I, like everyone else, can post and my posts remain day after day.
Mike is permanently banned. Nothing of his can stay up longer than I allow.
It takes time for a disruptor to compose and post and hang around for the between post delay to time out.
At my leisure (and any time I chose) In less than 3 seconds I can make disruptors' posts or threads disappear forever or edit text as I please.
The forum wins, no stalemate.
Why is Tukuler banning the most popular posters on the Ancient Egypt Forum. This begs the question: "Is Tukuler a Government agent?"
A moderator should not ban someone just because they disagree with him. Tukuler has said disrespectful things to many people, especially lioness and no one banned him. But like the Emperor with new clothes he feels he is beyond criticism, and bans anyone he does not like.
The owners of ES were not making money off the Egyptology forum, because the writers their were timid and proper negroes who didn't rock the boat. But here at Ancient Egypt Forum we were bold and traffic started picking up, and the owners were making more money.
The controllers of Tukuler have told him to find a way to get the major proponents of Afrocentrism off Ancient Egypt so income for the site will decline. That is why Tukuler is focusing on anyone that is popular. They hope that less income will end the Ancient Egypt forum.
I believe Europeans originated in the caves. Mike's campaign to popularize use of the term albino to refer to Europeans has been highly successful. Now it is being used everywhere. That is why the controllers of Tukuler has told him that Mike must go. They have told him to do this, even if he loses his cover. But you can bet he is posting on Egyptsearch and Egyptsearch Reloaded under various alias. Due to the arrogance of Tukuler he will give clues to his true identity while using his aliases .
Tukuler has a dilemma to retain his street credit he should stop banning Mike's post.On the other hand, to remain on the Government payroll, he has to keep "trying" to ban Mike.
Tukuler feels he can get away with this trickology because he is pretending he is black and his attack on Afrocentrism will be seen as a Black on Black crime. But Tukuler dosen't understand that a real brother or sister can see through this false-flag operation. It is a false-flag operation because Mike has not written anything to be banned for.
What is this undercover government agent going to do? Keep his cover by ignoring Mike, or go for broke by continuing the ban. You can bet that if the ban continues people are not going to move to Egyptsearch Reloaded, where Tukuler is also a moderator.Tukuler only has power as long as he is thought to be Afro-American.
Members of the ES community should stop hiding their heads in the sand and speak out about this negative behavior. There is no need to be silent, because you can bet that if more and more people stop viewing this site it will be shutdown anyway. Express herein what you feel about Tukuler's moderation of ES.
[ 02. May 2015, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: ausar ]
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well we know Mike is also government agent planted to lend credibility to the idea that Africnas are stupid and backward. Is it possible that they are both agents from different branches of black ops organizations, that are compteing? We know for example that the FBI and CiA are competative with one another and sometimes don't share information, and Mike does have that connection to the office of Naval Intelligence There's also the possibility that it is a good cop bad cop theatrical performance where they are both working for the same operation
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my opinion there is no policy and there is no moderator There is a person who has control of the delete button and they don't like to be taunted So I don't and continue to post
and Mike has asked for me to be banned many times so the chickens have come home to roost
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: and Mike has asked for me to be banned many times so the chickens have come home to roost
The reason Mike has repeatedly asked for you to be banned from his threads is that your counterarguments are mocking, contemptuous and insulting to those who make proper attempts to present evidence and reasoning to support their views and you know it.
Here is a good example of the arguments you make which prove that you have no respect for hose who debate here. You think people are stupid enough to believe that swarthy is a term that was used to describe a person like George Bush at some type in the past.
I am fully in agreement with Mike on account of this
This banning by deleting edits began in earnest when Mike posted a thread about Palestinians and Israel, stating that the Middle East problem was one involving the so called Turk and their mulatto kinsmen fighting over a piece of territory none of them had genuine claims to as both parties were not the original inhabitants of the land.
Obviously he was getting in deep about the absurdity and evidently fraudulent nature of the whole Israel-Palestine issue and that is when ausar started getting bolshie. Fear of some real or imagined retribution from the Zionist powers that be started this whole thing.
Mike has been insulting people left and right from day one and many people have responded firmly to him, including myself, but no one has called for his banning. It has been tolerated here by many of the people he attacks. In my view this is the deeper reason for Mike's banning, because he was beginning to bring his viewpoint to bear on one of the major geopolitical issues of our time and ausar has turned chicken.
Well this is Egyptsearch and Israel-Palestine issue is a major issue for present day Egypt as a great deal of biblical history revolved and continues to revolve around Egypt. If it can't be discussed here with an Egyptsearch flavour, then this forum requires a different name. After all present day Israel as part of Ancient Egypt and recent Egypt as well, and it can't be separated from so called Albino political agendas.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I don't give a **** what any of you post about me but I am not allowing white Euro people and descendents to be called Albino
I edited the pejorative from the above post as a courtesy to the poster this one time but in future he too will be handled as all others -- posts not in line with ES Constitution will simply be deleted in full.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
The reason Mike has repeatedly asked for you to be banned from his threads is that your counterarguments are mocking, contemptuous and insulting to those who make proper attempts to present evidence and reasoning to support their views and you know it.
Here is a good example of the arguments you make which prove that you have no respect for hose who debate here. You think people are stupid enough to believe that swarthy is a term that was used to describe a person like George Bush at some type in the past.
I am fully in agreement with Mike on account of this
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I don't give a **** what any of you post about me but I am not allowing white Euro people and descendents to be called Albino
I edited the pejorative from the above post as a courtesy to the poster this one time but in future he too will be handled as all others -- posts not in line with ES Constitution will simply be deleted in full.
posted
I haven't had problems with Tukuler lately, there has been exchange of information on Ibn Majid, Arab sailing ships, Swahili etc Mike and crew like to call people of other ethnic groups by names they don't call themselves, that leads to ongoing disprutions. Doing that always leads to unproductive conflict and gives the forum a bigoted character
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
And just in case for the ignorant. Anyone replying to banned posters will have their replies deleted otherwise the ban is meaningless.
Consider yourselves privileged. You the asshole crowd (Clyde etc.) who drove away the members who made the real reputation of ES before the Lioness;, Clyde Winters and Mike111 ran ES into the ground with their bullshit c.2007-2009. the Lioness; has tried to re-invent herself as a non-troll but everybody except Baby Nuts knows her history.
The ES innovators left because there was no effective moderation. Don't claim a default as a victory.
ES is a powerful resource and after inviting user input for the forums direction with next to no input I am left to my own devices intended to mold these forums into the premier discussion board for African Studies et al seen through Afrikan Eyes for mature respectful adults and teens to discuss and debate free from uncalled for insults to their person, race, nationality, religion, ethnicity etc
AND IF YOU DON"T LIKE IT ...
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Ausar As a matter of fact you haven't and you are not exhibiting any moral authority here whatsoever, just a plain abuse of your power to edit posts.
You have just used a derogatory term by calling Clyde an asshole, and you replied to my post with a blanked out cuss word.
I don't give a **** what any of you post about me but I am not allowing white Euro people and descendents to be called Albino
I edited the pejorative from the above post as a courtesy to the poster this one time but in future he too will be handled as all others -- posts not in line with ES Constitution will simply be deleted in full.
What moral authority then do you have to censor or ban posts by people whose terms offend you when you use equally offensive terms? All you are doing is proving that you don't have the moral wisdom which would give the owners of the forum good cause to grant you proper moderator powers in the certainty that you will not abuse them whimsically and capriciously as are you are doing now.
It is hard to tell what undermines the image of Egyptsearch more - the sight of blank post after blank post after blank post for whatever reason, or Mike's derogatory statements.
Now coming to the word Albino.
Portuguese albino, diminutive of albo, from Latin albus (“white”).
To what extent has the word Albino as a term referring to white Europeans come into mainstream usage outside Mike's realhistory website and other Afrocentric oriented blogs to the point of triggering a backlash from the broader white population to be categorized as a perjorative term? For Mike alone to use the word in a perjorative manner in relation to whites as a result of inadequate melanin production does not make the word itself on offensive term, any more than using the word Negro to describe black people constitute an offensive term although some people construe it as offensive.
The every day meaning of the word Albino itself can be repurposed away from its general meaning where it refers to people with inadequate melanin. It is already used to refer to some white organisms in general and there is no reason why that can't be extended to includes human beings (outside its current relationship to albinism). If the word Albino is an offensive term then it is wrong to describe people with albinism as albinos as well as you could be accused of labelling people according to a biological condition. There are all kinds of genetically inherited diseases that are not used to label who have them and there is no reason why those with albinism should be an exception.
The other point is that whites do not have a monopoly on the use and introduction of European language terminology unless you ausar insist that they must, and you have no right to restrict the use of language in any place so long as the people there consider it appropriate. Albino as used to describe white people can be considered as a neologism introduced by Mike, just as the word Negro is used to describe black people and mulatto is used to describe mixed race people. What you are claiming is the right to determine what words can be introduced into the general lexicon and to put it bluntly you don't. Mike can be very offensive and I have had cause to criticize before as you can see here and if you feel he should be banned on account of his offensiveness that is fine, but you clearly don't have the proper powers and you shouldn't claim them as you are only defacing threads and making yourself look ridiculous.
On the other hand when it comes to the word albino as used to describe white people you clearly are not entitled to any such powers as the word has not entered into mainstream usage for a proper opinion to be formed as to its appropriateness or offensiveness. If some regular posters on Egyptsearch are offended by the term there should be a proper debate on it, and it should include a debate as to whether Egyptsearchers in their own community are entitled to introduce words into their lexicon which may or may not be adopted by society at large later on. After all scholastic and academic communities, and in fact communities of all kinds are able to introduce neologisms involving existing and completely new words and there is no reason why Egyptsearch should be an exception.
As to whether white people, or the condition of being white is a form of albinism and thus justifies the biological albino label that is entirely another matter and can be debated separately. If it is viewed as such then there can't be anything wrong with extending the term to white people in general, and if it is offensive then it must also be equally offensive to label those with albinism in the contemporary biological sense as albinos, as it is only a matter of degree.
As to whether Mike should be banned or not there should be a proper discussion on it, and if a majority or a substantial number of regular posters feel he should be banned then so be it. He can then be given a warning, and if he doesn't change then it is right to ban him permanently. But there should be a proper discussion so he sees that it is coming from Egyptsearchers as a whole, not just one piqued administrator.
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Consider yourselves privileged. You the asshole crowd (Clyde etc.) who drove away the members who made the real reputation of ES before the Lioness;, Clyde Winters and Mike111 ran ES into the ground with their bullshit c.2007-2009. the Lioness; has tried to re-invent herself as a non-troll but everybody except Baby Nuts knows her history. the Lioness; has tried to re-invent herself as a non-troll but everybody except Baby Nuts knows her history.
The Lioness says Jan. 2010 account creation. So were they on earlier ES accounts? I don't also know ES history. My first account was created in Dec. 2010, and I seriously posted here from 2011. Archived posts on this forum go back as far as 2002-2003.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway, its rather odd there is this late a crack down on the black supremacists (e.g. Melanin theory) proponents like Mike111 on this forum. I've complained about these posters since 2011-2012, and no action was then taken. These people were OK all that time to post their hate and propaganda (distorted history/lies) against whites as defective albinos, yet if a white poster retaliated - they ended up being stalked, harassed and branded a "racist".
If you look around on other forums which mention Egyptsearch: this place is always regarded as a black supremacist/hardcore Afrocentrist loon website. Banning Mike111 now will not change anything. It should have been done years back.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Habsburg: @Ausar As a matter of fact you haven't and you are not exhibiting any moral authority here whatsoever,
You think I'm your boy GeeZeus or somebody? Tell you what, you turn your cheeks.
Maybe you think I'm a doormat?
Try wiping your feet on me and I'll cut off your legs.
How's that for morality sucker?
Here you are vindicating the very point I made about you. I made my arguments very clearly and the response of any intelligent moderator would be to respond to the points I made one by one, and yet all you have done is to respond in the same manner that Mike does when he doesn't have an intelligent rebuttal, and you claim to a better person than Mike.
If ES has a person like you as a moderator then it is no wonder that the reputation suffers. Your response tarnishes the reputation of ES as much as some of Mike's commentary does, and it is even worse because as a moderator you are supposed to be above that. How pathetic!!
A regular visitor to this site could easily believe that Mike has taken over your account is pretending to be you from this kind of response.
I am sorry it has to come to this, but it looks like you are not the only Egyptsearcher who forgets to take his medication regularly. This whole thing is degenerating into farce. It has gone way beyond absurdity.
If you wish to be respected as a moderator then at the very least endeavour to respond in a civil manner, and don't sink or even drop below the level of those whose conduct you criticize.
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
Mike111 is permanently outta here Kdolo is making way to the same place
Replies to either one will be deleted maybe those continuing to reply to banned former members should get the ban too as they are going against the best interest of the forums.
Here's an idea Maybe you can make your own forum where you can play the dopey straight arrow moderator from Teletubbyland?
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
African proverb: In a great house, there are all kinds of people. Let the spat drop.
Tukuler I did speak before at the beginning of your spat with Mike111. I said let it be. You said I said this and I said that, so I cooled it off.
Mike111 has been here for years and the sky did not fall, even with some of his more edgy presentations. Let it be. Cool off the bad vibes.
I told Mike111 that his anti-African rants would discredit him eventually despite his great research skills in other areas. And it will if he does not step up higher. Well, this spat proves my point. But be the big man, let it be. Drop the spat.
But if Mike111 is irrational as you would claim, his irrationality will undermine him ultimately. Your censorship of Mike111 is not in good taste. It looks small and vindictive and makes Mike111 a martyr.
Remember Mike111 could always re-register under a new name and continue. So what good does it make to ban him?
If you will listen to me again, let it be. Drop the spat.
All muurs must remain one. In a great man's house, there are all kinds of people.
IronLion
-------------------- Lionz Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dead: Anyway, its rather odd there is this late a crack down on the black supremacists (e.g. Melanin theory) proponents like Mike111 on this forum. I've complained about these posters since 2011-2012, and no action was then taken. These people were OK all that time to post their hate and propaganda (distorted history/lies) against whites as defective albinos, yet if a white poster retaliated - they ended up being stalked, harassed and branded a "racist".
If you look around on other forums which mention Egyptsearch: this place is always regarded as a black supremacist/hardcore Afrocentrist loon website. Banning Mike111 now will not change anything. It should have been done years back.
You should have been banned when you made numerous posts saying that Black people were ugly
To hell with you
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dead: Anyway, its rather odd there is this late a crack down on the black supremacists (e.g. Melanin theory) proponents like Mike111 on this forum. I've complained about these posters since 2011-2012, and no action was then taken. These people were OK all that time to post their hate and propaganda (distorted history/lies) against whites as defective albinos, yet if a white poster retaliated - they ended up being stalked, harassed and branded a "racist".
If you look around on other forums which mention Egyptsearch: this place is always regarded as a black supremacist/hardcore Afrocentrist loon website. Banning Mike111 now will not change anything. It should have been done years back.
You should have been banned when you made numerous posts saying that Black people were ugly
To hell with you
I never did. lol. I said 'nappy hair' was, or rather is not aesthetically pleasing. This is a single trait, not a population/race. I was on Somali forums for years and had friends there - they all posted the same. Are they racists too? Is Chris Rock also a racist? Rock's documentary is called Good Hair. Mike111's posts are nothing like mine.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yea, i didn't even criticize braids or dreadlocks etc. Confirming Truth also created a dozen or more threads about 'nappy hair', posting far more than me while agreeing with me. CT was a black guy. It seems strange then that I would be singled out for racism here.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those posts of mine on hair are 3-4 years old, I wouldn't now try and defend a "majority" consensus of what is aesthetically pleasing. Instead I recognise too many people have different tastes. But I think its rather sad for you to pigeon-hole me with Mike111, on some comments I made about hair.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dead: Yea, i didn't even criticize braids or dreadlocks etc. Confirming Truth also created a dozen or more threads about 'nappy hair', posting far more than me while agreeing with me. CT was a black guy. It seems strange then that I would be singled out for racism here.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Dead):
Basically no one wants black physical features and they are considered ugly. It was Chris Rock's own daughter who said to him why do blacks have ugly hair and why couldn't she have straight hair like a white girl.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:(Dead) The only good sub-saharan african models have Caucasoid admixture. Some Ethiopians aren't bad, since they have Caucasoid craniofacial traits, but their hair is usually nappy and ugly, through the Negriod side of mixture.
The best looking girls in Africa are the purer Caucasoids from the North:
An Algerian model
They have the matching natural wavy hair for the good facial features.
Trolls like Zaharan of course knows this, which is why he is desperate to claim North African Caucasoid or whites are ''Blacks'' falling within ''tropical african diversity'' bullshit. LOL. Do you think this Algerian model above identifies though as ''black''.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Dead)
I'm of north-western european descent, living in UK. I have no mixed ancestry.
Just because you are an ugly half-breed, doesn't mean everyone is.
quote:Originally posted by Dead: Yea, i didn't even criticize braids or dreadlocks etc. Confirming Truth also created a dozen or more threads about 'nappy hair', posting far more than me while agreeing with me. CT was a black guy. It seems strange then that I would be singled out for racism here.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Dead):
Basically no one wants black physical features and they are considered ugly. It was Chris Rock's own daughter who said to him why do blacks have ugly hair and why couldn't she have straight hair like a white girl.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:(Dead) The only good sub-saharan african models have Caucasoid admixture. Some Ethiopians aren't bad, since they have Caucasoid craniofacial traits, but their hair is usually nappy and ugly, through the Negriod side of mixture.
The best looking girls in Africa are the purer Caucasoids from the North:
An Algerian model
They have the matching natural wavy hair for the good facial features.
Trolls like Zaharan of course knows this, which is why he is desperate to claim North African Caucasoid or whites are ''Blacks'' falling within ''tropical african diversity'' bullshit. LOL. Do you think this Algerian model above identifies though as ''black''.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Dead)
I'm of north-western european descent, living in UK. I have no mixed ancestry.
Just because you are an ugly half-breed, doesn't mean everyone is.
No links, and these aren't the proper quotes. You're cutting them up deliberately when context is only hair like I said. e.g. the first quote you cut off:
quote:I believe Chris Rock did a documentary-movie on black females and their crisis over their hair. He discovered there is a multi-billion pound industry in America among black woman who want straight hair like white females. So they waste all their money attempting to straighten their afro/wooly hair (which never looks natural anyway when they attempt to straighten it).
And like I said above, white people were harassed with Mike111's style of black supremacism on this forum, suddenly though if a white poster retaliates with some insensitive posts, they are demonized and singled out as 'racist'. Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where have I ever posted a single racial slur, or something like "blacks are inferior"? My only old insensitive posts focused on hair texture in mostly racially sensitive threads where I was receiving abuse myself, nothing comparable to Mike111's racism/supremacism.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
In case you didn't realize, I already apologized for any insensitive posts made I made years back (your quotes above are from 2011/12). No one else has ever had the decency on this forum to do this. What though I reject is slanderous claims thrown around about me, or singling me out as the only forum 'racist' (which Claus started) when most posters in old threads were racially conservative, very ethnocentric, bigoted and insulting each other.
And as I posted above, only now are people complaining about Mike111 and his black supremacism when he's been posting this stuff for ages. This is the first time Claus has criticized Mike111. lol. Instead he singled me out about 2 years ago. Like 90% of this forum's membership has posted "racism" or insensitive material.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Habsburg: @Ausar As a matter of fact you haven't and you are not exhibiting any moral authority here whatsoever, just a plain abuse of your power to edit posts.
You have just used a derogatory term by calling Clyde an asshole, and you replied to my post with a blanked out cuss word.
I don't give a **** what any of you post about me but I am not allowing white Euro people and descendents to be called Albino
I edited the pejorative from the above post as a courtesy to the poster this one time but in future he too will be handled as all others -- posts not in line with ES Constitution will simply be deleted in full.
What moral authority then do you have to censor or ban posts by people whose terms offend you when you use equally offensive terms? All you are doing is proving that you don't have the moral wisdom which would give the owners of the forum good cause to grant you proper moderator powers in the certainty that you will not abuse them whimsically and capriciously as are you are doing now.
It is hard to tell what undermines the image of Egyptsearch more - the sight of blank post after blank post after blank post for whatever reason, or Mike's derogatory statements.
Now coming to the word Albino.
Portuguese albino, diminutive of albo, from Latin albus (“white”).
To what extent has the word Albino as a term referring to white Europeans come into mainstream usage outside Mike's realhistory website and other Afrocentric oriented blogs to the point of triggering a backlash from the broader white population to be categorized as a perjorative term? For Mike alone to use the word in a perjorative manner in relation to whites as a result of inadequate melanin production does not make the word itself on offensive term, any more than using the word Negro to describe black people constitute an offensive term although some people construe it as offensive.
The every day meaning of the word Albino itself can be repurposed away from its general meaning where it refers to people with inadequate melanin. It is already used to refer to some white organisms in general and there is no reason why that can't be extended to includes human beings (outside its current relationship to albinism). If the word Albino is an offensive term then it is wrong to describe people with albinism as albinos as well as you could be accused of labelling people according to a biological condition. There are all kinds of genetically inherited diseases that are not used to label who have them and there is no reason why those with albinism should be an exception.
The other point is that whites do not have a monopoly on the use and introduction of European language terminology unless you ausar insist that they must, and you have no right to restrict the use of language in any place so long as the people there consider it appropriate. Albino as used to describe white people can be considered as a neologism introduced by Mike, just as the word Negro is used to describe black people and mulatto is used to describe mixed race people. What you are claiming is the right to determine what words can be introduced into the general lexicon and to put it bluntly you don't. Mike can be very offensive and I have had cause to criticize before as you can see here and if you feel he should be banned on account of his offensiveness that is fine, but you clearly don't have the proper powers and you shouldn't claim them as you are only defacing threads and making yourself look ridiculous.
On the other hand when it comes to the word albino as used to describe white people you clearly are not entitled to any such powers as the word has not entered into mainstream usage for a proper opinion to be formed as to its appropriateness or offensiveness. If some regular posters on Egyptsearch are offended by the term there should be a proper debate on it, and it should include a debate as to whether Egyptsearchers in their own community are entitled to introduce words into their lexicon which may or may not be adopted by society at large later on. After all scholastic and academic communities, and in fact communities of all kinds are able to introduce neologisms involving existing and completely new words and there is no reason why Egyptsearch should be an exception.
As to whether white people, or the condition of being white is a form of albinism and thus justifies the biological albino label that is entirely another matter and can be debated separately. If it is viewed as such then there can't be anything wrong with extending the term to white people in general, and if it is offensive then it must also be equally offensive to label those with albinism in the contemporary biological sense as albinos, as it is only a matter of degree.
As to whether Mike should be banned or not there should be a proper discussion on it, and if a majority or a substantial number of regular posters feel he should be banned then so be it. He can then be given a warning, and if he doesn't change then it is right to ban him permanently. But there should be a proper discussion so he sees that it is coming from Egyptsearchers as a whole, not just one piqued administrator.
The issue isn't really racism & freedom of speech. If that were the case most of the forum members should be banned. People have been posting racially insensitive stuff and extremism here for years. The problem with Mike111 is that he shows no progression in his views. He never even slightly altered his albino theory in light of contrary evidence, so he's not interested in truth or even engaging in a debate properly. He just spams the forum up with his distorted world-view and doesn't properly respond to criticism as Tukuler says. This is obviously different to me, since I have changed my views several times, e.g. abandoning Hamiticism.
I really don't care about the racism. I'm a knowledge junkie. Mike111's crap though which fills the forum makes it harder to read or learn anything. However his stuff has filled the forum for so long, its too late to clean it up now. But anyway, with account creation disabled, and so few people posting here, there is no real point.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
The reason Mike has repeatedly asked for you to be banned from his threads is that your counterarguments are mocking, contemptuous and insulting to those who make proper attempts to present evidence and reasoning to support their views and you know it.
Here is a good example of the arguments you make which prove that you have no respect for hose who debate here. You think people are stupid enough to believe that swarthy is a term that was used to describe a person like George Bush at some type in the past.
I am fully in agreement with Mike on account of this
Abraham Lincoln was another man in many books described as swarthy
.
[/QB]
As explained before, the term was popular in usage towards Sephardic Jews.
When I interpret the word from a linguistic Germanic origin it would mean some what blackish. Not black (dark brown) itself. But light complected. You have Swart (black) and Swartey (blackish).
We can wonder how he got this complexion. We know that there was a significant amount of admixture (drift) of Africans in whites during those days. But you of course will insists on your white supremacy of "racial purity".
The more you post these, the more Siegfried turns out to be right on his observations. And in a lot of forums people wonder whether Lincon had African ancestry or not.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I can prove with hundreds of examples, Europeans you would not descibe as black people who are not Sephardic Jews, such as Abraham Lincoln, being described as swarthy in American and Euroepan literature.
The fact that the term was also used to describe some Sephardic Jews does not change this. You cannot read one entry in an etymology reference and think that covers the whole history of usage of a word-or that the original usage of a word never changes later on
You also don't have to spam the thread with repeated instances of needlessly large pictures. Once is enough
I had to do that. Troll Patrol quoted me but left out where I proved with book references that Abrahm Lincoln has been referred to as swarthy yet he is not a Sephardic Jew!
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
As I have shown terms like "swarthy" and "black" have had different ranges in early times And surely if this man could be called black back then so could George Bush have been called swarthy back then Mitt Romney next
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
You also don't have to spam the thread with repeated instances of needlessly large pictures. Once is enough
I had to do that. Troll Patrol quoted me but left out where I proved with book references that Abrahm Lincoln has been referred to as swarthy yet he is not a Sephardic Jew!
The best way to describe the word swarthy is: I person of color. And if you do a google book search on the keywords "Sephardic and Swarthy", you'll come up with many hits.
Haley says: July 11, 2008 at 4:59 pm I’m Jewish, well half biologically, but culturally and religiously I was raised as a Jew. I strongly resemble the Jewish side of my family, with a “swarthy” complexion and dark curly hair. When I was growing up in a New England suburb that got Jewish holidays off from school due to the large Jewish population, I didn’t really second-guess the fact that I was white, even though once in a while kids would ask me if I was a “mix” (biracial).
Black Dutch is a term with several different meanings in United States dialect and slang. It generally refers to racial, ethnic, or cultural roots. Its meaning varies, and such differences are contingent upon time and place. Several varied groups of multiracial people have sometimes been referred to as, or identified as "Black Dutch," most often as a reference to their ancestors.[1] [2][3][4]
Black Dutch is an unofficial American ethnic designation. It was commonly used in Pennsylvania among ethnic Germans, some of whom migrated south to Virginia and other points.[citation needed] Separately, it became adopted around 1830 and afterward among certain Southeastern families of mixed-race ancestry, especially those of Cherokee descent.[5] When used in the South, it usually did not imply African admixture, although some families who used the term were of tri-racial descent.
Popular Science Monthly/Volume 54/January 1899/The Racial Geography of Europe: Supplement - The Jews XVII
This latter is said to be characterized by heavier fea- tures in every way. The mouth, it is alleged, is more apt to be large, the nose thickish at the end, less often clearly Jewish, perhaps. The lips are full and sensual, offering an especial contrast to the thin lips of the Sephardim. The complexion is swarthy oftentimes, the hair and eyes very constantly dark, without the rufous tendency which appears in the other branch. The face is at the same time fuller, the breadth corresponding to a relatively short and round head.
As I have shown terms like "swarthy" and "black" have had different ranges in early times And surely if this man could be called black back then so could George Bush have been called swarthy back then Mitt Romney next
That citation is modern English in grammar and calligraphy.
Where is the original manuscript?
quote: Blanke, John (fl. 1507–1512), royal trumpeter, was employed as a musician at the courts of Henry VII and Henry VIII, making his first recorded appearance there in 1507. He is thought to have been of African descent, but his age, place of birth, and parentage are unknown. His surname may have originated as a nickname, derived from the word blanc in French or blanco in Spanish, both meaning ‘white’. Blanke was part of a wider trend for European rulers to employ African musicians, dating from at least 1194, when turbaned black trumpeters heralded the entry of the Holy Roman emperor Henry VI into Palermo in Sicily. It has been suggested that Blanke arrived in England with Katherine of Aragon when she came to marry Arthur, prince of Wales, in 1501. While there is no record of Blanke's arrival, there is evidence of other Africans in Katherine's retinue, including Catalina de Cardones, who was born in Motril, Granada. However, the Tudor court employed musicians from across continental Europe, and Blanke may have come from Spain, Portugal, or Italy, all of which had growing African populations at this time.
Between 1507 and 1512 Blanke was one of eight royal trumpeters under the leadership of Peter de Casa Nova. The first payment to ‘John Blanke, the blacke Trumpet’ was made in early December 1507, when he was paid 20s. (8d. a day) for his services in the previous month (TNA: PRO, E 36/214, fol. 109). Monthly payments for the same amount continued throughout the following year. Blanke played at the funeral of Henry VII on 11 May 1509, when he wore black mourning livery, and then at the coronation of Henry VIII on 24 June, when he was dressed in bright scarlet. Following the death of the Italian trumpeter Domynck Justinian (last recorded as performing at Henry VIII's coronation), Blanke successfully petitioned the king to grant him Justinian's position and wage of 16d. a day. He complained that his current wage was ‘not sufficient to mayntaigne and kepe hym to doo your grace lyke service as other your trompeters doo’ and asked that his ‘true & faithfull service’ be considered, adding that he intended to continue to serve the king ‘during his lyf’ (TNA: PRO, E101/417/2, no. 150). On 12 and 13 February 1511 Blanke played at the Westminster tournament, a flamboyant Burgundian-style joust held to celebrate the birth of the short-lived Prince Henry on new year's day. The event would have required many fanfares, and the royal trumpeters were paid more than ten times their daily wage.
John Blanke is depicted twice on the 60 foot long Westminster tournament roll of 1511, which was produced in the workshop of Thomas Wriothesley, Garter king of arms. He is shown first riding a grey horse with a black harness. All the trumpeters wear yellow and grey livery, while their double-curve instruments are decorated with the royal quarterings. The trumpeters appear again at the end of the day's jousting. Here, in the more frequently reproduced portrait, Blanke's horse is shown as black with a crimson harness. His dark face contrasts strikingly with those of his companions, but his one visible hand, holding the trumpet, is incongruously shown as white. In both depictions Blanke wears a turban, which is brown and yellow in the first image, and green with a linear design in gold in the second, while his companions are bareheaded.
John Blanke married in January 1512, though the identity of his wife is unknown. Henry VIII sent the great wardrobe a warrant, dated 14 January, to deliver to ‘John Blak, our trompeter’, a gown of violet cloth, and also a bonnet and a hat, ‘to be taken of our gift against his marriage’ (PRO: TNA, E 101/417/6, no. 50). After this no further reference to Blanke has been found in the royal records and he is not mentioned in the full list of trumpeters on 31 January 1514. That he achieved a prominent position in the royal household, was paid wages, negotiated an increase in his pay, and was able to marry, suggest that Blanke was not enslaved.
John Blanke is the only identifiable black person portrayed in sixteenth-century British art. Alongside his relatively high-status occupation and connection to Henry VIII, this has made Blanke the most widely recognized and cited example of an African in Tudor England. In the first decade of the twenty-first century Blanke featured in teaching resources including BBC programmes for seven- to eleven-year-olds, and in the National Archives' guide to black history; his image was the most requested for reproduction of those held by the College of Arms. From 2003 he featured in the National Trust's annual ‘Black History Month’ exhibition at Sutton House, Hackney.
The English and Scottish surname Black is derived from the Middle English term blak(e) meaning “black’”(Old English blæc, blaca), a nickname given from the earliest times to a swarthy or dark-haired man. The second possible origin is as a shortened form of Black-Smith, a worker in cold metals, as distinct from a White (Smith), one who worked in hot metals.
The surname was popular in Scotland from the 15th Century. Adam Black of Edinburgh (1784 - 1874), a publisher, acquired the rights to the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1827. The first recorded spelling of the family name is shown to be that of Wulfhun des Blaca which was dated circa 901, in the "Old English Bynames Register."
quote:Originally posted by Habsburg: @Lioness Can you give a record instance of George Bush Jr has being described as swarthy?
You also don't have to spam the thread with repeated instances of needlessly large pictures. Once is enough
quote: Under the restraint of ecclesiastical domination Byzantine art became more and more stereotyped and conventional. The tendency grows to paint the flesh-tints in swarthy hues, to elongate and emaciate the limbs, and to stiffen the gait.
Browns, blue-greys and neutral tints are in favor. Here we first find the technical treatment of flesh-painting which afterwards became the special practice of Italian miniaturists, namely the laying on of the actual flesh-tints over a ground of olive, green or other dark hue. Landscape, such as it was, soon became quite conventional, setting the example for that remarkable absence of the true representation of nature which is such a striking attribute of the miniatures of the Middle Ages.
Al Takrir and Brada Anansi, go back to your "high minded intellectually charged" forum Egypt Search Reloaded.
Leave us here alone in our ES gutter. We were doing fine when you both left. Since you decided to return, and Al Takrir begged to be the moderator of ES things have gone to the dogs here. Power has gone into his head. Time you step down.
Go back to your high and mighty ESR. Leave us with Mike111 and his rudeness.
Stop your badness.
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: Jealousy is the root of all evils!
Leave Mike111 alone!
Al Takrir and Brada Anansi, go back to your "high minded intellectually charged" forum Egypt Search Reloaded.
Leave us here alone in our ES gutter. We were doing fine when you both left. Since you decided to return, and Al Takrir begged to be the moderator of ES things have gone to the dogs here. Power has gone into his head. Time you step down.
Go back to your high and mighty ESR. Leave us with Mike111 and his rudeness.
Stop your badness.
I agree. Ancient Egypt was a true free-speech site until now.
posted
Tukuler stop the banning of Mike111, let Mike do his work in peace even if you disagree with him. I think that is call freedom of speech. Mike111 and Lionness are the most prolific posters at EGSF.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Even after the fiasco at the beginning of the year, all I did was ask the man to please not drag me into his mess (I did not so much as reply to or comment behind any of his then recent posts. I politely asked him to leave me alone.
Instead he continued personally insulting me threatening me with anal rape and I'm the one at fault?
Why didn't you ask him to leave me in peace? Come on Mr defender of the down trodden, where were you at when I or any of his targets were being abused by Mike111?
Well, where was you at?
Do you know my view on anything? If not, how do you know he hasn't rehashed any of my views?
Stop equating decorum with censorship.
ES will once again be known for quality not quantity after all 50 gazillion flies eat **** and last I checked people don't.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] As I have shown terms like "swarthy" and "black" have had different ranges in early times And surely if this man could be called black back then so could George Bush have been called swarthy back then Mitt Romney next
That citation is modern English in grammar and calligraphy.
Where is the original manuscript?
You don't know what you are talking about. Modern English begins in 1550
The text is in grammar of it's publish time 1733.
The text is not calligraphy it's printed type in a book and it is not recent as you can clearly see in words above such as the "s" in "Himself" or use of the obsolete word "hath"
search the word "black" describing people there are numerous mentions and if you look separately in google images you will find paintings of several of these people.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]
Lioness do you ever give up at all? What do you think this phrase means well Shaped, Black Complexion, much like King Charles; not Thirty Years old? The complexion of the man above looks nothing like that of his father who is portrayed below. This is what riles some moderators around here. I am revealing the location to you to inform your masters, so they can pat you on the head and give you a dog biscuit for services well rendered. http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/work.aspx?obj=11328 .They can make it white when they ready as we know they soon will. Then they will take you out for a walk to the park, undo your leash so you can run around a little as an even bigger reward.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Just as in the Sahel/Savannah where people are called 'white' who have medium and light brown complexions without being European/white, so it is in Europe and elsewhere that the label 'black' may not necessarily imply African/black relation.
Although barely discernible to us, Euro whites do have a variety of complexions which is natural to them even if we don't see it that way. I especially do not get what they mean by olive skin since the only human colors olives come in are black and red; colours common to Africans, Arabs, and Indians.
Many whites too are unable to see a range of complexions in black people. Seriously, I have known whites who, when asked to recall, couldn't remember an acquaintance's complexion was like milk chocolate or more like caramel. *
In both instances the assignment is facetious and only made in the hope of claiming another ethny as one's own or closely related to one's own when it patently is not the case at all.
* You can see an example here where the photo example for Type V is brighter than Type IV which is supposed to be noticeably lighter.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have any of the proponents of Mike111 tried voting?
-------------------- I use to live in a room full of mirrors; all I could see was me. I take my spirit and I crash my mirrors, now the whole world is here for me to see. "Jimi Hendrix" Posts: 95 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] As I have shown terms like "swarthy" and "black" have had different ranges in early times And surely if this man could be called black back then so could George Bush have been called swarthy back then Mitt Romney next
That citation is modern English in grammar and calligraphy.
Where is the original manuscript?
You don't know what you are talking about. Modern English begins in 1550
The text is in grammar of it's publish time 1733.
The text is not calligraphy it's printed type in a book and it is not recent as you can clearly see in words above such as the "s" in "Himself" or use of the obsolete word "hath"
search the word "black" describing people there are numerous mentions and if you look separately in google images you will find paintings of several of these people.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Maybe you can make
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic