Italians as "wogs". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog
In England we have a saying - "The wogs begin at Calais". Google it.
quote:Wog is a slang word in the idiom of Australian English and British English, usually employed as an ethnic or racial slur and considered derogatory and offensive.
In British English, wog is an offensive racial slur usually applied to black, Middle Eastern or South Asian/Maritime Southeast Asian peoples. In Australian English, wog is a term used as a racial slur mostly for people from Southern Europe and the Mediterranean region in general, including the Mediterranean region of the Middle East ( i.e. the Eastern Mediterranean or the Levant and North Africa).
wog definition:
British a person who is not white.
Australian a foreigner or immigrant, especially one from southern Europe.
Not all Europeans = white, and not all Africans = black. This simple fact is problematic for your politics.
Bullshit.
Open any British newspaper and website and look for the word "white British".
The underlying point here is that people acknowledge that skin color can differ between populations AND that white has always been used as a reference to the lightest skin complexions within Europe plus some other characteristics not based on skin color. Most of these other characteristics being subjective. For example, within white populations ARYANS are considered by some to be a "pure" type of white person.... All of this comes from the contradictions and distortions within the RACIAL classifications that came out of white society over the last 500 years. It does not mean that humans don't have skin color or that the AE didn't fall WELL WITHIN the range of skin colors called "black".
quote: Oxford University has launched a summer school aimed at white British boys, in an effort to increase its intake of working class students.
Those taking part will get to try out subjects such as ancient history, computer science, law and medical sciences as well as being taught by Oxford academics.
The move comes amid mounting pressure on universities to boost diversity and increase their intake of disadvantaged students.
In her first speech as Prime Minister, Theresa May highlighted the issue, saying that white working-class boys were "less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university".
It does not mean that humans don't have skin color or that the AE didn't fall WELL WITHIN the range of skin colors called "black".
Since you have not stated what the range for being black is your comment is useless and will continue to be. The AE fall into some range that you have no idea what it is, you just know they must" fall into it"
quote:Ok. But are you prepared to admit AE's were closer to Europeans than west/central/south sub-Saharan Africans? The same applies to most or all north Sudanese/Nubians because of closer geographical distance. On most maps the true size of Africa is not shown clearly.
How on earth are Europeans closer to Northeast Africans on a molecular genetic level? Please provide molecular genetic evidence for this assertion.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QUOTE]I'll send you something later in regards to what you asked (gradual change in AE). I'm trying to stay away from this topic on ES.
Why? Doesn't this thread entail the very topic?? [/qb]
There are some things I will never discuss on ES. This community clearly can't move on without aDNA evidence forcing them to move on and even then they do it reluctantly or try to slip in some bs about "suspicious white man's science". I've seen it all. From people talking about academics planting hairs in Egyptians' scalps to people trying to focus on convenient non metric data to make points they know are false. I'm not talking about this stuff because I don't respond well to Afrocentric-sounding denial. Might as well avoid it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QUOTE]I'll send you something later in regards to what you asked (gradual change in AE). I'm trying to stay away from this topic on ES.
Why? Doesn't this thread entail the very topic??
There are some things I will never discuss on ES. This community clearly can't move on without aDNA evidence forcing them to move on and even then they do it reluctantly or try to slip in some bs about "suspicious white man's science". I've seen it all. From people talking about academics planting hairs in Egyptians' scalps to people trying to focus on convenient non metric data to make points they know are false. I'm not talking about this stuff because I don't respond well to Afrocentric-sounding denial. Might as well avoid it. [/QB]
sh!t no! send me too!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Oshun
Even though I disagree with some of your sources/how you're reading them, I love how you are quickly integrating these different ideas and coming up with your own explanations and turning things into a coherent whole with your own analysis. The key point here is coherent. Everyone can slap a few quotes together like Akachi, but you're making sense. Keep it up.
Especially this point is huge, IMO:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: From earlier periods to the third intermediate, and from then to now migrations could change demographics.
and:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: I would be of no surprise if Near East and African influences waxed and waned over time periods in certain regions and were not static after Egypt established itself as a world power.
In other words, in 5000 years some ancient Egyptian regions/communities could have gone from:
1) looking like predynastic Egyptians (e.g. Badarians and Naqadans), to 2) more like a hybridized population (e.g. perhaps this ancient sample, although, again, we're not sure if it's really that hybridized; all we can do is speculate), to 3) back to more African-like, or, at least, going back in that direction to a degree (e.g. modern Egyptians are more African-like due to post-Roman migration from SSA).
I can easily post skeletal evidence that this could have happened in some regions. This is one of the reasons why I said earlier that a result of 0% L lineages in some samples can easily happen without big implications for AE as a whole.
Thanks. It'd seem many Afrocentrics and Eurocentrics want a "static Egypt" and would mentally prefer to assume remains in one era or region transfers to all the others. That requires less thinking. I'm supposing the response has been expected that somehow evidence of mixture some centuries before the Late period in Lower or Middle Egypt should have some kind of death star effect.
"static Egypt" is intellectually lazy. Neither side has to care about who ruled Egypt or when. They don't have to know how far territories expanded, nor have any interest in migrations patterns. How would Egypt have been affected for example with expansions like this by the New Kingdom
If you have any critiques on how I reviewed the data I used feel free to share, as well as any additional skeletal evidence you may find relevant. I guess I just figured that people don't need to make a big to do about where the "Sub Saharan" genetics changing Middle Egypt in modern times could've come from when "SSA" affinities or haplogroups were found in the remains of upper native upper Egyptians and Nubians.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is one of the few times I agree with the Hindu. He made a post without speaking from both sides of his mouth…finally…maybe? Yes, Of course AEians were not West Africans but they are distantly related to West Africans. Let me see. South Africans, Great Lakes..then West African . So if the paper is saying less SSA and is using YRI instead of Great Lakes SSAfricans as the representive …then. That is the game these racialist play. Ignore the paper until the full study is presented.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: We all know what 'black' is, which is a description of skin color and says nothing about ancestry
In an ideal world, yes. But we also see that some are, in fact, using it as a Trojan horse. The lunatic who is going around demanding academics describe AE as 'black' in a racial/ancestry sense was using YOUR posts to justify this ancestry-based use of 'black'. When I told him your use is different from his, he lost it and threw a tantrum. I don't think you understand how deceitful and low some of these people are.
Yeah, I know who you're referring to. Well I guess anyone (especially those suffering from neuroses) can take anything anyone else says out of context.
quote:I'll send you something later in regards to what you asked (gradual change in AE). I'm trying to stay away from this topic on ES.
Why? Doesn't this thread entail the very topic??
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QUOTE]I'll send you something later in regards to what you asked (gradual change in AE). I'm trying to stay away from this topic on ES.
Why? Doesn't this thread entail the very topic??
This community clearly can't move on without aDNA evidence forcing them to move on and even then they do it reluctantly or try to slip in some bs about "suspicious white man's science". [/QB]
THIS..... I tried to warn them they are digging themselves into a hole but they were not trying to hear it. I can say truthfully I am ALMOST equally enthusiastic on seeing these results as I would if they said the exactly opposite. I post it here and cats down playing it like its not really a big deal . SURE Its not. They know ES would be having ORGASMS if the data said the opposite, the thread would be like 20 pages already.
ES dont even have a reasonable way to interpret the abstract based on 100's of ancient DNA findings around the globe. SMH.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So if the paper is saying less SSA and is using YRI instead of Great Lakes SSAfricans as the representive …then. That is the game these racialist play. Ignore the paper until the full study is presented.
You think they are going to be dumb enough to make THAT type of analysis? I think not. MAYBE they would classify Seemingly North African components now concentrated in Sub Saharan Africa (Ethio-Somali) as "Non Sub Saharan" but more generic Southern, Central and Eastern African equatorial ancestry? Hell no.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic