quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Were the Ancient Egyptians black? That is entirely up to you. But were they biologically African? It would seem that they were. After considering the full range of anatomical, linguistic, cultural, archeological and genetic evidence, Shomarka Keita feels confident in concluding that the original Egyptians by which he means the pre-dynastic people of Southern Egypt, who founded Egyptian civilization evolved entirely in Africa.
but...
Both culturally and biologically, he says,**they were more related to other Africans than they were to non-Africans from Europe or Asia.**
...and this is talking about pre-dynastic Egyptians. So why is that comment necessary at all? It reads like he is saying they were related somewhere down the line to those two groups. Is this what he's saying?
Were the Ancient Egyptians black? That is entirely up to you.
Really? Even after all the detailed studies it's entirely ''up to you''?
I think most people can see the outside influence much later in years after the pre-dynastic era.
Thus is the crux of the matter. This basically answers her question that YES an Angolan would be more related to an Egyptian than an Iraqi!
The Lyingass knows that biological African implies "black" which she is dreadful of acknowledging just as Keita avoids it like the plague.
what's wrong with you guys? Keita is a scientist. Explorer has explained that "Black" and "White" are social constructs.
So what place is there for such social construct words "Black" and "White" in Keita's scientific research?
If Keita's is wrong for not color coding the Egyptians "Black" then how would one color code Djehuti? what color is he?
quote:The problem with these loons, is that they have no idea what the heck, "Black" really means.
Sure we do (at least I do):
Black -> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.
quote:Their main aim is to spread blackness to cover all of the region known as Africa, so that by making all Africans Black, Ancient Egypt would be an easier addition to their thin history book (much needed, I might add).
Who is trying to say all Africans are "black"? Many Africans aren't. Egyptians are descended from sub-Saharan Africans- were these sub-Saharan Africans non-black? If yes, explain why.
quote:When you're that hungry for glory and fame, anything that unethical can become ethical, in order to achieve your goals.
quote:I feel sad for these people, because they should not be so ashamed of their West African Heritage.
Who's ashamed of their heritage? Name them. Not as if anyone here is saying they are descended from Egypt
quote:Many people have had humble origins, but went on to achieve great things in life, without having to resort to thievery, lies, and tricks.
How does west African descent equate to "humble"? Certainly not humble, west Africa had several great civilizations. And nobody is resorting to lies, tricks, or thievery. All that is offered here is evidence, nothing less. Except for you, who went on a mental breakdown and started trolling this forum with your stupidity, lies and tricks LOL!Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness, I've run across several people in the past few years in the U.S. just like the pictures you posted and they run as fast as they can to distance themselves from their dark skinned brethren. They try to attain the whiteness goal but it's unreachable for them. So they deny their melanin content under the guise of recognizing that light but unattainable blood. They get ticked when the dark skinned folks call them mutts and the white boys and girls say are you mixed.
Then they really get mad after being ''disowned'' so they run over to the mirror to figure out what's wrong and say damn, I'm neither. Then those in your picture take sides, sometimes willingly, and sometimes because they realize they got screwed when their mommy and daddy decided to have a fling in the procreation market. So they head back to the black side who in most cases say you've been one of us all along.
But the lighter, brighter folks don't have that prolem because they mommy and daddy were light skinned anyway so they can make the cut and not be recognized--in most cases. This group, if they know the picture group above will say sorry but you didn't make the cut, go someplace else with your troubles.
Now those who didn't make the cut are really irritated so they pop up on this site saying black people rob others of their culture. Why they get mad is beyond me. Being caught between two worlds must be really vexing to them. Yet I can't help them either, except to say they can continue blaming black people for their predicament thereby giving themselves some measure of revenge.
''So what place is there for such social construct words "Black" and "White" in Keita's scientific research?''
Does phenotypic expression ring a bell... even just a tiny bit-- just as Diop says?
You might better serve your position by moving away from the human race stance. Does anyone question that at all. Not me.
Mr. Keita is a scientist who happens to be caught between what his research shows but won't come out and say it for fear of being branded an Afrocentrist. This also may mean he needs his job just like anyone else; he may even have a family to support so why not play the game. Mr Keita knows the truth. If he doesn't then maybe he should quit the game and stop jumping through the establishment hoops and come right out and say ancient Egypt was like it is today. This way he won't have to resort to ambiguity such as ''That is entirely up to you''.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Mr. Keita is a scientist who happens to be caught between what his research shows but won't come out and say it for fear of being branded an Afrocentrist. This also may mean he needs his job just like anyone else; he may even have a family to support so why not play the game.
Now isn't this the truth, and multiplied by the number of black scientists who depend on funding from Jews, who will definitely challenge their funding at the first instance of expressing, TRUTH.
What we need are funding sources independent of traditional sources controlled by the mainstream, but that will not happen until blacks with resources begin to utilize them for more then purchasing European junk goods and services.
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The Lyingass fails to understand that all populations aboriginal to the African continent which is largely tropical but the rest tropical, would indeed be considered BLACK.
Are these ancient Egyptian royals below black??...
^ Of course they are. The ancient Egyptians may not technically live in "Sub-Sahara" but since when do populations have to live in Sub-Sahara to be black??
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: L' you're a dumb ass.
ausar you might as well give it up. With imbecilles like L' its hopeless to keep the forums clean.
Care to explain that? So says the forum troll! No surprise that you agree with the other troll, Farud_Buster
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other Saharan and Supra-Saharan Africans related to the Egyptian who are obviously black.
Haratin
Tuareg
Shluh
Nafusa
Siwa
Of course the Sahara didn't always exist, so it would be a lie to separate African populations into "Sub-Saharan" and "Saharan" etc.
As anyone can see these indigenous populations are all black, so it is not a matter of me or Grumman "desiring" all indigenous Africans to be black, rather it is a matter of FACT, plain and simple.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes at first I did complain that Keita avoids the use of the label 'black' for Egyptians, but now I see why...
It is because of the complaints from idiots like Lyingass and her kind who are so phobic and anti against the racially charged label.
He can choose not to use the label if he doesn't want to, however all of his research points to the same conclusion-- YES the ancient Egyptians ARE by our modern definitions BLACK people!
Lyingasses, Simpletons, Castrated-whites, and Khawaga-Muktaba bastards all be damned! This is the ultimate fact they cannot for their pathetic lives refute! Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
By definition, maybe. Not sure if I would call all of them "black"
quote:Is your answer based on "because Random House told me so"?
Uh... Last time I checked, dictionary's define words. So yeah, I use the definition of a word to be able to use it. Unlike you, who keeps regurgitating the same crap while not understanding explanations given.
quote:Are only the people of Africa, Oceania, and Australia "black"? Are some of these people "black" but others brown?
Can you not read? Especially of Oceania Australia and Africa does not mean the term is restricted to those regions. Just emphasizes on them.
quote:Or are they all black?
If they fit the definition
quote:Explain to me why they are black and not the other people I posted. Or is this guy
Who is "they"? If they are dark-skinned people then they fit the definition. Whether or not they consider themselves black or if the world doesn't perceive them as such, doesn't change the definition. Mind you, not every brown skinned person is black. Brown skinned people of African descent- sure, they can fit the definition. But not every single slightly pigmented person is black.
quote: just as black if not blacker than
this guy:
"because Random house said so" will not suffice.
They have darker skin, but they are not black. As I said, just because some people may have darker skin than white people does not make them black. However, some darker people, especially of African, Ociana and Australian descent are black. Whilst other dark skinned people are not
Remember, it's a social construct, perceived by society. Not everybody is perceived as "black" just because they have dark skinPosts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ L, don't even bother entertaining the idiot girl's silly ass questions. She knows what the answers are and why.
And she knows that the ancient Egyptians and all other aboriginal populations of Africa are BLACK plain and simple. No need for examples of non-black Eurasians or modern examples of multiracial white-mixed folk.
She is a mixed up (mentally as well as ethnically) idiot like the troll Jaimie of many aliases.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: which of these people are black?
Last time I checked, dictionary's define words. So yeah, I use the definition of a word to be able to use it...
Not sure if I would call all of them "black"
well despite your use of the dictionary you are still unsure of who's who
Djehuti can't figure it out either. That's why he's urging you to not bother.
Just avoid any definition that would lead to being sure. That way you can take any anthropological discussion and just throw in the word "black" or "white" at random like professor Djehuti according to how you feel that day. No proof or solid definition necessary.
let me know when you figure out who's who. -or just do away with these ridiculous terms "black" and "white", the skin color coding stereotypes that was invented by some Europeans in the 19th century
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Thank you for showing me that you failed to comprehend. Instead you chose to ignore my post and pretend I don't know what "black" entails. You see, if you really found something wrong with my post, you would have quoted and responded to it. Apparently you were unable to do so- hence demonstrating you don't actually have a response
DJehuti suggested I not bother, precisely because of the type of failure you've just demonstrated.
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by L': ^Thank you for showing me that you failed to comprehend. Instead you chose to ignore my post and pretend I don't know what "black" entails. You see, if you really found something wrong with my post, you would have quoted and responded to it. Apparently you were unable to do so- hence demonstrating you don't actually have a response
DJehuti suggested I not bother, precisely because of the type of failure you've just demonstrated.
I did quote you. Again:
quote:Originally posted by L': Not sure if I would call all of them "black"
what could be more clear than this? Of the pictures I posted you are uncertain of what "black" enatils because when given examples you have been found to be "uncertain" you should have listened to Djehuti,
now you have been caught in a classic lioness trap
join professor Djehuti in the abyss of racial taxonomy
peace to argyle104Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correction: you focused on one sentence that was clearly explained in the full post. Maybe you should have read the entire post, especially the last part. It was clearly explained why they don't fit the definition. You can't understand my argument unless you actually read it.
LMAO! A trap? I don't think so. You're clearly retarded
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by L': Correction: you focused on one sentence that was clearly explained in the full post. Maybe you should have read the entire post, especially the last part. It was clearly explained why they don't fit the definition. You can't understand my argument unless you actually read it.
LMAO! A trap? I don't think so. You're clearly retarded
I read everything you said thoroughly.
The statements you have made you have given no explanation. For example I have shown several dark skinned people. You argee with Random House that "Blacks" are members of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia but give no explanation as to why Africa, Oceania, and Australia have have been singled out as "especially" being comprised of "black people" -when we can find people just as dark in closer proximity to each other, for example South Indians. One could also look at a Khosian person and some of them might be lighter than a Palestinian. This word "especially" is an escape hatch. If there are blacks originating in places other than Africa, Oceania, and Australia then what is defining them as "black" and some other person, say a South American just as dark, same latitude, not "black" ? So once that "especially" thing is in there than a definition "black" = dark skinned person of Africa, Oceania, and Australia cannot be made Because now we have some dark skinned persons who are supposedly not "black" and also some persons who are black but not African, Oceanian or Australian. So there must be some other factor not mentioned, undefined. And who are these dark skinned persons who are not "blacks" are they "browns" ? If "black" is a valid term then "white" has to be a valid term. What is your definition of "white" ? Another can of worms which has no place in a scientific discussion.
You made several vague statements about what "black" means which you have not been able to apply to discern actual examples.
I have given you a fair set of examples. You have failed to tell us who is black after claiming you knew how to. This will have to be taken as a loss.
quote:The statements you have made you have given no explanation.
Sure I have
quote:For example I have shown several dark skinned people. You argee with Random House that "Blacks" are members of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia but give no explanation as to why Africa, Oceania, and Australia have have been singled out as "especially" being comprised of "black people"
Especially because inhabitants of those regions are especially dark skinned LOL! Should that not be obvious?
quote:This word "especially" is an escape hatch. If there are blacks originating in places other than Africa, Oceania, and Australia then what is defining them as "black" and some other person, say a South American just as dark, same latitude, not "black" ?[QUOTE] Explained:
[QUOTE]Originally posted b L': Remember, it's a social construct, perceived by society. Not everybody is perceived as "black" just because they have dark skin
Are you in agreement that it is a social construct? If so, you should have no trouble understanding that people are defined as "black" by society.
quote:So once that "especially" thing is in there than a definition "black" = dark skinned person of Africa, Oceania, and Australia cannot be made Because now we have some dark skinned persons who are supposedly not "black" and also some persons who are black but not African, Oceanian or Australian. So there must be some other factor not mentioned, undefined. And who are these dark skinned persons who are not "blacks" are they "browns" ?
Especially is thrown in because those people especially have dark skin. Dark skinned doesn't necessarily mean dark relative to light skin. That is, the brown skin people you posted are not perceived as "black". However, if you had a brown skin person of African descent, then they would be perceived as black because they are of African descent. While other brown skin people are not. Again, this was also stated in my post. What do you mean by "browns"? Since when was the term brown a socially defined definition? Last I checked, society doesn't label people with brown skin as "browns" that is absurd.
quote:If "black" is a valid term then "white" has to be a valid term. What is your definition of "white" ? Another can of worms which has no place in a scientific discussion.
My definition of white? My definition would be light skinned people of European descent.
quote:You made several vague statements about what "black" means which you have not been able to apply to discern actual examples.
According to you. However, everything in your post was already addressed in mine.
quote:I have given you a fair set of examples. You have failed to tell us who is black after claiming you knew how to. This will have to be taken as a loss.
No... I made myself perfectly clear. You basically took what I wrote and made it into a big question, lol. Stop asking things I already explained. The only loss here, is my loss of time
quote:lioness productions
Psycho Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted y the lioness I have given you a fair set of examples. You have failed to tell us who is black after claiming you knew how to. This will have to be taken as a loss.
No... I made myself perfectly clear. You basically took what I wrote and made it into a big question, lol. Stop asking things I already explained. The only loss here, is my loss of time
your clarity is of no use if you cannot apply it to the photos of the people I posted.
your clarity must apply to something other than having to use it in an actual situation. Proof of this is that your "clarity" lead to you stating that you were quote "uncertain" of who of the above were "black" therefore in actuality you are unclear about which of these people are black and which are not
.
"Black" may be a social construct but that does not define what is "black" and what use is a social construct when you are dealing with hard data like genetics which has a measured standard?
To call it a "social construct" is to give it little value because it is then whatever people want it to be. Go into society and ask them what black means you get a million answers. What percentage would even mention Oceana and Australia?
I am reporting you to Shomarka on Monday,
using skin color as identity
-not ancient
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:your clarity is of no use if you cannot apply it to the photos of the people I posted.
Can and have LOL!
quote:your clarity must apply to something other than having to use it in an actual situation. Proof of this is that your "clarity" lead to you stating that you were quote "uncertain" of who of the above were "black" therefore in actuality you are unclear about which of these people are black and which are not
NO THEY ARE NOT BLACK Was that not made clear to you when I said that not every darker than white person is black, because they are not perceived as black? Or was I unclear?
quote: "Black" may be a social construct but that does not define what is "black" and what use is a social construct when you are dealing with hard data like genetics which has a measured standard?
The definition defines what it is. And the definition given, is various dark skinned peoples especially those from Ociana, Africans, and Australians. Why these people especially you ask? Because, in society they are perceived as "black" people.
quote:To call it a "social construct" is to give it little value because it is then whatever people want it to be. Go into society and ask them what black means you get a million answers. What percentage would even mention Oceana and Australia?
Social construct:
"There are certainly many things, and facts about them, that are socially constructed in the sense specified by this core idea: money, citizenship and newspapers, for example. None of these things could have existed without society; and each of them could have been constructed differently had we so chosen."
Not everybody has to agree on who is black. Those people are considered black because of their Dark Skin And unless I am mistaken, Africans, Aboriginals, have been historically defined as black people.
quote:I am reporting you to Shomarka on Monday,
using skin color as identity
-not ancient
See, you ARE a psycho What do you mean using skin color as an identity?
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Grumman: ''So what place is there for such social construct words "Black" and "White" in Keita's scientific research?''
Does phenotypic expression ring a bell... even just a tiny bit-- just as Diop says?
You might better serve your position by moving away from the human race stance. Does anyone question that at all. Not me.
Mr. Keita is a scientist who happens to be caught between what his research shows but won't come out and say it for fear of being branded an Afrocentrist. This also may mean he needs his job just like anyone else; he may even have a family to support so why not play the game. Mr Keita knows the truth. If he doesn't then maybe he should quit the game and stop jumping through the establishment hoops and come right out and say ancient Egypt was like it is today. This way he won't have to resort to ambiguity such as ''That is entirely up to you''.
What do you mean by: "same as it is today"? Care to elaborate?
He leaves it up to the individual to decide whether or not the ancient Egyptians were "black". Simply because such things are subjective. His research does not show that the modern population is the same as the ancient though, but exactly the opposite
posted
^ It's obvious the lyingass is lying to herself if she thinks that we cannot define what 'black' is or that the ancient Egyptians could not fall into that category. She lost and she knows it.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by L': NO THEY ARE NOT BLACK Was that not made clear to you when I said that not every darker than white person is black, because they are not perceived as black? Or was I unclear?
you were unclear earlier and now you are clear. You are saying none of the above persons is black thank you
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
this is what I said, with pertinent information in brackets:
Mr Keita knows the truth. [That ancient Egyptians were black or dark skinned]. If he doesn't then maybe he should quit the game and stop jumping through the establishment hoops and come right out and say ancient Egypt was like it is today. [Meaning if he doesn't want to flat out say they were dark or black because of possible backlash from the establishment then he should go on and say they looked then as they are today as per the establishment view.]
''He leaves it up to the individual to decide whether or not the ancient Egyptians were "black".
He doesn't have to convince me or too many other people to decide on anything, he should say it himself because his research shows it. But... on the other hand Mr. Keita may be sarcastically saying, with the controversy swirling around this, his ''entirely up to you '' remark itself is a slap at the establishment; meaning if you read the data then you will know black is true. If this (his) sarcasm is the case then I will agree with him.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by L': His data does not support the use of such terms.
quote:you were unclear earlier and now you are clear. You are saying none of the above persons is black thank you
No, not all of them. And I did make myself clear before, you just didn't understand.
Grumman, does it support use of the word "black"? How can you apply a social concept to scientific research?
BTW, your revised statement was much clearer
I understand that it's clear when you say "not all" you refuse to take responsibility for applying your use of the term "black" or "not black" to specific individuals. The exposure continues, how your methodology is demonstrated in specific cases remains unclear because you are afraid to apply it and back what you say. you are a nothing but a puppy at this point. The "L" stands for lack of example
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:I understand that it's clear when you say "not all" you refuse to take responsibility for applying your use of the term "black" or "not black" to specific individuals. The exposure continues, how your methodology is demonstrated in specific cases remains unclear because you are afraid to apply it and back what you say. you are a nothing but a puppy at this point. The "L" stands for lack of example
Sure I can, the third image is an aborigine, and they fit into the definition. I felt no need to state that, as I thought it should have been fairly obvious which people I would call "black" based on the given definition.
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
''His research does not show that the modern population is the same as the ancient though, but exactly the opposite.''
...and I agreed to that. But you now say:
Grumman, does it support use of the word "black"? How can you apply a social concept to scientific research?''
Then you don't agree they were black after saying they were 'exactly the opposite' from modern day Egyptians, that is, dark skinned people, and black?
Just so you know from now on, all the pictures above are black people. Yes I said it. Now if you want to say they aren't black in terms of defining who they are then fine; and no I'm not talking about a social construct, just a phenotypic expression, which is some of that science you're talking about. Now if you want to distance yourself from black after saying otherwise above then that's okay too. But that won't get Lioness off your case.
I'm sure Lioness and a lot of others will take issue with what I said also.
Here's a question for you re Mr Keita. After I suggested Mr. Keita was being sarcastic when he said ''That's entirely up to you'' what do you think he meant by it? I take note you already said it is ''up to you.'' Do you still stand by that?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I do agree they were mainly dark-skinned and within a social perspective "black". I do not see how you can apply social concepts to science though. In other words, you can't force your interpretation of the work onto the study. The study may suggest they were saharo-tropical, if you interpret that to mean black, then OK. But you cannot force that interpretation on the study.
Of course the modern population is not entirely reflective of the ancient one. That still doesn't justify forcing my interpretation onto that fact. How exactly is saying that the population changed equal to use of "black"?
"Phenotypic expression"? What does that entail?
I think what Keita meant by his statement is that it is up to the individuals interpretation of the results. One could conclude they were "white" by looking at Keita's work, and indeed some have (foolishly).
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
''I do agree they were mainly dark-skinned and within a social perspective "black". I do not see how you can apply social concepts to science though. In other words, you can't force your interpretation of the work onto the study. The study may suggest they were dark-skinned, if you interpret that to mean black, then OK. But you cannot force that interpretation on the study.''
If the study suggests they were black or dark skinned how is my interpretation forced.
Look at this: if a very dark Sudanese has tightly curled hair and an Asian Indian had the same color skin but with straight hair, will you see any difference in the two? Won't they both be black?
''"Phenotypic expression"? What does that entail?''
Simply stated: what you look like.
Another question for you. Did social construct/concept come before phenotype or after?
''I think what Keita meant by his statement is that it is up to the individuals interpretation of the results.''
Yes, that's the reason we're talking because Mr. Keita said that.
A lot of individuals aren't scientists. Neither am I. And what if some scientists say they were black. Would Mr. Keita take issue with them (you think).
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
''I do agree they were mainly dark-skinned and within a social perspective "black". I do not see how you can apply social concepts to science though. In other words, you can't force your interpretation of the work onto the study. The study may suggest they were dark-skinned, if you interpret that to mean black, then OK. But you cannot force that interpretation on the study.''
If the study suggests they were black or dark skinned how is my interpretation forced.
My mistake. Even though he hasn't stated that in his research, he has stated elsewhere that they would have been dark. Thanks. I realise that it is OK to apply black to ancient Egyptians so long as it is defined and that definition is supported.
quote:Look at this: if a very dark Sudanese has tightly curled hair and an Asian Indian had the same color skin but with straight hair, will you see any difference in the two? Won't they both be black?
Sure
quote:''"Phenotypic expression"? What does that entail?''
Simply stated: what you look like.
You used that term as if their phenotypic expression showed them to be black. I guess that works
quote:Another question for you. Did social construct/concept come before phenotype or after?
After of course. Which kind of raises problems when trying to label an ancient population by modern concepts
quote:''I think what Keita meant by his statement is that it is up to the individuals interpretation of the results.''
Yes, that's the reason we're talking because Mr. Keita said that.
A lot of individuals aren't scientists. Neither am I. And what if some scientists say they were black. Would Mr. Keita take issue with them (you think).
I think he might. Keita has stated that he doesn't call anybody but himself black and that's for political reasons. His research shows that they (Egyptians) were saharo-tropical variants which seems to include dark skin
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
''You used that term as if their phenotypic expression showed them to be black. I guess that works.''
Yes it works for me. Not you nor Lioness.
Even though the hue of their skin doesn't show ''black,'' to me, they are, but only because of admixture. Lioness will say, among others, that those photos don't show black as a color and that it shows white and blacks are different people, but at the same time claiming same origins.
Yet it is interesting to note some here will say black people turned into white folks because of latitude change and maybe a little climate as filler material, probably even ''neighborhood-to-neighbohood evolution.'' And those same folks will say white people aren't black people; today of course, but just related. So, if the original people were black from Africa and they then made the transition to white at some distant point in the past then should Black people be proud of their ability to change into white folks and say ''see, you're one of us.'' Is that a fair assessment? And don't forget dark phenotype sets a lot of light skinned people off. Can you agree to this?
Is this where that self-hate develops. Isn't this where psychology makes an appearance, or should. Yet I don't subscribe to self-hate at all but some do. Then again they may be mad when they say it and don't know what it means, if anything. But they say it anyway.
Another question for you. With the diversity it has today do you think all Africans in the remote past had the same ancestor or several? I think there may be several but what say you to this?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic