quote:I get it Swenet. You believe AE were basically heavily mixed populations of Eurasian migrants. We will see.
This is exactly what I mean. I never said that I think the AE were heavily mixed populations. The issue is obviously more complex than that with AE being divided in upper and lower Egypt and admixture over time. And even if I said that I think they were heavily Eurasian, what does that have to do with the specific issue of it being impossible to prove the AE were black in the way you're using the term? In ancient times, dark skin colour was completely divorced from recent African ancestry for the trillionth time. So I don't know why you keep conflating my position with AE being non-African. My position--that you can't prove that AE were 'black' in your use of the term--holds true, whether I believe the AE were 100% African or 100% Eurasian. It doesn't matter. The fact is simply that if you say 'black' only refers to skin pigmentation, you can't prove that AE were Cheddar Man 'black', Raqefet Natufian 'black', Chalcolithic Canaanite 'black' or Nilote 'black'. This is simply an outcome of your premises, so your attempts to flip the script and make it about me being a non-believer are baseless. Moreover, admixture with these populations would not result in a light skinned population, so your attempts to make admixture with ancient Eurasians about black and white are just dumb and political. All these populations had ancestral skin pigmentation alleles. Or is this too difficult to understand for you? Because you apparently think the whole pre-Neolithic world being dark skinned is a win for Afrocentrics and has no implications for making dark skin in ancient Egypt more difficult to interpret.
In the Afrocentric mind information exists on isolated islands and they can't see how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. So, just like OOA, it will take decades before they get the memo that Cheddar man being dark skinned is ultimately not a win.
The fact that you can't understand what I'm telling you, even if I put it bold caps, tells me that you are 1000000% political and that your thinking patterns are permanently fused to the point where you can only see, and think in terms of your own politics. And you're so deep in the rabbit hole that you will never see it. And even as you're reading this, you will deny it. So, in your next post you will inevitably come back and make it my problem.
But like I said, I'm done with this conversation.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. I don't know what the long winded argument was about but I do agree with Keita that the Kushite pharaohs labeled as "black" is nothing more than a strawman argument implying the Egyptians were not black or somehow "white".
Of course Keita himself has proven through several studies that the typical Kushite cranial morphology is no different from those of Egyptians of the pyramid period, yet nobody lablels the pyramid dynasty pharaohs as "black". And then there is the whole issue of racializing Africans only or in this case 'certain' Africans as "blacks". Yet you never hear this same rhetoric applied to, say, Europeans. When Greece was conquered by her northern neighbor Macedon, Alexander the Great and his successors were not referred to as "white kings".
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Of course Keita himself has proven through several studies that the typical Kushite cranial morphology is no different from those of Egyptians of the pyramid period, yet nobody lablels the pyramid dynasty pharaohs as "black".
Now that you mention it, it seems odd that Keita didn't elaborate on the bio-anthropological angle in his critique of the PBS/National Geographic program. He could have easily cited his own research, and that of other physical anthropologists, showing the biological affinity between AE and "Nubian" peoples in addition to the cultural heritage they would have shared. Instead, his emphasis is on the projection of modern racial taxonomy onto ancient peoples and how they related to one another. You'd think he would make his own argument even more effective by bringing in the hard data.
posted
Keita probably wanted to structure his criticisms in a way that suited the type of listener that'd be lulled into the PBS story. "Hard data" would probably confuse a lot of people.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people keep trying to pretend that this is about some kind of "scientific objectivity" when that has nothing to do with anything.
Keita tried to avoid certain terms and certain types of language in his papers as if that had absolutely anything to do with how institutions of science and media controlled by Europeans will act and do. They say what they want to say when they want to say it. No amount of begging and pleading is going to stop them. Keita found out avoiding certain terms only applied to HIMSELF and nobody else was following that so-called "standard".
Being "objective" and being delusional are two different things. People that think that organizations and institutions like National Geographic are objective but in reality they were founded on the concept of race and racism as were all European institutions of anthropology. The only reason Europeans came to dominate the science of anthropology globally is because of connquest, colonization and subjugation all over the planet. It is delusional to think these people have magically changed when it comes to something like AE. Being TRULY objective is to admit and acknowledge this fact and not HIDE from it and pretend it doesn't affect the present day.
quote: For Decades, Our Coverage Was Racist. To Rise Above Our Past, We Must Acknowledge It We asked a preeminent historian to investigate our coverage of people of color in the U.S. and abroad. Here’s what he found.
Prior scholars like Dr. Ben and Dr. Clarke and others going even further back didn't promote nonsense like "European institutions of science and anthropology aren't racist". They told the truth and said so openly. They called them the liars that they are. But you got some "new" black folks in science who think by avoiding certain issues and topics that will move the ball forward.
And obviously Keita didn't either.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I get it Swenet. You believe AE were basically heavily mixed populations of Eurasian migrants. We will see.
This is exactly what I mean. I never said that I think the AE were heavily mixed populations. The issue is obviously more complex than that with AE being divided in upper and lower Egypt and admixture over time. And even if I said that I think they were heavily Eurasian, what does that have to do with the specific issue of it being impossible to prove the AE were black in the way you're using the term? In ancient times, dark skin colour was completely divorced from recent African ancestry for the trillionth time. So I don't know why you keep conflating my position with AE being non-African. My position--that you can't prove that AE were 'black' in your use of the term--holds true, whether I believe the AE were 100% African or 100% Eurasian. It doesn't matter. The fact is simply that if you say 'black' only refers to skin pigmentation, you can't prove that AE were Cheddar Man 'black', Raqefet Natufian 'black', Chalcolithic Canaanite 'black' or Nilote 'black'. This is simply an outcome of your premises, so your attempts to flip the script and make it about me being a non-believer are baseless. Moreover, admixture with these populations would not result in a light skinned population, so your attempts to make admixture with ancient Eurasians about black and white are just dumb and political. All these populations had ancestral skin pigmentation alleles. Or is this too difficult to understand for you? Because you apparently think the whole pre-Neolithic world being dark skinned is a win for Afrocentrics and has no implications for making dark skin in ancient Egypt more difficult to interpret.
In the Afrocentric mind information exists on isolated islands and they can't see how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. So, just like OOA, it will take decades before they get the memo that Cheddar man being dark skinned is ultimately not a win.
The fact that you can't understand what I'm telling you, even if I put it bold caps, tells me that you are 1000000% political and that your thinking patterns are permanently fused to the point where you can only see, and think in terms of your own politics. And you're so deep in the rabbit hole that you will never see it. And even as you're reading this, you will deny it. So, in your next post you will inevitably come back and make it my problem.
But like I said, I'm done with this conversation.
The people who created Cheddar Man called him black. They are scientists. They are Europeans. English is a European language. Black is defined in the English dictionary. That is the only "standard" that applies. Nobody anywhere was complaining about how they used the term because they didn't understand what they meant. They didn't say "Cheddar Man black" because no such term exists in English. That is something you made up.
Likewise when National Geographic said "Black Pharaohs" they didn't say "Nubian Black" they just said black. Nobody was confused about what they meant......
Just saying. English is a major language and most English speakers understand what black means just fine. THey use it every day in popular culture, media, the news, history books and everywhere else...
That line of reasoning is stupid.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: This would be a guest post that SOY Keita wrote for Sally-Ann Ashton's "Kemet Expert" blog. As you can imagine, he's not a fan of racializing the Kushite conquerors of Egypt as the "Black Pharaohs".
quote:The National Geographic film feature on the 25th Dynasty deserves to be reviewed critically due to the ongoing interest in Egypt. It is important to say at the outset that it is not clear whether the producers/programmers or the academics had the most to do with final production. Nor is it clear what role PBS played in content decisions, or which outside scholars were invited to make comments before release......
.
Is this a little peculiar or is it just me?
Posts: 43012 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The people who created Cheddar Man called him black. They are scientists. They are Europeans. English is a European language. Black is defined in the English dictionary. That is the only "standard" that applies. Nobody anywhere was complaining about how they used the term because they didn't understand what they meant. They didn't say "Cheddar Man black" because no such term exists in English. That is something you made up.
Likewise when National Geographic said "Black Pharaohs" they didn't say "Nubian Black" they just said black. Nobody was confused about what they meant......
Just saying. English is a major language and most English speakers understand what black means just fine. THey use it every day in popular culture, media, the news, history books and everywhere else...
That line of reasoning is stupid.
Don't bite Swenet. Nothing you say will mean anything.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I don't think I would have been able to if I wanted to. After all the different threads on the same subject, I think I've officially ran out of different ways to explain the same thing.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The people who created Cheddar Man called him black. They are scientists. They are Europeans. English is a European language. Black is defined in the English dictionary. That is the only "standard" that applies. Nobody anywhere was complaining about how they used the term because they didn't understand what they meant. They didn't say "Cheddar Man black" because no such term exists in English. That is something you made up.
Likewise when National Geographic said "Black Pharaohs" they didn't say "Nubian Black" they just said black. Nobody was confused about what they meant......
Just saying. English is a major language and most English speakers understand what black means just fine. THey use it every day in popular culture, media, the news, history books and everywhere else...
That line of reasoning is stupid.
That's the thing. Whenever European scientists or scientists in general use racial labels or terms I always have retain some skeptecism. That Cheddar Man was dark skin is not in doubt but the question was exactly how dark was he?? Was he dark enough to be truly labeled as "black". Recall the genetic findings of the 7,000 year old La Brana hunter-gatherer showing them to have dark skin and blue eyes, yet nobody except Afronuts were quick to call them "black". I mean unlike Egyptian mummies whose intact skins were subject to melanin dosage tests and found to be "packed with melanin", we only have bones of the Old European hunter gatherers and remnant DNA with autosomes showing they didn't have the mutation for pale skin. The reason for my skepticism is that I'm aware that European academia now has for lack of a better phrase, a "left wing" bias based on multiculturalism in a way as to proclaim a black or even Muslim presence in early Europe.
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Dr. Ashton is a huge proponent of an African genesis/predominance for AE. I don't see what's peculiar?.
EDIT@Djehuti: even if that may be a general tendency in academia, Egyptology is very much still a bastion of eurocentrism and using any means necessary to reduce even a hint of African influence in AE.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
Dr. Ashton is a huge proponent of an African genesis/predominance for AE. I don't see what's peculiar?.
it was surprising to see a light skinned European behind a blog on "African centered Egyptology" and also using the word "kemet" all over the place
Posts: 43012 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kemet Experts a good blog, but I have noticed a member of this forum who had a reputation for trolling academics posting on there, so I'm not sure how objective the blogger (Dr Ashton) is as seems friendly with that person, unless she's unaware of his behaviour. There is something slightly hegemonic about her approach, although that might be unintentional, and I'm not sure on the use of critical race theory as a framework in regards to Ancient Egypt.
Posts: 61 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That's the thing. Whenever European scientists or scientists in general use racial labels or terms I always have retain some skeptecism. That Cheddar Man was dark skin is not in doubt but the question was exactly how dark was he?? Was he dark enough to be truly labeled as "black". Recall the genetic findings of the 7,000 year old La Brana hunter-gatherer showing them to have dark skin and blue eyes, yet nobody except Afronuts were quick to call them "black".
Afronuts have no problem calling a spade a spade.
quote: I mean unlike Egyptian mummies whose intact skins were subject to melanin dosage tests and found to be "packed with melanin", we only have bones of the Old European hunter gatherers and remnant DNA with autosomes showing they didn't have the mutation for pale skin.
The reason for my skepticism is that I'm aware that European academia now has for lack of a better phrase, a "left wing" bias based on multiculturalism in a way as to proclaim a black or even Muslim presence in early Europe. [/QB]
Real liberals and not sobs like Doug Weller have no problem calling a spade a spade too.
Weller is the dude who brags about marching with MLK while censoring King Tut's ancestry test on wikipedia.
Its racist people, typically those classified as white who will try to tell you someone with the same pigment genes as brown and black humans are just dark skin, swarthy and/or olive when they are not located in their black race regions.
Posts: 1255 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The people who created Cheddar Man called him black. They are scientists. They are Europeans. English is a European language. Black is defined in the English dictionary. That is the only "standard" that applies. Nobody anywhere was complaining about how they used the term because they didn't understand what they meant. They didn't say "Cheddar Man black" because no such term exists in English. That is something you made up.
Likewise when National Geographic said "Black Pharaohs" they didn't say "Nubian Black" they just said black. Nobody was confused about what they meant......
Just saying. English is a major language and most English speakers understand what black means just fine. THey use it every day in popular culture, media, the news, history books and everywhere else...
That line of reasoning is stupid.
That's the thing. Whenever European scientists or scientists in general use racial labels or terms I always have retain some skeptecism. That Cheddar Man was dark skin is not in doubt but the question was exactly how dark was he?? Was he dark enough to be truly labeled as "black". Recall the genetic findings of the 7,000 year old La Brana hunter-gatherer showing them to have dark skin and blue eyes, yet nobody except Afronuts were quick to call them "black". I mean unlike Egyptian mummies whose intact skins were subject to melanin dosage tests and found to be "packed with melanin", we only have bones of the Old European hunter gatherers and remnant DNA with autosomes showing they didn't have the mutation for pale skin. The reason for my skepticism is that I'm aware that European academia now has for lack of a better phrase, a "left wing" bias based on multiculturalism in a way as to proclaim a black or even Muslim presence in early Europe.
Thats not the thing. Like I said people use the term everyday in English language cultures all over the planet. You see it in movies like "Get Out". You see it in popular culture like Hip Hop: Fear of a Black Planet. You see it in social justice movements like "black lives matter". It means dark skinned people from Africa. Just like "white" means light skinned people from Europe. Nobody is confused about what that means when used for AE. It only means people who have similar dark skin complexions as the majority of the populations of Africa.
When people are complaining or arguing and spending a lot of time whining about the term "black", it really isn't about the word. It is about the underlying definition and what it means in terms of skin complexion. Everbyody knows that Africans have a wide range of dark skin complexions. So when somebody is arguing and stalling or otherwise pushing back on using the term, the only reason they are doing it is because they don't feel the underlying definition applies to AE. So basically we are back to the same old issue that was always the core problem: skin color. Did the AE have light skin like Europeans and other "Eurasians" or did they have dark skin like Africans? That's all. It isn't a language issue. People know that but they use the issue of semantics and language to simply hide and not expose their true hand. This is why some folks can appear pro African but still be on the fence when it comes to the AE being black (and this goes even for some black folks).
And yes science can answer the question about the skin color of the AE, especially on individual mummies. The point is though that there is no "technicality" that defines when a color is dark enough or light enough to be called black. If the skin color is dark and the result of biochemical changes in melanin related to AFRICAN DNA evolution then it is black according to the current definition of the word. By that definition Khoisan are black, just like Alicia Keys is black and Sade is black. And it is consistent. Now if people want to make up new ways of defining black outside what is in common usage within the English language, then that is just another stalling tactic.
posted
And also seeing how Europeans created the concept of RACE in the first place, it is amazing how folks try to pretend that it came from African scholars. this is just the latest scam they are running to prolong the nonsense they keep pushing. So Blumenbach, Seligman and all these other folks who created the concepts we know of as race, plus all the European scientists writing in the 19th and 20th centuries weren't racist when they push explicitly racist ideas, yet black Africans who are trying to correct racialization of the historical narrative are racist because they use the term black...... GTFOH. Obviously this is implicitly and explicitly just hypocrisy at its finest.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Whenever European scientists or scientists in general use racial labels or terms I always have retain some skeptecism. That Cheddar Man was dark skin is not in doubt but the question was exactly how dark was he?? Was he dark enough to be truly labeled as "black".
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Like I said people use the term everyday in English language cultures all over the planet. You see it in movies like "Get Out". You see it in popular culture like Hip Hop: Fear of a Black Planet. You see it in social justice movements like "black lives matter". It means dark skinned people from Africa. Just like "white" means light skinned people from Europe.
If the skin color is dark and the result of biochemical changes in melanin related to AFRICAN DNA evolution then it is black according to the current definition of the word. By that definition Khoisan are black, just like Alicia Keys is black and Sade is black.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
No Djehuti, what I said was you are jumping through hoops claiming 'special exception' for Malays being considered as black. All that other stuff you said is meaningless. I post a black "Malay" and you claim that the label "Malay" is a racial label meaning all the people are some special subset of Asian humanity. But then you go on to claim they are mixed, but what population in Asia or on earth is NOT mixed? What does that have to do with it. You are going in circles making illogical arguments in order to reinforce an argument that the Malays are a separate "race" as in separate from the Aborigines of Malaysia. HOw on earth is that? How do you have an aboriginal population that is NOT the basis of the modern population in the same area? See that is the problem you are spouting some old European nonsense because it is the Europeans who word for word codified everything you are arguing about Malays and you can't show me any such thing prior to European writings in the 18th and 19th century. Remember the concept of Malay being a "brown race" came from Blumenbach himsself. And the whole point is to separate these people from the "blacks" when obviously the browns can only come from blacks as black people are brown in the first dam place. And what I mean is that those Malays who are dam brown are basically black folks and not some special separate category.
When I say black I only mean people with various ranges of brown skin based on biological adaptation to tropical and subtropical environments and that is not limited to Africa
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
It means dark skinned people from Africa. Just like "white" means light skinned people from Europe.
If the skin color is dark and the result of biochemical changes in melanin related to AFRICAN DNA evolution then it is black according to the current definition of the word.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
As populations inhabiting tropical and subtropical environments black people can and have been found all over the globe.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: If the skin color is dark and the result of biochemical changes in melanin related to AFRICAN DNA evolution then it is black according to the current definition of the word.
WHO SAID that Alicia Keys was a TEXTBOOK example of a black person? YOU RETARD.
WHO SAID that Alicia Keys had BLACK SKIN?
YOU RETARD.
.
.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Alicia Keys is black and Sade is black
.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: this issue isn't difficult because black is not a culture, ethnicity, language or custom. It referes to skin color. Skin color is a fact of human nature and exists all over the planet. People with dark skin are not limited in their range on the earth, not now and most certainly not many thousands of years ago, when the first humans exited Africa and were ALL therefore black.
YOU are AFRAID of blacks being ONE IDENTITY as blacks
.
quote:Originally posted by Shomarka Keita :
We can ask what or whose concept of “race” is being used? And we can most certainly say that one notion of race has to do with the social reaction to phenotype, be it in statuary, wall paintings, or folks standing in front of you.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Ashton provided resources for creating this very same EgyptSearch we're using right now.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]
Is this a little peculiar or is it just me?
Dr. Ashton is a huge proponent of an African genesis/predominance for AE. I don't see what's peculiar?.
it was surprising to see a light skinned European behind a blog on "African centered Egyptology" and also using the word "kemet" all over the place
Keys is a half n half who self-IDs black. Sade's nonna called her Tar Baby. It's the choice of many one black parent biracials to go black like Irish-Luo ex-POTUS Barack O'bama (ok 2 mush green beer and Lambay with Paddy friends 2day; and here's to all me not really Black Irish but Brogue sounding Caribbes).
Chinese, Sanskrit, Hebrew, Greco-Latin and Arabic writers identified whole populations in Africa and Asia as black.
But now all a sudden ...
While many do, like 'Raven' Symone, everyone 's not running away from black. It's psychotic thinking scientists don't use the term when publications and media prove otherwise.
Why go on and on about it? Everybody's mind is already made up. Ain't nothing going to change.
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: That 'Afronuts' have no problem calling a spade a spade.
No. More like Afronuts tend to jump the ship ahead of themselves when making claims that a people who don't have fair or pale skins are automatically "black". It's the ridiculous habit of black-painting peoples from Pre-Neolithic Europeans to Jomon Japanese and their Ainu descendants which makes them no different from the Euronuts who do the polar opposite of white-washing populations which is why they are just as nutty and nobody takes them seriously.
quote:Real liberals and not sobs like Doug Weller have no problem calling a spade a spade too.
Weller is the dude who brags about marching with MLK while censoring King Tut's ancestry test on wikipedia.
Its racist people, typically those classified as white who will try to tell you someone with the same pigment genes as brown and black humans are just dark skin, swarthy and/or olive when they are not located in their black race regions.
Again, this is the problem-- politics polluting scientific discourse and objectivity. But yes I tend to distinguish real 'liberals' from far leftists who do nothing more than play games of tokenism proclaiming black peoples here or Muslim peoples there regardless of what the actual evidence says as part of their mental exercise of white guilt and self-deprication. In the case of skin complexion, it is a matter of semantics if one were separating "brown" from "black" as there is no exact marker or border between the two but let's be real Europeans during the Holocene who did not have the mutation for pale skin were automatically as dark as an African??!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: No. More like Afronuts tend to jump the ship ahead of themselves when making claims that a people who don't have fair or pale skins are automatically "black". It's the ridiculous habit of black-painting peoples from Pre-Neolithic Europeans to Jomon Japanese and their Ainu descendants which makes them no different from the Euronuts who do the polar opposite of white-washing populations which is why they are just as nutty and nobody takes them seriously.
While Euronuts edit statues and make billions off white washed movies the African centered, from the genius to the dumb ass are saying that everyone is from Africa and everyone use to be black.
Guess who is right
Guess who is still industrializing racial superiority
We need to acknowledge right and wrong else we get fooled again.
Generally people were honoring the 1 drop card they have been dealt. I see no equivocation especially when a lot of the Claude Andersons and Colin Kapernkicks will ride for people classified as black while the dark skins 'blacks' are quick to sambo and hucklebuck for white daddy.
quote: Again, this is the problem-- politics polluting scientific discourse and objectivity. But yes I tend to distinguish real 'liberals' from far leftists who do nothing more than play games of tokenism proclaiming black peoples here or Muslim peoples there regardless of what the actual evidence says as part of their mental exercise of white guilt and self-deprication. In the case of skin complexion, it is a matter of semantics if one were separating "brown" from "black" as there is no exact marker or border between the two but let's be real Europeans during the Holocene who did not have the mutation for pale skin were automatically as dark as an African??! [/QB]
The fake liberals that I worry about are conservatives pretending to be open minded and liberal thinking while fighting for the status quo (white supremacy). An example of this is The Root. When they talk more about colorism than reparations its showing that they have laid down.
What you are talking about with Cheda Man does not exist. This wasn't just a matter of not having mutations for pale skin they had the pigment genes of dark skin people who would be classified as black. The real flaw is that they are holding on to the mutation for blue eyes. Chances are Chedda was Khoisan complexion with brown eyes instead of dark brown with blue eyes. This isn't a case of leftwing internationalist throwing dark skin people a bone and don't even regard white guilt because of this White Guilt is largely a dog whistle betwixt racist. These are still people following a Eurocentric perspective else they would dump the blue eye thing. Blue eyes were in Africa before Homo-Sapiens.
Posts: 1255 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Ashton provided resources for creating this very same EgyptSearch we're using right now.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]
Is this a little peculiar or is it just me?
Dr. Ashton is a huge proponent of an African genesis/predominance for AE. I don't see what's peculiar?.
it was surprising to see a light skinned European behind a blog on "African centered Egyptology" and also using the word "kemet" all over the place
Keys is a half n half who self-IDs black. Sade's nonna called her Tar Baby. It's the choice of many one black parent biracials to go black like Irish-Luo ex-POTUS Barack O'bama (ok 2 mush green beer and Lambay with Paddy friends 2day; and here's to all me not really Black Irish but Brogue sounding Caribbes).
Chinese, Sanskrit, Hebrew, Greco-Latin and Arabic writers identified whole populations in Africa and Asia as black.
But now all a sudden ...
While many do, like 'Raven' Symone, everyone 's not running away from black. It's psychotic thinking scientists don't use the term when publications and media prove otherwise.
Why go on and on about it? Everybody's mind is already made up. Ain't nothing going to change.
Thanks. I think that was a good summary.
Me personally my understanding of history is all humans came from Africa. And back a few hundred years ago, European colonists found all these black folks (as they themselves called them) all over the planet and began coming up with "racial" theories to explain all this diversity among humans world wide. Of course the problem is that they imposed a hierarchy on this diversity and automaticaly assigned light skinned phenotypes to a "superior" position in human evolution. The darker skinned populations were put in an inferior position representing "archaic" or neanderthal like primitives and not as evolved as the later lighter skinned populations. This is all found in the various books and journals written by Europeans themselves over the last few hundred years. And during the 19th century and the rise of photography they took a lot of photos of these populations as well documenting that diversity. And that is the context that this must be understood in.
African scholars in that same time period, the few who could read or write within the context of the racist societies they lived in began to question these things and investigate for themselves. And in doing so they began overturning this model of 'light skin' evolution and primacy over darker skinned populations. Ancient Egypt is the pinnacle of this attitude among Europeans. After the 70s, when America had "civil rights" for black people and later most African nations became independent, so the scientific community changed their public face to become more "liberal" looking and "objective" and thus began this big charade we see today. The charade today is all about control of information and supporting the status quo but looking and pretending to be liberal at the same time. Ausar is a perfect example of this charade, the former moderator who pretended to be black and African centered.
Unfortunately once the charade is exposed there is no going back. This is no longer about "individuals" expressing their opinions anymore. It becomes defense of or support of the status quo one way or another. So after Ausar the "change of direction" was no longer even pretending to be African centered as opposed to trying to censor or 'moderate' the African centered voices who at one time dominated the forum. Not pointing at anyone specifically but this is the "META" narrative at work here since Ausar openly and publicly exposed himself and left.
In this new "liberal" era, the folks at these institutions like to promote this idea that Africans who challenge them on the facts of their historic racism and the implications in modern science get labeled as 'radical' or somehow non objective. So it is a tactic and defense mechanism on the part of said institutions to pretend to be different but at the same time slandering Africans who never ever created any sort of racial pecking order or imposed African identity on anyone. It is basically a campaign to discredit African scholarship while making the institutions which practiced the historic racism seem 'liberal'.
I already posted a while back the Penn Museum symposium on race where they discussed these same things. The problem was that none of the black people they had on these panels were actually involved in any STEM fields. And the website for the program says it is about "social justice" being promoted by the institutions of historic racism themselves. In other words, black folks fronting for the status quo.
But ultimately it is up to Africans to tell their own history and correct the distortions. And that is what I stand for. But no African scholar should tolerate this charade of folks upholding the status quo and then slandering Africans as if Africans created or introduced RACE into the study of anthropology or history.
Playing the game and trying to self censor is not going to change these institutions and their priorities from what it has always been.
It is interesting seeing as Keita hasn't been in the news as much lately as the "forefront" of African scholarship on AE. Will be interesting to see what he does next.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
White Guild is largely a dog whistle betwixt racist. These are still people following a Eurocentric perspective else they would dump the blue eye thing. Blue eyes were in Africa before Homo-Sapiens. [/QB]
^ It's a victim mentality. You have people here on Egyptsearch complaining endlessly about each new National Geographic presentation that comes out waiting for reparations in the form of black history asking why can't the "white" " authorities " just come out and say "The Egyptians were Black Africans"
- instead of getting together and organizing to write their own Egyptsearch books ( perhaps in a compilation where a different person writes each chapter/s)
meanwhile people like Jonathan Owens and Asar Imhotep are doing it
And was there any Egyptsearch protest of the Nefertiti done organized letter sending? No
Posts: 43012 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^ It's a victim mentality.
I see why everyone calls you a white man. There are plenty black women who say the same. The reality lioness, I'm trying to limit victim mentalities in the American way. You can't live in the reparations capital of the world, be the number one victim of human rights violations for 100s of year and not produce people who are going to call a spade a spade. Thus the best way to significantly limit said victim mentalities is to get on code and fight for some form of compensation. Even then you would not end it. There is no better way to reduce a victim mentality than with justice.
quote: You have people here on Egyptsearch complaining endlessly about each new National Geographic presentation that comes out waiting for reparations in the form of black history asking why can't the "white" " authorities " just come out and say "The Egyptians were Black Africans"
- instead of getting together and organizing to write their own Egyptsearch books ( perhaps in a compilation where a different person writes each chapter/s)
meanwhile people like Jonathan Owens and Asar Imhotep are doing it
And was there any Egyptsearch protest of the Nefertiti done organized letter sending? No [/QB]
I don't want reparations in the form of honest history I wan't dishonest media to pay reparations so they won't be dishonest in the future. There are corporations that own Hollywood who's taxes should go to reparations. Nat Geo just admitted to their racist depictions so whats the use in writing letters? This isn't on the criminal this is on the government.
The black media ignored the 'Nefertiti' mummy's ancestry test along with Tut's and the rest of the fam. I was one of the few people to spread the word on that. I let people know about how they censored it on Wikipedia down to how they removed DnaTribe's home page and previous citings. I put my money in to that and will put more. I think I did my part.
Im reading and researching for a book right now. Its called the Miseducation of the Albino. Its about stuff like why you would relate black people getting reparations to a victim mentality, why the 'black' media would ignore King Tut's ancestry tests, why Chedda probably did not have blue eyes and more.
I just finished the last major rewrite about a movie script set in ancient Egypt so I do finish stuff but this book will be long in the making because this... is thorough.
Posts: 1255 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
Definition of domination 1: supremacy or preeminence over another 2: exercise of mastery or ruling power 3: exercise of preponderant, governing, or controlling influence
31. The essential elements that gave to Protestant Ascendancy after 1689 in Ireland and white supremacy in continental Anglo-America the character of racial oppression were those that first destroyed the original forms of social identity among the subject population, and then excluded the members of that population from admittance into the forms of social identity normal to the colonizing power. The codifications of this basic organizing principle in the Penal Laws of the Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland and the slave codes of white supremacy in continental Anglo-America present four common defining characteristics of those two regimes: 1) declassing legislation, directed at property-holding members of the oppressed group; 2) the deprivation of civil rights; 3) the illegalization of literacy; and 4) displacement of family rights and authorities.46
White Guild is largely a dog whistle betwixt racist. These are still people following a Eurocentric perspective else they would dump the blue eye thing. Blue eyes were in Africa before Homo-Sapiens.
^ It's a victim mentality. You have people here on Egyptsearch complaining endlessly about each new National Geographic presentation that comes out waiting for reparations in the form of black history asking why can't the "white" " authorities " just come out and say "The Egyptians were Black Africans"
- instead of getting together and organizing to write their own Egyptsearch books ( perhaps in a compilation where a different person writes each chapter/s)
meanwhile people like Jonathan Owens and Asar Imhotep are doing it
And was there any Egyptsearch protest of the Nefertiti done organized letter sending? No [/QB]
Victim mentality? Whites have structured a system that has benefited folks because they had certain traits. Whereas those with other traits were excluded from gaining or having access to these benefits. And this was done on purpose, for decades! By implementing racist law, legislations and Acts etc. to disenfranchise, marginalize, dehumanize, demonize etc. a certain section of the population known as the “black people”.
It gave the white population premise to wealth distribution of old money, while the “black population” was given constant harsh ways to not being able to gain wealth to pass on from generation to generation. Your mentality is a funny (sarc/).
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Ashton provided resources for creating this very same EgyptSearch we're using right now.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]
Is this a little peculiar or is it just me?
Dr. Ashton is a huge proponent of an African genesis/predominance for AE. I don't see what's peculiar?.
it was surprising to see a light skinned European behind a blog on "African centered Egyptology" and also using the word "kemet" all over the place
Keys is a half n half who self-IDs black. Sade's nonna called her Tar Baby. It's the choice of many one black parent biracials to go black like Irish-Luo ex-POTUS Barack O'bama (ok 2 mush green beer and Lambay with Paddy friends 2day; and here's to all me not really Black Irish but Brogue sounding Caribbes).
Chinese, Sanskrit, Hebrew, Greco-Latin and Arabic writers identified whole populations in Africa and Asia as black.
But now all a sudden ...
While many do, like 'Raven' Symone, everyone 's not running away from black. It's psychotic thinking scientists don't use the term when publications and media prove otherwise.
Why go on and on about it? Everybody's mind is already made up. Ain't nothing going to change.
Even daddy Symone called Raven out publicly for not being well in the head. He publicly explained his daughter has a few screws loose in the head.
Posts: 22247 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
It’s funny you always will show people from other continents in comperison to what is supposedly black, blacker and blackest and at the same time will marginalize poeple from the African continent itself, when they don’t conform the “racial stereotypes” created by “whites”. That’s just pure comedy.
So, this begs for the question, what do you mean with when you say “I am black”? Black like who, what “black American” for example.
Posts: 22247 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Is it OK if I or someone else close this thread? It's wandered way off topic and I'm getting sick of the current conversation here.
You’re right, but apparently it’s an important topic, because it keep reviving in threads, as Oshun explained. Let’s not forget, that the foundation of Egyptology is based on this idea and thinking pattern. This is how it all started, unfortunately.
Posts: 22247 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
What you are talking about with Cheda Man does not exist. This wasn't just a matter of not having mutations for pale skin they had the pigment genes of dark skin people who would be classified as black. The real flaw is that they are holding on to the mutation for blue eyes. Chances are Chedda was Khoisan complexion with brown eyes instead of dark brown with blue eyes. This isn't a case of leftwing internationalist throwing dark skin people a bone and don't even regard white guilt because of this White Guilt is largely a dog whistle betwixt racist. These are still people following a Eurocentric perspective else they would dump the blue eye thing. Blue eyes were in Africa before Homo-Sapiens.
I agree, systemic racism has been forced upon black America and this was at the will by the American government. They need to pay Black America reparations for the damage they have inflicted upon black America, either willing or unwillingly.
Posts: 22247 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^ It's a victim mentality.
I see why everyone calls you a white man. There are plenty black women who say the same. The reality lioness, I'm trying to limit victim mentalities in the American way. You can't live in the reparations capital of the world, be the number one victim of human rights violations for 100s of year and not produce people who are going to call a spade a spade. Thus the best way to significantly limit said victim mentalities is to get on code and fight for some form of compensation. Even then you would not end it. There is no better way to reduce a victim mentality than with justice.
quote: You have people here on Egyptsearch complaining endlessly about each new National Geographic presentation that comes out waiting for reparations in the form of black history asking why can't the "white" " authorities " just come out and say "The Egyptians were Black Africans"
- instead of getting together and organizing to write their own Egyptsearch books ( perhaps in a compilation where a different person writes each chapter/s)
meanwhile people like Jonathan Owens and Asar Imhotep are doing it
And was there any Egyptsearch protest of the Nefertiti done organized letter sending? No
I don't want reparations in the form of honest history I wan't dishonest media to pay reparations so they won't be dishonest in the future. There are corporations that own Hollywood who's taxes should go to reparations. Nat Geo just admitted to their racist depictions so whats the use in writing letters? This isn't on the criminal this is on the government.
The black media ignored the 'Nefertiti' mummy's ancestry test along with Tut's and the rest of the fam. I was one of the few people to spread the word on that. I let people know about how they censored it on Wikipedia down to how they removed DnaTribe's home page and previous citings. I put my money in to that and will put more. I think I did my part.
Im reading and researching for a book right now. Its called the Miseducation of the Albino. Its about stuff like why you would relate black people getting reparations to a victim mentality, why the 'black' media would ignore King Tut's ancestry tests, why Chedda probably did not have blue eyes and more.
I just finished the last major rewrite about a movie script set in ancient Egypt so I do finish stuff but this book will be long in the making because this... is thorough. [/QB]
Regarding that last picture, of Jane Elliott, that's basically what Dr. Claud Anderson's been saying since forever. Racism is about power/wealth, and people aren't inclined to share it because that means increased competition from other peoples.
Posts: 117 | From: Earth | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
It’s funny you always will show people from other continents in comperison to what is supposedly black, blacker and blackest and at the same time will marginalize poeple from the African continent itself, when they don’t conform the “racial stereotypes” created by “whites”. That’s just pure comedy.
So, this begs for the question, what do you mean with when you say “I am black”? Black like who, what “black American” for example.
But Lioness said the phenotype matters most when deciding who is black not ancestry. So maybe Lioness is saying OOAs can be black or "blacker" than Africans? But uh...if the southern Egyptians were black in phenotype isn't that kind of shooting in the foot that they weren't black?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That's the thing. Whenever European scientists or scientists in general use racial labels or terms I always have retain some skeptecism. That Cheddar Man was dark skin is not in doubt but the question was exactly how dark was he?? Was he dark enough to be truly labeled as "black". Recall the genetic findings of the 7,000 year old La Brana hunter-gatherer showing them to have dark skin and blue eyes, yet nobody except Afronuts were quick to call them "black".
Afronuts have no problem calling a spade a spade.
quote: I mean unlike Egyptian mummies whose intact skins were subject to melanin dosage tests and found to be "packed with melanin", we only have bones of the Old European hunter gatherers and remnant DNA with autosomes showing they didn't have the mutation for pale skin.
The reason for my skepticism is that I'm aware that European academia now has for lack of a better phrase, a "left wing" bias based on multiculturalism in a way as to proclaim a black or even Muslim presence in early Europe.
Real liberals and not sobs like Doug Weller have no problem calling a spade a spade too.
Weller is the dude who brags about marching with MLK while censoring King Tut's ancestry test on wikipedia.
Its racist people, typically those classified as white who will try to tell you someone with the same pigment genes as brown and black humans are just dark skin, swarthy and/or olive when they are not located in their black race regions.
quote: Lalueza-Fox states: "However, the biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans, which indicates that he had dark skin, although we can not know the exact shade."
quote:The mixture of African and European traits implies that the racial transformation of modern humans was still in progress long after they left Africa, with changes in eye colour coming before alterations in skin tone.
Study leader Professor Carles Lalueza-Fox, of the Institute of Evolutionary Biology in Barcelona, said: ‘The biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That's the thing. Whenever European scientists or scientists in general use racial labels or terms I always have retain some skeptecism. That Cheddar Man was dark skin is not in doubt but the question was exactly how dark was he?? Was he dark enough to be truly labeled as "black". Recall the genetic findings of the 7,000 year old La Brana hunter-gatherer showing them to have dark skin and blue eyes, yet nobody except Afronuts were quick to call them "black".
Afronuts have no problem calling a spade a spade.
quote: I mean unlike Egyptian mummies whose intact skins were subject to melanin dosage tests and found to be "packed with melanin", we only have bones of the Old European hunter gatherers and remnant DNA with autosomes showing they didn't have the mutation for pale skin.
The reason for my skepticism is that I'm aware that European academia now has for lack of a better phrase, a "left wing" bias based on multiculturalism in a way as to proclaim a black or even Muslim presence in early Europe.
Real liberals and not sobs like Doug Weller have no problem calling a spade a spade too.
Weller is the dude who brags about marching with MLK while censoring King Tut's ancestry test on wikipedia.
Its racist people, typically those classified as white who will try to tell you someone with the same pigment genes as brown and black humans are just dark skin, swarthy and/or olive when they are not located in their black race regions.
quote: Lalueza-Fox states: "However, the biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans, which indicates that he had dark skin, although we can not know the exact shade."
quote:The mixture of African and European traits implies that the racial transformation of modern humans was still in progress long after they left Africa, with changes in eye colour coming before alterations in skin tone.
Study leader Professor Carles Lalueza-Fox, of the Institute of Evolutionary Biology in Barcelona, said: ‘The biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans.
If OOA is accurate then all human diversity is a result of human migrations out of Africa and adaptations to various environments around the world. Therefore, the farther you go back in any population the more it should converge on an "African" phenotype. OOA is something that came out of "mainstream" science.
The problem is that the European model of human history still promotes the concept that Europe is the basis of human diversity in phenotype AND the basis of all human advancements in history.
Hence a poster about the show "First Man" on curiosity stream which shows a Eurasian female:
Eurasians didn't come on the scene until way late and certainly light skin even later. Yet the commercial for the show makes it seem as if light skinned ancient apes turned straight into light skin ancient humans.
But African scholars who point these contradictions out are supposedly bad people.
So if the show is first man, why are they talking about Apes? And how on earth do the first humans start in Eurasia when the first humans didn't leave Africa for over 200,000 years after humans were born? So what kind of first humans are they talking about?
This was produced by a French team across various Eurasian countries/colonies for primarily a European audience..... go figure.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think the french producer of First Man show, Frederic Fougea's anachronism related to human evolution history is to pleased Eurasians including himself by misguide the truth about the history of human evolution. With Internet, people around the world have access to what is going on, including to different human species that still living or recently in history lived among us. One of them is an Eurasian guy with strong Neanderthal traits, Nikolai Valuev. He's intelligence level is pretty good, he was the World Boxer champion, and produced a son with normal skull. After he retired from boxing he became Russian politician. There are millions of Nikolai Valuev in Eurasia and Caucasus regions. Here is the picture of the physical profile of Nikolai Valuev. http://allrus.me/tallest-and-heaviest-russian-boxer-nikolai-valuev/.
Another picture of him with Don King and Donald Trump. Don King, and Donald Trump helped him to make millions.
Eurasians in fact are an admixture of many homos, including Homo Floresiensis which survived until relatively recent times, 12,000 to 8,000 years ago. By that time, African Homo Sapiens were living in Eurasia and Eastern Asia for over hundred thousand years interbreeding with them, creating a new short modern human species which migrated to Central America, Bolivia, Peru and Chile. Their average height is about 3 to 4 ft tall. Are millions of them living in Central and South America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis
Modern Humans are very diverse. But, the most weird humans and subhumans species I ever saw are the recent excavated Peruvian mummies of Nazca. A extensive segment of Peruvian people carry their DNA.
Scientists and Doctors findings about Nazca Mummies Video. It was after Fox News and other News sources called Nazca Mummies fallacious.
How could them born like that? They also found that she had scoliosis, dwarfism and other bone disorders. She also had turricephaly, which causes the skull to be steeped upward and somewhat pointed. She had mutations in genes associated with craniodermal dysplasia and Greenberg skeletal dysplasia.
Nolan says it likely wasn’t a coincidence that one child had all these different deformities. He describes a genome as similar to a football team: Sometimes, a few genes can interact with other genes and one bad “player” can influence the whole organism.
If you think these scientists, including Peruvian doctors, and anthropologists are wrong or racist I am sure they will politely accept your scientific challenge.
La Zana from Russia is another case to be studied. Her DNA is from 100% African Homo Sapiens which migrated over a hundred thousand years to Eurasia, She had black or dark gray skin, covered with dark reddish auburn fur, not hair. If her DNA is 100% African as Bryan Sykes said, how could she be covered in dark reddish auburn fur? Or was she a survivor of interbreed of Homo Sapiens to an Asian Hominid or primate which was alive in 1800s in Eurasia? On Russian history of La Zana by scientists AA. Mashkovtsev and B.F. Porshnev she was captured hundred of miles from Abkhazia, in the high Caucasus mountain forest and taken to Abkhazia Village where she was given to a black Abkhazian tribal prince. Homos like her was well documented on Buddhist temples of Nepal, Mongolia, China, Central Asia and other regions of Eastern Asia,including Indonesia and Malaysia, since ancient times and middle ages. In the Central and Eastern Asia they are called Almas. BTW, I do have the complete history of La Zana written by two Russian scientists AA.Mashkovtsev and B.F. Porshnev. It is long and more detailed than what has been published on European and American News sources.
Zana: Did DNA Tests Show 19th Century ‘Half Human, Half Ape’ Abkhazian Woman ‘100% Sub-Saharan African’? Science
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
is thorough.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic