posted
The troll keeps mentioning his absurd 1% figure when discussing black Egyptians when we know that the areas of the black Egyptians were the majority in Dynastic Egypt from the predynastic until after the New Kingdom period.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: [qb] "As to the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians, both iconographie and written evidence differentiated between the physical traits of Egyptians and the populations south of Egypt. The art of ancient Egypt frequently painted Egyptian men as reddish brown, women as yellow, and people to the south as black." - Snowden, 1997
I'm going to keep posting the brown Nubians and brown Ramses 2 and sons until it sticks through to your Nazi skull
You're just cherry-picking. Why is it if you search for ancient depictions of Nubians, the vast majority don't show the lighter brown colours?
Syrian (left), Nubian (right)
Over 50 Nubians being run-over and killed by Tut, why are none of them lighter brown?
Kemsit, the Nubian queen of the Egyptian King Mentuhotep II B.C.), and her Egyptian servants:
[google]
Nubian (second from left)
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the only "black" tropical skin tones now are jet black? They weren't a culture that's origins came from Sudan? They hadn't maintained biological continuity with these "Nubians?" Oh I forgot a UV index of 10 and not 11 is all you need to blow your lid.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: What Snowden says is "a darker brown", not "dark brown" (black). I never contradicted myself, its just you Afro-loons cannot read; Snowden describes southern Egyptians as medium brown, not dark brown.
You pretentious @ss. "Darker browns" can (and did) include shades that can be seen in "black" people today.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: So the only "black" tropical skin tones now are jet black? They weren't a culture that's origins came from Sudan? They hadn't maintained biological continuity with these "Nubians?" Oh I forgot a UV index of 10 and not 11 is all you need to blow your lid.
I have repeated to the troll that those jet black people are most likely the ancestors of the Nuba and/or the Dinka and Nuer.
They obviously don't resemble the Lower "Nubians"-Upper Egyptians - a population with mahogany-brown skin.
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: And you can always find a steppinfetchit that'll do anything to cater to a Eurocentric worldview for acceptance. I'm supposed to be impressed that Snowden was black? Him being black makes his statements unassailable because they back you up? Please. Who next? Clarence Walker?
In fairness, I believe Snowden's big academic contribution was to argue that the ancient Greeks and Romans did not look down upon (Black) African people and actually assimilated some into their empires. He might have overstepped his authority when commenting on how the AE would have looked (he had no biological anthropological credentials AFAIK), and maybe he had a bias towards being taken seriously by the white classicist establishment. But even if he was wrong and unqualified to speak on this one issue, I don't think he was a (total) "steppinfetchit".
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
They're not only jet-black, but lighter shades. Those colours however are still a dark brown (more specifically chocolate-brown). Above you can see these two dark brown shades: chocolate-brown and jet black. The light brown are the Egyptians killing the Nubians.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, note the Afroloons cherry-picking the darkest they can find. If you just Google image search Amenhotep III you find plenty like the following, and even lighter-
No Afrocentric of course will spam this, instead they only spam the image Sudaniya posts because its chocolate-brown.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Again, note the Afroloons cherry-picking the darkest they can find. If you just Google image search Amenhotep III you find plenty like the following, and even lighter-
No Afrocentric of course will spam this, instead they only spam the image Sudaniya posts because its chocolate-brown.
Amenhotep III was a North African black man and that particular portrayal is not different to these:
Kushites portraying themselves
The ancient Egyptians stem from a common origin with the people of the immediate South - people in Upper Egypt and North Sudan. [/QB] [/QB] [/QB]
Lower "Nubians"-Upper Egyptians were/ are black and are indigenous to the continent and are not "Eurasians", so stop this nonsensical campaign.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: You never looked more closely.
They're not only jet-black, but lighter shades. Those colours however are still a dark brown (more specifically chocolate-brown). Above you can see these two dark brown shades: chocolate-brown and jet black. The light brown are the Egyptians killing the Nubians.
Follow your own advise. Some are jet black while others have the same skin tone as Tut's family.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: lol. If light brown is 'black', then are southern Europeans, black? Apparently you never looked at Mycenaean and Minoan artwork.
Mycenaean-era Greek warriors:
Of course though this doesn't fit your pan-African politics.
So basically if you find a painting the same or similar light brown colour as above in Egypt it is "black", but if in Greece, it is "white". These Afro-loons are just politicalizing colours to fit their racial politics, its beyond ridiculous.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you aren't cherry picking the darkest Nubians you can find??? LMAO.
What about this golden Kushite??
I guess the Nubians had people with solid gold skin prancing around all them pitch black naggers you hate so much.
Oh wait.
There's a pitch black Egyptian.
Oh wait!
The same damn man this time with brown skin. Per Cass doctrine are we to believe Mentuhotep was a skin color changing wizard?? Was he pitch black at day and brown at night???
You nazis love taking Egyptian art literally when it shows pitch black Nubians being bound and humiliated, but when it comes to Egyptians you hand wring, goalpost shift, deny and insult. You call dark Egyptians and light brown/yellow Nubians cherry picking but you picking the blackest Nubians you can find is representative and objective.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: lol. If light brown is 'black', then are southern Europeans, black? Apparently you never looked at Mycenaean and Minoan artwork.
Mycenaean-era Greek warriors:
Of course though this doesn't fit your pan-African politics.
So basically if you find a painting the same or similar light brown colour as above in Egypt it is "black", but if in Greece, it is "white". These Afro-loons are just politicalizing colours to fit their racial politics, its beyond ridiculous.
Southern Europeans are not light-brown, you twit. The San are light-brown and the ancient Egyptians were mostly mahogany brown to a shade or two under that.
Southern Europeans are olive skin and that is the hue of that warrior -- not light-brown.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Southern Europeans are a light brown, dummy.
This is what Mycenaean-era Greek men were most commonly painted as:
You're politicalizing black to the extent brown shades have to be restricted to Africa and all Europeans are 'white'. Laughing so hard right now.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
"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)
Punos misread it, like you.
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: So since dark brown = black per Cassdom, Upper Egyptians were black? Seems like we've finally come full circle.
What Snowden says is "a darker brown", not "dark brown" (black). I never contradicted myself, its just you Afro-loons cannot read; Snowden describes southern Egyptians as medium brown, not dark brown.
Tutankhamun's golden throne. The color here is a glass glaze so it's unfaded, all the colors vibrant
^^ This color is what Snowden meant when he said a "darker brown"
The scientific name for this color is brown, not black. Black is this this color:
"Black" is a political term when referring to humans that connotes more than just skin color so it cause confusion when it is introduced into anthropological discussion involving measurement of physical morphology or genetics.
The political term "black" is also unwise to stress because if "brown" where the official category people called "black" would fit into it and it would be a much larger category than "black", thus strength in numbers. But people prefer the smaller exclusive category "black" just like Europeans like the smaller exclusive category "white"
^^ Nevertheless when Snowden said "a darker brown" he meant this color which is very very common in Egyptian art.
Of the various things including skin color and other traits that the political term "black" connotes, this color of Tutankhamun would be of the range that would be politically "black". As we can see Snowden, considered politically "black" himself is slightly lighter that the "darker brown" politically black toned Tutankhuamun (unless you can find a quote where Frank Snowden says he himself was not black and then try to argue Frank Snowden wasn't black)
All these experts you quote on this matter are merely looking sat the art just like we are and giving an opinion on applying a political term or not. So they may be scientists but such remarks are subjective opinion
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Southern Europeans are a light brown, dummy.
This is what Mycenaean-era Greek men were most commonly painted as:
You're politicalizing black to the extent brown shades have to be restricted to Africa and all Europeans are 'white'. Laughing so hard right now.
Southern Europeans are known as olive skin - not "light-brown". The San are light-brown. Lower "Nubians" and Southern Egyptians are two black populations with a common origin.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Southern Euros are typically type 3. Modern Egyptians are typically type 4-5 and as I said I'd be willing to bet AE were typically 5-6.
You see, this lil inbred nazi trollop demands we play the game by his rules, then cries foul and tries to switch up when we beat him at the ruleset he forced us into. Afroloons indeed. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Olive skin" is a light brown, just the lightest shade of that colour spectrum- we're still talking about a brown colour, not white. And as Snowden (1997) points out coastal Egyptians would have been virtually indistinguishable to southern Europeans in pigmentation.
Anyway, I noticed in your recent replies you only say southern Egyptians were black. So do you now admit northern (Lower/Middle) Egyptians were light brown shades and not black? That's a start I guess.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Southern Euros are typically type 3. Modern Egyptians are typically type 4-5 and as I said I'd be willing to bet AE were typically 5-6.
You see, this lil inbred nazi trollop demands we play the game by his rules, then cries foul and tries to switch up when we beat him at the ruleset he forced us into. Afroloons indeed.
You just made those figures up. And you do realise only 6 is "black" on that scale?
Fitzpatrick scale Type VI: deeply pigmented dark brown to darkest brown, black in complexion
But dermatologists are Nazis, right? You're the biggest clown on the forum. Just stop.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: "Olive skin" is a light brown, just the lightest shade of that colour spectrum- we're still talking about a brown colour, not white. And as Snowden (1997) points out coastal Egyptians would have been virtually indistinguishable to southern Europeans in pigmentation.
Anyway, I noticed in your recent replies you only say southern Egyptians were black. So do you now admit northern (Lower/Middle) Egyptians were light brown shades and not black? That's a start I guess.
this is the color Snowden meant when he said Southern Egyptians were a darker brown
This same color is the same color that multi millions of people who are called "black" today, including Snowden himself are
-try to avoid this
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right I just made them up, and I thought you said dark brown equals black, not just near black (darker end of type 6) a category you said was "too narrow to be useful"
Type 5 skin falls well within what you called the "chocolate class" on the luschan tile scale too.
quote: Originally posted by Cass/: -
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
Type V (scores 28–34) very rarely burns, tans very easily (brown)
Type VI (scores 35–36) never burns, always tans (deeply pigmented dark brown to darkest brown, black in complexion)
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Right I just made them up, and I thought you said dark brown equals black, not just near black (darker end of type 6) a category you said was "too narrow to be useful"
Type 5 skin falls well within what you called the "chocolate class" on the luschan tile scale too.
quote: Originally posted by Cass/: -
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
Type V (scores 28–34) very rarely burns, tans very easily (brown)
Type VI (scores 35–36) never burns, always tans (deeply pigmented dark brown to darkest brown, black in complexion)
Try again, dumb b!tch
Erm No. There's no accurate way to match Luschan to the Fitzpatrick scale; completely different ranges exist per author/study. Type VI isn't limited to 35-36; that can clearly be seen by just looking at the chocolate brown (as opposed to near jet black) colour of the smiley face (VI). Duh. A dermatology publication I'm looking at on PDF right now has different ranges. You only had to Google this to find.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: "Olive skin" is a light brown, just the lightest shade of that colour spectrum- we're still talking about a brown colour, not white. And as Snowden (1997) points out coastal Egyptians would have been virtually indistinguishable to southern Europeans in pigmentation.
Anyway, I noticed in your recent replies you only say southern Egyptians were black. So do you now admit northern (Lower/Middle) Egyptians were light brown shades and not black? That's a start I guess.
Southern Europeans are not light-brown and an olive hue is not a metonym for light-brown. Southern Europeans are just tanned. The San are truly light-brown.
I think Northern Egyptians were biracial whereas the South was indisputably black, but then again if we use European standards, biracial people are still black.
When I mention Southern Egypt, I mean Upper Egypt. You will also have to stop pretending that Southern Egyptians didn't create and dominate the ancient Egyptian civilization politically, demographically and militarily for the bulk of dynastic Egyptian history.
The South is the most important region of ancient Egypt; the area where the civilization sprang from; the area in which the population was virtually identical to Lower "Nubians"; the politically dominant region; the region that conquered the other part of Egypt - starting the dynastic period; the geographically largest; the demographically dominant region; the richer, more sophisticated and more advanced region.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
These people below are biracial Western celebrities:
Slash
Jennifer Beals
Soledad O'Brien:
Rashida Jones:
Maya Rudolph:
And Hoda Kotb - Egyptian host on NBC:
Let's be honest here, Europeans emphasise cosmopolitan modern Lower Egyptians for no reason other than the fact that their "Eurasian" appearance provides them with a great deal of comfort in its relation to their image of ancient Egypt.
You people act as though Lower Egyptians were the majority in Dynastic Egypt and that they are the best representatives of the Pharaohs when in fact Upper Egyptians are far better representatives of the Pharaohs -- but they look like other Northeast Africans and so there is no comfort to be derived, is there?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: "Olive skin" is a light brown, just the lightest shade of that colour spectrum- we're still talking about a brown colour, not white. And as Snowden (1997) points out coastal Egyptians would have been virtually indistinguishable to southern Europeans in pigmentation.
Anyway, I noticed in your recent replies you only say southern Egyptians were black. So do you now admit northern (Lower/Middle) Egyptians were light brown shades and not black? That's a start I guess.
Southern Europeans are not light-brown and an olive hue is not a metonym for light-brown. Southern Europeans are just tanned. The San are truly light-brown.
I think Northern Egyptians were biracial whereas the South was indisputably black, but then again if we use European standards, biracial people are still black.
When I mention Southern Egypt, I mean Upper Egypt. You will also have to stop pretending that Southern Egyptians didn't create and dominate the ancient Egyptian civilization politically, demographically and militarily for the bulk of dynastic Egyptian history.
The South is the most important region of ancient Egypt; the area where the civilization sprang from; the area in which the population was virtually identical to Lower "Nubians"; the politically dominant region; the region that conquered the other part of Egypt - starting the dynastic period; the geographically largest; the demographically dominant region; the richer, more sophisticated and more advanced region.
The Palaeo-Biological Evidence for Admixture between Populations in the Southern Levant and Egypt in the Fourth to Third Millennia BCE
quote:"Morant (1925) and Batrawi (1946) also found significant differences between Predynastic Upper Egyptians and, represented by Naqada and those from Lower Egypt, represented by Giza. Subsequent investigations using different sets of variables and more sophisticated statistical analysis, have confirmed that marked differences existed between Predynastic and Early Dynastic samples from the north and south of Egypt, and that these differences decreased in later period(Chichton 1966; Hillson 1978; Keita 1002, 1995, 1996).
quote:... Keita (1992) found that distance between populations from Badari, Naqada and Abydos, as calculated from metrical parameters, correlated well with chronology rather than geographical distance."
quote: "The findings presented here indicate that the north-south differences reported for Predynastic and Early Dynastic populations in Egypt were not due to large-scale population movements out of the southern Levant in the Neolithic or Predynastic period. Rather, they appear to reflect the long-term effect of differentiation between small, localized groups of hunters and gatherers exploiting different ecological niches. Having said this, it must be emphasized that these results are constrained by the small sample sizes available for the sites discussed here, and the limited number of sites represented."
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Southern Europeans are not light-brown and an olive hue is not a metonym for light-brown. Southern Europeans are just tanned. The San are truly light-brown.
Southern Europeans are naturally darker than Northern Europeans; the difference isn't just a tan/sub-burn. Skin reflectance values (685 nm) taken from the unexposed [inner] arm show SE's tend to have lower skin reflectance values than NE's by >5%; below are some values I found while just searching:
The difference would be up to 10% between the north/south extremes of Europe, e.g. Southern Spanish or Aegean Greeks vs. Swedes or Danes.
Southern Europeans without a tan, aren't 'white', but a faint light brown colour.
Do you see why its so ridiculous to say the whole of Africa including Egyptians were 'black', when 'white' is restricted to a much smaller geographical area? Why should 'black' be so broad? The answer is you people are politicalizing it to fit a pan-African ideology.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Erm No. There's no accurate way to match Luschan to the Fitzpatrick scale; completely different ranges exist per author/study. Type VI isn't limited to 35-36; that can clearly be seen by just looking at the chocolate brown (as opposed to near jet black) colour of the smiley face (VI). Duh. A dermatology publication I'm looking at on PDF right now has different ranges. You only had to Google this to find.
Ah I see..so when you ripped the description of type 5 skin from the same article I cited it was fine, but when I quote the comparisons between Fitzpatrick and Luschan from the same its not accurate??
L. O. L.
Maybe this one is better?
Maybe this one?
Or this one?
I'm sure if you search and scour the Internet you'll be able to find one that lists type 5 skin as olive/light brown, though doing such a thing would be...cherry picking Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Southern Europeans are not light-brown and an olive hue is not a metonym for light-brown. Southern Europeans are just tanned. The San are truly light-brown.
Southern Europeans are naturally darker than Northern Europeans; the difference isn't just a tan/sub-burn. Skin reflectance values (685 nm) taken from the unexposed [inner] arm show SE's tend to have lower skin reflectance values than NE's by >5%; below are some values I found while just searching:
The difference would be up to 10% between the north/south extremes of Europe, e.g. Southern Spanish or Aegean Greeks vs. Swedes or Danes.
Southern Europeans without a tan, aren't 'white', but a faint light brown colour.
Do you see why its so ridiculous to say the whole of Africa including Egyptians were 'black', when 'white' is restricted to a much smaller geographical area? Why should 'black' be so broad? The answer is you people are politicalizing it to fit a pan-African ideology.
Whether you like it or not the ancient Egyptians stem from a common origin with other black populations in Egypt and Northern Sudan.
Southern Europeans are white, acknowledge that they're white, are considered such by every white person I have ever met. Neo-Nazis may have a difference of opinion but I scarcely care.
You are being political, mate. Lower "Nubians"-Upper Egyptians have a common origin, adapted to the same ecological environment over thousands of years, were virtually identical, practiced the same culture and were responsible for creating dynastic Egypt... but only one sibling is black?
This has everything to do with your self-admitted hatred of black people, so your desperate lip-service to objectivity is laughable and is dismissed.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: "Olive skin" is a light brown, just the lightest shade of that colour spectrum- we're still talking about a brown colour, not white. And as Snowden (1997) points out coastal Egyptians would have been virtually indistinguishable to southern Europeans in pigmentation.
Anyway, I noticed in your recent replies you only say southern Egyptians were black. So do you now admit northern (Lower/Middle) Egyptians were light brown shades and not black? That's a start I guess.
Southern Europeans are not light-brown and an olive hue is not a metonym for light-brown. Southern Europeans are just tanned. The San are truly light-brown.
I think Northern Egyptians were biracial whereas the South was indisputably black, but then again if we use European standards, biracial people are still black.
When I mention Southern Egypt, I mean Upper Egypt. You will also have to stop pretending that Southern Egyptians didn't create and dominate the ancient Egyptian civilization politically, demographically and militarily for the bulk of dynastic Egyptian history.
The South is the most important region of ancient Egypt; the area where the civilization sprang from; the area in which the population was virtually identical to Lower "Nubians"; the politically dominant region; the region that conquered the other part of Egypt - starting the dynastic period; the geographically largest; the demographically dominant region; the richer, more sophisticated and more advanced region.
The Palaeo-Biological Evidence for Admixture between Populations in the Southern Levant and Egypt in the Fourth to Third Millennia BCE
quote:"Morant (1925) and Batrawi (1946) also found significant differences between Predynastic Upper Egyptians and, represented by Naqada and those from Lower Egypt, represented by Giza. Subsequent investigations using different sets of variables and more sophisticated statistical analysis, have confirmed that marked differences existed between Predynastic and Early Dynastic samples from the north and south of Egypt, and that these differences decreased in later period(Chichton 1966; Hillson 1978; Keita 1002, 1995, 1996).
quote:... Keita (1992) found that distance between populations from Badari, Naqada and Abydos, as calculated from metrical parameters, correlated well with chronology rather than geographical distance."
quote: "The findings presented here indicate that the north-south differences reported for Predynastic and Early Dynastic populations in Egypt were not due to large-scale population movements out of the southern Levant in the Neolithic or Predynastic period. Rather, they appear to reflect the long-term effect of differentiation between small, localized groups of hunters and gatherers exploiting different ecological niches. Having said this, it must be emphasized that these results are constrained by the small sample sizes available for the sites discussed here, and the limited number of sites represented."
Thanks a million for this. I'll give it a read.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: [QB] Black is a political and social construct.
"Black" pigmentation isn't political, its simply a word that categorizes the darkest skin pigmentation, i.e. shades of dark brown.
All was fine for hundreds of years. Physical anthropologists have categorized skin colours without a fuss for a long time. Then came along some Afrocentric trolls on the internet in the last decade who want to politicalize "black" to cover all skin phenotypes observed across the entire African continent. Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: Yeah, I kinda agree. Even though a lot of it is unreferenced stuff on the Internet, there's multiple versions, etc, still there's a heck of a lot of it.
Quite a few of these stories seem to involve a legendary founder figure who marries a local girl and founds a dynasty or whatever. So small-scale but culturally influential migration. That maybe you could test by looking at uniparental lineages of certain clans, royal families and so forth. And the results would be interesting whether you found a connection to Sudan/Egypt/Yemen/wherever or not.
But if we are talking about whole peoples migrating, I don't see how the heck it works. Sudan is genetically distinct from West Africa, and yet also very diverse, not like the genetically West African people only would leave and the rest remain. And in terms of languages you'd need pretty much the entire population of West Africa to be wholesale recent arrivals. [/QB]
Its tough.This http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-snp-admixture-2014-06-03.pdf was no revelation either way. Its missing the two baseline tribes Bamilike, Bassa and other informative tribes like Wolof and Akan. A lot of these tribes have central and north African related lineages. There is a big difference from the Bamilike and Bassa leaving Egypt in the last 500 years and the Yoruba leaving the Sudan in the last 5000. And linguistically its even more gray because we don't have the language of Kush. Bamilike is considered Simi-Bantu (whatever that means) and this http://www.kaa-umati.co.uk/banturosetta.html with a Vygas dictionary checks out well enough to be Simi-Bantu too. But what is the other half or piece? One small trend I have noticed in studying African languages with Egyptian transliterations is that when Hausa, Zulu, and Amharic are similar chances are Egyptian is right with them.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
I see you responded while I was in the process of writing that post above, so I missed your reply.
You just wrote a whole monologue addressing non-existent points of contention. Might as well have said nothing. But I like how you danced around your slip up.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: All was fine for hundreds of years. Physical anthropologists have categorized skin colours without a fuss for a long time. Then came along some Afrocentric trolls on the internet in the last decade who want to politicalize "black" to cover all skin phenotypes observed across the entire African continent. [/QB]
The F***#!!!!
You call THIS categorizing skin colors without a fuss??
"(Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, 1853–1855) by Joseph Arthur, Comte de Gobineau, was a book arguing there were differences between human races, that civilizations decline and fall when the races are mixed and that the white race was superior. It is today considered to be one of the earliest examples of scientific racism.
Expanding upon Boulainvilliers' use of ethnography to defend the Ancien Régime against the claims of the Third Estate, Gobineau aimed for an explanatory system universal in scope: namely, that race is the primary force determining world events. Using scientific disciplines as varied as linguistics and anthropology, Gobineau divides the human species into three major groupings, white, yellow and black, claiming to demonstrate that "history springs only from contact with the white races." Among the white races, he distinguishes the Aryan race as the pinnacle of human development, comprising the basis of all European aristocracies. However, inevitable miscegenation led to the "downfall of civilizations"."
You call THIS categorizing without a fuss??
quote:In 1745 John Green published in London with great success the New General Collection of Voyages and Travels on this wave of increasing interest in foreign travels. Of this four volume work, one volume dealt exclusively with Africa. Abbe Prevost later translated this work into French, mainly due to personal financial hardships. The French translation of Greene's work encompassed seven volumes, to which Prevost added eight more volumes consisting of his own collections and insights. Prevost's fifteen volume set was published between 1746 and 1759 entitled Histoire generale des voyages and quickly became incredibly successful. (Prevost's work was posthumously expanded to twenty-one volumes.). Although the first edition soon became an expensive collector's item, many could afford the less expensive quarto edition published in eighty-volumes over the period of 1746 and 1789.
Not only did major explorers and voyagers such as Montcalm and Bougainville carry Prevost's edition with them across the seas, but it clearly influenced the writings and thought of the philosophes. Buffon, the Encyclopedie (the Opus Magnus of the era), and Rousseau all gleaned most of their information from Prevost and often even plagiarized the Histoire. [3]
Prevost's information on Africa, however, was a hodgepodge collection which he had simply taken from previous seventeenth and early eighteenth century accounts and opinions by various authors. His financial motive and subsequent haste in writing the Histoire added to an inconsistency and contradictory view of African peoples. For example, of the West Africans, Prevost writes:
"Since they are naturally sly and violent they cannot live in peace with each other. The Europeans who are not safe from their insults can find no better vengeance than to burn their huts and ruin their plantations. On the other hand the Negroes of Sierra Leone are sober... They have more feeling and intelligence than the Negroes in the other parts of the Guinea Coast." [4] Elsewhere Prevost states:
"The Negroes in general are given over to incontinence. Their women, who are no less stirred by the pleasure of the senses, employ herbs and barks to excite their husbands. These vicious customs reign here... But the inhabitants (of the Guinea Coast) are more moderate, more gentle, more sociable than the other Negroes. They do not like to shed blood, and don't think of war unless they are forced to by the need to defend themselves." [5] Prevost commonly uses this pattern of presenting favorable qualities of a particular group as an exception to the whole of the African peoples. As we noted earlier, European bias against the Africans may derive quite directly from the impenetrability of the African mainland and the resulting mystery/ignorance regarding those peoples. In support of this suggestion we can here point to the interesting fact that those groups of Africans of which Prevost speaks most favorably are in fact those groups with which Europe was most familiar, namely the populations of the northwest coast of the African mainland. Thus Prevost deems the more familiar group as an exception of civility and respectability to the otherwise mysterious remainder of African peoples.
Anyone stupid enough to think this guy has a legitimate leg to stand on vs us "afroloons" can kick rocks, I'm done!
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: [QB] Black is a political and social construct.
"Black" pigmentation isn't political, its simply a word that categorizes the darkest skin pigmentation, i.e. shades of dark brown.
But what is "dark brown"? For many people experiencing racism, being noticeably lighter than jet black does not mean they're not considered black. The spectrum of what's clustered together to be collectively "darkest" or "dark brown" relative to other colors is opinionated and defined by sociopolitical constructs.
quote:All was fine for hundreds of years. Physical anthropologists have categorized skin colours without a fuss for a long time. Then came along some Afrocentric trolls on the internet in the last decade who want to politicalize "black" to cover all skin phenotypes observed across the entire African continent.
Race is not a biological construct but a social one. Who qualified as black in it's beginnings included people with lighter complexions we see in northern Egypt. Among the Mande, Igbo and mulattoes there were enough people with those lighter tones to where they were not an invisible part of the population. Whites noticed them and made it clear they labeled them "black." You can't whitewash away that history. Egyptians were tropically adapted and had tones that fit within the spectrum of blackness that people experience. You'll never win this debate because when a person is treated as black for having the SAME complexion they will look at an Egyptian and see blackness. You'll never be able to unwrite what people within this forum (and out of this forum) have experienced with comparable complexions.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
...the former is self explanatory, but you guys are chasing the man that's giving even the most hardcore negro-Kongo-Kemet-Afro-Übermensch the utmost breathing room at this point in time as it relates to the second link. ...and U.O.E.N.O. it. Like I said he's a useful troll, don't engage in overdebated or nonsensical topics w/ that child.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
We're talking about skin colour and these Afro-loons keep mentioning social theories of race in the past I couldn't care less about. William Montague Cobb was an African-American physical anthropologist. He categorized the skin colour of African-American individuals (using the Luschan scale). Was he a Nazi? Take that nonsense elsewhere.
As Cobb showed- not all African-Americans are black (dark brown) in pigmentation; a sizable percentage have medium brown shades, and a small number, light brown. This is explained by the heterogeneous ancestry of African-Americans, who have European and Native American mixture.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
~It appears I'm the only person on the forum who fully separates/distinguishes categorizing skin colour from social theories of 'race'. And I'm the racist? Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
My Problem is folks on here acting like this is some sort of religion to them, and maybe it is IDK. When I cone on and people talking about "He's not a Melanated African" or white Devil this and that how can I take this place serious? Im starting to believe Swenet's comment about the early days being a fluke, racial based approaches to anything esp. History just leads to an Ignorant totalitarian echo chamber...People arent here to learn anymore they're here to defend at all costs their pre-conceived ideologies.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
90ish% Greater "African" basedon on social shat
99% African based on social shat
0-15% African based on etc?
skin color is determined by pigment genes first environment possibly/probably. Remember the black Neanderthals.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: ~It appears I'm the only person on the forum who fully separates/distinguishes categorizing skin colour from social theories of 'race'. And I'm the racist?
Which is fine until someone ask how ancient Egyptians would be defined by said social theories.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
I see you responded while I was in the process of writing that post above, so I missed your reply.
You just wrote a whole monologue addressing non-existent points of contention. Might as well have said nothing. But I like how you danced around your slip up.
Or how about rather than addressing what I said to begin with you as usual had nothing to say and instead tried to veer off onto something else.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: My Problem is folks on here acting like this is some sort of religion to them, and maybe it is IDK. When I cone on and people talking about "He's not a Melanated African" or white Devil this and that how can I take this place serious? Im starting to believe Swenet's comment about the early days being a fluke, racial based approaches to anything esp. History just leads to an Ignorant totalitarian echo chamber...People arent here to learn anymore they're here to defend at all costs their pre-conceived ideologies.
How many times do these people want to look the other way when it comes to North African and North African-influenced aDNA before they give up on their fairy tales? How many times do they want to dismiss ancient DNA and expect people not to raise an eyebrow?
--Contrary to ES expectations Afalou have little SSA mtDNAs --Contrary to ES expectations Taforalt have little SSA mtDNAs --Contrary to ES expectations random Eurasians (e.g. Han Chinese) are closer to the recently sampled Natufians than SSA groups are --Contrary to ES expectations OOA individuals have little to no SSA ancestry --Contrary to ES expectations early farmers with E-M78 (eastern Saharan ancestry) have little SSA ancestry --Contrary to ES expectations the R-V88 carrier among early farmers in Spain has little SSA autosomal ancestry --Contrary to ES expectations aboriginal Canary Islanders have little SSA mtDNAs and Y chromosomes --Contrary to ES expectations Abusir mummies have little SSA mtDNAs and autosomal ancestry --Contrary to ES expectations Bronze Age Armenian with E-M34 (eastern Saharan Y DNA) has little SSA autosomal ancestry --We see SSA mtDNAs in Syrians and Iberians but contrary to expectations, autosomally these people are closer to modern inhabitants than SSA groups
It is clear that they demand a special leniency from the world that isn't afforded to anyone else. Somehow, everyone has to accept scientific findings, except them. This is how you identify faith-based communities. They demand that their debunked beliefs be allowed to co-exist with facts, simply because they want their feelings and investments spared. They think they're special snowflakes that they're exempt from scientific findings.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^See and thats the problem. but the thing is I dont think most of them are doing it intentionally, I think most of them have been in the ES echo chamber for so long they dont get why you are breaking the mold on here so to speak, but there is a select few who know full well and are very deceptive, acting like they are oppressed by white Europeans but will shout "White Devil this and that" and dedicate threads to racially degrade white people, . Ironically these are the very same people who will scream "AFRICAN DIVERSITY!!! AFRICANS ARE THE MOST DIVERSE ON THE PLANET!!! When the opposition does the VERY SAME Eyeball racial based tactics they employ. IF they're going to be religious about it, stop pretending that they are some objective unbiased scholars trying to rectify the distortions to history by the "Evil" white European. Stop acting like you dont believe in race or that you care about African history for African history, because you dont, all you care about is sticking it to whitey and some Pan African non-sense wet dream. Honestly they remind me of Creationists, I recenly went on a creation FB page that attacked Bill Nye for not being a "REAL" scientist but an Engineer due to his degree. Out of the Hundreds of thousand echo-chamber attacks on Nye not ONE attacked his arguments only his character. Its sad tbh, I love this place, I built memories here and made friends but now Im thinking, damn was I this bad as well??
I came here wanting to post info that Ive recently discovered of the links of Medieval Nubia and Axum to the Classical World, something that is ignored in Mainstream history and Africana alike, that Axum and Nubia were CLASSICAL, I.E GREEK SPEAKING(Lingua Franca) and Influenced Cultures, but I doubt many here would want to hear that, Something like that isnt the "Africans were more superior to Whitey European" narrative many here seem to only care about, hell it implies that the Greeks were so influential and respected that their language was adopted in places where very few Greeks visited let alone lived or colonized.....****, thats so disruptive to the narrative here they'd just call me a white person or Hamiticist if I dared showed that the Greeks had influence in Ancient Africa as far as Axum. I guess Ill go to historum or somewhere else, IDK
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^See and thats the problem. but the thing is I dont think most of them are doing it intentionally, I think most of them have been in the ES echo chamber for so long they dont get why you are breaking the mold on here so to speak, but there is a select few who know full well and are very deceptive, acting like they are oppressed by white Europeans but will shout "White Devil this and that" and dedicate threads to racially degrade white people, . Ironically these are the very same people who will scream "AFRICAN DIVERSITY!!! AFRICANS ARE THE MOST DIVERSE ON THE PLANET!!! When the opposition does the VERY SAME Eyeball racial based tactics they employ. IF they're going to be religious about it, stop pretending that they are some objective unbiased scholars trying to rectify the distortions to history by the "Evil" white European. Stop acting like you dont believe in race or that you care about African history for African history, because you dont, all you care about is sticking it to whitey and some Pan African non-sense wet dream. Honestly they remind me of Creationists, I recenly went on a creation FB page that attacked Bill Nye for not being a "REAL" scientist but an Engineer due to his degree. Out of the Hundreds of thousand echo-chamber attacks on Nye not ONE attacked his arguments only his character. Its sad tbh, I love this place, I built memories here and made friends but now Im thinking, damn was I this bad as well??
I came here wanting to post info that Ive recently discovered of the links of Medieval Nubia and Axum to the Classical World, something that is ignored in Mainstream history and Africana alike, that Axum and Nubia were CLASSICAL, I.E GREEK SPEAKING(Lingua Franca) and Influenced Cultures, but I doubt many here would want to hear that, Something like that isnt the "Africans were more superior to Whitey European" narrative many here seem to only care about, hell it implies that the Greeks were so influential and respected that their language was adopted in places where very few Greeks visited let alone lived or colonized.....****, thats so disruptive to the narrative here they'd just call me a white person or Hamiticist if I dared showed that the Greeks had influence in Ancient Africa as far as Axum. I guess Ill go to historum or somewhere else, IDK
Influence goes both ways and it would not be a probem if Greco-Roman influence is shown in tandem with ancient Egyptian influence on Minoan, Phoenician, Greek and Roman civilizations.
There are racialistic cults all over the net, so let's not pretend that your criticisms are unique to 'Afrocentrics'.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: [qb] "As to the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians, both iconographie and written evidence differentiated between the physical traits of Egyptians and the populations south of Egypt. The art of ancient Egypt frequently painted Egyptian men as reddish brown, women as yellow, and people to the south as black." - Snowden, 1997
I'm going to keep posting the brown Nubians and brown Ramses 2 and sons until it sticks through to your Nazi skull
You're just cherry-picking. Why is it if you search for ancient depictions of Nubians, the vast majority don't show the lighter brown colours?
Syrian (left), Nubian (right)
Over 50 Nubians being run-over and killed by Tut, why are none of them lighter brown?
Kemsit, the Nubian queen of the Egyptian King Mentuhotep II B.C.), and her Egyptian servants:
[google]
Nubian (second from left)
The only people in Africa that are extremely dark skinned, but still dark brown are people of Southern Sudan. They and Southern Indians have the darkest of skin color amongst humanity.
But this pitch black is obviously symbolic. And means STRENGHT, the secondary meaning refers to coming from the South.
You have been punked and debunked once again.
Ps, the so called Syrian figure is not even Syrian, but is described as an Asiatic prisoner. And in terms of cranium both figures look the same.
Next I will expose you some more...
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ A Nubian and an Asiatic prisoner fettered at the elbows. Painted soles of two sandals. New Kingdom (1554-1080 BCE), Egypt. Drovetti Collection
Two assyrian dignitaries placed behind the royal throne, scene of audience Tell Ahmar; approximately 8th century BCE; on clay coating with colours posed on whitewash (chalk, milk): ochre red, carbon black, Egyptian blue H.:65cm; W.: 62,50cm AO 23011
Louvre, Departement des Antiquites Orientales, Paris, France
Cass, you are a hogwash individual. Euronut job. And as I said keep doing you, it's funny how everything you post contradicts you.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[/QB][/QUOTE]
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic