posted
Again, the OP and the source he cited is from European scholars who promoted these concepts of caucasoid, negroid and black and white races. This has absolutely nothing to do with how people self identify and is all about the arbitrary pseudo-science of grouping people based on cranial features in order to uphold a racial paradigm. Hallie Sellasie and other individuals and groups from Africa, Asia and the Americas were not the ones creating these race theories or writing these papers and books.
Posts: 8900 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this book Kwesi Tsri, who is an African himself, explains why he thinks that the concept of Black, for African people ought to be abandoned
quote: Description Africans are not literally black, yet they are called black. Why? This book explores the genesis and evolution of the description of Africans as black, the consequences of this practice, and how it contributes to the denigration (blackening) and dehumanisation of Africans. It uses this analysis to advance a case for abandoning the use of the term ‘black’ to describe and categorise Africans. Mainstream discussions of the history of European racism have generally neglected the role of black and white colour symbolisms in sustaining the supposed superiority of those labelled white over those labelled black. This work redresses that neglect, by tracing the genesis of the conception of Africans as black in ancient Greece and its continued employment in early Christian writings, followed by an original, close analysis of how this use is replicated in three key representative texts: Shakespeare's Othello, the translation of the Bible into the African language Ewe, and a book by the influential Ghanaian religious leader, Mensa Otabil. It concludes by directly addressing the argument that ‘black’ can be turned into a positive concept, demonstrating the failure of this approach to deal with the real problems raised by imposing the term ‘black’ on its human referents.
A quote from the book:
quote: The contention of this book is that we Africans, and people of African descent, have inherited not only economic and political inequalities but also inequality of recognition (inequality of moral worth) in terms of the conceptual and semantic systems that have been imposed on us to conceptualise, depict and categorise ourselves. So, in order to bring about the change and liberation that we want to effect, we should not focus only on economic and political inequalities but also on the inequality of moral worth that is embedded in the language we use to describe and categorise ourselves. In other words, we should focus on the imposed con-cepts that denigrate (blacken) and dehumanise us. The concept 'black' is one such concept that we need to focus on and abandon. In order to reclaim our humanity and dignity, we should stop building our self-understandings and identities on imposed conceptual and semantic systems that were invented to denigrate us in the first instance. The notion that we should continue using the concept 'black' to describe and categorise humans is worrying and non-liberative given its origin, nature, and the insidious consequences that it has been having on its human referents.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: In this book Kwesi Tsri, who is an African himself, explains why he thinks that the concept of Black, for African people ought to be abandoned
quote: Description Africans are not literally black, yet they are called black. Why? This book explores the genesis and evolution of the description of Africans as black, the consequences of this practice, and how it contributes to the denigration (blackening) and dehumanisation of Africans. It uses this analysis to advance a case for abandoning the use of the term ‘black’ to describe and categorise Africans. Mainstream discussions of the history of European racism have generally neglected the role of black and white colour symbolisms in sustaining the supposed superiority of those labelled white over those labelled black. This work redresses that neglect, by tracing the genesis of the conception of Africans as black in ancient Greece and its continued employment in early Christian writings, followed by an original, close analysis of how this use is replicated in three key representative texts: Shakespeare's Othello, the translation of the Bible into the African language Ewe, and a book by the influential Ghanaian religious leader, Mensa Otabil. It concludes by directly addressing the argument that ‘black’ can be turned into a positive concept, demonstrating the failure of this approach to deal with the real problems raised by imposing the term ‘black’ on its human referents.
Kwesi Tsri did not write the source article of this thread and you keep avoiding the actual subject. Europeans created these racial theories and how these other people self identify or think about identity has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Posts: 8900 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kwesi Tsri did not write the source article of this thread and you keep avoiding the actual subject. Europeans created these racial theories and how these other people self identify or think about identity has absolutely nothing to do with it.
That is what Kwesi Tri also writes, and that is why he thinks that the concept "black" which has its origin in European labels on other people should be abandoned.
quote: The contention of this book is that we Africans, and people of African descent, have inherited not only economic and political inequalities but also inequality of recognition (inequality of moral worth) in terms of the conceptual and semantic systems that have been imposed on us to conceptualise, depict and categorise ourselves. So, in order to bring about the change and liberation that we want to effect, we should not focus only on economic and political inequalities but also on the inequality of moral worth that is embedded in the language we use to describe and categorise ourselves. In other words, we should focus on the imposed con-cepts that denigrate (blacken) and dehumanise us. The concept 'black' is one such concept that we need to focus on and abandon. In order to reclaim our humanity and dignity, we should stop building our self-understandings and identities on imposed conceptual and semantic systems that were invented to denigrate us in the first instance. The notion that we should continue using the concept 'black' to describe and categorise humans is worrying and non-liberative given its origin, nature, and the insidious consequences that it has been having on its human referents.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2695 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kwesi Tsri did not write the source article of this thread and you keep avoiding the actual subject. Europeans created these racial theories and how these other people self identify or think about identity has absolutely nothing to do with it.
That is what Kwesi Tri also writes, and that is why he thinks that the concept "black" which has its origin in European labels on other people should be abandoned.
quote: The contention of this book is that we Africans, and people of African descent, have inherited not only economic and political inequalities but also inequality of recognition (inequality of moral worth) in terms of the conceptual and semantic systems that have been imposed on us to conceptualise, depict and categorise ourselves. So, in order to bring about the change and liberation that we want to effect, we should not focus only on economic and political inequalities but also on the inequality of moral worth that is embedded in the language we use to describe and categorise ourselves. In other words, we should focus on the imposed con-cepts that denigrate (blacken) and dehumanise us. The concept 'black' is one such concept that we need to focus on and abandon. In order to reclaim our humanity and dignity, we should stop building our self-understandings and identities on imposed conceptual and semantic systems that were invented to denigrate us in the first instance. The notion that we should continue using the concept 'black' to describe and categorise humans is worrying and non-liberative given its origin, nature, and the insidious consequences that it has been having on its human referents.
And none of that has anything to do with the actual scholarship and study of the diversity in phenotypes of ancient populations on the Nile. People who have agendas will always twist the data and use langauge to support that agenda. But no matter what if you are going to communicate any aspect of phenotype you have to use words. And if that means communicating skin color, then appropriate words will also have to be used to communicate them. European race science has always sought to muddy the water in these kinds of studies especially involving North and East Africa in order to separate these populations from the rest of Africa. Again, this has nothing to do with 'words' in and of themselves as opposed to the agendas of those behind the usage of certain words especially in an anthropological and scientific context. That is what this thread is about, not how any random person feels about such labels in a social or political context which is not directly relevant to the point of those who created the studies and research being discussed. Because people can change the labels and words they use and still have the same agendas at work.
So to the point of the thread and the OP, does not being negroid equate to only having a very light or white complexion. Obviously it doesn't because so-called caucasoid skulls can also have literally black skin. Which goes back to the point of these kinds of papers and studies in Africa being pseudo-science deliberately trying to obfuscate the facts of skin color on the ancient Nile and it isn't an issue of self identity for any particular group or individual because they aren't the ones writing these papers.
Posts: 8900 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, why do not African Americans invent their own labels and systems, and reform anthropology instead of whining about studies made by white people? Better you write your own studies and submit them to academic journals instead of spending time on ES criticizing others work. It would be more constructive.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2695 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [QB] [QUOTE]the people you posted are not negroid nor similar to most SSAs so why do you call them "black" ?
So then black=Negroid...
Interesting...
Yes, it is one of the criteria. However, it is important to note that there are no caucasoid populations in Africa that do not have significant Eurasian ancestry.
Define Significant? What is the range?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Antalas: [QB] Yes, it is one of the criteria. However, it is important to note that there are no caucasoid populations in Africa that do not have significant Eurasian ancestry.
Can you provide one modern peer reviewed scientific paper that says "Caucasoid and Negroid are valid anthropological terms/ and also can you then provide a peer reviewed study that confirms your notion that "Caucasoid" is marker of "Eurasian"
quote:Isn't it enough clear to you as to how most SSAs are different from North Africans and Horners ? :
You realize the Horn is in SSA right,....like how many years is it now, teaching you basic ass facts...
Even the ethiopian emperor Haile Sellasie was clear about it :
Weird how you always have to pull sh#t from the 70s and 60s...the OP was from 1981...so damn weird...a learned biodiversity scholar such as yourself, who isn't trying to push neo-hamite and true negroidism....nah thats just Afrocentrists doing that ish, INTERNET MELT DOWN...When Afrocentrists spew anti-scientific BS, but a Berber Supremist....naw, he's real scientific...
quote:You constantly disagree with me yet can't provide a single clear definition of "black".
Like you're so stupid its almost hard to justify replying to you, Im always having to repeat myself like you're too dumb to retain simple imformation.
1) We all know WTF a black person is, Every culture defined some population as "Black" since recorded history...go play dumbass games with someone else..
2) I don't advocate for using black, I only use it on here to make a point, that certain populations like Southern Egyptians/Nubians would fit in that category, using black in modern times is mostly useless
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whats your obsession with African Americans, not every poster on here is AA, Id say a good portion are black Europeans or Africans...
Like damn a black diaspora exists outside of f-king America.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: So, why do not African Americans invent their own labels and systems, and reform anthropology instead of whining about studies made by white people? Better you write your own studies and submit them to academic journals instead of spending time on ES criticizing others work. It would be more constructive.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What would the point of that be, are you really suggesting that African Americans(since no other black diaspora exists) have the ability to literally redefine social norms established for thousands of years, literally Greeks were calling folks darker than them Athiopians and Mauros..etc. ...I.E Black
Invader Arabs used Sudan before any Euorpean and wrote their racist polemics and against Sudani hundreds of years before Europeans..
are AA supposed to overturn that..?
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: So, why do not African Americans invent their own labels and systems, and reform anthropology instead of whining about studies made by white people? Better you write your own studies and submit them to academic journals instead of spending time on ES criticizing others work. It would be more constructive.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Whats your obsession with African Americans, not every poster on here is AA, Id say a good portion are black Europeans or Africans...
Like damn a black diaspora exists outside of f-king America.
I too am tired of this as someone who is part Black American. Many of the posters on here are Blacks from Europe or African like you stated. Heck some are Caribbean.
More importantly I am tired of people constantly associating only Black Americans with Afrocentricism, when the most prominent Black Egyptologist was Senegalese, and there are many Caribbean Afrocentrics.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: What would the point of that be, are you really suggesting that African Americans(since no other black diaspora exists) have the ability to literally redefine social norms established for thousands of years, literally Greeks were calling folks darker than them Athiopians and Mauros..etc. ...I.E Black
Invader Arabs used Sudan before any Euorpean and wrote their racist polemics and against Sudani hundreds of years before Europeans..
are AA supposed to overturn that..?
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: So, why do not African Americans invent their own labels and systems, and reform anthropology instead of whining about studies made by white people? Better you write your own studies and submit them to academic journals instead of spending time on ES criticizing others work. It would be more constructive.
Well, as I showed above some African scholars actually suggest that notions like black (and white) should be abandoned. As long "black" people themselves use the old racial designations, then they can not expect others to stop doing it. Maybe they must start somewhere if they have a will to change old racial typology.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2695 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: What would the point of that be, are you really suggesting that African Americans(since no other black diaspora exists) have the ability to literally redefine social norms established for thousands of years, literally Greeks were calling folks darker than them Athiopians and Mauros..etc. ...I.E Black
Invader Arabs used Sudan before any Euorpean and wrote their racist polemics and against Sudani hundreds of years before Europeans..
are AA supposed to overturn that..?
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: So, why do not African Americans invent their own labels and systems, and reform anthropology instead of whining about studies made by white people? Better you write your own studies and submit them to academic journals instead of spending time on ES criticizing others work. It would be more constructive.
Well, as I showed above some African scholars actually suggest that notions like black (and white) should be abandoned. As long "black" people themselves use the old racial designations, then they can not expect others to stop doing it. Maybe they must start somewhere if they have a will to change old racial typology.
Your point? There are Black American scholars/anthropologist who feel the same way you such as S.O.Y. Keita. Many scholars or anthropologist are going to have that type of thinking compared to laymen.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: So, why do not African Americans invent their own labels and systems, and reform anthropology instead of whining about studies made by white people? Better you write your own studies and submit them to academic journals instead of spending time on ES criticizing others work. It would be more constructive.
This is about you changing the point from Europeans inventing racist pseudo science, into black people and what words they use as labels. Europeans are not the ones who have been misusing labels and that is exactly what they have been working so hard to do over the last 300 years with their made up pseudo science. Yet when somebody calls that out all of a sudden you want to make it seem like this is something that came from black people or Africans, when that has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Posts: 8900 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: And? You have suggested that the initial dynasties were more "negroid," despite the fact that the first dynasty fell into the northern series. Additionally, it appears that you have not given enough consideration to the fact that my source is from 2020, rendering your 2002 quotation entirely irrelevant.
It wasn't "my" suggestion but the findings of multiple anthropologists for over a century. Upper Egyptians were more "negroid" than Lower Egyptians . Of course as Beyoku pointed out, overall even Upper Nubians group with Lower Egyptians than with Sub-Saharans so what what are you trying to argue?
quote:Let's also not forget that M.F. Gaballah et al. 1972 had already demonstrated that modern Egyptian skulls "conform more closely with the Southern phenotype that characterized the predynastic and early dynastic cultures of Upper Egypt such as the Naqada."
Yeah, I just pointed that out with Batrawi's quote. Also this southern metric type that conforms with Naqada also conforms with ancient Upper Nubians i.e. Kermans. Your point?
quote:I'm lying? As you can see here Egyptians and Horners are genetically closer to me than the rest of SSAs :
Literally Oromos are closer to me than most SSAs and you think upper egyptians aren't ? XD
You're lying when you say "99% Sub-Saharans" even though Horners ARE Sub-Saharans, you idiot! Sub-Sahara is a geographical term that encompasses many populations from Horn Africans to South African Khoisan.
^ As you can clearly see Horn Africans like Oromo only slightly closer to "you" than they are to West Africans. Overall they are intermediate between North Africans and West Africans. West Africans in turn are closer to you than they are to South African aboriginals. Yet West Africans, Horn Africans, and South Africans are ALL 'Sub-Saharan'. Genetic relations range in degrees of relation. All human populations are related but some are more related than others. The reason why West Eurasians (Europeans & Southwest Asians) cluster so closely with North Africans is because of African admixture. That's why South Asians and East Eurasians are farther away from Africa in terms of genetic relations.
quote:None of the "caucasoid" horners are "100% African", as they all possess a significant amount of Eurasian ancestry. Interestingly, the only individuals from the Horn of Africa who do not possess this type of ancestry do not resemble their neighbors and are far from being categorized as "caucasoid." See for example the Mursi or Nuer :
Strawdoll. I never said anything about "100% African" Although I do question how much of the alleged "Eurasian" ancestry is truly non-African in origin. What's interesting is how you try to conflate phenotypical features with ancestry.
So do you agree that these Sub-Saharans below are not "caucasoid"?
quote:Brace actually debunked your American notion of "black" since many of your so called "black africans" were in fact morphologically much closer to eurasians than 3/4 of SSA. He also demonstrated how ancient egyptians were very different from most SSAs.
LOL Hey nitwit, apparently you cannot comprehend the that C.L. Brace shows Eurasians like Andamanese and some Melanesians are morphologically "negroid" even though they were far from Africa while there is crania deep in Sub-Sahara (Kenya) that are morphologically "caucasoid". This is why Brace say "race is a social construct" with little basis on biology.
quote:You're the same person who talked about "black ancestry" and "black features" yet told me "it's only a color descriptor" why do you keep contradicting yourself ?
I didn't! I'm not like YOU! The ancestry I am referring to is AFRICAN. Africans vary in features which is the point I have proven in this thread. As far as black skin. Here is what Brace said: "African entails Black, but Black does not entail African" LOL Let's see you you try to spin that.
Posts: 26321 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This is about you changing the point from Europeans inventing racist pseudo science, into black people and what words they use as labels. Europeans are not the ones who have been misusing labels and that is exactly what they have been working so hard to do over the last 300 years with their made up pseudo science. Yet when somebody calls that out all of a sudden you want to make it seem like this is something that came from black people or Africans, when that has absolutely nothing to do with it.
If you ever saw the link I sent about the book with the African scholar who wanted to abandon the label black, he also says that Europeans invented and used these labels for centuries, but what good does it do if those who are labeled black also use the colonial labels on themselves? If such labels shall disappear it is not especially productive if the labeled people themselves use that kind of designations.
Also what use is it to use a label as "black" on ancient Egyptians? Why call them black or white? Is the Egyptian ancient culture not interesting enough without us modern people trying to incorporate them into the racial thinking of our time?
And even if Europeans have done it a couple of hundred years no one says that "black" people have to do the same. Maybe time to think original thoughts and not only react to what white people have done.
And language is possible to change, the N-word are not used so much today as it once was. So also other labels and practices can change.
If these cats were people, some people would have called both black. Seems it is only concerning people that many suddenly become colorblind
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2695 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [QB] [QUOTE]the people you posted are not negroid nor similar to most SSAs so why do you call them "black" ?
So then black=Negroid...
Interesting...
Yes, it is one of the criteria. However, it is important to note that there are no caucasoid populations in Africa that do not have significant Eurasian ancestry.
Define Significant? What is the range?
That's arbitrary but I'd say between 25-50%
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Can you provide one modern peer reviewed scientific paper that says "Caucasoid and Negroid are valid anthropological terms/ and also can you then provide a peer reviewed study that confirms your notion that "Caucasoid" is marker of "Eurasian"
But you don't necessarily need to check every paper for this, instead you can check the recent manuals of forensic anthropology :
"Anthropological perspectives on Tooth Morphology Genetics, Evolution Variation", Cambridge University Press, 2013,p. 37
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You realize the Horn is in SSA right,....like how many years is it now, teaching you basic ass facts...
wtf...that's why I wrote "most" not all. SSAs are not a monolith. Most people from the Horn of Africa are closely related to MENAs than to the rest of SSA.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Weird how you always have to pull sh#t from the 70s and 60s...the OP was from 1981...so damn weird...a learned biodiversity scholar such as yourself, who isn't trying to push neo-hamite and true negroidism....nah thats just Afrocentrists doing that ish, INTERNET MELT DOWN...When Afrocentrists spew anti-scientific BS, but a Berber Supremist....naw, he's real scientific...
How was he wrong ? He's indeed caucasoid and genetically closer to eurasians. Literally the emperor of Ethiopia is telling afro-americans to stop imposing their black label on everyone. Based Haile putting this fat rootless larper of Garvey at his place XD
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: 1) We all know WTF a black person is, Every culture defined some population as "Black" since recorded history...go play dumbass games with someone else..
2) I don't advocate for using black, I only use it on here to make a point, that certain populations like Southern Egyptians/Nubians would fit in that category, using black in modern times is mostly useless [/QB]
Interesting so you admit that your definition is a social construct and has no concrete meaning. So you finally concur with my assertion that your label cannot be utilized to establish kinship between different african populations.
The genetic and anthropological data we have do not support the idea of ancient egyptians or nubians being closely related to other africans such as west, central or south africans whether Upper egyptians/Nubians would be perceived as "black" in Atlanta today.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Antalas is Selassie describing himself correctly? Are his ancestors were from the Caucus mountains, if not some place outside of Africa?
Eminem could describe himself as a light skinned black man who grew up in the ghettos of Detroit but does it means he's black?
Posts: 42947 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: It wasn't "my" suggestion but the findings of multiple anthropologists for over a century. Upper Egyptians were more "negroid" than Lower Egyptians . Of course as Beyoku pointed out, overall even Upper Nubians group with Lower Egyptians than with Sub-Saharans so what what are you trying to argue?
Upper egyptians are still more negroid than lower egyptians your point ?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yeah, I just pointed that out with Batrawi's quote. Also this southern metric type that conforms with Naqada also conforms with ancient Upper Nubians i.e. Kermans. Your point?
Ah suddenly they are no more arabs or "ifrangi" ? XD
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: You're lying when you say "99% Sub-Saharans" even though Horners ARE Sub-Saharans, you idiot! Sub-Sahara is a geographical term that encompasses many populations from Horn Africans to South African Khoisan.
^ As you can clearly see Horn Africans like Oromo only slightly closer to "you" than they are to West Africans. Overall they are intermediate between North Africans and West Africans. West Africans in turn are closer to you than they are to South African aboriginals. Yet West Africans, Horn Africans, and South Africans are ALL 'Sub-Saharan'. Genetic relations range in degrees of relation. All human populations are related but some are more related than others. The reason why West Eurasians (Europeans & Southwest Asians) cluster so closely with North Africans is because of African admixture. That's why South Asians and East Eurasians are farther away from Africa in terms of genetic relations.
they are not "slightly" closer to me they are in fact almost two times closer to me yet you call them "black" and me a "euronut" XD Ah yes west eurasians are closer to us because of african admixture certainly not because we have ancestry from those same eurasians XD
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Strawdoll. I never said anything about "100% African" Although I do question how much of the alleged "Eurasian" ancestry is truly non-African in origin. What's interesting is how you try to conflate phenotypical features with ancestry.
You literally wrote : "East Africans can have the narrow so-called "Caucasoid" facial morphology and still be 100% African" I'm not aware of any population in that area that was both classified as caucasoid and genetically 100% african. That literally doesn't exist in any part of Africa.
I conflate phenotypical features with ancestry because I see that in Africa there is a clear correlation between those caucasoid features and eurasian ancestry. You think we're in the upper pleistocene or what ?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LOL Hey nitwit, apparently you cannot comprehend the that C.L. Brace shows Eurasians like Andamanese and some Melanesians are morphologically "negroid" even though they were far from Africa while there is crania deep in Sub-Sahara (Kenya) that are morphologically "caucasoid". This is why Brace say "race is a social construct" with little basis on biology.
Seems like you're still not aware that caucasoid/eurasian admixed populations did actually settled in Kenya :
Neolithic pastoralists from kenya were literally similar to modern Somalis and yet you think discovering "caucasoid" skulls there is a proof that race is a social construct ? XD
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I didn't! I'm not like YOU! The ancestry I am referring to is AFRICAN. Africans vary in features which is the point I have proven in this thread. As far as black skin. Here is what Brace said: "African entails Black, but Black does not entail African" LOL Let's see you you try to spin that. [/QB]
You didnt ? Ok What is this ? :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
And of course the argument you vehemently deny but is true is that North Africans were indeed black. As shown by the Egyptians in their own portraiture not to mention melanin tests done on their mummies as well as genetic tests.
And so were the Natufians again according to genetic tests.
So you fail on all counts. And please don't give me any ridiculous argument on definitions of 'black' since you won't give one for 'white' but sure do post a lot examples of it from modern coastal Amazigh who don't reflect the populations we discuss! [/QB]
XD
"As well as genetic tests" the same which showed that they were even less african than modern egyptians ? The same which showed that old kingdom upper egyptians were predominantly natufian with low CHG similar to modern arabs ? The same which show a predominance of eurasian uniparentals ? The same which show that lower and upper nubians had 40-50% eurasian ancestry ? The same which showed that Natufians had no particular genetic affinities to africans ? You're mentally sick there is no other conclusion. Constantly in denial, blackwashing as much as possible and twisting every data at this point just admit your racism towards north africans.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Antalas You are too caught up in arguing against the term "Black" by using DNA. "Black" in the Western Sense doesn't have anything to do with Ancestry or even physicals features. It is a social term with EXTREMLY malleability. It even includes individuals who are physically "White".
Thus "Black People" who "Passed" for "White" could escape enslavement and hide in plain site among white America. You are arguing with folks who use "Black" to describe a wide range of features OR KNOWN African ancestry exclusive of physical features.
Its best to discard the term all together if you going to talk about DNA and just speak on biological affinities.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
But you don't necessarily need to check every paper for this, instead you can check the recent manuals of forensic anthropology :
I asked for a peer reviewed study showing race classification as a valid biological construct. You post a text book that shows that variation in teeth exist not that race is a valid biological construct.
Also, given your history of lying and quote mining, I doubt you included all the relevant information from those sources.
quote:wtf...that's why I wrote "most" not all. SSAs are not a monolith. Most people from the Horn of Africa are closely related to MENAs than to the rest of SSA.
Ok, so again what the f-k is about the Horn being In Mother F-king SSA, so Horners are F-king SSAs, every single one is a SSA by the very definition of term...
Why dont you just use Negroids, its a valid biological term right, you're not trying to push true negroidism right...
B-tch man up and say what you really feel, fu-king jelly back b_tch made coward, own you f-king racism...
quote:How was he wrong ? He's indeed caucasoid and genetically closer to eurasians. Literally the emperor of Ethiopia is telling afro-americans to stop imposing their black label on everyone. Based Haile putting this fat rootless larper of Garvey at his place XD
Selassie was born in a time when such classification was valid. That said Selassie was a Pan Africanist, who sought to unite Africans.
lol @ [b\Ethiopians[/b] mad at AA "Imposing" a "Black" Label on them...
quote:[/QUOTE]Interesting so you admit that your definition is a social construct and has no concrete meaning. So you finally concur with my assertion that your label cannot be utilized to establish kinship between different african populations.
Where did I say anything of the kind, where have I said anything about any sort of racial classification?
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Antalas is quite clear in claiming that the ancient populations of the Nile were Eurasian light skinned/white populations who were not Africans. Obviously this is false but the fundamental root of this argument has everything to do with skin color and nothing else. The people making these claims, such as the European race scientists are simply promoting theories of skin color superiority. This isn't an issue of words, it is an issue of promoting a lighter skin color for ancient Nile Valley Africans. That is the fundamental root of the issue and nothing else. Language and words have nothing to do with it, because no matter what words they use or even DNA they still push their agenda that the ancient Nile Valley civilization was built by light skinned/white Eurasians when that is completely and thoroughly false. And that is the reason they keep trying to hide behind semantics because they know their whole position is based on half-truths, outright lies and nonsense.
Posts: 8900 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude is a troll, he's the flip side of the Afrocentrists you call out..He believes the exact same thing they do but in reverse.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Antalas You are too caught up in arguing against the term "Black" by using DNA. "Black" in the Western Sense doesn't have anything to do with Ancestry or even physicals features. It is a social term with EXTREMLY malleability. It even includes individuals who are physically "White".
Thus "Black People" who "Passed" for "White" could escape enslavement and hide in plain site among white America. You are arguing with folks who use "Black" to describe a wide range of features OR KNOWN African ancestry exclusive of physical features.
Its best to discard the term all together if you going to talk about DNA and just speak on biological affinities.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Interesting so you admit that your definition is a social construct and has no concrete meaning. So you finally concur with my assertion that your label cannot be utilized to establish kinship between different african populations.
Where did I say anything of the kind, where have I said anything about any sort of racial classification?
What does it even mean to "claim kinship" with a certain population anyway? Even populations that share close genetic, linguistic, etc. affinities may not acknowledge kinship with one another or ally with one another. I doubt my own Anglo-Saxon ancestors would have claimed kinship with the "heathen" Norse who would have raided them periodically during the early Middle Ages, yet Anglo-Saxons and Norse would have shared a common heritage as Germanic-speaking Northern Europeans. I don't think either culture would have embraced any sort of pan-Germanic nationalism during that period of history.
For that matter, there's a difference between claiming personal kinship with a particular population and stating that that population has certain phenotypic characteristics and should be portrayed as having those characteristics in media. For example, if I were to say that certain Northeast Asians have skin as pale as mine, or even used "white" to describe their skin color, does that mean I'm claiming Japanese or Koreans as my own people? Fuck no!
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Antalas You are too caught up in arguing against the term "Black" by using DNA. "Black" in the Western Sense doesn't have anything to do with Ancestry or even physicals features. It is a social term with EXTREMLY malleability. It even includes individuals who are physically "White".
Thus "Black People" who "Passed" for "White" could escape enslavement and hide in plain site among white America. You are arguing with folks who use "Black" to describe a wide range of features OR KNOWN African ancestry exclusive of physical features.
Its best to discard the term all together if you going to talk about DNA and just speak on biological affinities.
This statement pertains only to the US because in Europe, the term "black" is typically used to refer solely to black Africans (and not to people of Indian or mixed-race heritage). By highlighting the malleability of the term in the US, you are suggesting that it lacks a clear or consistent definition, particularly in the context of Africa. That's why I have repeatedly asked members here what specific knowledge do I gain from using this term. Using "black" to describe Nubians is misleading, as it creates the impression that they are biologically similar to other black Africans, and ignores the immense diversity that exists across the African continent.
I know how members here use this label but I'm simply showing them how flawed their definition is and I propose a better one. That's why they're confused and think I'm a proponent of the "true negro fallacy".
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: This statement pertains only to the US because in Europe, the term "black" is typically used to refer solely to black Africans (and not to people of Indian or mixed-race heritage). By highlighting the malleability of the term in the US, you are suggesting that it lacks a clear or consistent definition, particularly in the context of Africa. That's why I have repeatedly asked members here what specific knowledge do I gain from using this term.
.
you were the first to use the word black in the thread, 3rd post, pg 1:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: As usual you're cherrypicking people who look enough "black" to you meanwhile the average upper egyptian doesn't look like your examples:
so it makes no sense for you to complain about it
Posts: 42947 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
I asked for a peer reviewed study showing race classification as a valid biological construct. You post a text book that shows that variation in teeth exist not that race is a valid biological construct.
Also, given your history of lying and quote mining, I doubt you included all the relevant information from those sources.
Why did you avoid the first picture ? That's literally from a peer-reviewed paper. Also can you give us a single example where I've lied about something ?
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Ok, so again what the f-k is about the Horn being In Mother F-king SSA, so Horners are F-king SSAs, every single one is a SSA by the very definition of term...
Why dont you just use Negroids, its a valid biological term right, you're not trying to push true negroidism right...
B-tch man up and say what you really feel, fu-king jelly back b_tch made coward, own you f-king racism...
You talk like this because you simply haven't read much on the subject and I'm quite sure of it. You simply read about ancient egypt/Nubia's history and think you can give us your opinion on their biological affinities.
Anyway difference between Horner and the rest of SSA isn't only about morphology.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Selassie was born in a time when such classification was valid. That said Selassie was a Pan Africanist, who sought to unite Africans.
lol @ [b\Ethiopians[/b] mad at AA "Imposing" a "Black" Label on them...
It's still valid in forensic anthropology and even a child would see it. Khadafi was also a panafricanist so what ?
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Where did I say anything of the kind, where have I said anything about any sort of racial classification? [/QB]
It's crazy how you keep running away from giving a proper answer to my question. Why are you scared to define what's black ? You said : "Every culture defined some population as "Black" since recorded history" .... therefore like I said you confirm it's a social construct and can't be used when talking about the "race" of ancient egyptians/Nubians. You constantly apply the label to them as if they shared anything with you. You don't see me taking pride in iranian, syrian or afghan history simply because I share the same skin tone as them.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Dude is a troll, he's the flip side of the Afrocentrists you call out..He believes the exact same thing they do but in reverse.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Antalas You are too caught up in arguing against the term "Black" by using DNA. "Black" in the Western Sense doesn't have anything to do with Ancestry or even physicals features. It is a social term with EXTREMLY malleability. It even includes individuals who are physically "White".
Thus "Black People" who "Passed" for "White" could escape enslavement and hide in plain site among white America. You are arguing with folks who use "Black" to describe a wide range of features OR KNOWN African ancestry exclusive of physical features.
Its best to discard the term all together if you going to talk about DNA and just speak on biological affinities.
Are you suggesting that asserting that modern Egyptians are the closest descendants of ancient Egyptians, and that the latter were not "black" simply because they did not resemble black Africans, amounts to behavior typical of Afrocentrists ?
I do not claim Ancient Egypt (even though berbers ruled it for several dynasties), I am not creating a whole narrative of population replacement to appropriate Egypt, nor am I defining identity based on levels of melanin. Additionally, I am not harassing every Egyptian I can find online. Instead, I aim to assist Egyptians in preserving their heritage from complexed self hater racist from the US.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Why did you avoid the first picture ? That's literally from a peer-reviewed paper. Also can you give us a single example where I've lied about something ?
Either post a peer reviewd study showing Negroid and Caucasoid as valid biological racial terms...or STFU.
quote:You talk like this because you simply haven't read much on the subject and I'm quite sure of it. You simply read about ancient egypt/Nubia's history and think you can give us your opinion on their biological affinities.
WTf does reading/subject matter have to do with
HORNERS BEING F-KING SSA
Like are you f-king trolling at this point, What is wrong with you dude, you can't be this stupid. I say that the Horn is in SSA and you respond by saying I don't read literature on the subject....
Is there one scrap of scientific literature that says the Horn IS NOT in SSA...
quote:Anyway difference between Horner and the rest of SSA isn't only about morphology.
They were also differences between them and NA and MeNaS...but that does'nt stop your retarded ass from trying to claim them...
quote:It's still valid in forensic anthropology and even a child would see it.
So its used in forensics but its not a valid biological racial contruct...got it.
quote:It's crazy how you keep running away from giving a proper answer to my question. Why are you scared to define what's black ?
WTF, does me not using stupid ass terms like black have to do with me being scared or running from you.
quote:You said : "Every culture defined some population as "Black" since recorded history"
Did not the Greeks and Romans and invader Arabs use Athiopies, Mauros and Sudan....or is this another silly ass game you're trying to play?
quote:..... You constantly apply the label to them as if they shared anything with you. [/qb]
If you say this sh#t to me again I swear to god Im going to go nuclear and spam this thread and forum in every place you post with large images until one of us are banned.
Man the fu-k up you little sorry ass b0tch and fu-king post where I said anything other than my ancestors has something to do with me, Ive asked you in the past and you keep saying it, so post the evidence or STFU.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You and Afrocentists believe in the same tired ass racial classification of humans, same coin different side..
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Dude is a troll, he's the flip side of the Afrocentrists you call out..He believes the exact same thing they do but in reverse.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Antalas You are too caught up in arguing against the term "Black" by using DNA. "Black" in the Western Sense doesn't have anything to do with Ancestry or even physicals features. It is a social term with EXTREMLY malleability. It even includes individuals who are physically "White".
Thus "Black People" who "Passed" for "White" could escape enslavement and hide in plain site among white America. You are arguing with folks who use "Black" to describe a wide range of features OR KNOWN African ancestry exclusive of physical features.
Its best to discard the term all together if you going to talk about DNA and just speak on biological affinities.
Are you suggesting that asserting that modern Egyptians are the closest descendants of ancient Egyptians, and that the latter were not "black" simply because they did not resemble black Africans, amounts to behavior typical of Afrocentrists ?
I do not claim Ancient Egypt (even though berbers ruled it for several dynasties), I am not creating a whole narrative of population replacement to appropriate Egypt, nor am I defining identity based on levels of melanin. Additionally, I am not harassing every Egyptian I can find online. Instead, I aim to assist Egyptians in preserving their heritage from complexed self hater racist from the US.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as the perennial "what does 'black' mean?" topic is concerned, if I may give in my current two cents...
Let's face it, labels are never going to be perfect. In the end, they'll always be attempts to divide fuzzy spectra into discrete categories. That's why we say these categories (e.g. race, color, nationality, etc.) are social constructs. They're how we as humans make sense of the world.
With that said, I admit to being biased toward seeing AE and certain other ancient North Africans as being "black", even if they weren't necessarily the darkest-skinned people in Africa. I can't tell you precisely how dark you have to be to have "black" or "melanated" skin, but I do want to make it clear that most of these ancient North Africans, contrary to popular depictions, would have been darker than what most would call a tan or olive skin tone. "Black" does have its problems, of course, but I feel that "dark" and "brown" are insufficient for my purposes since they could be used for any skin tone darker than a European.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: most of these ancient North Africans, contrary to popular depictions, would have been darker than what most would call a tan or olive skin tone.
Based on what are you saying this ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: most of these ancient North Africans, contrary to popular depictions, would have been darker than what most would call a tan or olive skin tone.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Either post a peer reviewd study showing Negroid and Caucasoid as valid biological racial terms...or STFU.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: WTf does reading/subject matter have to do with
HORNERS BEING F-KING SSA
Like are you f-king trolling at this point, What is wrong with you dude, you can't be this stupid. I say that the Horn is in SSA and you respond by saying I don't read literature on the subject....
Is there one scrap of scientific literature that says the Horn IS NOT in SSA...
What are you talking about ? SSA or not this doesn't change anything of what I said.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: They were also differences between them and NA and MeNaS...but that does'nt stop your retarded ass from trying to claim them...
That's like saying : "yes chinese are different from Greeks but greeks are also different from russians" ...SMH
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: So its used in forensics but its not a valid biological racial contruct...got it.
Do you at least know what forensic anthropology is ?
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Did not the Greeks and Romans and invader Arabs use Athiopies, Mauros and Sudan....or is this another silly ass game you're trying to play?
Who talked about this ? You're again confirming that these are cultural constructs. A "black" in India wasn't a "Black" in Greece, a "Sudani" in Syria wasn't a "Maurus" in Rome yet you suggest that we should all see them as the same thing since that's how they'll be perceived in Brooklyn of 2023.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: If you say this sh#t to me again I swear to god Im going to go nuclear and spam this thread and forum in every place you post with large images until one of us are banned.
Man the fu-k up you little sorry ass b0tch and fu-king post where I said anything other than my ancestors has something to do with me, Ive asked you in the past and you keep saying it, so post the evidence or STFU. [/QB]
I already told you to stop playing the hypocrite with me. I see clear in your game you won't fool anyone here. If you aren't claiming them why are you so eager to post "black" egyptians why do you get triggered when I start questioning the race of nubians and their relations with Egypt ? Like I said multiple times, you clearly view it as a "black" civilization and as something you can take pride of.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: That's why they're confused and think I'm a proponent of the "true negro fallacy".
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean:
Here your true negros :
Why are you taking this out of context? When I described features commonly associated with people of African descent, you accused me of promoting the 'True Negro Fallacy.' However, you have not provided an explanation for why ancient Egyptians also used these same features to depict Nubians. Were the Egyptians also proponents of this fallacy?
As I mentioned before, it's possible that you are projecting your experiences as an African American onto Africans, and assuming that Africans are physically as diverse as your own people. This could be why you are getting defensive when I talk about the physical characteristics of many Africans.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay everyone chill the hell out before this thread is locked. Once again this is the Egyptology section ...
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Originally posted by Antalas: Why did you avoid the first picture ? That's literally from a peer-reviewed paper. Also can you give us a single example where I've lied about something ?
Either post a peer reviewd study showing Negroid and Caucasoid as valid biological racial terms...or STFU.
quote:You talk like this because you simply haven't read much on the subject and I'm quite sure of it. You simply read about ancient egypt/Nubia's history and think you can give us your opinion on their biological affinities.
WTf does reading/subject matter have to do with
HORNERS BEING F-KING SSA
Like are you f-king trolling at this point, What is wrong with you dude, you can't be this stupid. I say that the Horn is in SSA and you respond by saying I don't read literature on the subject....
Is there one scrap of scientific literature that says the Horn IS NOT in SSA...
quote:Anyway difference between Horner and the rest of SSA isn't only about morphology.
They were also differences between them and NA and MeNaS...but that does'nt stop your retarded ass from trying to claim them...
quote:It's still valid in forensic anthropology and even a child would see it.
So its used in forensics but its not a valid biological racial contruct...got it.
quote:It's crazy how you keep running away from giving a proper answer to my question. Why are you scared to define what's black ?
WTF, does me not using stupid ass terms like black have to do with me being scared or running from you.
quote:You said : "Every culture defined some population as "Black" since recorded history"
Did not the Greeks and Romans and invader Arabs use Athiopies, Mauros and Sudan....or is this another silly ass game you're trying to play?
quote:..... You constantly apply the label to them as if they shared anything with you. [/qb]
If you say this sh#t to me again I swear to god Im going to go nuclear and spam this thread and forum in every place you post with large images until one of us are banned.
Man the fu-k up you little sorry ass b0tch and fu-king post where I said anything other than my ancestors has something to do with me, Ive asked you in the past and you keep saying it, so post the evidence or STFU.[/QUOTE]
Jari chill OUT! Its not that serious. Its not life or death. I don't agree with 75% of what Antalas says and I can control my emotions.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, You are right, I was out of line...and I decided to step away for a few days, Im just tired of him accusing me of something, and Im constantly having to deny it, it just gets annoying after a while.
You can delete my posts if its violating TOS...
Keep up the good work brotha, I like the way you moderate, keep stuff in check.
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Jari chill OUT! Its not that serious. Its not life or death. I don't agree with 75% of what Antalas says and I can control my emotions.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
the upshot of it is, "Sub-Saharan" is part of the old geographic paradigm but if you look at a lot of genetics articles they associate the horn with North Africa and we can see a DNA continuum
"Black" has no standard and is not measurable, it is not scientific similarly the terms "North Africans" and "Sub-Saharans" are too broad to be used in these times of genetics, those are part of the old geographic paradigm
"Caucasian" and "Negroid" are still used by genetics companies that many specialize in criminal investigation analysis but much less in contemporary anthology
So instead of getting caught up all the time in definitions of all these obsolete words what we can do is look at raw hard data, genetics or physical morphology and make comparisons without reporting to these old terms
On distinctions shown on this map, Hg A is distant from E but E1b1a is not that distant from E1b1b it It is more useful talking about that then "Saharans" vs "Sub-Saharans", those terms should stop being used in my opinion
and if geographic terms are to be used and we look at population density it is more useful when somebody brings up these old terms to replace "Saharans" and "Sub-Saharans" with:
Maghrebians
People of the Nile Valley
Horners
Sahelians
Central Africans
West Africans
So looking at the population density it reveals how insensible it is to talk about "North Africans" when many are in that Northmost region, far from the Sahelians and not that close to the people of the Nile valley either
What can we say about Maghrebians? That this is were most berbers live, many are of the particular E1b1b clade E-M81 and their greatest divergence from other Africans is that their maternal DNA is much less L lineages
I think when somebody talks about "North Africans" they should be asked to specify if they are talking about Maghrebians or People of the Nile Valley and if they are making any reference to Sahelians
That way a lot of unnecessary banter is avoided.
And if "black", "negroid" or "caucasian' is raised don't get triggered ask to see the raw data Without some raw data statements made about "sub-Saharans", "North Africans", "Negroids"" Caucasians" are just opinions and lingo preferred by some, just say fine, show me some evidence
Posts: 42947 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
@-Just Call Me Jari- No worries. I'm not going to delete anything. I'm just saying by cursing and getting emotional you're just showing your rival that he/she is getting under your skin. You can debunk your opponent without getting agitated.
Lioness You missed up the quotes. I did not post that.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Antalas You are too caught up in arguing against the term "Black" by using DNA. "Black" in the Western Sense doesn't have anything to do with Ancestry or even physicals features. It is a social term with EXTREMLY malleability. It even includes individuals who are physically "White".
Thus "Black People" who "Passed" for "White" could escape enslavement and hide in plain site among white America. You are arguing with folks who use "Black" to describe a wide range of features OR KNOWN African ancestry exclusive of physical features.
Its best to discard the term all together if you going to talk about DNA and just speak on biological affinities.
Not sure if your familiar with Antalas' talking points but I will warn you that he will not drop the term black when making certain arguments. For that same reason he will not give a percent of Eurasian admixture that he considers significant in SSA resulting in "Caucausoid" denotation.
It's all bait and switch. Similar to the makeshift uproar about blackwashing egypt in general media nowadays. It's all sensation and no real objectivity.
If one can use black to define someone with African ancestry or with enough pigmentation to pull them out of a certain range of lighter skinned then there's literally no argument to be had here.
How many objective answers could these questions generate; Could Nipsey Hustle pass as an A.Egyptian? Could Nipsey Hustle pass as an Afro-American?
Things we all should know - SSA - Subsaharan African is a misnomer. -What we Identify as "white" or lighter skinned Arab today was brought back to Africa during the Neolithic -By the terms that there was pervasive putative Eurasian admixture during the Epipaleolithic no African living today is 100% African
---
I'm actually starting to see a level of pointlessness in arguing a mention of SSA or black and Egypt in the same sentence. The reason why is because any assertion using black/SSA is built off of ill defined parameters. In which case the argument can be scaled or fine tuned in any which direction to try to prove a point. For instance showing pictures of the Sentenalese Asians side by side with AE reliefs and claiming that these weren't the same people. (...Well, no shit.) Or on the flip side showing an AEgyptian bust next to a living and breathing contemporary African American to point out the remarkable resemblance.
Instead questions which we should be asking. -Are all the people who would be considered black by any phenotypic parameter living in Egypt today descendants of newcomers in recent times? -was the A.Egyptian culture transplanted from Eurasia?
Asking these two questions begs the argument to have well defined and objective hard lines: A belief that light skin in Egypt or North Africa in general is unique to Northern Africa. OR That North Africans including Egypt are mainly peopled post Neolithic Europeans and Near/middle easterners (Widespread population replacement). And going hand in hand with the latter point, AE culturally has no ties to other possibly contemporaneous African Societies.
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bottom line, the fundamental point is that this isn't about words it is about skin color. We all know what "black" means and we all know why people object to it in reference to the ancient Nile Valley. And the fundamental reason is the historical effort from Europeans and others to separate the ancient Lower Nile Valley from the rest of Africa based on skin color. Which means the population of the ancient Nile in the minds of European race science and those who support it, were Eurasians and/or populations with very light skin complexion, unlike "black" Africans. And at the end of the day, the objection to the use of the word black is basically a rejection of dark skin color among ancient populations on the lower Nile. Nobody is confused about this and this isn't something new that has only just now come up on this forum. Everybody at this point knows what the issue is and folks pretending that this is about something else are being disingenuous.
The only way to determine the answer to this question is to look at the facts from ancient times. And the facts show clearly that the people of the ancient Nile were black Africans with a range of skin tones no different than other black Africans elsewhere in Africa. With their closest relatives being populations in Northern Sudan, the Western and Eastern Deserts and further into the horn. These are fundamental facts.
And then there is how they depicted themselves in the old kingdom:
So based on the idea that "self identity" should be used when applying labels to these populations, then this art should be seen as proof. If these populations identified as light skinned Eurasians, they would not have depicted themselves the way they did with obvious black African features. Anybody trying to deny this or ignore this is denying facts and distorting history to promote an agenda. There is no other way to say it, because if what they were saying is true, then the facts would back them up and there wouldn't be a debate. Not to mention on the point of "self identity", they used the literal word black in the name of the country. So saying that "black" has no place in a discussion of the ancient Nile and their self identity is just nonsense. And people pretending that there is some evidence or facts contrary to the above are just making up stuff, such as these arbitrary labels of caucasoid and negroid which are irrelevant to the points above. Both types of skulls can have black skin color, so they aren't mutually exclusive.
Posts: 8900 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: For that same reason he will not give a percent of Eurasian admixture that he considers significant in SSA resulting in "Caucausoid" denotation.
I actually gave a %
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I'm actually starting to see a level of pointlessness in arguing a mention of SSA or black and Egypt in the same sentence. The reason why is because any assertion using black/SSA is built off of ill defined parameters. In which case the argument can be scaled or fine tuned in any which direction to try to prove a point.
That's literally my point and that's why I propose a better definition.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic