posted
On the confusion of "race" with biophysical diversity.
quote:Responds to M. J. Zyphur's (see record 2006-01690-012) comments on the original article by A. Smedley and B. D. Smedley (see record 2005-00117-003). Race, as people live and understand it, inhabits a dimension of reality that transcends biology and cannot be reduced to genes, chromosomes, or even phenotypes. A biological or genetic view of race cannot encompass the lived social reality of race, nor does it represent biogenetic variations in human populations very well (Marks, 1995). As Zyphur notes, biogenetic variations in the human species were produced by evolutionary forces as different groups interacted with and underwent adaptation to the natural environments encountered in their migrations. The result was a pattern of variation that should be familiar to everyone: People with dark skin coloring remained adapted to tropical environments (with some internal variations resulting from amounts of tree cover, land elevation, rainfall, etc.). Peoples of tropical lands thus resemble one another in their varying shades of dark skin color and often curly or frizzy hair (known as polytopicity). Some of the darkest skins are found not in Africa but in India, Sri Lanka, Melanesia, and Northern Australia, as anyone who watched the news coverage of the recent tsunami would readily recognize. Groups migrating beyond the tropical areas gradually lost genes for dark skin as they adapted to cooler climates with less sunlight. Geneticists have shown that just as no two individuals are genetically alike (except for identical twins), no two human groups are precisely alike, even when they derive from a common ancestral population. Biogenetic variation has continued to increase as individuals once widely separated meet and mate. Quite apart from the controversy over races as biological taxa, the idea of race as it is known and lived in American society is composed of social values and meanings imposed on this biological variation over the past three or four centuries. As a social construct, race refers to an ideology. Since the 18th century, Americans and many other people in the world have been conditioned to believe that race as biology is the main source of human identities. As Americans have come into contact with peoples around the world, confusion has inevitably ensued, because U.S. racial categories do not necessarily apply in other countries. Given the complexity of the human genome and the history of (continuous) intermixtures, I doubt if it will ever be possible to correlate our genes with our racial (i.e., social) identities. Nor can I imagine at this point why anyone should want to do so. What service to society or science will this fulfill? Social constructs have their own complex dynamics and are vulnerable to change, just as is any other cultural phenomenon. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
I was given a forum bio thread to read and...part of it irritated me because too many...sigh...I srsly want Eurocentric and even some Afrocentric people to stop being cute about it all and get the fck real. Like people are literally checking for all this technical sh!t they talk about when discriminating based on race. I've literally seen whitesplaining assholes on here trying to tell black people they're not black despite experiencing life as a black person their entire lives. Because their "features" aren't black by an academically racist ideological platform that is exceptionally out of touch with the REAL world discrimination it aims to justify. Maybe they say it's the bone structure or where they live. Maybe it's admixture levels. Whatever it is, the reality that none of these things have to reliably absolve a person from being systemically discriminated on the basis of blackness. That is never examined by privileged white race realists whose witty way of constructing any discussion is rooted in ignoring the experiences of blacks.
A lot of "race realists" debating crania or even genetics on the internet to prove "race" are ignoring that none of the things they're researching to judge the Ancient Egyptians are used as a qualifier for judgement and discrimination of human beings in real life. If you look the part, a bigot doesn't ask what your haplogroup is or how much Eurasian genetics you have. He's not going to see you as equal to himself (or even a lighter East Asian) for insisting you are a Negrito (and not African). And even if they suspect a person has some mixture they will not regard them as equal and will ignore social disparities affecting such ppl. They're not going to treat you as white because of your bone structure either. If a Somali, or a Maasai have more "caucasoid" bone structure (or mixed with OOA returnees generations ago), they are going to still be treated as "black" globally. They will still inherit the disadvantages associated with blackness. Any disparities in their quality of life will still be justified by white supremacists through rhetoric that falls apart whenever Egyptians are brought up. Being "caucasoid" does not automatically make you "white." This is why I asked people to engage in a picture dumping game earlier to prove a point. For every one image of an Egyptian that could be argued out of range for being labeled black, there's probably 7-10 images I could find that do.
Cass tried to justify the newest trend of academic stupidity--Genetically supported divisions that correspond to today's social groupings of people into races. Essentially he said it's important to make genetic distinctions because intellect is genetic. But if they're trying to suggest that black people have a common genetic component (or deficit) that's destroying their intellectual capability, they need to finally be called to task in now finding some data of a genetic component or deficit harbored in all (or the overwhelming majority of) people they judge to be black (except the Egyptians of course). They need to be held to demonstrating the impact or this component or deficit. Because they don't. They still cannot find their mythical rainbow unicorn in the everglades, but insist on justifying the separation of black people by genetic distances. But only in academia. Once no longer in academia they all go back to being "negroes."
But white supremacist crybabies aren't the only ones out of touch. This problem also extends into Afrocentrism, where "blackness" is often seen as synonymous to "Africaness" when in many parts of the world it's not. There are people throughout the diaspora be it in Paupa, the United States and so on that accept the idea that they are black but do not see themselves as Africans. The goals of "Afrocentrists" are limited in their ability to do something for the black community as a whole in their focus on Africa exclusively. They have no idea how out of touch many black people across the world think they are. Perhaps it wouldn't be so commonly seen that way if their lack of focus on black cultures as a whole was because it was a discussion on their direct lineages from West Africa that offer context to the way they live as black Africans today. But it isn't. Egypt isn't in West Africa. If Egyptian people were ever indisputably considered Asiatic peoples genetically this leaves them exasperated. Why the hell is that?
I can only speak for myself but when it comes to Egypt, the debate isn't even whether the ancient Egyptians were black. The debate is really whether these were blacks of the African variety or blacks of a more polytopic Asiatic variety that harbored tropical features that get people labeled today as "black." It is unlikely that we would ever get enough samples to review qualities of the body commonly used to judge a person as black but the art of the Egyptians frequently portrays them with features they'd be discriminated over in today's world. In either instances, these same people who built the pyramids would be the same people being stopped and frisked. These same peoples of southern Egypt and Sudan who made Khemet and Kush would be judged as inferior with not a fck given about whatever the hell their DNA is or whatever their bone structure is. For "blacks" usually the two biggest indicators are darker skin colors and hair texture. And even then East Africans can have especially loose hair while still being considered a black people. Afrocentric learning is not the same as black centric learning. We gon see how results on the Egyptians will fare on their narrow scope of blackness. It's unfortunate that Afrocentrics are the only ones really out there on suggesting Egypt was black (which it likely was).
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate it when folks conflate two different things. White supremacy exists because it is beneficial to Europeans. It does not exist because of anything done by black folks. When white folks argue about the "intelligence" of black folks (or any other non white group), what they are really saying is "why don't you guys want to conquer the world like we did"? No other population on earth, including populations who were civilized long before Europe had a desire or need to conquer the entire world in order to be civilizaed. None. China didnt. Africa didnt'. The Americas didn't and so forth. Yes there were some empires that were created but these were not "world conquest". Europeans define the ability to conquer the world and dominate everybody else as the "basis" of intelligence. And most people have now bought into the propaganda that European conquest = conquest and civilization. Case in point: how many folks would give up planes, trains and automobiles or computers to get rid of white supremacy?
As for "Afrocentrics", you have to realize that Afrocentrism officially died in academia years ago. Once Dr Clarke and Dr Ben died (and some other key folks, like Dr Van Sertima) it was kind of over in terms of academic scholarship. There is no new generation of "Afrocentrics" that is following in the footsteps of these men in studying and researching world history from an African perspective. This is where Afrocentrism as a course of study in biology and anthropology has failed. And most African studies programs are far too 'mainstream' and 'white liberal' oriented to be "Afrocentric" because most of the hard core Afrocentrics were removed from campus long ago. So most African studies programs with the Afrocentrics that are left like Molefi Asante at Temple are not producing African anthropologists and biologists (even though it is a Phd Program). And Henry Louis Gates isn't producing any at Harvard either and he is no Afrocentric. Hence most of what you get today is online folks with a mishmash of beliefs and objectives and that does not really equate with Afrocentrism. True Afrocentrism sees the evidence of black folks world wide as part of the evidence for the African origin of all humans. There is no confusion about that. Dr Clarke or Ben never had that kind of confusion. Runoko Rashidi is still alive and I never heard him express this confusion of African = black either and he has written more about blacks in ancient Asia, America and Europe than anybody (and he is still alive, but not writing books). At the end of the day what is needed is more black folks in anthropology and biology (as well as everything else).
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though many of the Afrocentric pioneers have passed on, there are still laypeople and such that try to further Afrocentrism conceptually. My claim is that Afrocentrism is insufficient in a debate about the racial origins of the Egyptians. A common theme among the flock (even if unconsciously expressed at times) is that African = black. That if anyone wants to prove a people were black, they need to prove they had a biological relationship with other Africans. They need to show Egyptians to be genetically unmixed with "Eurasia." As if many people in the United States and across the world aren't heavily mixed with "Eurasians" while being regarded as black people.
The response to this issue has been rather lackluster. You have the African Americans who try (and fail) to suggest blacks living in the "new world" are mostly Native Americans NOT Africans (though their genetics don't support this). Then you have some Afrocentrics who only discuss these people to argue the African origins of man. Or they believe in recent (poorly supported) migrations from a few thousand of years ago.
Beyond this, many black people around the world are excluded from the conversation of blackness because they don't consider themselves African. Many people who consider themselves black but not African haven't had an ancestor that stepped foot there in 50,000 years or more. If you looked at them from a purely genetic standpoint they'd be far removed from modern Africans (let alone "Sub Saharans"). Because of the incredibly limited scope of the "black pride" movement, we seldom force these white supremacists on this new AE genetics fad to answer how this is relevant when they socially/emotionally treat many people as black that have FAR greater genetic distances from "Sub Saharan Africans" than Egyptians. On paper they could be labeled "Oceanic" or "Melanesian" or "Aborigine" in legal terms to seem more objective. But socially and emotionally these people are often black. If they see any of these people on on a bus they'll still grab their purse. These people will still get pulled over. They'll still assume these people are inferior sub humans and all that.
Meanwhile the Egyptians cannot be black for reasons of genetic distance. Levanites cannot be black, nor can admixed peoples. The ONLY time you EVER see white supremacist mental gymnastics frequently inverted in a way that demonstrates a black consciousness outside of Africa is when the subject it Christ. Only in religion do many people with an Afrocentric mindset stop and get that Jesus could've been an Asiatic that was black. But of course that hardly matters now because this consciousness has largely been allowed. There's a repeated pattern of grasping these things ONLY when there's enough disinterest among white supremacists to relegate him as white. Just as blacks are finally grasping Christ could be black, many whites are abandoning religion. Christ's teachings are not desired to be as authoritative by whites anymore. Too much of the traditional Old Testament and New Testament teachings go against developing values within the white community. so he is allowed by the white liberals especially to be seen as black or "a man of color." Because his people and culture are considered "backwards" now.
White supremacists are never held accountable for their intellectual shortcomings because of the emotional interests Afrocentrics tend to have in making sure Egypt stays in Africa. Once a racist bigot has gotten the Afrocentric to focus on Sub Saharan Africa (or Africa as a whole) he no longer has to worry about being reminded he treats as people as black who haven't lived there in 50,000 years. He then tends to try to disprove the African identity by suggesting Asiatic transplants or mixtures. They of course would never be be able to explain how genetic mixtures with Asians makes any difference when there are plenty of people around the world treated as black--though have a closer relationship to Asian people. My point is that Afrocentrism limits the type of accountability black people can demand because Afrocentrism focuses on Africa--not all black people. If someone is strictly discussing race within the context of deconstructing the white supremacist movement, then the conversation should really be whether or not Egyptians had features that would get them treated as black people in modern times. Not whether the Egyptians that founded AE were genetically closer to Asiatics or Africans. Not whether or not their skull is Caucasoid or Negroid. Because a person can be relegate to blackness despite any of that data. It's fine to discuss it if interested in it for knowledge's sake but FFS I need people to stop bringing that sh!t into racial discussions. Black people also need to at some point have a conversation about Afro supremacy or black supremacy movement. They are often just as great an impediment. Many of them don't want to deconstruct white supremacists racial attitudes to the extent black people can deconstruct them because they would like races to be biologically supported as the white supremacists do. They will engage in this dumb sh!t because they want the status and supremacist outlook in life--but with a black face on it.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oshun you claim Afrocentrism is insufficient in a debate about the racial origins of the Egyptians. You are wrong.
Afrocentric scholars who have published books and articles on the Black origin of Egyptians don't waste their time deconstructing white supremacists racial attitudes because racial attitudes are psychological constructs that form shemata that can only be remedied by medical specialists. Instead of trying to change the racist attitudes of some white scholars Afrocentric researchers used Anthropology, linguistics, biology (craniometrics , blood type etc.), and history (Comments of Greco-Romans) to prove the Egyptians were Black long ago. Name one researcher who has disproved the theories of DuBois and Diop systematically.
Sadly, the debates about the ancestry of the Egyptians on Egyptsearch go around in circles because the debaters lack any background in what they are debating. They talk about research without being able to competently evaluate the research they are discussing.
Research is the foundation of good science, or knowing in general. science is based on hypotheses testing. Attacks on Afrocentrism, is not good science, it is based on the non-scientific methods: 1) the method of tenacity (one holds firmly to the truth, because ‘they know it’ to be true) and 2) method of authority (the method of established belief, i.e., the “experts say it, it is so”). The scientific method which is suppose to be the preserve of “professional historians and scientists” is not recognized when Afrocentrism is discussed, rather than making hypotheses testing to refute Afrocentric claims, critics of Afrocentrism use induction, which can be defined as inferences of laws and generalizations derived from observation.
This is why you can not find any book or article where the ideas of Afrocentric scholars like DuBois, Anta Diop,J.A. Rogers and Parker are discussed and criticized with citations disputing their work. Cite one source where Afrocentric ideas are refuted.
Any evaluation of the purported Black/ African contributions to ancient world history should answer a number of questions. What was the rationale for the study ? What are the arguments of the study? Does the narrative analysis fulfill its purpose? What were the major conclusions reached by the authors? Are these conclusions justified?
These questions are never answered by the critics of Afrocentrism. The two major critics of Afrocentrism are Howe and Moses'. These researchers fail to address any of these questions in their negative review of Afrocentrism.
Stephen Howe’s Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes, and Wilson J. Moses’ Afrotopia: The Roots of American Popular History explains the research traditions of the Afrocentric scholars via the demerits of Martin Bernal’s Black Athena. As a result, they fail to realistically discuss the contentious discourses surrounding the ancient Afrocentric historical memory and detail the methods and paradigms associated with this pedagogy.
The result is gross omissions and errors of fact in their discussion of the ancient history Afrocentric discipline.
The criticism of Afrocentrism by Howe and Moses is powered by doxic assumptions based on ‘ideology’ lacking any internal evidence to substantiate these assumptions. Neither of these scholars discusses the normal science and cognitive framework established by Afrocentric scholars to explore Afrocentric historical paradigms. Paradigms, which should be rejected solely on, counter evidence and argument that refute the Afrocentric evidence, not cleaver rhetorical strategies.
There are three problems with the books of Howe and Moses. These problems include 1) the failure to discuss the research of Afrocentric scholars critically; 2) they present the Afrocentric study of ancient history as a recent development ; and 3) the major reason proffered for their attacks on Afrocentrism is that the “academy” rejects the discipline.
Howe and Moses fail to proffer and outline the major Afrocentric ancient history text. Afrocentric scholars make hundreds of detailed archaeological, historical and linguistic claims, which have not been systematically refuted or discussed by the authors of Afrotopia and Afrocentrism . The fact that these scholars ignore the historical research of the Afrocentric scholars makes their work narrow and unrepresentative of the discipline. In general, these scholars have dismissed Afrocentrism due to external factors such as “race thinking”, “personal prejudices”, “social and political pressures” and “ideology” rather than disconfirmation of Afrocentric hypotheses.
Moses in Afrotopia argues that Afrocentrism should be rejected because:
1)it was founded by white scholars to vindicate enslaved blacks ;
2) it is an ideology of culturally improvised, illiterate urban Afro-American males;
3)it is not recognized as historically valid by “establishment” historians so it should be rejected solely on his basis (p.225).
These arguments are presented without any citations and counter evidence.
My major complaint, is that these books fail to add any critical analysis of the goals of the Afrocentric curriculum and pedagogical methods. The critics of the ancient Afrocentric field make hasty rejections of the ancient Afrocentric history enterprise. They declare, without any citation to the evidence, that it lacks canonical, methodological and theoretical traditions that represent the normal routines of scholarly life.
Unfortunately, Howe and Moses fail to focus on the Afrocentric history literary canon. This neglect to confront Afrocentric historical claims founded on the rigorous nature of Afrocentric scholarship, makes their contribution to this debate another entry in the contest between elitism and a curriculum developed and supported by scholars outside Euro-male dominated “academy establishment” by a member of the status quo, rather than an objective review of Afrocentrism. Consequently, the arguments they present in support of their rejection of Afrocentrism are based on the method of authority, rather than actual historical and anthropological evidence rejecting the varied Afrocentric historical hypothesis. This failure to confront the mounds of evidence, which support the African origin of Grecian, Egyptian, Sumerian and the Indus Valley civilizations ,is a sad commentary on Afrotopia and Afrocentrism. These books cannot provide the reader with any reliable debate on the paradigms encompassing the Afrocentric ancient historical memory.
Howe and Moses are unashamed to admit that their books were written to defend the modern research university from dissenting voices to “establishment” claims of American intellectuals. The real objective of these books is not a search for a “true” vision of history, or a review of the evidence presented by Afrocentrists supporting their historical claims.
Moses reaffirms the establishment view that history should be written by “professional historians” who have professional credentials of “expert knowledge” and affiliation with white universities (pp.225-233). In his opinion Afrocentrism is mainly an ideology of lower class urban Afro-American youth, especially males.
Moses makes it clear in Afrotopia that he has no real clue about Afrocentrism. In his opinion Afrocentrism was developed during the 1930’s by the Jewish American scholar Melville Herskovits (pp.11-12). This view is wrong. It is clear that Afro-American scholars such as Frederick Douglas and Alexander Crummell, not Euro-Americans, first wrote Afrocentric history.
Moses, like Howe boldly explains that Afrocentrism is based on Egyptocentrism and represents Afro-American vindicationist sentiment. He describes Afrocentrism as “ a historiography of decline based on the idea that the African race had fallen from its past greatness”(p.16). Having made this claim he never presents any historical evidence to refute the paradigms of ancient Afrocentric history. Moreover, he fails to explain how scholars like W.E.B. DuBois and George Wells Parker made it clear in their writings that Blacks probably founded civilization in Greece and China in addition to Egypt.
Howe acknowledges the long history of Afrocentric research and provides his readers with a series of negative comments made by critics of Chiek Anta Diop without any concern with checking their accuracy. Then in the next breathe Howe explains that much of the work of Afrocentric scholars like Chiek Anta Diop, cross so many disciplines that he is unable to expertly assess the Afrocentric initiatives/propositions of ancient Afrocentric history. And as a result, he cannot grasp the impressive synthesis of scholarship found in the work of Afrocentric scholars.
This admission negates Howe’s basic premise that Afrocentric research is “untrustworthy”, his lack of expertise in the cross-disciplinary procedures of the Afrocentric scholars make it clear that he is unable to expertly assess and evaluate the initiatives/propositions of ancient Afrocentric history. Consequently, he cannot grasp the impressive synthesis of scholarship found in the works of Afrocentric scholars.
Howe claims that Afrocentric history is reverse-racism because Afrocentric researchers have used the classical, historical, anthropological and linguistic literature to illustrate the African/Black origin of many of the River Valley and Grecian civilizations (p.48). Yet they fail to provide crucial examples of the falsification of sources by Afrocentric scholars to illegitimately support their Afrocentric claims. This makes the claims of Howe and Moses that Afro-American contributions to ancient history are either non-existent or irrelevant, groundless.
Howe’s interpretations of Afrocentric researchers are contradictory and confusing. For example, on the one hand he claims that Dubois’ book the The Negro , “overall, his account avoided the sensationalism and special pleading, being a solid reflection of the state of knowledge at that time” (p.52), and therefore acceptable to the “academy”, yet in general DuBois’ work is romantic. How can a work be both factual and “romantic”. Clearly, Howe’s opinion about DuBois’ work is based more on his personal bias rather than evidence.
Howe asks us to reject Afrocentric research based on “authority”. He makes a number of claims about the inadequacy of the ancient Afrocentric historical memory, but he does not provide critical analysis of the historical claims he disputes. For example, Howe claims that Diop failed to prove his connections between West Africa and Egypt eve though, he provides a 200-page lexicon of cognate Wolof-Egyptian terms. He said that:" The basic flaw [ of Parente genetique ]is that in order to trace the history of Languages, to identify shared roots, patterns of evolution and divergence, it is entirely inadequate simply to list similar-sounding or possibly related terms in different languages (p.178)". This would seem to be a reasonable analysis of one of Diop’s major works. But anyone who has actually read Parente genetique de l’egyptien pharanique et des langues negro-africaines, knows that Diop spent the first 200 plus pages of this book discussing in detail the grammatical and structural affinities of Egyptian and African languages. The failure of Howe to discuss this fact leads one to assume that he purposely avoids mentioning this fact so as to imply that Diop was an incompetent scholar.
At the base of Eurocentrism is the doctrine of white supremacy. This ideological foundation aims to thwart the Afro Americans' search for manhood and self assertion, when ever they encounter intensified prejudice by white Americans.
A major component of Eurocentrism is the notion of African American intellectual inferiority. As a result, European scholars can write and research the history of any people on earth. Afro Americans on the otherhand, are believed to lack the intellectual capacity to research, let alone write history.
Due to the alleged intellectual inferiority of Africans it is believed that they are unsuited to write ancient history, international affairs, or archaeology. This may result from several factors especially racial bias and social position. These factors are important ,because of the fact that formerly persons writing ancient history themes usually came from well to do or middle-class families that could provide them with the capital to undertake research activities abroad. This belief has ghettoized many African American scholars and authors , to writing only about slavery, the slave trade and/or the cycle of poverty typified by life in the urban centers of the United States.
Little has changed in the past 100 years, Howe asserts that Afro-Americans should reframe from writing about ancient history because “their ideas, like cultural nationalism in general, quite simply have nothing at all to say about the most central problem facing Afro-Americans: the conditions of economic marginality, insecurity and underprivileged under which most of them exist” (p.14). It is obvious from this statement that establishment historians wish to constrain the intellectual inquiry of Afro-American scholars.
Howe’s major contribution to the study of ancient Afrocentrism is criticism of Diop’s use of dated references in many of his works. But this criticism is nebulas because nowhere in Afrocentrism does Howe disconfirm the sources used by Chiek Anta Diop. The failure to disconfirm the research of Chiek Anta Diop and the other Afrocentric scholars mentioned in his book makes Howe's Afrocentrism deeply flawed.
As you can see, Eurocentrists can not dispute the anthropological, linguistic and historical evidence supporting the fact that the Egyptians were Black. As a result, white supremacist use the Geno-Hamitic theory to attempt to prove that the Egyptians were not Black. The Geno-Hamitic theory simply stated claims that the Afro-Asiatic speakers carry Eurasian genes due to a mythical back migration into East Africa thsat led to Northeast Africans carrying Eurasian genes and so-called white physical features.
This is ludicrous because their is no archaeological evidence that Eurasians migrated into Africa, and a majority of Levantines carried y-chromosome E before and after the Natufians. Moreover, the evidence that Africans carry a varied of R1 Y-Chromosomes, including R1-M343, and its earliest offshoot V88 explains the presence of R1 among the Egyptians. Moreover, R1b1, a relative of V88, is carried by the oldest Europeans found in Spain, Italy and Samara prove that Africans carried R1 into Eurasia, and a back migration of Eurasians never took place.
In conclusion, the white supremacist ideal that the Egyptians were not Black Africans lack any validity. The posters here are confused because they believe that any paper written by an authority claiming the Egyptians were not Africans, is valid and reliable when it is simply based on Geno-Hamiticism. Neither genetics, history, linguistics, and anthropology proves the Egyptians were not Black Africans.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Oshun you claim Afrocentrism is insufficient in a debate about the racial origins of the Egyptians. You are wrong.
Afrocentric scholars who have published books and articles on the Black origin of Egyptians don't waste their time deconstructing white supremacists racial attitudes because racial attitudes are psychological constructs that form shemata that can only be remedied by medical specialists. Instead of trying to change the racist attitudes of some white scholars Afrocentric researchers used Anthropology, linguistics, biology (craniometrics , blood type etc.), and history (Comments of Greco-Romans) to prove the Egyptians were Black long ago. Name one researcher who has disproved the theories of DuBois and Diop systematically.
I think you're missing something here. This isn't about changing the racist attitudes of white "scholars" but in people holding them accountable to how they REALLY view and affect the world. Don't let them academically say they judge people by race based on craniometrics and genetics and then let them waltz outside and practice a form discrimination that has nothing to do with that. Rather than having the ability to consistently redirect the conversation back to qualities that get people judged as black in the REAL world, I see afrocentrics willfully engaging with white supremacist strawmen. You can discuss whatever black scholar you want, but what does that have to do with the modern backers of Afrocentrism with respect to their responses to data?
A Maasai is going to be regarded as black no matter his "caucasoid" features. A Melanesian or Polynesian can be treated as black no matter how genetically distant he is from Sub Saharan Africa. Why the fvck do people that argue "black Egypt" engage this dumb sh!t? Because the only major voices attempting to intellectually engage these people much about black Egypt are Afrocentric laymen on the internet who want Egypt to be African black and don't really think much about blacks around the world that don't consider themselves African.
It'd be one thing if they were honestly only entertaining this discussion for technical knowledge's sake. But the discussion quickly becomes an African vs. Levanite or Asiatic conversation. They allow these supremacists to regularly discuss "Eurasia" as an alternative to black Egyptian theory. Why if blacks can exist outside Africa? It's irritating because even in their mental attempts to liberate themselves, Afrocentrics are often subconsciously so used to being led by white supremacists, that they will give them leverage where none needs to be given. It's essentially watching someone who can easily win on both ends needlessly undermining the few moves he needs to make in order to demonstrate his position because he can only embrace the conclusion Egypt is black if it's unveiled a very particular way. And in doing so they're easily convinced by their opponents to put far more biological data into the discussion than is honestly relevant. And this is especially bad because even in the best of scenarios it means that it will be more difficult to teach others--especially other blacks.
quote: This is ludicrous because their is no archaeological evidence that Eurasians migrated into Africa, and a majority of Levantines carried y-chromosome E before and after the Natufians. Moreover, the evidence that Africans carry a varied of R1 Y-Chromosomes, including R1-M343, and its earliest offshoot V88 explains the presence of R1 among the Egyptians. Moreover, R1b1, a relative of V88, is carried by the oldest Europeans found in Spain, Italy and Samara prove that Africans carried R1 into Eurasia, and a back migration of Eurasians never took place.
OMG why the fck does it even matter with respect to Egypt or discussion of ANY black civilization? This is the kind of sh!t I'm talking about. I don't mind like I said people discussing these things just to know if they want. I myself believe Egypt was essentially African. But that can be subject to change as a falsifiable position. On the other hand, I don't see why Egypt would have to be mostly African for it to be a black civilization. The data required to prove the African origins of Egypt are going to probably be more robust than what is required to simply demonstrate it was black. Most lay people are also only concerned with whether or not it was black. And it's not a problem if you want to demonstrate it was likely African for knowledge's sake, but proving it's black is not the same thing. Egypt being black doesn't require all this kind of data you're talking about. Do they ask your ass what your genetic profile is when they pull you over? If you had "Eurasian" lineage R1b, do you think that'd help you get treated any different? Would they suddenly think black life and disparities matter because of "caucasoid" bone structure? No, nope and nope!
Why did anyone have to review and seriously consider whether or not Eurasians migrated back in the first place? Why is that data relevant? Why does it matter what the genetic profile is? In the real world no one gives a fvck. A dark skinned East African or African American with evidence of genetic "Eurasian" mixture or back migration is still going to be considered BLACK. So why do people supporting the idea of black civilizations have a mental FART and persistently offer credibility to irrelevant data? If I had data that said yorkies were distantly related to wolves, that doesn't have sh!t to do with whose judged as black in today's world. But if you actually go off tangent and waste valuable time DEBATING the origins of yorkies, it gives undeserved credibility to the idea that the findings, whatever they are, are going to be decisive in determining whether the makers of AE were black.
quote:Research is the foundation of good science, or knowing in general. science is based on hypotheses testing.
It's also good science to know what data is relevant to a discussion and what isn't. "Geno-Hamiticism" is irrelevant in racial theories of Egypt because white supremacists haven't found any eureka genetic component that both suppresses intellect and neatly corresponds to the people they discriminate towards (because they're black). If they still have no genetic component that can demonstrate superior intelligence, then suggesting that Egyptians were successful because of "Eurasian" genetic contributions has no foundation. There are also many people in this world experiencing life as blacks, though their genetic distance from Sub Saharan Africa is much greater than Egypt's. Stop engaging this sh!t and actually force these people to produce relevant data.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oshun you are wrong when you say Geno-hamiticism is irrelevant in racial theories. For example, some people claim the Egyptians have always been mixed because of the back migration of Eurasians into Egypt. They support this myth by pointing out that Northeast Africans carry Eurasian genes due to an Eurasian back migration into Africa, and the presence of the Hyksos Rulers in Lower Egypt. But there is no archaeological evidence of Eurasians migrating into Lower Egypt, except for the Hyksos, who made it clear they were, Heqe Khas: King(s) of Kushites.
Oshun you are correct people are debating issues without Eurocentrics providing support for their claims. This is not the problem.
The problem is that most Black people don't know their history. For example, you keep claiming the Melanesians are not related to Africans this is false even the Fijians acknowledge this reality as noted by Peta Young.
quote: by Peta Young
Fiji, an island archipelago in the Pacific Ocean in the southern tropics is a holiday paradise It has the honor of being the first place on Earth to welcome the new day. It lies longitudinally on the 180th meridian, the International Date Line, which makes a special bend eastwards around the island group so that Fijians will all keep the same time. Fiji is twelve hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time. 3,500 years ago, natives from Tanganyika in East Africa arrived from the south-west, and from the north-east, Polynesians and Melanesians paddled their canoes to Fiji to settle in this new land. The natives gradually scattered across the country forming village groups throughout the islands. Until 150 years ago, warring and cannibalism among these early settlers was quite common. But when the first missionaries arrived in 1840 and introduced Christianity, the Fijians were transformed into the gentle, peace-loving devout Christians that we know today.
A factual guide to Fiji - Australia & South Pacific - Helium - by ... 3500 years ago, natives from Tanganyika in East Africa arrived from the ... While the Fiji-Indians are relatively prosperous, the Fijian natives are a ... www.helium.com/ tm/856986/ island-archipelago- pacific-ocean - 33k - Cached - Similar pages Chronological History of Tanganyika (Tanzania) Interestingly, the flowering tree seen in the images below is common to both Tanganyika and Fiji. In Fiji it is called the Fijian Tulip and is found all ... www.fijibure. com/tang. htm - 15k - Cached - Similar pages More results from www.fijibure. com Friends of the Serengeti The Fijian's believe that their forefathers recently (about 600 years ago) came from Tanganyika the accepted cradle of man! www.tokencoins. com/gea05. htm - 6k - Cached - Similar pages
Vatukacevaceva: Encounters with the Gods | Travel Writing and Fiji ... Albert relates that his mother has told him the full history of the Fijian people. The story goes that they originally came from Tanganyika (now Tanzania). ... www.travelintellige nce.com/. ../Fiji/Viti- Levu/ Vatuka/Vatukacevace va-Encounters- with-the- Gods.html - 31k - Cached - Similar pages
Raceandhistory. com - AFRICAN PRESENCE IN FIJI Fijian Tradition "We, the Black people in Fiji, came here a long time ago to our present homes in Fiji from Tanganyika, in East Africa. ... www.raceandhistory. com/historicalvi ews/africanfiji. htm - 10k - Cached - Similar pages
The Straight Path: A Story of Healing and Transformation in Fiji ... PART ONE : HEALING IN FIJIAN CULTURE 8 ..... religious customs, oral history and iconography. ..our present homes in Fiji from Tanganyika, in East...exactly ... www.questia. com/.../book/ the-straight- path-a-story- of-healing- and-transformati on-in-fiji- by-richard- katz.jsp - Similar pages
As you can see the Fijians know their history, eventhough Europeans claim they are not related to Africans they are taught by their mothers they came from Tanzania.
The genetic relationship is supported not only by history, but also linguistics and genetics. Africans and Melanesians carry identical haplogroups.
The Melanesians and Africans share placenames.
.
If you notice the place names found in Melanesia and Africa are from west Africa. This indicates that the African ancestors of the Melanesians left West Africa while the Niger-Congo speakers were still living in Nubia. Because the speakers of these languages took the same place names to West Africa when they migrated out of the Nile Valley.
You don't really understand that in a debate you want to crush the opposition. You have to be like a lawyer.
A lawyer never argues a case unless he knows what the opposing attorney has as evidence to support their case. That's why you have discovery.
As a result, you can lead your opponent in any direction you wish during a debate and then demoralize them by making every point they make irrelevant. In fact, if you have done your homework, you should be able to intuit your opponent's answer, and already have points to obliterate it.
Study the heroes of Afrocentrism then you will have a foundation to debate anyone on the merits of Afrocentrism and the Black African origins of Egypt.
Until you can respect Afrocentric scholars and their research you will always lose any debate with Euronuts or you will keep going around in circles going no where.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I can't find a place named Gambia in Fiji. Please help.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Oshun you are wrong when you say Geno-hamiticism is irrelevant in racial theories. For example, some people claim the Egyptians have always been mixed because of the back migration of Eurasians into Egypt. They support this myth by pointing out that Northeast Africans carry Eurasian genes due to an Eurasian back migration into Africa, and the presence of the Hyksos Rulers in Lower Egypt.
It. Does. Not. MATTER. Clyde.
Non Admixed Africans (or mixed people with recent African ancestry) do NOT have a patent on living as black. Who cares if these people claim they were mixed with "Eurasians," if "Eurasians" or Eurasian mixed people can be black?
What racial label are these people going to be given Clyde? And how distant is their relationship to most sub saharan Africans? THESE people regardless of genetic distances or mixture are going to be treated socially as black. THESE people are more distantly related to Africans than the "Eurasians." But some Afrocentrics want to look at this dumb sh!t and think it's okay to then allow them cling onto a standard that doesn't correspond to who they discriminate against. As long as it's within an academic space they keep being given a pass. Play hardball and stop giving credibility to this fvckery.
This guy is 50% European. When he walks down the street, what race is he? You got people roaming the U.S mixed with "Eurasians" all the time and they are still black. Hell if you mix a black and a Australian aborigine you're still gonna wind up with someone who for all intents and purposes is going to experience life as BLACK. THATS what I'm talkin' about. Y'all know that people mixed with non Africans (or people who haven't been there in over 50,000 years) can still be labeled as black. But some of y'all play games with these WEIRDOS on the internet like there is some credibility to their clinging to "caucasoid" craniometrics or "Eurasian" genetics. They DON'T stop discriminating against black peoples if they look and a "caucasoid" face in real life. They can make academic conclusions but none of that corresponds to how REAL people are judged under the term blackness. How the hell are you allowing them to make that bullsh!t criteria for "blackness" academically?
quote:The problem is that most Black people don't know their history. For example, you keep claiming the Melanesians are not related to Africans this is false even the Fijians acknowledge this reality as noted by Peta Young.
I'm not even gonna debate this sh!t with you. I'm talking about genetic distances from SSA. Even if you cannot accept that many of the oceanic peoples are very distantly related to Sub Saharan Africans, you can at LEAST grasp that it's within your ability to entertain the hypothetical of it's truth long enough to deconstruct and hold accountable the claims of your opponent. If HE'S sitting there saying they're very distantly related to Sub Saharans while those people are being treated as blacks, what then is the problem with making clear the logical contradiction he's making in denying the blackness of the Egyptians? He's saying because of genetic distances from modern Sub Saharan Africa (vs. "Eurasia") they can't be black, while there exists people living even further from SSA that he treats as black despite the greater genetic distances he argues?
quote:You don't really understand that in a debate you want to crush the opposition. You have to be like a lawyer.
A lawyer never argues a case unless he knows what the opposing attorney has as evidence to support their case. That's why you have discovery.
IDK how it's "lawyer-like" to allow your opposition to introduce evidence that has nothing to do with the trial.
quote:As a result, you can lead your opponent in any direction you wish during a debate and then demoralize them by making every point they make irrelevant. In fact, if you have done your homework, you should be able to intuit your opponent's answer, and already have points to obliterate it.
But you're not leading them, they're leading the Afrocentric community by the nose. Why the hell are they arguing with them about geno-hamticism or "caucasoid" craniometrics? Sh!t that doesn't really erase blackness in real life? This is giving credibility to standards they insist proves the race of a person, when none of these frequent goalposts they put up stop black oppression and place them as equals to whites.
quote:Study the heroes of Afrocentrism then you will have a foundation to debate anyone on the merits of Afrocentrism and the Black African origins of Egypt. Until you can respect Afrocentric scholars and their research you will always lose any debate with Euronuts or you will keep going around in circles going no where.
This isn't even about Afrocentric scholars. This is about Afrocentric laymen (the community) often living in America and arguing with people on the internet about biological qualities that have no bearing on how blacks get treated in America. Certainly not globally either. In doing this sort of thing they offer credibility for these racists that suggests that the results will determine race, when they would not for people in real life. "Caucasoid" features don't save black people roaming these streets. I mean it's fine if you wanna know just because, but whether or not a skull is "caucasoid" is not going to necessarily suggest these people wouldn't have been treated as black in the modern day. Racists don't give a fvck a black person's craniometic data is more "caucasoid." They don't care about genetic haplogroups before before they discriminate. Proving Egypt was black is not the same as proving it was African. A black AE theory requires far less data than theory that suggests they were biologically more akin to other Africans.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem that Oshun is having is confusing laymen in online forums with true Afrocentric scholars. When I say Afrocentric scholars I say Dr Ben, Dr Clarke, Chiek Anta Diop, Runoko Rashidi and so forth. None of these people confused black with meaning African. But when you are online you get all kinds of crap that is posted but that doesn't mean it is "Afrocentric". Moorish science is not "Afrocentric". The NOI and the "mothership" is not Afrocentric. And yes there is a lot of half baked garbage floating around among laypeople in the black and white community concerning a lot of things. We should not be lumping all that stuff with Afrocentric scholarhip.
Back in the day, you had to be able to quote books and passages from certified authors to be even remotely taken seriously as a "conscious" student of African centered studies. Sadly we have now started quoting any joe smoe online as an "authority" on Afrocentric studies, when this is not really how it works. "Afrocentrism" is an academic course of study and philosophy. Unless you are quoting self declared afrocentric scholars and authors you aren't really talking about Afrocentrism. you are just talking about random folks on the net. Just like all African scholars are not Afrocentric so too all African folks online are not Afrocentric either. Then there is pan africanism which is not necessarily Afrocentric either.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: On the confusion of "race" with biophysical diversity. ------------------------------------------------
I can only speak for myself but when it comes to Egypt, the debate isn't even whether the ancient Egyptians were black. The debate is really whether these were blacks of the African variety or blacks of a more polytopic Asiatic variety that harbored tropical features that get people labeled today as "black." It is unlikely that we would ever get enough samples to review qualities of the body commonly used to judge a person as black but the art of the Egyptians frequently portrays them with features they'd be discriminated over in today's world. In either instances, these same people who built the pyramids would be the same people being stopped and frisked. These same peoples of southern Egypt and Sudan who made Khemet and Kush would be judged as inferior with not a fck given about whatever the hell their DNA is or whatever their bone structure is. For "blacks" usually the two biggest indicators are darker skin colors and hair texture. And even then East Africans can have especially loose hair while still being considered a black people. Afrocentric learning is not the same as black centric learning. We gon see how results on the Egyptians will fare on their narrow scope of blackness. It's unfortunate that Afrocentrics are the only ones really out there on suggesting Egypt was black (which it likely was).
This makes very little sense and you seem to think that the entire world feels the same way, as your bigoted American perception of race and who is considered black and who's not black.
You're obviously very naive and not very well traveled as it seems, you're hiding your mind in a little shell of your creation of your only understanding of what things should be like.
There is a very simple reason, why most scholars would never engage people like you in any serious debate, that is: you carry too much racism with you and seek to project it throughout the whole planet, others, actually thinks of themselves as nations, and tribes, and groups first, as opposed to people of a particular skin color (which means very little for many).
My friend, you're a sad creation of a racist legacy that does not want and refuses to adapt to the world view!! Move On And Learn To View Life In A Different Objective Way!!
Posts: 496 | From: Greenland | Registered: Mar 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by R.Havoc: This makes very little sense and you seems to think that the entire world feels the same way, as your biogoted American perception of race and who is considered black and who's not black.
....are you on something? No really are you alright?
quote:You're obviously very naive and not very well traveled as it seems, you're hiding you mind in a little shell of your only understanding.
How is any of what I said rooted in bigotry or not being 'well traveled?' How is being critical of "Afrocentrics" (commonly living in the U.S) for IGNORING people who experience life as black but do NOT as identify as AFRICAN "racist" or "bigoted." If anything trying to deny the racial realities of people around the world who are black identified to focus exclusively on those who are of recent African descent is silencing and discriminating against those black people w/o recent African connections. But to exclude them out of conversations of blackness is the noble thing to do? I must've struck a nerve with some of closet supremacists. Someone calls out white supremacist bullsh!t and American disregard for blacks not associated to Africans, and it's suddenly a "racist" against blacks?
quote:There is a very simple reason, why most scholars would never engage people like you in any serious debate, that is: you carry too much racism with you and seek to project it throughout the whole planet, others, actually thinks of themselves as nations, and tribes, and groups first, as opposed to people of skin color (which means very little for many).
I carry "too much racism" because I'm telling people there's a more efficient way to deconstruct anti-black theories trying to seem based in science? Are you on something lad? Who says seeing people as nations tribes first is WRONG? I'm not saying many people cannot do this, but it doesn't change that race often plays a hand in how people from certain ethnic backgrounds are treated though. It doesn't change that race is used to justify harming these people or to remain apathetic to their suffering. Perhaps you were not reading. I'm talking about Afrocentrics who wish to debate RACE specifically within the context of deconstructing white supremacist rhetoric that aims to justify harming blacks. How is it racist to tell them that their scope is narrow, and ignores who globally experiences blackness outside of Africa?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
The problem that Oshun is having is confusing laymen in online forums with true Afrocentric scholars. When I say Afrocentric scholars I say Dr Ben, Dr Clarke, Chiek Anta Diop, Runoko Rashidi and so forth. None of these people confused black with meaning African. But when you are online you get all kinds of crap that is posted but that doesn't mean it is "Afrocentric". Moorish science is not "Afrocentric". The NOI and the "mothership" is not Afrocentric. And yes there is a lot of half baked garbage floating around among laypeople in the black and white community concerning a lot of things. We should not be lumping all that stuff with Afrocentric scholarhip.
Back in the day, you had to be able to quote books and passages from certified authors to be even remotely taken seriously as a "conscious" student of African centered studies. Sadly we have now started quoting any joe smoe online as an "authority" on Afrocentric studies, when this is not really how it works. "Afrocentrism" is an academic course of study and philosophy. Unless you are quoting self declared afrocentric scholars and authors you aren't really talking about Afrocentrism. you are just talking about random folks on the net. Just like all African scholars are not Afrocentric so too all African folks online are not Afrocentric either.
.
Theze kids. Always @ Square 1. Not believing nor building on the previous 3 generation's works. Always accepting the media's definition.
It's like labeling somebody that never applied or even read second hand Zeno a Stoic. Greek people wouldn't stand for it
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The problem that Oshun is having is confusing laymen in online forums with true Afrocentric scholars.
I'm not confusing them. I'm saying there's a problem with the Afrocentric community. The COMMUNITY is presently composed of laymen, not scholars. You guys keep going back to this sh!t about "the scholars" "the scholars" and not issues with laypeople's treatment of this subject. How come few if anyone is talking about how common it is for people specifically interested in debating BLACK EGYPT to get caught up in entertaining data that is irrelevant to that point? Again, not discussing people who are just interested to see if it was African--but people specifically trying to suggest it was black
quote: When I say Afrocentric scholars I say Dr Ben, Dr Clarke, Chiek Anta Diop, Runoko Rashidi and so forth. None of these people confused black with meaning African. But when you are online you get all kinds of crap that is posted but that doesn't mean it is "Afrocentric".
Oh come the hell on! Afrocentrism is as far as I'm concerned the focus on black African history. It's in the name. AFROOO CENTRISM. Not BLACK centrism. Afro.Centrism. Emphasis on Africa. Afrocentrics can study other blacks but they don't have to. Generally Afrocentric laypeople do not focus on other blacks and do not consider their achievements in black history unless they can tie them to Africa. If the didn't do that when they debate on the race of the Egyptians, this would be over by now. Their African centric attitude, and the conflation of that with blackness is a pretty big problem for them. I'm NOT saying every black friendly organization trying to fix problems within black communities is Afrocentric. But the movement online operating under "Afrocentrism" has a big problem with thinking that proving something to be black is the same as proving something to be African. They're championing black Egypt, but only as long as it's black "African" Egypt.
quote:Sadly we have now started quoting any joe smoe online as an "authority" on Afrocentric studies, when this is not really how it works. "Afrocentrism" is an academic course of study and philosophy. Unless you are quoting self declared afrocentric scholars and authors you aren't really talking about Afrocentrism.
Call them whatever you want, I really don't care. Sh!t by any other name still stinks. Call them a horse, ducky or bowling alley. You aren't conversing at all about the chief problem they are creating nitpicking about what to call them. They're a plentiful group of people, more vocal about black Egypt than other people I see online. They are the main body of people debating the academic racists about the theory of black Egypt. They frequently engage with meaningless data anti-black peoples offer and give credibility to their criteria. You can change the labels to whatever you want, but it doesn't change the negative impact this ultimately has.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Oshun, did you just let someone bent on creating havoc make you do what you just complained about?
posted
My tone with this person's logic is largely dismissive. It's a bit irritating I got an ad hom and nothing else, but any questions I gave them were pretty much rhetorical because it's stupid. As a matter of fact there's no data for me to have erroneously taken as a reasonable standard because they simply made a personal attack and called my comment "racist." To me that's not the same thing as accepting a white supremacist's standard for scientifically proving someone's not black when it has no foundation in real life. And even if I did fvck up and do that, how would that absolve "Afrocentric" behavior again? Saying I fcked up isn't changing that Afrocentrics are fcking up on black Egypt. These comments are addressing none of my points about the community.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
This guy is 50% European. When he walks down the street, what race is he? You got people roaming the U.S mixed with "Eurasians" all the time and they are still black.
You still don't get it. Europeans lie about Black people and their history. Knowledge is power and you need it when it comes to a debate. In reality a debate is a war. To win a debate you must use strategy.Sun Tzu noted that: "If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."
I mention this maxim because Gates is the perfect example of a fool who lacks knowledge of self and history. His parents had taught him that he had Indian ancestry. He took a DNA test that showed he carried haplogroup R1. After this he believed he was 50% European.
If he had studied Native American DNA, he would have known that they carried R1. As a result, R1, did not necessarily indicate European origin--it really supported his parents tradition that he had Native American ancestry--not European.
This story is to remind you that a lack of knowledge can hurt you.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: My tone with this person's logic is largely dismissive. It's a bit irritating I got an ad hom and nothing else, but any questions I gave them were pretty much rhetorical because it's stupid. As a matter of fact there's no data for me to have erroneously taken as a reasonable standard because they simply made a personal attack and called my comment "racist." To me that's not the same thing as accepting a white supremacist's standard for scientifically proving someone's not black when it has no foundation in real life. And even if I did fvck up and do that, how would that absolve "Afrocentric" behavior again? Saying I fcked up isn't changing that Afrocentrics are fcking up on black Egypt. These comments are addressing none of my points about the community.
I never said you fucked-up must be your conscience talking to you. You don't know the first thing about afrocentrism and refuse to learn from those who do . So excuse me please while I take my ass out of here wherr quite surely I don't belong Sorry to have intruded. Peace
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: My tone with this person's logic is largely dismissive. It's a bit irritating I got an ad hom and nothing else, but any questions I gave them were pretty much rhetorical because it's stupid. As a matter of fact there's no data for me to have erroneously taken as a reasonable standard because they simply made a personal attack and called my comment "racist." To me that's not the same thing as accepting a white supremacist's standard for scientifically proving someone's not black when it has no foundation in real life. And even if I did fvck up and do that, how would that absolve "Afrocentric" behavior again? Saying I fcked up isn't changing that Afrocentrics are fcking up on black Egypt. These comments are addressing none of my points about the community.
You have some good points but refuse critique and precision.
I never said you fucked-up must be your conscience talking to you. You don't know the first thing about afrocentrism and refuse to learn from those who do . So excuse me please while I take my ass out of here wherr quite surely I don't belong Sorry to have intruded. Peace
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The problem that Oshun is having is confusing laymen in online forums with true Afrocentric scholars.
I'm not confusing them. I'm saying there's a problem with the Afrocentric community. The COMMUNITY is presently composed of laymen, not scholars. You guys keep going back to this sh!t about "the scholars" "the scholars" and not issues with laypeople's treatment of this subject. How come few if anyone is talking about how common it is for people specifically interested in debating BLACK EGYPT to get caught up in entertaining data that is irrelevant to that point? Again, not discussing people who are just interested to see if it was African--but people specifically trying to suggest it was black
quote: When I say Afrocentric scholars I say Dr Ben, Dr Clarke, Chiek Anta Diop, Runoko Rashidi and so forth. None of these people confused black with meaning African. But when you are online you get all kinds of crap that is posted but that doesn't mean it is "Afrocentric".
Oh come the hell on! Afrocentrism is as far as I'm concerned the focus on black African history. It's in the name. AFROOO CENTRISM. Not BLACK centrism. Afro.Centrism. Emphasis on Africa. Afrocentrics can study other blacks but they don't have to. Generally Afrocentric laypeople do not focus on other blacks and do not consider their achievements in black history unless they can tie them to Africa. If the didn't do that when they debate on the race of the Egyptians, this would be over by now. Their African centric attitude, and the conflation of that with blackness is a pretty big problem for them. I'm NOT saying every black friendly organization trying to fix problems within black communities is Afrocentric. But the movement online operating under "Afrocentrism" has a big problem with thinking that proving something to be black is the same as proving something to be African. They're championing black Egypt, but only as long as it's black "African" Egypt.
quote:Sadly we have now started quoting any joe smoe online as an "authority" on Afrocentric studies, when this is not really how it works. "Afrocentrism" is an academic course of study and philosophy. Unless you are quoting self declared afrocentric scholars and authors you aren't really talking about Afrocentrism.
Call them whatever you want, I really don't care. Sh!t by any other name still stinks. Call them a horse, ducky or bowling alley. You aren't conversing at all about the chief problem they are creating nitpicking about what to call them. They're a plentiful group of people, more vocal about black Egypt than other people I see online. They are the main body of people debating the academic racists about the theory of black Egypt. They frequently engage with meaningless data anti-black peoples offer and give credibility to their criteria. You can change the labels to whatever you want, but it doesn't change the negative impact this ultimately has.
Oshun, cut the nonsense. What you are really saying is that anybody who believes ancient Egypt was black is Afrocentric. That is the definition created during the 90s by white Academics and no they were not talking about lay people on forums they were talking about black scholars. And yes that was during the heyday of Afrocentrism when folks were wearing Malcolm X hats and Afro patterned fashion and African conscious stuff was more popular. But that was primarily an Academic movement on college campuses. Only later once the internet became more established did folks on forums start throwing around that word as a reference to anybody who believed in a black Egypt. But that has never been the definition and therefore what you are saying just sounds confused. Like I said, any no name person posting stuff on the internet isn't a "greek scholar" just because they read a little Homer. You need to stop trying to act as if people who post things online are "authorities" on a subject and therefore part of some larger paradigm. Afrocentrism is NOT like white supremacy that is the con game they have been running for the last 40 years. Just like believing in Greece being populated by white Europeans does not make you a Eurocentric.
So what you are complaining about is the beliefs of certain individuals and groups on the net but that isn't necessarily because they are "Afrocentric". And whatever the flaws with Afrocentrism it isn't based on random folks online posting whatever garbage they come up with.... That is simply the reality of people being able to post stuff online in an anonymous fashion. Hence they can say anything they want. That does not make them members of, representative of or authorities on Afrocentrism just because they may believe that Egypt was black. Is Robert Bauval Afrocentric? Was Martin Bernal Afrocentric?
So there is no "Afrocentric community" separate from the Academics who created the term and largely still practice the theory in Academia. Those folks are scholars not laypeople on the net. Now separate from that you do have what is called the "conscious community" or "hotep hustle" consisting of any number of various groups and individuals who believe in all sorts of things related to black folks and Africa but surely they are not the ones posting in these forums on biology and genetics. And since Afrocentrism is an academic subject and course of study with many scholars you cannot claim it is just about Africa either as many of those same scholars taught about areas outside of Africa with black folks with no confusion about black folks and Africa. So again, focusing on lay people and their views is the problem.
Most people who have posted on this forum even those defending a black Egypt were not part of any "Afrocentric community". And that goes for most forums as well. So like I said, you are confused. A person who is Afrocentric will say they are Afrocentric to your face and there will be no doubt about it.
Afrocentrism is nothing more than a variation of black studies which dictates that black history starts in Africa long before slavery. That is one of the reasons they include Egypt. But it is not exclusively focused on Egypt. There is a focus on all of African history and culture in the diaspora. But the problem with Afrocentrism and black studies is they have not produced any scholars on the level of the heavy weights of the past who have been able to keep up the momentum for teaching black children on the street about themselves and their history. And within academia itself most African and black studies programs have been watered down and are not about truly building on the idea of black independence and reforming black education across the board not just in college campuses. This is why so much nonsense is floating around on the internet, because there is no body of scholars who constitute the "definitive word" on African history and scholarship. And this is a failure of Afrocentrism. Not to mention there is no focus on building institutions and self reliance within the black community as opposed to assimilation. And lastly the folks coming out of these African studies courses aren't going into Stem fields like Anthropology and biology so they aren't really providing the basis for African leadership on their own biological history. But those are all systemic issues related to Academia not simply gripes about any individual poster online.
posted
Good thread, but so far not one mention of the real dynamic occurring to create the schism between "layman" black historians and so-called, Academic black scholars, and why, from a psychological view it exists.
Marcus Garvey (Layman African historian)
Founder: United Negro Improvement Association (UNIA)
Goal: Inspire and motivate black followers to recreate the greatness of Egypt, In Africa, independent of Europeans
Hidden goal: To unite and elevate Africa
W.E.B. DuBois (Academic Negro scholar)
Front man: National Association For the Advancement of COLORED people (NAACP)
Goal: Gain recognition and acceptance from Europeans to allow merging of races in America.
Hidden goal: Allow Ashkenazi Jews to use AA civil rights to achieve their larger capitalistic goals.
Today the schism exists even stronger than in 1920s. How come? Interestingly, DuBois quite frequently labeled Garvey in the same light as academic Negroes label revolutionary layman black scholars today. While the NAACP still exists, they succeeded in destroying the UNIA, as well as Garvey and then used Martin Luther King to further their hidden agenda. Today, we still have the layman Garveyites and the academic BuBoises, with the same goals and same opposing agendas. Same whore, new dress.
GOAL: Research & Design unification The INTERNET was created with the goals of minimizing effort by researchers to develop new technologies without wasting effort by recreating what has already been created. It originally connected universities, research centers and the US MILITARY together over a communications network (DarpaNet) where prior art could be referenced and new art could be researched, standardized, and developed. GLOBAL ORGANIZATION for advancing research and development!
-------------------- Selenium gives real life and true reality Posts: 4693 | From: Saturn | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
I was given a forum bio thread to read and...part of it irritated me because too many...sigh...I srsly want Eurocentric and even some Afrocentric people to stop being cute about it all and get the fck real. Like people are literally checking for all this technical sh!t they talk about when discriminating based on race. I've literally seen whitesplaining assholes on here trying to tell black people they're not black despite experiencing life as a black person their entire lives. Because their "features" aren't black by an academically racist ideological platform that is exceptionally out of touch with the REAL world discrimination it aims to justify. Maybe they say it's the bone structure or where they live. Maybe it's admixture levels. Whatever it is, the reality that none of these things have to reliably absolve a person from being systemically discriminated on the basis of blackness. That is never examined by privileged white race realists whose witty way of constructing any discussion is rooted in ignoring the experiences of blacks.
A lot of "race realists" debating crania or even genetics on the internet to prove "race" are ignoring that none of the things they're researching to judge the Ancient Egyptians are used as a qualifier for judgement and discrimination of human beings in real life. If you look the part, a bigot doesn't ask what your haplogroup is or how much Eurasian genetics you have. He's not going to see you as equal to himself (or even a lighter East Asian) for insisting you are a Negrito (and not African). And even if they suspect a person has some mixture they will not regard them as equal and will ignore social disparities affecting such ppl. They're not going to treat you as white because of your bone structure either. If a Somali, or a Maasai have more "caucasoid" bone structure (or mixed with OOA returnees generations ago), they are going to still be treated as "black" globally. They will still inherit the disadvantages associated with blackness. Any disparities in their quality of life will still be justified by white supremacists through rhetoric that falls apart whenever Egyptians are brought up. Being "caucasoid" does not automatically make you "white." This is why I asked people to engage in a picture dumping game earlier to prove a point. For every one image of an Egyptian that could be argued out of range for being labeled black, there's probably 7-10 images I could find that do.
Cass tried to justify the newest trend of academic stupidity--Genetically supported divisions that correspond to today's social groupings of people into races. Essentially he said it's important to make genetic distinctions because intellect is genetic. But if they're trying to suggest that black people have a common genetic component (or deficit) that's destroying their intellectual capability, they need to finally be called to task in now finding some data of a genetic component or deficit harbored in all (or the overwhelming majority of) people they judge to be black (except the Egyptians of course). They need to be held to demonstrating the impact or this component or deficit. Because they don't. They still cannot find their mythical rainbow unicorn in the everglades, but insist on justifying the separation of black people by genetic distances. But only in academia. Once no longer in academia they all go back to being "negroes."
But white supremacist crybabies aren't the only ones out of touch. This problem also extends into Afrocentrism, where "blackness" is often seen as synonymous to "Africaness" when in many parts of the world it's not. There are people throughout the diaspora be it in Paupa, the United States and so on that accept the idea that they are black but do not see themselves as Africans. The goals of "Afrocentrists" are limited in their ability to do something for the black community as a whole in their focus on Africa exclusively. They have no idea how out of touch many black people across the world think they are. Perhaps it wouldn't be so commonly seen that way if their lack of focus on black cultures as a whole was because it was a discussion on their direct lineages from West Africa that offer context to the way they live as black Africans today. But it isn't. Egypt isn't in West Africa. If Egyptian people were ever indisputably considered Asiatic peoples genetically this leaves them exasperated. Why the hell is that?
I can only speak for myself but when it comes to Egypt, the debate isn't even whether the ancient Egyptians were black. The debate is really whether these were blacks of the African variety or blacks of a more polytopic Asiatic variety that harbored tropical features that get people labeled today as "black." It is unlikely that we would ever get enough samples to review qualities of the body commonly used to judge a person as black but the art of the Egyptians frequently portrays them with features they'd be discriminated over in today's world. In either instances, these same people who built the pyramids would be the same people being stopped and frisked. These same peoples of southern Egypt and Sudan who made Khemet and Kush would be judged as inferior with not a fck given about whatever the hell their DNA is or whatever their bone structure is. For "blacks" usually the two biggest indicators are darker skin colors and hair texture. And even then East Africans can have especially loose hair while still being considered a black people. Afrocentric learning is not the same as black centric learning. We gon see how results on the Egyptians will fare on their narrow scope of blackness. It's unfortunate that Afrocentrics are the only ones really out there on suggesting Egypt was black (which it likely was).
.
.
here's an experiment where I took the above paragraph and replaced "black" with "dark skinned" and some minor edits. Let's see how it reads this way:
quote: I was given a forum bio thread to read and...part of it irritated me because too many...sigh...I srsly want Eurocentric and even some Afrocentric people to stop being cute about it all and get the fck real. Like people are literally checking for all this technical sh!t they talk about when discriminating based on race. I've literally seen whitesplaining assholes on here trying to tell dark skinned people they're not dark skinned despite experiencing life as a dark skinned person their entire lives. Because their "features" aren't dark skinned by an academically racist ideological platform that is exceptionally out of touch with the REAL world discrimination it aims to justify. Maybe they say it's the bone structure or where they live. Maybe it's admixture levels. Whatever it is, the reality that none of these things have to reliably absolve a person from being systemically discriminated on the basis of being dark skinned. That is never examined by privileged white race realists whose witty way of constructing any discussion is rooted in ignoring the experiences of dark skinneds.
A lot of "race realists" debating crania or even genetics on the internet to prove "race" are ignoring that none of the things they're researching to judge the Ancient Egyptians are used as a qualifier for judgement and discrimination of human beings in real life. If you look the part, a bigot doesn't ask what your haplogroup is or how much Eurasian genetics you have. He's not going to see you as equal to himself (or even a lighter East Asian) for insisting you are a Negrito (and not African). And even if they suspect a person has some mixture they will not regard them as equal and will ignore social disparities affecting such ppl. They're not going to treat you as white because of your bone structure either. If a Somali, or a Maasai have more "caucasoid" bone structure (or mixed with OOA returnees generations ago), they are going to still be treated as "dark skinned" globally. They will still inherit the disadvantages associated with being dark skinned. Any disparities in their quality of life will still be justified by white supremacists through rhetoric that falls apart whenever Egyptians are brought up. Being "caucasoid" does not automatically make you "white." This is why I asked people to engage in a picture dumping game earlier to prove a point. For every one image of an Egyptian that could be argued out of range for being labeled dark skinned, there's probably 7-10 images I could find that do.
Cass tried to justify the newest trend of academic stupidity--Genetically supported divisions that correspond to today's social groupings of people into races. Essentially he said it's important to make genetic distinctions because intellect is genetic. But if they're trying to suggest that dark skinned people have a common genetic component (or deficit) that's destroying their intellectual capability, they need to finally be called to task in now finding some data of a genetic component or deficit harbored in all (or the overwhelming majority of) people they judge to be dark skinned (except the Egyptians of course). They need to be held to demonstrating the impact or this component or deficit. Because they don't. They still cannot find their mythical rainbow unicorn in the everglades, but insist on justifying the separation of dark skinned people by genetic distances. But only in academia. Once no longer in academia they all go back to being "negroes."
But white supremacist crybabies aren't the only ones out of touch. This problem also extends into Afrocentrism, where being dark skinned is often seen as synonymous to "Africaness" when in many parts of the world it's not. There are people throughout the diaspora be it in Paupa, the United States and so on that accept the idea that they are dark skinned but do not see themselves as Africans. The goals of "Afrocentrists" are limited in their ability to do something for the dark skinned people as a whole in their focus on Africa exclusively. They have no idea how out of touch many dark skinned people across the world think they are. Perhaps it wouldn't be so commonly seen that way if their lack of focus on dark skinned cultures as a whole was because it was a discussion on their direct lineages from West Africa that offer context to the way they live as dark skinned Africans today. But it isn't. Egypt isn't in West Africa. If Egyptian people were ever indisputably considered Asiatic peoples genetically this leaves them exasperated. Why the hell is that?
I can only speak for myself but when it comes to Egypt, the debate isn't even whether the ancient Egyptians were dark skinned. The debate is really whether these were of the African variety or of a more polytopic Asiatic variety. It is unlikely that we would ever get enough samples to review qualities of the body commonly used to judge a person as dark skinned but the art of the Egyptians frequently portrays them with features they'd be discriminated over in today's world. In either instances, these same people who built the pyramids would be the same people being stopped and frisked. These same peoples of southern Egypt and Sudan who made Khemet and Kush would be judged as inferior with not a fck given about whatever the hell their DNA is or whatever their bone structure is. Afrocentric learning is not the same as dark skinned learning. We gon see how results on the Egyptians will fare on their narrow scope of dark skin. It's unfortunate that Afrocentrics are the only ones really out there on suggesting Egypt was dark skinned (which it likely was).
same thing?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not a post editor in Egyptology. Oshun's original post remains as it was at the top of the thread. BlessedbyHorus is moderator here My edit here is an addition to Oshun's original as an experiment to see if the meaning changes and done under my name It is useful to examine alternate words as long as they are not derogatory or used in a condescending manner. So anybody may do this, quote somebody and then show the original quote with an alternate version of your own to see if a word change does or doesn't change the meaning, - and done without using the original poster's name in the alternate version quote
Obviously such an edited version presented this way is not the same thing as when a moderator goes into another members post and changes their post there
If Oshun disagrees, Oshun please feel free to request BlessedbyHorus to delete my post
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I am not a post editor in Egyptology.
Ok
But you are a one who make assertions you can't support. Then run away when asked to backup what your mouth shoots off. Only to appear later as a hit and run sniper protected by your moderator status as proven in my KM.t thread where your bump a post infection remains while you duck out the responsibility and obligation to confirm or else retract your inaccurate and fanciful postulation.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Oshun, cut the nonsense. What you are really saying is that anybody who believes ancient Egypt was black is Afrocentric. That is the definition created during the by white Academics and no they were not talking about lay people on forums they were talking about black scholars. And yes that was during the heyday of Afrocentrism when folks were wearing Malcolm X hats and Afro patterned fashion and African conscious stuff was more popular. But that was primarily an Academic movement on college campuses. Only later once the internet became more established did folks on forums start throwing around that word as a reference to anybody who believed in a black Egypt.
Everyone who believes in black Egypt is not sweating whether or not the Egyptians are genetically closer to Africans or Asiatics. Especially those that don't hold "race" as it is applied in the real world to be rational, nor a valid biological construct. Geno-Hamiticism and Caucasoid skulls are only a problem for people who have a mindset that is exclusionary to the black experience outside of Africa (and closely related peoples of the diaspora).
Honestly? I do believe bare minimum the culture of the Egyptians was a product of Africa. I also have a falsifiable position that the creators of the civilization were black African. But I'm honestly not sweating where their genetic profile sits or if their faces are "caucasoid." There are on the other hand people honestly shook by the notion of Egyptians with Asiatic influences--when they wouldn't have been if their "African centered learning" didn't create the exclusionary treatment of blacks outside of Africa. This is what I believe to be a fundamental difference. They act like proving they're not African automatically means they weren't black when Africa doesn't have a patent on blackness.
quote:So what you are complaining about is the beliefs of certain individuals and groups on the net but that isn't necessarily because they are "Afrocentric". And whatever the flaws with Afrocentrism it isn't based on random folks online posting whatever garbage they come up with....
Even if I said we don't need to call them Afrocentric but some other label, you have no response to the main point of what they're doing. This is diversionary.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Narmerthoth: Good thread, but so far not one mention of the real dynamic occurring to create the schism between "layman" black historians and so-called, Academic black scholars, and why, from a psychological view it exists.
Marcus Garvey (Layman African historian)
Founder: United Negro Improvement Association (UNIA)
Goal: Inspire and motivate black followers to recreate the greatness of Egypt, In Africa, independent of Europeans
Hidden goal: To unite and elevate Africa
W.E.B. DuBois (Academic Negro scholar)
Front man: National Association For the Advancement of COLORED people (NAACP)
Goal: Gain recognition and acceptance from Europeans to allow merging of races in America.
Hidden goal: Allow Ashkenazi Jews to use AA civil rights to achieve their larger capitalistic goals.
Today the schism exists even stronger than in 1920s. How come? Interestingly, DuBois quite frequently labeled Garvey in the same light as academic Negroes label revolutionary layman black scholars today. While the NAACP still exists, they succeeded in destroying the UNIA, as well as Garvey and then used Martin Luther King to further their hidden agenda. Today, we still have the layman Garveyites and the academic BuBoises, with the same goals and same opposing agendas. Same whore, new dress.
GOAL: Research & Design unification The INTERNET was created with the goals of minimizing effort by researchers to develop new technologies without wasting effort by recreating what has already been created. It originally connected universities, research centers and the US MILITARY together over a communications network (DarpaNet) where prior art could be referenced and new art could be researched, standardized, and developed. GLOBAL ORGANIZATION for advancing research and development!
Thank you for addressing this issue with some real insight on what we see on the "ground" so to speak. I really appreciate it.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: You still don't get it. Europeans lie about Black people and their history. Knowledge is power and you need it when it comes to a debate. In reality a debate is a war. To win a debate you must use strategy.Sun Tzu noted that: "If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."
I mention this maxim because Gates is the perfect example of a fool who lacks knowledge of self and history. His parents had taught him that he had Indian ancestry. He took a DNA test that showed he carried haplogroup R1. After this he believed he was 50% European.
If he had studied Native American DNA, he would have known that they carried R1. As a result, R1, did not necessarily indicate European origin--it really supported his parents tradition that he had Native American ancestry--not European.
This story is to remind you that a lack of knowledge can hurt you.
"Indians" came from "Eurasia" and then moved into the new world thousands of years ago. Look don't debate the theory as it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of this whether or not it's "true." Just understand how your opponent shoots his foot by the logic he presents and take advantage. By their logic, Gates is still half "Eurasian" or "non African" genetically. But he's considered black by the same people trying to offer a non-African "Eurasian" origin in opposition to black Egypt. However if this highly "admixed" person can be black and if people living outside of Africa are saying they live the black experience, what is then the point of allowing these people to make such a stupid dichotomy? How can all these people experience blackness regardless of Caucasoid bone structures, genetic distances or geographical location but these fools can then try to say/imply these measurements can produce an alternative theory of racial origins for the Egyptians?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Oshun, cut the nonsense. What you are really saying is that anybody who believes ancient Egypt was black is Afrocentric. That is the definition created during the by white Academics and no they were not talking about lay people on forums they were talking about black scholars. And yes that was during the heyday of Afrocentrism when folks were wearing Malcolm X hats and Afro patterned fashion and African conscious stuff was more popular. But that was primarily an Academic movement on college campuses. Only later once the internet became more established did folks on forums start throwing around that word as a reference to anybody who believed in a black Egypt.
Everyone who believes in black Egypt is not sweating whether or not the Egyptians are genetically closer to Africans or Asiatics. Especially those that don't hold "race" as it is applied in the real world to be rational, nor a valid biological construct. Geno-Hamiticism and Caucasoid skulls are only a problem for people who have a mindset that is exclusionary to the black experience outside of Africa (and closely related peoples of the diaspora).
Honestly? I do believe bare minimum the culture of the Egyptians was a product of Africa. I also have a falsifiable position that the creators of the civilization were black African. But I'm honestly not sweating where their genetic profile sits or if their faces are "caucasoid." There are on the other hand people honestly shook by the notion of Egyptians with Asiatic influences--when they wouldn't have been if their "African centered learning" didn't create the exclusionary treatment of blacks outside of Africa. This is what I believe to be a fundamental difference. They act like proving they're not African automatically means they weren't black when Africa doesn't have a patent on blackness.
quote:So what you are complaining about is the beliefs of certain individuals and groups on the net but that isn't necessarily because they are "Afrocentric". And whatever the flaws with Afrocentrism it isn't based on random folks online posting whatever garbage they come up with....
Even if I said we don't need to call them Afrocentric but some other label, you have no response to the main point of what they're doing. This is diversionary.
The point I am making is that the confusion with biophysical diversity starts with the folks who created the concept in the first place: European "scientists". That is the basis of what we call anthropology today. How black folks react to it is not the basis for the confusion. The confusion comes from those who intentionally created the racial categories in the first place.
For example, the people who created this latest DNA study on Egypt are purposely being confusing. On hand they are claiming that the data is insufficient to make broad claims about AE populations, yet every news article on line is doing just that. So that is intentional and deliberate. Unfortunately rather than seeing it for what it is some folks just have decided to play along as if it is all "objective scholarship". Sure. Whatever you say. True Afrocentric scholars of the past would have called it out publicly for what it is.... at worst utter nonsense and at best cherry picking data to fit an a-priori assumption.
This is not an "Afrocentric" issue or black folks issue and not about labels. Again folks on forums who are Afrocentric will tell you they are Afrocentric. And most of the folks debating African genetics are not necessarily Afrocentric either. Some folks just have false ideas and they spread them online, putting labels on it is simply missing the point.
And you keep saying some folks are "shook" but who are they? Can you name them from this forum? I think you are harping on something that doesn't exist. Most folks posting at least here and probably elsewhere are spending their own time and effort to reflect their own personal ideas about whatever topics they are interested in. Trying to lump them together as if they all sit around offline about how to address the topic of Ancient Egypt is absurd. (well there may be some cliques on this forum but surely you wont claim they are Afrocentric either, proving my point). And to be honest the only ones shook by this are not the so-called "Afrocentrics" or whatever you want to label them as. This isn't the first time papers have been released stating half truths and disinformation. Most folks who have been around a while take it with a grain of salt because they have seen it before.
That's all I was trying to say.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Narmerthoth: Good thread, but so far not one mention of the real dynamic occurring to create the schism between "layman" black historians and so-called, Academic black scholars, and why, from a psychological view it exists.
Marcus Garvey (Layman African historian)
Founder: United Negro Improvement Association (UNIA)
Goal: Inspire and motivate black followers to recreate the greatness of Egypt, In Africa, independent of Europeans
Hidden goal: To unite and elevate Africa
W.E.B. DuBois (Academic Negro scholar)
Front man: National Association For the Advancement of COLORED people (NAACP)
Goal: Gain recognition and acceptance from Europeans to allow merging of races in America.
Hidden goal: Allow Ashkenazi Jews to use AA civil rights to achieve their larger capitalistic goals.
Today the schism exists even stronger than in 1920s. How come? Interestingly, DuBois quite frequently labeled Garvey in the same light as academic Negroes label revolutionary layman black scholars today. While the NAACP still exists, they succeeded in destroying the UNIA, as well as Garvey and then used Martin Luther King to further their hidden agenda. Today, we still have the layman Garveyites and the academic BuBoises, with the same goals and same opposing agendas. Same whore, new dress.
GOAL: Research & Design unification The INTERNET was created with the goals of minimizing effort by researchers to develop new technologies without wasting effort by recreating what has already been created. It originally connected universities, research centers and the US MILITARY together over a communications network (DarpaNet) where prior art could be referenced and new art could be researched, standardized, and developed. GLOBAL ORGANIZATION for advancing research and development!
Thank you for addressing this issue with some real insight on what we see on the "ground" so to speak. I really appreciate it.
I am an Engineer. Therefore, if I cannot duplicate, test and verify, it does not exist. Which is why I pretty much ignore the genetic discussions in Egyptology where Negroes pore over European reported DNA results that these same Negro "scholars" cannot duplicate, test or verify. There is no scientific method in that.
However, black Engineers and black historians do share a commonality which seems to infect many blacks; The lack of planning and steering organization.
-------------------- Selenium gives real life and true reality Posts: 4693 | From: Saturn | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point I am making is that the confusion with biophysical diversity starts with the folks who created the concept in the first place: European "scientists". That is the basis of what we call anthropology today. How black folks react to it is not the basis for the confusion. The confusion comes from those who intentionally created the racial categories in the first place.
I wasn't arguing who brought this confusion. I'm just mentioning that it's here and being furthered by many "African centered" "Afrocentric" "kitchen skink" "ducky" "bowling alley" "yard" black Egypt proponents now. Pick a label, but that's what I've seen.
quote: For example, the people who created this latest DNA study on Egypt are purposely being confusing. On hand they are claiming that the data is insufficient to make broad claims about AE populations, yet every news article on line is doing just that. So that is intentional and deliberate. Unfortunately rather than seeing it for what it is some folks just have decided to play along as if it is all "objective scholarship".
Okay. I get that many anti black Egypt thinkers and anti black groups in general wish to push this kind of thing. Fine. it wouldn't be as bad if the [insert label] community or people had been very inclusive of peoples that are even farther removed from Africa than most "Eurasians" but experience life as blacks. Through engaging these people in genetic or craniometric "caucasoid" debates, too much credibility was given to the opinion that these features can determine the race of a person.
quote: This is not an "Afrocentric" issue or black folks issue and not about labels. Again folks on forums who are Afrocentric will tell you they are Afrocentric. And most of the folks debating African genetics are not necessarily Afrocentric either. Some folks just have false ideas and they spread them online, putting labels on it is simply missing the point.
Okay but this is getting hung up with labels, and not with the behavior of giving credibility to anti-black Egypt advocates that use data irrelevant to who is judged in real life as a black person.
quote: And you keep saying some folks are "shook" but who are they? Can you name them from this forum? I think you are harping on something that doesn't exist. Most folks posting at least here and probably elsewhere are spending their own time and effort to reflect their own personal ideas about whatever topics they are interested in. Trying to lump them together as if they all sit around offline about how to address the topic of Ancient Egypt is absurd. (well there may be some cliques on this forum but surely you wont claim they are Afrocentric either, proving my point).
Whether "cliques" here or outside of this forum wind up specifically labeled "Afrocentric" is at this point irrelevant. The main concern is the behavior. Which you're not really talking about (and are essentially enabling). You're not really coming out to say that type of behavior (even hypothetically) would be wrong. You want to focus on where the confusion started or on the correct labeling of these people, but will not focus criticism on what is actually being done.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oshun what did you think of my alternate version of you opening post? I am not suggesting people should call themselves dark skinned but by using that word it specifies skin only with much less additional connotations and open to interpretations aspects as the word "black" A few people including Doug say "black" refers to skin color only, nothing else. Other members see it meaning more than that. So what happens to the meaning of what you said if we just look at the statement with a less ambiguous word "dark skinned" ?
Yes somebody could still say how dark is dark but there is no doubt "dark skinned" is focused in skin alone whereas "black" has much wider interpretation depending on the person of factors which may or may not go beyond skin.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point I am making is that the confusion with biophysical diversity starts with the folks who created the concept in the first place: European "scientists". That is the basis of what we call anthropology today. How black folks react to it is not the basis for the confusion. The confusion comes from those who intentionally created the racial categories in the first place.
I wasn't arguing who brought this confusion. I'm just mentioning that it's here and being furthered by many "African centered" "Afrocentric" "kitchen skink" "ducky" "bowling alley" "yard" black Egypt proponents now. Pick a label, but that's what I've seen.
quote: For example, the people who created this latest DNA study on Egypt are purposely being confusing. On hand they are claiming that the data is insufficient to make broad claims about AE populations, yet every news article on line is doing just that. So that is intentional and deliberate. Unfortunately rather than seeing it for what it is some folks just have decided to play along as if it is all "objective scholarship".
Okay. I get that many anti black Egypt thinkers and anti black groups in general wish to push this kind of thing. Fine. it wouldn't be as bad if the [insert label] community or people had been very inclusive of peoples that are even farther removed from Africa than most "Eurasians" but experience life as blacks. Through engaging these people in genetic or craniometric "caucasoid" debates, too much credibility was given to the opinion that these features can determine the race of a person.
quote: This is not an "Afrocentric" issue or black folks issue and not about labels. Again folks on forums who are Afrocentric will tell you they are Afrocentric. And most of the folks debating African genetics are not necessarily Afrocentric either. Some folks just have false ideas and they spread them online, putting labels on it is simply missing the point.
Okay but this is getting hung up with labels, and not with the behavior of giving credibility to anti-black Egypt advocates that use data irrelevant to who is judged in real life as a black person.
quote: And you keep saying some folks are "shook" but who are they? Can you name them from this forum? I think you are harping on something that doesn't exist. Most folks posting at least here and probably elsewhere are spending their own time and effort to reflect their own personal ideas about whatever topics they are interested in. Trying to lump them together as if they all sit around offline about how to address the topic of Ancient Egypt is absurd. (well there may be some cliques on this forum but surely you wont claim they are Afrocentric either, proving my point).
Whether "cliques" here or outside of this forum wind up specifically labeled "Afrocentric" is at this point irrelevant. The main concern is the behavior. Which you're not really talking about (and are essentially enabling). You're not really coming out to say that type of behavior (even hypothetically) would be wrong. You want to focus on where the confusion started or on the correct labeling of these people, but will not focus criticism on what is actually being done.
Oshun, white folks aren't racist because of black 'fringe' theories. And black folks have been believing in "fringe" theories since before the birth of the internet. It is not new and it is not "Afrocentric". That is my point. People on this forum are free to post what they want and therefore some of them will post things that everyone doesn't believe in. That doesn't have anything to do with what Afrocentrism is or isnt or what all people believe concerning black folks in history or around the world. What you sound like you are saying is that white folks have their own distortions and propaganda because of these kinds of black "fringe" or nonsensical ideologies. Please. Give me a break with that backwards thinking. You know it isn't true so stop saying it. If what you want to say is we should stop folks from posting more "fringe" ideas, then why don't you ask the mods? Otherwise, racists are going to do what they do like they always have. We need to not buy into that fantasy that somehow it is "black folks fault" that they are the way they are.
That is why I said you are confused. You are mixing apples, oranges and grapes and trying to make fruit juice. Speaking of fruit flavor, how do you think Jim Jones got so many to drink the cool aid? He promoted himself as a messiah for black folks. Rev. Ike and the pastor pimps have been around for a long time. THe Moorish Science temple has been around for a long time as well. The Nuwabians, while not as old have been around also. Then at the same time you have "Afrocentrics" along with serious African scholars. You are putting them all in the same boat in terms of what you feel the "problem" is, when they are not all in the same boat. Likewise, every individual who posts online is most times posting as an individual not some sort of group agent. So again, you are confusing individual beliefs with some kind of group ideology which is false. At least when it comes to deep understanding of biology and genetics concerning Africa and humans in general. This is a niche topic and most of the folks who are way deep into "fringe" theories don't deal with those topics. Not saying that their ideas and confusion haven't spread and don't affect individual posters, but that goes for all sorts of ideas, good and bad. But the overall confusion about black folks and their history or just confusion in general has always been there. It isn't new and didn't start online.
Yes there are issues within black society. They are not new and they didn't come about because of the internet. The internet just makes them more obvious by allowing people to post everything they want online.
Ultimately the solution is for Africans scholars to come to the fore in the study of and discussion of African biology and genetics via serious research, publications and study, not discussions on forums. While discussions on forums are nice, that isn't going to change squat without folks actually engaging in serious science. If the "Afrocentric" scholars aren't leading the way then individuals will have to do it on their own unfortunately. That is the issue as I see it in terms of why there is so much confusion among black folks about many issues related to biology and history. Unfortunately as long as the institutions of African study and research along with education are under the control of other people, this will not change any time soon.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Call them whatever you want, I really don't care. Sh!t by any other name still stinks. Call them a horse, ducky or bowling alley. You aren't conversing at all about the chief problem they are creating nitpicking about what to call them. They're a plentiful group of people, more vocal about black Egypt than other people I see online. They are the main body of people debating the academic racists about the theory of black Egypt. They frequently engage with meaningless data anti-black peoples offer and give credibility to their criteria. You can change the labels to whatever you want, but it doesn't change the negative impact this ultimately has.
Printer-friendly view of this topic