I've read that you use the term 'pseudo scholar'to presumably describe African-American academics who argue that the Ancient Egyptians were black Africans.
Could you give your definition of 'pseudo scholar'? Diop and Obenga wiped the floor with the 18 or so hostile academics in the peopling of the Nile symposium 73-74. Are they pseudo scholars? Robin Walker and Runoko Rashidi demolished Oxford Don Stephen. Are Walker and Rashidi pseudo scholars?
How confident would you be debating the so-called 'pseudo scholars' on whether the Ancient Egyptians were black Africans?
I'm giving serious consideration to doing MAs in Egyptology and Bio-Anthropology here in London, followed up by a Ph.D in Egyptology. Given that my academic approach would be that the Egyptians were black Africans, would that make me a 'pseudo scholar'?
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
dude, not everyone is going to agree with you. it's just how it is. just focus on what you need to do and do you. doxie is society's average white girl. why do you care so much what she has to say about you?
Posts: 535 | From: From the Darkest of the Abyss | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry dude not gonna take the bait. BTW, I could care a less about the Ancient Egyptians, Cass has even chastised me on several occasions for saying they weren't White & well probably will again now LOL.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DHDoxies: Sorry dude not gonna take the bait. BTW, I could care a less about the Ancient Egyptians, Cass has even chastised me on several occasions for saying they weren't White & well probably will again now LOL.
I said to avoid non-scientific terminology.
'White' is not anthropological valid, neither is 'Black'.
AE was a Caucasoid civilization. I would probably breakdown its subracial composition as follows: Mediterranid (80%), Arabid (10%), Nordid (5%), Armenoid (3%), Alpine (1%), Turanid (1%).
Negroids only arrived in AE, as late as c. 2000 BC as slaves.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Given that my academic approach would be that the Egyptians were black Africans, would that make me a 'pseudo scholar'?
Afrocentrism is rejected, and is pseudo-history.
The mainstream view regarding ancient Egypt and race, is that the AE's were 'North Africans'.
Everyone knows North Africans are Caucasoid. Its just that political correctness has now restricted most scholars using Caucasoid or racial terminology, so instead they just say 'North African'. Same thing though...
quote:Originally posted by DHDoxies: Sorry dude not gonna take the bait. BTW, I could care a less about the Ancient Egyptians, Cass has even chastised me on several occasions for saying they weren't White & well probably will again now LOL.
I said to avoid non-scientific terminology.
'White' is not anthropological valid, neither is 'Black'.
AE was a Caucasoid civilization. I would probably breakdown its subracial composition as follows: Mediterranid (80%), Arabid (10%), Nordid (5%), Armenoid (3%), Alpine (1%), Turanid (1%).
Negroids only arrived in AE, as late as c. 2000 BC as slaves.
I would probably pull some made up figures out my arse...
@Doxie
Sorry dude not gonna take the bait.
You throw around 'pseudo scholar' but won't define what you mean. And no, you wouldn't publicly debate said pseudo scholars because you know that they are actually experts.
I'll tell you something, I'm confident that in a debate between so-called 'Afro-centrists' and mainstream Egyptologists on whether the Egyptians were black Africans, the 'Afro-centrists' would present a far more convincing - nay, irrefutable - case.
What do you reckon?
This question also to Anglo and the Lioness.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic