This is topic The Race of the Ancient Egyptians in forum Deshret at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000028

---

Posted by B (Member # 13664) on :
 
Ok I have been doing some reading about the Race of early egypt ok and alot of the research points to the conclusion that the people of egypt today are not the same people of egypt from ancient times pointing to the egyptians of ancient times were black as opposed to being arab the researcher's point to the Negro looking spinx, statues and other artifacts. The research's also point to the bible in the fact that Arabs and Isrealites have common lineage and they both came along long after egypt. I just wnated to know what you guys thought on the Issue me Personally I think ancient egypt was very much apart of the black or dark contenent
 

---

Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
 
Don't mean to sound condescending, but babe it's been said a million times , the vast majority of ancient egyptians looked like black people, and if you wanna be specific about it, like Northeast African black people, i.e. your somalis, nubians, sudanese, etc... AT THE SAME TIME, us negroes in America shouldn't be obsessing over egypt and claiming heritage from it like it's the only african civilization (because our heritage lays firmly in West and central Africa), hey there were countless others, some that were in my opinion more spectacular than anything that arose in the Nile valley .
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
I know you're new, but please don't start any topics on the 'race' of the ancient Egyptians, since pretty much almost every topic posted in this forum is exactly about that in one way or another.

I suggest you just look through the archives at all the evidence presented.
 

---

Posted by B (Member # 13664) on :
 
thanks for the info but Im going to post about questions that intrest me weather they are about race or not.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ However, if you seek answers, and not just attention, you can search prior conversations to find them.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Unless you are lazy (?)
 

---

Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by B:
Ok I have been doing some reading about the Race of early egypt ok and alot of the research points to the conclusion that the people of egypt today are not the same people of egypt from ancient times pointing to the egyptians of ancient times were black as opposed to being arab the researcher's point to the Negro looking spinx, statues and other artifacts. The research's also point to the bible in the fact that Arabs and Isrealites have common lineage and they both came along long after egypt. I just wnated to know what you guys thought on the Issue me Personally I think ancient egypt was very much apart of the black or dark contenent

---

quote:

---

Acient Egypt's racial make up just seems too ambigious to make any assertions honestly.

---

quote:

---

Right now I would accept Ancient Egypt to be a mixed international society

---

quote:

---

than a solely black one.

---

quote:

---

Based on Genetics they are definetly African

---

quote:

---

but what does that say for their race etc.

---

quote:

---

then when I try to look at the skeletal work done on ancient Egyptians many of the scientists have different opinions and the people

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ LOL And just exactly what is this "rod" you speak of? Any examples??

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Acient Egypt's racial make up just seems too ambigious to make any assertions honestly.

---

Race is itself ambiguous. I challenge you to say anything about the 'race' of any people that cannot be disputed.

This is why the attempt to assess Ancient Egypt in terms of the Western construct of race is futile.

---

If you are saying we can't define the Egyptians racially then they are what they are called Egyptians..not black not white not yellow not brown etc. Which to me defeats the purpose of battling Eurocentrics.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Right now I would accept Ancient Egypt to be a mixed international society

---

The above comment is a nonsensical discourse in evasion and denial.

Kemet [Ancient Egypt] defines and African 'nation', not a mixed international society.

---

An African nation based on geographical location sure, but when I say a mixed international "society"(key word) I am talking about "people" not he land.

quote:

---

than a solely black one.

---

This is a hypocritical strawman argument as *no society* can meet such a ridiculous burden of proof. Why don't you equivicate over the existence of European 'white' society pending proof of something that is 'soley' European, or purely white (?) - of which there is in face *nothing*.

quote:

---

quote:

---

than a solely black one.

---

This is a hypocritical strawman argument as *no society* can meet such a ridiculous burden of proof. Why don't you equivicate over the existence of European 'white' society pending proof of something that is 'soley' European, or purely white (?) - of which there is in face *nothing*.

---

Ok I will agree with this.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Based on Genetics they are definetly African

---

Correct.

---

Even though it has been said on this site that there is no ancient Egyptian dna I would porport the oldest clades in modern Egyptians to be evidence of Ancient Egyptian dna...it's the most logical conclusion in my book.

quote:

---

quote:

---

but what does that say for their race etc.

---

This question has no answer, because race is a discourse in nonsense. All people who discuss race as if it is a self evident reality - must eventually ground their own discourse down into nonsense.

---

Well like I said before..if there are no races then Egyptians aren't black. I find it really strange how there is no race but there is racism lol. Thats like mouse traps with no mice in existence, but whatever fancies you. I have never heard any African scholar that would have a problem with calling Nigerians, South Africans, Senegalese, Gambians etc. blacks(race description) but for some damn reason when talking about Egypt there is this ambiguity about there not being any races on both sides of the spectrum hmmmm.

quote:

---

Then present a definition of 'race'.

If you have no definition of race, then how can you define any people in terms of race.

Racial thinking is essentially childish.

---

Ok I will describe the racial type of black from your own mouth Rasol...
* dark skin.

* curly hair.

* elongated forehead.

* high lower limb to upper limb ratio, low torso to limb ratio.

* maxillary progathism.

* thick lips.

* alveolar prognathism

I would add nasal index and petruding jaw although if both aren't seen in African populations doesn't indicate them as not being black because there are plenty of blacks with underbites.

quote:

---

quote:

---

then when I try to look at the skeletal work done on ancient Egyptians many of the scientists have different opinions and the people

---

This is true for all people everywhere in the world. Craniometry never has and never will prove or define 'race'.

Until students of African history move beyound parrotings of the Eurocentric-racist world view our understandings will remain permenanently arrested in a quagmire of shoulder-shrug, i just know, confusion.

Of course you are confused. You make a conscious effort to stay "confused", because that helps justify avoiding any conclusion which you may be uncomfortable with.

One has to think in order to know, and therefore transcend mere confusion. Parroting is not thinking, which is why it's predictable that the most unthinking parrots end up being confused in spite of all their ver batim channelings of prior belief.

---

---

Well Rasol I would have to say it's futile to fight Eurocentrics with "Egypt is an African civilization" considering they have no problem accepting this. Why? Because north Africans are white/caucasoid in their perception. Running away from "race" doesn't make any sense to me, but only to explain the hurt caused by whites done to weak minded black people.

I am proud to be black how dare you say this is a European construct...then turn around and say Egyptians had a concept of race in ancient times.

Not to mention all of you here are inspired to study Egypt because whites have projected Egypt to be a non "black" African nation unlike the others. So for you to run from race isn't going to help the situation. Relying on genetics isn't going to help because Egyptians could genetically be some proto non-Africoid looking types due to the environment i.e Indian peoples(which aren't called black/negroid).

I am trying to imagine a basketball coach that is losing a game telling his players to start playing baseball to beat the other team. How can you not address race when the opponent is? If all of you negros died today the coroner would say dead negro male..thats FACT. Why? Because race is a "social" construct and doesn't have to be biological. If one of your children came up missing for a year and they find some bones of a boy how are they going to know it's one of your black children and not a white child that came up missing? This has been done in forensic science, but for some reason when it comes to Egypt..there are no races smh.

Do you not like being black? Do you feel if race is swept under the rug that that is going ot stop racism?!?!?! Very odd to me.

Race is based on appearance so if no one says that the appearance of Egyptians is any race then they are just Egyptians and shouldn't be claimed by anyone but MODERN Egyptians living there now.

Will be happy to see your responses to this
 

---

Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Unless you are lazy (?)

---

quote:

---

Speaking of such, can anyone link me to a good page on the demographic origins of LOWER EGYPT?

---

quote:

---

Well Rasol I would have to say it's futile to fight Eurocentrics with "Egypt is an African civilization" considering they have no problem accepting this.

---

quote:

---

Why? Because north Africans are white/caucasoid in their perception.

---

quote:

---

Running away from "race" doesn't make any sense to me

---

Then stop running.

Answer my question by defining race.

Define race, right here and right now, or admit that you aren't making any sense.

The facts are clear:

You won't define race, because you can't, because you don't know what you're talking about when you discuss 'race'. The best you can hope to do is to destract with non responsive replies that don't answer the question.

Prove me wrong and answer the question.

Or, prove me right and respound with jibberish, in a futile attempt to run away from your inability to answer the question.

Race is the idiots thesis of anthropology.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Ok I will describe the racial type of black from your own mouth Rasol...

---

quote:

---

* dark skin.

* curly hair.

* elongated forehead.

* high lower limb to upper limb ratio, low torso to limb ratio.

* maxillary progathism.

* thick lips.

* alveolar prognathism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ LOL And just exactly what is this "rod" you speak of? Any examples??

---

Good question. This poster should present specific evidence against AE being Black, if he has any.

---

 

---

Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Well Rasol I would have to say it's futile to fight Eurocentrics with "Egypt is an African civilization" considering they have no problem accepting this.

---

This is a false statement.

The Eurocentric discourse attempts to remove Kemet from Africa, and make it part of fabricated, ahistorical, and colonialist construct known as the Middle East.

---

Wrong, that's old school and this is what frustrates me with African Americans from the ghetto that know nothing about white people. One thing they do in their evil is EVOLVE they have the ability to change very quickly in their racist thinking. Now the common argument with White Nationalist Eurocentrics is that..

1. Caucasians/whites/cuacasoids came down from Europe in some great migration 5600 bce and built egypt from Kartoum and up the nile lol(silly I know, but HEY this is what THEY say).

2. The more realistic one is that all north Africans are Caucasoid/non black/non negro/non forest negro/non true negro/ non sub saharan Africans and are considered indigenous Caucasoid Africans that built this African civilization.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why? Because north Africans are white/caucasoid in their perception.

---

At which point they are required to define their terms. As usual I asked for you, or anyone else who advocates these terms to define them. As usual, you write me back a long off-point reply that never does answer my question.

By not answering my question you make the point, that racial thinking is unintelligent, childish, and so ultimately...indefensible.

---

The term Caucasian originated as one of the racial categories recognised by 19th century craniology and is derived from the region of the Caucasus mountains[3].It has various meanings.

Caucasoid race is a term used in physical anthropology to refer to people of a certain range of anthropometric measurements [4]. The concept of a "Caucasian race" or Varietas Caucasia was first proposed under those names by the German scientist and classical anthropologist, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840).[5] His studies based the classification of the Caucasian race primarily on skull features, which Blumenbach claimed were optimized by the Caucasian Peoples


[edit] Caucasoid
In 1934, Carleton S. Coon redefined Caucasian race as Caucasoid race based on typology. [12]

Sarah A Tishkoff and Kenneth K Kidd state, "Despite disagreement among anthropologists, this classification remains in use by many researchers, as well as lay people."[13] According to Leonard Lieberman, Rodney C. Kirk, and Alice Littlefield, the concept of race has all but been completely rejected by modern mainstream anthropology.[14]

The Oxford English Dictionary defines Caucasoid as as noun or adjective meaning Of, pertaining to, or resembling the Caucasian race.[15] The suffix -oid can indicate "a similarity, not necessarily exact, to something else"[16], so Caucasoid can mean "resembling" the Caucasian race, itself a term with an inexact definition. Likewise, it can mean pertaining to or belonging to the Caucasian race.

In the past, the United States National Library of Medicine used the term Caucasoid as a "racial stock". The "racial stock" categorization scheme was replaced in 2004 with Continental Population Groups which focuses on geographic origins.[17]

quote:

---

quote:

---

Running away from "race" doesn't make any sense to me

---

Then stop running.

Answer my question by defining race.

Define race, right here and right now, or admit that you aren't making any sense.

The facts are clear:

You won't define race, because you can't, because you don't know what you're talking about when you discuss 'race'. The best you can hope to do is to destract with non responsive replies that don't answer the question.

Prove me wrong and answer the question.

Or, prove me right and respound with jibberish, in a futile attempt to run away from your inability to answer the question.

Race is the idiots thesis of anthropology.

---

---

race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.

4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.

The term race describes populations or groups of people as distinguished by various sets of characteristics and beliefs about common ancestry. The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.[1]

Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. Since the 1940s, most evolutionary scientists have rejected the view that race is a biologically meaningful concept (which I have said many o times that I have no problem with). Some argue that although "race" is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans.[2] Mainstream scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions (this is fine, but it doesn't disprove or even prove the concept of race); they thus reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.[3] Today most scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using more rigorous concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation." Many scientists contend that while the features on which racial categorizations are made may be based on genetic factors, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into groups based on selected hereditary features, are social constructs (which I again most certainly concur with!!). If race doesn't exist than neither does society in your rationale.


Again; is race biological to Vidadavida NOOOO, is race a social construct to Vidadavida YESSSS!!!!!!! Does biology make up humans YEEESS do humans make up society YESSS, so what we have here is a dichotomy(nature vs realty is not always synonymous - but what would you know about Philosophy or Epistemology, you always want to be some science robot and that doesn't work in real life sir) that YOU don't want to address because you have been scared by the big bad white man and I can't empathize nor sympathize because I am not that weak and have no problem being black/negro like YOU DO apparently(this is probably why you afrocentrics always date out of your race smh).

If someone lined up mister T, Connie Chung and Brad Pitt up against the wall and asked you to tell the "black/negro" guy to put on a hat, with your rationale Rasol, you are saying you would play the fool and say there is no such thing as race and I can't tell who is black Now YOU tell me what is childish?!?!
 

---

Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Well Rasol I would have to say it's futile to fight Eurocentrics with "Egypt is an African civilization" considering they have no problem accepting this.

---

This is a false statement.

The Eurocentric discourse attempts to remove Kemet from Africa, and make it part of fabricated, ahistorical, and colonialist construct known as the Middle East.

---

Wrong, that's old school and this is what frustrates me with African Americans from the ghetto that know nothing about white people. One thing they do in their evil is EVOLVE they have the ability to change very quickly in their racist thinking. Now the common argument with White Nationalist Eurocentrics is that..

1. Caucasians/whites/cuacasoids came down from Europe in some great migration 5600 bce and built egypt from Kartoum and up the nile lol(silly I know, but HEY this is what THEY say).

2. The more realistic one is that all north Africans are Caucasoid/non black/non negro/non forest negro/non true negro/ non sub saharan Africans and are considered indigenous Caucasoid Africans that built this African civilization.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why? Because north Africans are white/caucasoid in their perception.

---

At which point they are required to define their terms. As usual I asked for you, or anyone else who advocates these terms to define them. As usual, you write me back a long off-point reply that never does answer my question.

By not answering my question you make the point, that racial thinking is unintelligent, childish, and so ultimately...indefensible.

---

The term Caucasian originated as one of the racial categories recognised by 19th century craniology and is derived from the region of the Caucasus mountains[3].It has various meanings.

Caucasoid race is a term used in physical anthropology to refer to people of a certain range of anthropometric measurements [4]. The concept of a "Caucasian race" or Varietas Caucasia was first proposed under those names by the German scientist and classical anthropologist, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840).[5] His studies based the classification of the Caucasian race primarily on skull features, which Blumenbach claimed were optimized by the Caucasian Peoples


[edit] Caucasoid
In 1934, Carleton S. Coon redefined Caucasian race as Caucasoid race based on typology. [12]

Sarah A Tishkoff and Kenneth K Kidd state, "Despite disagreement among anthropologists, this classification remains in use by many researchers, as well as lay people."[13] According to Leonard Lieberman, Rodney C. Kirk, and Alice Littlefield, the concept of race has all but been completely rejected by modern mainstream anthropology.[14]

The Oxford English Dictionary defines Caucasoid as as noun or adjective meaning Of, pertaining to, or resembling the Caucasian race.[15] The suffix -oid can indicate "a similarity, not necessarily exact, to something else"[16], so Caucasoid can mean "resembling" the Caucasian race, itself a term with an inexact definition. Likewise, it can mean pertaining to or belonging to the Caucasian race.

In the past, the United States National Library of Medicine used the term Caucasoid as a "racial stock". The "racial stock" categorization scheme was replaced in 2004 with Continental Population Groups which focuses on geographic origins.[17]

quote:

---

quote:

---

Running away from "race" doesn't make any sense to me

---

Then stop running.

Answer my question by defining race.

Define race, right here and right now, or admit that you aren't making any sense.

The facts are clear:

You won't define race, because you can't, because you don't know what you're talking about when you discuss 'race'. The best you can hope to do is to destract with non responsive replies that don't answer the question.

Prove me wrong and answer the question.

Or, prove me right and respound with jibberish, in a futile attempt to run away from your inability to answer the question.

Race is the idiots thesis of anthropology.

---

---

race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.

4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.

The term race describes populations or groups of people as distinguished by various sets of characteristics and beliefs about common ancestry. The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.[1]

Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. Since the 1940s, most evolutionary scientists have rejected the view that race is a biologically meaningful concept (which I have said many o times that I have no problem with). Some argue that although "race" is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans.[2] Mainstream scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions (this is fine, but it doesn't disprove or even prove the concept of race); they thus reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.[3] Today most scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using more rigorous concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation." Many scientists contend that while the features on which racial categorizations are made may be based on genetic factors, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into groups based on selected hereditary features, are social constructs (which I again most certainly concur with!!). If race doesn't exist than neither does society in your rationale.


Again; is race biological to Vidadavida NOOOO, is race a social construct to Vidadavida YESSSS!!!!!!! Does biology make up humans YEEESS do humans make up society YESSS, so what we have here is a dichotomy(nature vs realty is not always synonymous - but what would you know about Philosophy or Epistemology, you always want to be some science robot and that doesn't work in real life sir) that YOU don't want to address because you have been scared by the big bad white man and I can't empathize nor sympathize because I am not that weak and have no problem being black/negro like YOU DO apparently(this is probably why you afrocentrics always date out of your race smh).

If someone lined up mister T, Connie Chung and Brad Pitt up against the wall and asked you to tell the "black/negro" guy to put on a hat, with your rationale Rasol, you are saying you would play the fool and say there is no such thing as race and I can't tell who is black Now YOU tell me what is childish?!?!
 

---

Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Ok I will describe the racial type of black from your own mouth Rasol...

---

Who asked you for such?

You are offering to provide a tautology, We are asking you to provide a definition.

Do you not know the difference?

quote:

---

* dark skin.

* curly hair.

* elongated forehead.

* high lower limb to upper limb ratio, low torso to limb ratio.

* maxillary progathism.

* thick lips.

* alveolar prognathism.

---

The above is a list of phene *not* a definition of race, and it certainly isnt a definition of *race* by me either as you lyingly imply.

Please either provide a definition of race, or admit that you really don't have one.

---

quote:

---

race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. Since the 1940s, most evolutionary scientists have rejected the view that race is a biologically meaningful concept

---

quote:

---

According to Leonard Lieberman, Rodney C. Kirk, and Alice Littlefield, the concept of race has all but been completely rejected by modern mainstream anthropology.[14]

---

quote:

---

Is race a biological construct, no, is race a social construct to Vidadavida yes.

---

quote:

---

What is this "phene" describing Rasol?

---

quote:

---

race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.

Earlier you wrote:

In Genetics they are *definitely African*, but what does that say for their race?

If you truly believe that race is defined by a common heredity, and the Ancient Egyptians are *definitely African* by heredity then why not just say the Egyptians are definitely African, by race? -

Conversely, if you believe there is a distinction between heredity and race, then you don't actually believe your own definition and are being disingenuous, no?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. Since the 1940s, most evolutionary scientists have rejected the view that race is a biologically meaningful concept

Yes, this is my position. Hence, I am still waiting for you to come up witha meaningful definition of race. You have not done so thus far.

---

quote:

---

According to Leonard Lieberman, Rodney C. Kirk, and Alice Littlefield, the concept of race has all but been completely rejected by modern mainstream anthropology.[14]

^ Yes, this is my position. We are still waiting for you to explain why you reject modern anthropology and cling to 19th century notions of race?

---

quote:

---

Is race a biological construct, no, is race a social construct to Vidadavida yes.

Yes, this is my position. We are still waiting for you to explain how biology can be used to assess race, if race is as you admit biologically invalid?

---

I already did; you just don't like the answer because you are asking for a definition that fits your criterion, and based on YOUR criterion there is no such thing because race is not biological which we have BOTH agreed on(this is begging the question).

race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.

4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.

Nice try, but no cigar. Now I have answered your questions kindly now answer mine please...at least be courteous.

What is the "phene" that you described above and what is the differnce between "phene" and "race"?
 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 
Vida says:

"Because race is divided by appearance and not geography and all humans come from a common heredity yet there are still socially constructed race models."

Is this your definition of race, which is clearly invalid in biological terms? In your terms race = phenotype, which is the anti-thesis of biological meanings of either term.

^If so, how many human races are there, according to this definition?

Vida also says:

"And I have said ad naseum that race is a social construct and NOT biological. The problem is you hold everything to biological constructs and that is biased and the concept of race was NEVER biological to begin with so this is a non-sequitor."


Race is a biological construct; the definition has already been provided. Actually it is a biological construct, misused socially in the Eurocentric world.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^Vidadavida *sigh*
 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 
*Sighs* don't answer.
 

---

Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Vida says:

quote:

---

"Because race is divided by appearance and not geography and all humans come from a common heredity yet there are still socially constructed race models."

Is this your definition of race, which is clearly invalid in biological terms? In your terms race = phenotype, which is the anti-thesis of biological meanings of either term.

---

I have posted the definition of race above more than once. If phenotype means the finished product or appearance of an individual then yes I am equating this with race. No one in any of the African slave trades took blood tests to check "race" they were taken based on appearance.

quote:

---

^If so, how many human races are there, according to this definition?

---

That is up to each individuals perception because "society" does not equal "solely what Vidadavida thinks"

Some divide into three 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid

Some four 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid

Some five 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid 5. Vedoid

Some six 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid 5. Vedoid 6. Oxidental(native americans)

Some eight 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid 5. Vedoid 6. Oxidental 7. Semetic(middle eastern) 8. Hispanic(latin/native hybrids in the Americas)

Regardless of how unscientific, unspecific, inconsistent these labels maybe to the said human; this is how humans make sense of the world(reason, logic) in classifying difference which culturally are called races/ethnic groups. I didn't start this so do not put the blame on me.
Vida also says:

quote:

---

"And I have said ad naseum that race is a social construct and NOT biological. The problem is you hold everything to biological constructs and that is biased and the concept of race was NEVER biological to begin with so this is a non-sequitor."


Race is a biological construct; the definition has already been provided. Actually it is a biological construct, misused socially in the Eurocentric world.

---

---

Good point actually , but biologically "race" is used for animal taxonyms and socially used for human beings. You are saying only one is valid and I am saying both are *shrugs*.

I am not an advocate for race; all I am saying is that race is a fact of life for human beings in society. In the same token even though I am not an advocate of race I also don't run from the terms and would NOT want to be categorized with Caucasians or Mongoloids or any other.

This is the difference between the African mindset and the African American mindset. We are not ashamed of being black/negroid and the African American due to whatever pressures they may face ARE.

It is impossible for words like "racism" and "racialism" to exist in normative(mine) or constative(yours) philosophical models in a debate and "race" not to exist. Even the theory of relativety is being challenged by your constative model of what race ought not to be. You can't have a word that exists that is relative to a word that doesn't.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
vidadavida

quote:

---

This is the difference between the African mindset and the African American mindset. We are not ashamed of being black/negroid and the African American due to whatever pressures they may face ARE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

Vida says:

quote:

---

"Because race is divided by appearance and not geography and all humans come from a common heredity yet there are still socially constructed race models."

Is this your definition of race, which is clearly invalid in biological terms? In your terms race = phenotype, which is the anti-thesis of biological meanings of either term.

---

I have posted the definition of race above more than once. If phenotype means the finished product or appearance of an individual then yes I am equating this with race.

---

I have also posted the definition of race, and it says your definition is wrong. But going by 'your' definition, then also race = finished product? What is so 'finished' about physical appearance only?

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

No one in any of the African slave trades took blood tests to check "race" they were taken based on appearance.

---

Relevance to the 'substance' of race?

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

quote:

---

^If so, how many human races are there, according to this definition?

---

That is up to each individuals perception because "society" does not equal "solely what Vidadavida thinks"

---

So in essence, you are saying that your use of the word has no 'definition'?

quote:

---

Vidadavida:


Some divide into three 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid

Some four 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid

Some five 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid 5. Vedoid

Some six 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid 5. Vedoid 6. Oxidental(native americans)

---

What about the great degree of phenotypic variations within the groups you just mentioned? Based on your 'race = phenotype', shouldn't each of these variant groups be in their own 'race', rather than lumped with others?

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

Some eight 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid 5. Vedoid 6. Oxidental 7. Semetic(middle eastern) 8. Hispanic(latin/native hybrids in the Americas)

---

Again, there are no phenotypic variants within these groups?

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

Regardless of how unscientific, unspecific, inconsistent these labels maybe to the said human; this is how humans make sense of the world(reason, logic) in classifying difference which culturally are called races/ethnic groups. I didn't start this so do not put the blame on me.

---

Well, humans have the tendency to find social kinship and thence, the grouping, but who's to say that this is 'race'? Misuse of 'race' in human grouping, is a Eurocentric concept.

quote:

---

Vidadavida :

quote:

---

Mystery Solver:

Vida also says:

"And I have said ad naseum that race is a social construct and NOT biological. The problem is you hold everything to biological constructs and that is biased and the concept of race was NEVER biological to begin with so this is a non-sequitor."


Race is a biological construct; the definition has already been provided. Actually it is a biological construct, misused socially in the Eurocentric world.

---

---

Good point actually , but biologically "race" is used for animal taxonyms and socially used for human beings.

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

You are saying only one is valid and I am saying both are *shrugs*.

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

I am not an advocate for race

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

all I am saying is that race is a fact of life for human beings in society.

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

In the same token even though I am not an advocate of race I also don't run from the terms and would NOT want to be categorized with Caucasians or Mongoloids or any other.

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

This is the difference between the African mindset and the African American mindset. We are not ashamed of being black/negroid and the African American due to whatever pressures they may face ARE.

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

It is impossible for words like "racism" and "racialism" to exist in normative(mine) or constative(yours) philosophical models in a debate and "race" not to exist.

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

Even the theory of relativety is being challenged by your constative model of what race ought not to be.

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

You can't have a word that exists that is relative to a word that doesn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Also stop claiming you are African you are European.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ LOL And just exactly what is this "rod" you speak of? Any examples??

---

Good question. This poster should present specific evidence against AE being Black, if he has any.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

Race is a biological construct; the definition has already been provided. Actually it is a biological construct, misused socially in the Eurocentric world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

It is impossible for words like "racism" and "racialism" to exist in normative(mine) or constative(yours) philosophical models in a debate and "race" not to exist.

---

What is 'normative' about your use of 'race', which lacks definition, as opposed to my well-defined presentation of the term? and in what way does my definition of the term, suggest that race doesn't exist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida
I am not an advocate for race; all I am saying is that race is a fact of life for human beings in society. In the same token even though I am not an advocate of race I also don't run from the terms and would NOT want to be categorized with Caucasians or Mongoloids or any other.

This is the difference between the African mindset and the African American mindset. We are not ashamed of being black/negroid and the African American due to whatever pressures they may face ARE.

---

There is little interest in this review in "social race", since this varies from place to place. "Black" and "White" are differently defined in America than Panama or Brazil. The interest is in "real" affinities.

Source: Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships, by S.O.Y. Keita, History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)

quote:

---

It is impossible for words like "racism" and "racialism" to exist in normative(mine) or constative(yours) philosophical models in a debate and "race" not to exist. Even the theory of relativety is being challenged by your constative model of what race ought not to be. You can't have a word that exists that is relative to a word that doesn't.

---

4. The abscence of 'races' does not mean the abscence of racism, or the structured inequality based on operationalized prejudice used to deprive people who are deemed to be fundamentally biologically different of social and economic justice. The 'no biological race' position does not exclude the idea that racism is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Source: Conceptualizing Human Variation Nature Genetic Supplement; Volume 36; Number 11; November 2004

 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
^^Actually, Vida's words belie the central argument being made. As a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT "race" is a way of identifying and categorizing people based on arbitrary physical attributes which have NO biological meaning in terms of the taxonomy of the human species. There is only ONE human species biologically and therefore only ONE human race. HOWEVER, humans as social creatures tend to find ways of GROUPING themselves based on all sorts of SOCIALLY defined attributes, skin color, income, color of clothing and so on. NONE OF THESE CHANGE THE BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF RACE. What WHITES have done is created a SOCIAL STRUCTURE in which WHITE SKIN is exalted ABOVE ALL OTHER OUTWARD FORMS OF HUMAN APPEARANCE, not because it has ANY BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE, but because SOCIALLY WHITES CAN NOT ADVANCE WITHOUT IT, ESPECIALLY IF IT REQUIRES FAIR PLAY WITH OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT WHITE. THAT is a fact and is VALID and is called WHITE SUPREMACY and HAS NO BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OR MEANING OTHER THAN AS A SOCIAL MECHANISM TO GUARANTEE WHITES ARE AT THE TOP OF THE SOCIAL ORDER. THEREFORE, FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THEY HAVE TO ASSOCIATE ANCIENT BLACK AFRICANS WITH WHITE SKIN, BECAUSE THAT PROVIDES THEM VALIDITY IN ASSUMING THAT WHITE SKIN IS A SUPERIOR ATTRIBUTE AMONG MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN RACE, WHICH MAKES THEM SPECIAL.

And I am happy to slap any white supremacist in the face with the facts that WHITES did not build ancient Egypt. WHITE SKIN is not the basis of HUMAN BIOLOGICAL evolution and WHITE SKIN does not make a SUPERIOR FORM OF HUMAN. WHITE SKIN is not INDIGENOUS to Africa in any MAJOR WAY and the ORIGINAL POPULATIONS OF AFRICA AND THE ENTIRE WORLD HAD BLACK SKIN. In fact, people have had BLACK SKIN LONGER than there HAVE BEEN WHITES ON THIS PLANET. BLACK SKIN is a FACT of biology and is a FACT of the HISTORY of AFRICAN PEOPLE in ALL PARTS OF AFRICA and North Africa is NO EXCEPTION.

Also, the reason this SOCIAL CONSTRUCT is THROWN AROUND is because it is the LAST LINE OF DEFENSE for those who want to believe in WHITE SUPREMACY. Such reasoning goes that since there are no RACES and because there IS NO PROOF that the ancient Egyptians were WHITE, the only thing we can fall back on is what "WHITE FOLKS BELIEVE" and of course WHITES believe in the social construct of WHITES FIRST and everyone else LAST. Therefore, you aren't arguing that RACES do not exist, you are ARGUING THAT WHITES ARE INHERENTLY RACIST, especially in their views of AFRICAN history. But that FLIMSY DEFENSE of SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS is just that, a DEFENSE OF A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT and WORLD VIEW designed to KEEP BLACKS "in their place". THIS IS DESIGNED TO EASILY APPEAL to those with a WHITE MAKES RIGHT mentality, which requires NOTHING MORE THAN WHITE APPROVAL and SUPPORT to be accepted, as SCIENTIFIC PROOF is not necessary, sought or addressed. Which boils down to "but WHITE FOLKS SAID that...." as if that MEANS something and constitutes a SOUND ARGUMENT about the scientific validity of RACE in the first place and should be accepted at face value with no further investigation. Unfortunately, everyone is not FOOLED by this, including WHITES and other people who THINK FOR THEMSELVES.
 

---

Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
 

quote:

---

vidadavida
quote:



This is the difference between the African mindset and the African American mindset. We are not ashamed of being black/negroid and the African American due to whatever pressures they may face ARE.


Don't try to claim that all African Americans feel this way. Fanon and others have found that this is a characteristic of "middle class"/uncle tom Blacks around the world.

I believe that Rasol is African. Supercar/Mystery Solver from his style of writing is probably living in England.

Also stop claiming you are African you are European

---

Another self hating African American statement..how the hell does "middle class" = uncle toms?!?! So all negros are supposed to be broke like you?!?!? DAYUM!!!!!!!!! <-------SEEEEE..and HE calls ME a European man o man!!!!!!

In rich/upper class black organizations like Jack and Jill and Sigma Phi and Links, NMA and NBA I was involved in growing up they always warned us of negros like you. They are called "crabs" i.e the "crab theory" where you try to bring all negroes down to your low level lol, I am glad we are trained well as kids on the top level. So i'll take the "uncle tom" comment as a compliment !!

I guess this is why you try to make Africans Asians and Indians smh..sad.

quote:

---

quote:

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote:

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

Vida says:
quote:

"Because race is divided by appearance and not geography and all humans come from a common heredity yet there are still socially constructed race models."

Is this your definition of race, which is clearly invalid in biological terms? In your terms race = phenotype, which is the anti-thesis of biological meanings of either term.

I have posted the definition of race above more than once. If phenotype means the finished product or appearance of an individual then yes I am equating this with race.

I have also posted the definition of race, and it says your definition is wrong. But going by 'your' definition, then also race = finished product? What is so 'finished' about physical appearance only?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

Vidadavida:

No one in any of the African slave trades took blood tests to check "race" they were taken based on appearance.

Relevance to the 'substance' of race?

---

---

quote:

---

quote:

Vidadavida:
quote:

^If so, how many human races are there, according to this definition?

That is up to each individuals perception because "society" does not equal "solely what Vidadavida thinks"

So in essence, you are saying that your use of the word has no 'definition'?

---

quote:

---

quote:

Vidadavida:


Some divide into three 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid

Some four 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid

Some five 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid 5. Vedoid

Some six 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid 5. Vedoid 6. Oxidental native americans

What about the great degree of phenotypic variations within the groups you just mentioned? Based on your 'race = phenotype', shouldn't each of these variant groups be in their own 'race', rather than lumped with others?

---

quote:

---

quote:

Vidadavida:

Regardless of how unscientific, unspecific, inconsistent these labels maybe to the said human; this is how humans make sense of the world reason, logic in classifying difference which culturally are called races/ethnic groups. I didn't start this so do not put the blame on me.

Well, humans have the tendency to find social kinship and thence, the grouping, but who's to say that this is 'race'? Misuse of 'race' in human grouping, is a Eurocentric concept.

---

quote:

---

quote:

Vidadavida :
quote:

Mystery Solver:

Vida also says:

"And I have said ad naseum that race is a social construct and NOT biological. The problem is you hold everything to biological constructs and that is biased and the concept of race was NEVER biological to begin with so this is a non-sequitor."


Race is a biological construct; the definition has already been provided. Actually it is a biological construct, misused socially in the Eurocentric world.

---

quote:

---

Good point actually , but biologically "race" is used for animal taxonyms and socially used for human beings.

Race applies to all organisms, including humans. You have just failed to show us that human 'races', as opposed to the human 'race', exists.

---

quote:

---

quote:

Vidadavida:

You are saying only one is valid and I am saying both are *shrugs*.

How can you say both are valid, when 'race' is a clearly defined biological construct, a definition which you've abandoned, but claim that another without 'definition' is just as valid as the former?

---

quote:

---

quote:

Vidadavida:

I am not an advocate for race

Then why do you advocate the term, as one without a definition?

I'm an advocate for race, just not the way you use it [which still needs to be clarified].

---

quote:

---

quote:

Vidadavida:

all I am saying is that race is a fact of life for human beings in society.

Outside the Eurocentric world, who uses the term 'race', or even group people as the Eurocentric world does?

---

quote:

---

quote:

Vidadavida:

In the same token even though I am not an advocate of race I also don't run from the terms and would NOT want to be categorized with Caucasians or Mongoloids or any other.

This underlies confusion.

---

Only to African Americans that hate being black because I have no problem with it and am very proud

quote:

---

quote:

Vidadavida:

This is the difference between the African mindset and the African American mindset. We are not ashamed of being black/negroid and the African American due to whatever pressures they may face ARE.

Relevance?

---

quote:

---

quote:

Vidadavida:

It is impossible for words like "racism" and "racialism" to exist in normative mine or constative yours philosophical models in a debate and "race" not to exist.

What is 'normative' about your use of 'race', which lacks definition, as opposed to my well-defined presentation of the term? and in what way does my definition of the term, suggest that race doesn't exist?

---

quote:

---

quote:

Vidadavida:

Even the theory of relativety is being challenged by your constative model of what race ought not to be.

Share the details of this 'relativity', and how it is challenged by my presentation of race, which also happens to be the biological definition of the term - hence, not really 'mine'?

---

quote:

---

quote:

Vidadavida:

You can't have a word that exists that is relative to a word that doesn't.

Coherency please?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Also stop claiming you are African you are European.

---

^ Agreed. Passive aggressive Eurocentrist troll.

I forced the issue with this person precisely to expose this.

The tactic of making Eurocentric assertions via supposedly innocent rheotorical questions is characteristic of down-low Eurocentrism.

Notice Djehuti's question was never answered.....

---

Based on the context of the word Eurocentric that you are using here, what exactly does that word mean? I am confused in how you are using this so called derrogatory term.

I am not going to answer an Asian about how blacks/Africans/Negros look or our culture. You African Americans can go on disrespecting your ancestors if you want to by accepting Asians to critique your culture, but I wont participate. I don't see blacks on an Asian forum talking about chink features considering they all look the same to me and I would never argue with one on their own phenotype.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ LOL And just exactly what is this "rod" you speak of? Any examples??

---

Good question. This poster should present specific evidence against AE being Black, if he has any.

---

---

quote:

---

Good question. This poster should present specific evidence against AE being Black, if he has any.

---

quote:

---

quote:

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

Race is a biological construct; the definition has already been provided. Actually it is a biological construct, misused socially in the Eurocentric world.

Correct. The above constitutes and answer to my question,


It is the very fact that race is a biological construct that is misused socially that makes the notion of human races pseudo-scientific.

---

quote:

---

quote:

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:

Vidadavida:

It is impossible for words like "racism" and "racialism" to exist in normative(mine) or constative(yours) philosophical models in a debate and "race" not to exist.

What is 'normative' about your use of 'race', which lacks definition, as opposed to my well-defined presentation of the term? and in what way does my definition of the term, suggest that race doesn't exist?

Take into consideration, that my well-defined contextualization of race left little room for further questioning, while Vida's take on the term on the other hand, has opened up a can of ever-increasing questions. This is a 'litmus test' between a relatively well 'established' idea and one which isn't.

---

quote:

---

quote:

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida
I am not an advocate for race; all I am saying is that race is a fact of life for human beings in society. In the same token even though I am not an advocate of race I also don't run from the terms and would NOT want to be categorized with Caucasians or Mongoloids or any other.

This is the difference between the African mindset and the African American mindset. We are not ashamed of being black/negroid and the African American due to whatever pressures they may face ARE.



There is little interest in this review in "social race", since this varies from place to place. "Black" and "White" are differently defined in America than Panama or Brazil. The interest is in "real" affinities.

Source: Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships, by S.O.Y. Keita, History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)

quote:

It is impossible for words like "racism" and "racialism" to exist in normative(mine) or constative(yours) philosophical models in a debate and "race" not to exist. Even the theory of relativety is being challenged by your constative model of what race ought not to be. You can't have a word that exists that is relative to a word that doesn't.



4. The abscence of 'races' does not mean the abscence of racism, or the structured inequality based on operationalized prejudice used to deprive people who are deemed to be fundamentally biologically different of social and economic justice. The 'no biological race' position does not exclude the idea that racism is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Source: Conceptualizing Human Variation Nature Genetic Supplement; Volume 36; Number 11; November 2004

---

Ok, now is your time to show your example of white and black and how it differs in Brazil and the United states. Also, no one said anything about these terms being used as relative to the culture using them. That doesn't refute anything I have said. No biological race still doesn't do away with racism? Why? And when you tell me why there is racism and racialism in your response, I will there retort with "that would be what people socially call race" appearances.

You wasted your time with your post, but at least you were civil and I respect that.

quote:

---

, Vida's words belie the central argument being made. As a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT "race" is a way of identifying and categorizing people based on arbitrary physical attributes which have NO biological meaning in terms of the taxonomy of the human species.

---

WHEW!!! Finally someone understands ME!!!! I am going to start calling you "Doug M Christ" lmao!!

quote:

---

There is only ONE human species biologically and therefore only ONE human race. HOWEVER, humans as social creatures tend to find ways of GROUPING themselves based on all sorts of SOCIALLY defined attributes, skin color , income, color of clothing and so on. NONE OF THESE CHANGE THE BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF RACE

---

quote:

---

What WHITES have done is created a SOCIAL STRUCTURE in which WHITE SKIN is exalted ABOVE ALL OTHER OUTWARD FORMS OF HUMAN APPEARANCE, not because it has ANY BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE, but because SOCIALLY WHITES CAN NOT ADVANCE WITHOUT IT, ESPECIALLY IF IT REQUIRES FAIR PLAY WITH OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT WHITE. THAT is a fact and is VALID and is called WHITE SUPREMACY and HAS NO BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OR MEANING OTHER THAN AS A SOCIAL MECHANISM TO GUARANTEE WHITES ARE AT THE TOP OF THE SOCIAL ORDER. THEREFORE, FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THEY HAVE TO ASSOCIATE ANCIENT BLACK AFRICANS WITH WHITE SKIN, BECAUSE THAT PROVIDES THEM VALIDITY IN ASSUMING THAT WHITE SKIN IS A SUPERIOR ATTRIBUTE AMONG MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN RACE, WHICH MAKES THEM SPECIAL.

---

Absolutely brilliant, but based on the quacks and integrationalist Afrocentrics on this board this statement would be null and void because there are no black and white races

quote:

---

Also, the reason this SOCIAL CONSTRUCT is THROWN AROUND is because it is the LAST LINE OF DEFENSE for those who want to believe in WHITE SUPREMACY

---

quote:

---

Such reasoning goes that since there are no RACES and because there IS NO PROOF that the ancient Egyptians were WHITE, the only thing we can fall back on is what "WHITE FOLKS BELIEVE" and of course WHITES believe in the social construct of WHITES FIRST and everyone else LAST. Therefore, you aren't arguing that RACES do not exist, you are ARGUING THAT WHITES ARE INHERENTLY RACIST, especially in their views of AFRICAN history. But that FLIMSY DEFENSE of SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS is just that, a DEFENSE OF A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT and WORLD VIEW designed to KEEP BLACKS "in their place". THIS IS DESIGNED TO EASILY APPEAL to those with a WHITE MAKES RIGHT mentality, which requires NOTHING MORE THAN WHITE APPROVAL and SUPPORT to be accepted, as SCIENTIFIC PROOF is not necessary, sought or addressed. Which boils down to "but WHITE FOLKS SAID that...." as if that MEANS something and constitutes a SOUND ARGUMENT about the scientific validity of RACE in the first place and should be accepted at face value with no further investigation. Unfortunately, everyone is not FOOLED by this, including WHITES and other people who THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ I must have missed it and still don't see it.

Please cut and paste your previously posted evidence.....
re:

quote:

---

Good question. This poster should present specific evidence against AE being Black, if he has any.

---

Thanks in advance.

---

quote:

---

Misusage and usage are both the same thing because they are positive actions.

---

quote:

---

Democracy is misused, Capitalism is misused, Money and Guns are misused. That doesn't mean they don't all exist dude lol.

---

quote:

---

Sorry, I misread what you said in my last response because this is going back to the original point I was making to the poster.

---

quote:

---

I said that I am not convinced that the Ancient Egyptians are black

---

quote:

---

and the study is too ambiguous

---

quote:

---

because the people on this board say there is no such thing as race in humans (i.e blacks)

---

quote:

---

They also say genetics are not races (i.e blacks)

---

quote:

---

They also say that craniometry and osteology do note entail race (i.e blacks).

---

quote:

---

So I am left with a big "I don't know

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QB] [QUOTE] Misusage and usage are both the same thing because they are positive actions.

---

Coherency please?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Democracy is misused, Capitalism is misused, Money and Guns are misused. That doesn't mean they don't all exist dude lol.

---

lol. The above is a flawed analogy.

Democracy and Capitalism are political constructs that can be shown to exist as such.

Guns are weapons and can be shown to exist as such.

---

quote:

---

Race is biological construct.

You have already admitted that humans cannot be divided into races biologically.

---

quote:

---

Therefore human races *do not* exist.

---

quote:

---

That race is asserted sociologically is completely irrelevant to this, and in fact is precisely what defines race as pseudo-science.

---

It is totally relevent considering when Egyptologists called Egyptians white they weren't talking about thier "biology" and I am not chasing your imposed "psuedo-science" non-sequitor anymore.

quote:

---

Pseudo-science is that for which scientific claims are made, but in fact can in no way be sustained.

---

quote:

---

The appropriate analogy is to witchcraft, and UFO's which are also sociologically phenomenon for which false and therefore pseudo-scientific claims are made.

---

quote:

---

To state that something exists 'sociologically' is actually saying next to nothing.

---

Ok, then explain the "mind" the "ego" the "super-ego" the "id" "morals" "faith" "God" "Jesus" Man I can go on and on with this cuzz You apparently don't know anything about Sociology which is why you don't seem to be able to communicate well with others that disagree with you.

quote:

---

Any idea that is spoken exists sociologically the moment it is uttered.

2x2=5 exists sociologically the moment I say it.

However as mathamatics, it merely constitutes a false claim. As a math theorem 2x2=5 is invalid, and so is race invalid as applied to humans.

---

quote:

---

This takes us back to one of 'now many' questions that you just keep dodging.

If you admit that race is biologically invalid in humans, then it follows that by defintion you cannot use biology to assess race in humans .

---

The last non sequitor I will even respond to

quote:

---

This is the reality that I denoted in my 1st reply to this thread. To refute this reality - you must show that biological race exists in humans.

---

quote:

---

Babblings about social-taxons [which by definition can be whatever you want them to be - or not] is really just red herring meant to distract from your inability to prove that race, a biological construct actually exists.

---

Another moving of the goal posts
Bottom line:

quote:

---

When you admit that race does not exist biologically - you falsify your own thesis , and your argument comes to and end, 'social-distractions' notwithstanding.

---

Another LIE!!!! Rasol you aren't as good of a debator as I thought you were I am disappointed.
 

---

Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Sorry, I misread what you said in my last response because this is going back to the original point I was making to the poster.

---

I doubt it, since I asked you the same question several times, which you still have not answered.

---

I can't answer the question because there is no such thing as race according to you. So NO Egyptians weren't black because black doesnt exist in humans ACCORDING TO YOU!!!!!

quote:

---

quote:

---

I said that I am not convinced that the Ancient Egyptians are black

---

Actually you said you have evidence that they are not. We are asking you for "your evidence."

If you don't have any, just admit it.

---

LIE, now show me where I said this, waiting.....

quote:

---

quote:

---

and the study is too ambiguous

---

What study are you referring to? Your comments are ambiguous.

---

True, let me be more specific I apologize, the study of the race of Ancient Egyptians(which of course, now doesn't exist). Ancient Egyptians Archeology, Osteology, Craniometry, Anthropology.

quote:

---

quote:

---

because the people on this board say there is no such thing as race in humans (i.e blacks)

---

Coherency please. This statement is based on the assumption that black is a race.

---

It is, because it comes from the word "negro" which is an anthropological term that you personally do not like and deem invalid.

Negroid= black, Caucasian = White, Mongoloid = Asian....this is how they are used and you can deny this all you want, it doesn't change anything I have said.

quote:

---

Please explain your position.

Are you saying that race exists and black is a race?

---

Yes I am saying that race exists socially and black is but one of these socially classified races.

quote:

---

Are you saying that if race does not exist then there are no blacks?

---

No, I am iterating your implicit rationale.

quote:

---

Please explain exactly why black and race are the same thing?

---

Race is a social construct based on grouping individuals based on appearance. An attribute of people's appearance would be skin color i.e "black".

Furthermore considering most people called black(social race category) aren't black skinned how would you explain why "Will Smith" is called black and doesn't have "black skin"?

quote:

---

quote:

---

They also say genetics are not races (i.e blacks)

---

ie - You repeat the same unthinking assumptions.

For clarity:

Geneticists do indeed claim that races do not exist.

Spencer Wells: Biologically race has no meaning.

They do not claim that Blacks do not exist.

CL Brace: "African entails Black, but Black does not entail African".

Geneticists do indeed claim that skin color is not racial.

Jablonski: Skin color is of no value in assessing the phylogenetic relationships between human groups

They do *not* claim that skin color is not genetic.


Harding: By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any lighter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein

---

Interesting, now can you show me a geneticist that says Egyptians are "black" or "black skinned" and what color category to these geneticists say are general AFricans considering they mostly aren't "black skinned"?

I love the semantics in this though. For some reason you have revealed that geneticists use the term "black" to equate skin color, but have a fascade of being abhorant to racial epithets?!?!? Yet the origin of Race in the west was based on.....skin color?!?!?! *scratching head*

quote:

---

quote:

---

They also say that craniometry and osteology do note entail race (i.e blacks).

---

ie - ad nauseum fallacy as black is a reference to dark skin color and not and osteology or craniometry.

---

Dark skin color?!?! Black means Black not "dark" and I addressed my association with black and race above so I need not respond to this.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So I am left with a big "I don't know

---

That's because you intentionally make no sense, so as to achieve your 'I don't know'.

---

I make perfect sense you just don't like the "sense" I am making.

quote:

---

Meanwhile you were asked to present evidence that Km.t were not black.

You did not.

---

You are making the positive claim so that would be up to YOU. Discovery and National Geographic would tend to disagree with them being black so again based on your lack of authority the burden of proof is on you and I am ALL EARS>>>>

quote:

---

Therefore isn't it fair for us to conclude that you don't have any?

---

---

Another Lie considering I never said they were anything hence the "I don't know" which isn't a claim either way. Your bully tactics and putting words in people's mouths will only work with the feeble African American negro, the mulatto, the white man..it is not going to work with me I am from a different stock of negro that you heave never witnessed before
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Vida doesnt see how he is twisting himself into a knot.

We say there are no races.

He says there are since we say the Egyptians were mostly blacks.

We say black is not a race.

He says, yes it is, especially since Europeans see the Egyptians as white, which means that they werent black, which proves that there is a such thing as race.

Vida, skin color is a fact of biology. Skin color is not race. The FACT that SOME people view skin color as a SIGNIFICANT aspect of human biology for the purposes of DEFINING and CATEGORIZING humans for SOCIAL, POLITICAL and ECONOMIC purposes does not change the fact that SKIN COLOR does not equal RACE.

It doesnt get any simpler than that.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
*sigh* Perhaps it would be best if you went to T-rex's thread: Does Race Exist?
 

---

Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
 

quote:

---

Vida doesnt see how he is twisting himself into a knot.

---

quote:

---

We say there are no races.

He says there are since we say the Egyptians were mostly blacks.

---

Wrong, I am saying there ARE races and you are saying there ARE NO races and therefore I have not choice, but to come to the conclusion that Egyptians cannot be defined by any other description but Egyptians. Not black or white etc.

Please reiterate people's points clearly and concisely otherwise that is called "lying". You are my boy and I like you so I'll let you off with a warning this time

quote:

---

We say black is not a race.

---

quote:

---

He says, yes it is, especially since Europeans see the Egyptians as white, which means that they werent black, which proves that there is a such thing as race.

---

quote:

---

Vida, skin color is a fact of biology. Skin color is not race. The FACT that SOME people view skin color as a SIGNIFICANT aspect of human biology for the purposes of DEFINING and CATEGORIZING humans for SOCIAL, POLITICAL and ECONOMIC purposes does not change the fact that SKIN COLOR does not equal RACE.

---

Ok, so the problem is the word "race" --prima facie-- being used by me and not the denotation(grouping people based on appearance) of the word?

What word would you like me to use?

Question: What is the "race" of Egyptians? Which word should I replace for "race" [type of people]/[kind of people]?

When you say black and white..what is the umbrella statement for these two words? Is it "color"? If yes, then why are most Egyptians not painted black and what is the evidence of their skin color due to geneticists? What "color" do geneticists say Egyptians are and can you please give a citation.

By the way, what "color" are Armenians? What "color" are Koreans? What "color" are Brazilians?

This will be a doozy...How many "colors" are there of humans(this is where this falls apart)? Considering in my racial model I only had 8 racial types.

Now here is how you guys are making no sense

1. Race as a social construct is based on appearances.

2. The most ESSENTIAL attribute of this construct was skin color *snickering*

3. Because white geneticists say "race" cannot be used, it is accepted by people on this board to denote people by skin color because geneticists do so?!?!

4. It is more childish to describe people based on their skin color than a racial epithet like "negroid, mongoloid, cuacasoid"

5. Does not negro mean black in spanish?!

6. Why do geneticists use the term "black"; considering most Africans aren't black skinned?

7. Isn't the above actually even less precise than terms like negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid considering that precision and consistency is what motivates geneticists to abhore race in the first place?

Here is my demonstration of how this whole "color" thing stinks!!









^^^According to society all of these people would be grouped in the racial category of "black/negro/negroid"

Based on the color "black" being prefered by the people on this board and not "negroid/negro", why would these people be called "black" since neither of them have "black" skin?!?! hmmm

Especially when this is the color "black" :



and why yes, yes there are "black" people please compare:

(*snickering* sorry for using the typical Wesley Snipes example I couldn't think of any other African American celebrity that would be Internationally known)

Now based on the folks on this boards rationale, only Wesley Snipes out of the five total people I have posted fits the category "black"...YOUR WORDS NOT MINE he he he...now lets see who has put themselves in a knot.
 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

quote:

---

Mystery Solver:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

Some eight 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid 5. Vedoid 6. Oxidental 7. Semetic middle eastern 8. Hispanic latin/native hybrids in the Americas

---

Again, there are no phenotypic variants within these groups?

---

Yes as stated above.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

Regardless of how unscientific, unspecific, inconsistent these labels maybe to the said human; this is how humans make sense of the world reason, logic in classifying difference which culturally are called races/ethnic groups. I didn't start this so do not put the blame on me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

quote:

---

Mystery Solver:
Well, humans have the tendency to find social kinship and thence, the grouping, but who's to say that this is 'race'? Misuse of 'race' in human grouping, is a Eurocentric concept.

---

Well this is more African American self hatred by assuming that only the great white man can logically see differences in human beings and not the primative African smh but, I understand the problem finally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

What you and Rasol are saying is that by me using the word "race" I can not apply that to humans based on the word prima facie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

You are holding to the biological definition and orgin of the word used for "species" while I am using the word in cultural context both being actual valid points.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

The problem with this is that he fact remains that even if the word "race" is being misused the denotation of it in it's use is not the same as it is being used in biology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:


For example...Christmas in the West..the first image that pops in people's mind is Santa Clause and Christmas trees and presents...not some kike on a stick. What you are saying is that I am wrong for linking the cultural denotation of Christmas with Santa and not it's true denotation with Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

I understand, but that is not going to stop people from taking their kids to sit on Santa's lap in the mall.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

Now that I understand you two can you try to understand me with my analogy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

quote:

---

Mystery Solver:

Vida also says:

"And I have said ad naseum that race is a social construct and NOT biological. The problem is you hold everything to biological constructs and that is biased and the concept of race was NEVER biological to begin with so this is a non-sequitor."


Race is a biological construct; the definition has already been provided. Actually it is a biological construct, misused socially in the Eurocentric world.

---

Well that is fine, but this is based on your perception of misusage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

Misusage and usage are both the same thing because they are positive actions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

Democracy is misused, Capitalism is misused, Money and Guns are misused. That doesn't mean they don't all exist dude lol.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

quote:

---

Mystery Solver:

Race applies to all organisms, including humans. You have just failed to show us that human 'races', as opposed to the human 'race', exists.

---

I understand finally what you are saying and I concur with your problems with the "word" prima facie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

but denotations and inference of words are actually more applicable by human beings in society..just thought you might want to know this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

People use the word "race" and are not indicating that there are different species of humans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

quote:

---

Mystery Solver:

How can you say both are valid, when 'race' is a clearly defined biological construct, a definition which you've abandoned, but claim that another without 'definition' is just as valid as the former?

---

No no, the ORIGIN of the word race is biological, but socially it has taken on a new definition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:


–noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.


2. a population so related.


3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.

b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.

c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.

4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.

5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.


^^^^There is nothing biological about this definition. You can't pick and choose which to use when both are used!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

quote:

---

Mystery Solver:

I'm an advocate for race, just not the way you use it [which still needs to be clarified].

---

race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.

4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.


^^^^please stop ignoring this, that is rude.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

quote:

---

quote:

Outside the Eurocentric world, who uses the term 'race', or even group people as the Eurocentric world does?

---

Well if it wasn't for the Eurocentric world we wouldn't be on a computer talking about this dude.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

Black people and white people are very much used in non-westernized countries as well as asians did you not know this? Kokujin means nigger in Japanese. *shrugs*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

Only to African Americans that hate being black ( because I have no problem with it and am very proud)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

For someone to abhore the usage or misusage of a word based on it's definition or denotation has a personal problem with concept of that word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

quote:

---

Mystery Solver:

What is 'normative' about your use of 'race', which lacks definition, as opposed to my well-defined presentation of the term? and in what way does my definition of the term, suggest that race doesn't exist?

---

It is normative because you are saying it is falsifiable based on your criteria of what definition should be properly used.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

I will be more specific with the fact that when I said you say race doesn't exist, I mean concerning human beings...excuuuuse me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

quote:

---

Mystery Solver:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

Even the theory of relativety is being challenged by your constative model of what race ought not to be.

---

Share the details of this 'relativity', and how it is challenged by my presentation of race, which also happens to be the biological definition of the term - hence, not really 'mine'?

---

This is moving the goal post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

The debate is that race exists in a social human construct and now you are talking about species.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

Stop it with the biological non sequitors. I have posted to social construct definition from Webster's dictionary over five fucking times!!!!! Biology has NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT WORD!!!!!!!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

quote:

---

Mystery Solver:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

You can't have a word that exists that is relative to a word that doesn't.

---

Coherency please?

---

Yes, I would like some because how can "racism" exist without "race"..that is incoherent to me.

---

quote:

---

Here is my demonstration of how this whole "color" thing stinks!!

---

The above is a demonstration of a childish rationalisation of one persons racism - ever looking for some kind of excuse - in order to evade confronting its own essential uglyness.

Here is the essential fact all of this nonsense seeks to run away from:

The AE referred to themselves by color as Blacks.

Of course, Eurocentrists think this stinks, because they aren't Black, they hate Blacks, they worship the AE and.... they can't stand the fact that the AE were Black.

Of course this says nothing about race, but reveals everything about their racism.

If you truly oppose references to skin color - then why not crusade against Europeans calling themselves whites?

This would be logical, because it's something you could theoretically change [right ].

Other than lie about it, or try to obscure it through passive aggressive rheotrical hand wringing, you can't do anything about Km.t being Blacks because it's a fact of history.

Blacks is exactly what it means. Blacks is exactly what they were.

You can lie to yourself, and you can lie to yourself about why you are lying about it.

But when you are done lying Km.t will still mean Black you can't change that by lying about it.

Here's another truth for you to suck on:

You don't oppose people referring to themseves in terms of color.

You only oppose Ancient Egyptians being black.

You've failed completely to prove the existence of race, and at the same time...you've exposed your own racism. lol.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

rasol writes: When you admit that race does not exist biologically - you falsify your own thesis , and your argument comes to and end, 'social-distractions' notwithstanding.

---

quote:

---

Another LIE!!!! Rasol you aren't as good of a debator as I thought you were I am disappointed.

---

My my, but you *are* upset aren't you?

You should be.

For weeks you posed as and African who was only here to ask innocent questions.

In 24 hours i've made you completely blow your cover, and reveal your agenda.

Now, write some more paragraphs about how you hate 'the whole color thing', so I can toy with you some more.

The above discourse translates as -> you hate 'Blacks', thus it's the only color group you are obsessed with, and whose very existence you wish to blot from the historical record, out of your own hate.

Ohh my friend...I've just begun to have fun with you.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

quote:

---

Vida doesnt see how he is twisting himself into a knot.

---

How? Please demonstrate..

quote:

---

We say there are no races.

He says there are since we say the Egyptians were mostly blacks.

---

Wrong, I am saying there ARE races and you are saying there ARE NO races and therefore I have not choice, but to come to the conclusion that Egyptians cannot be defined by any other description but Egyptians. Not black or white etc.

Please reiterate people's points clearly and concisely otherwise that is called "lying". You are my boy and I like you so I'll let you off with a warning this time

quote:

---

We say black is not a race.

---

Ok, now please tell me why is black not a race considering this is an attribute of the social concept of race especially in western society?!?!

quote:

---

He says, yes it is, especially since Europeans see the Egyptians as white, which means that they werent black, which proves that there is a such thing as race.

---

^^^^What the hell?!?! Man are you crazy or something, where did you see me say this?

quote:

---

Vida, skin color is a fact of biology. Skin color is not race. The FACT that SOME people view skin color as a SIGNIFICANT aspect of human biology for the purposes of DEFINING and CATEGORIZING humans for SOCIAL, POLITICAL and ECONOMIC purposes does not change the fact that SKIN COLOR does not equal RACE.

---

Ok, so the problem is the word "race" --prima facie-- being used by me and not the denotation(grouping people based on appearance) of the word?

What word would you like me to use?

Question: What is the "race" of Egyptians? Which word should I replace for "race" [type of people]/[kind of people]?

When you say black and white..what is the umbrella statement for these two words? Is it "color"? If yes, then why are most Egyptians not painted black and what is the evidence of their skin color due to geneticists? What "color" do geneticists say Egyptians are and can you please give a citation.

By the way, what "color" are Armenians? What "color" are Koreans? What "color" are Brazilians?

This will be a doozy...How many "colors" are there of humans(this is where this falls apart)? Considering in my racial model I only had 8 racial types.

Now here is how you guys are making no sense

1. Race as a social construct is based on appearances.

2. The most ESSENTIAL attribute of this construct was skin color *snickering*

3. Because white geneticists say "race" cannot be used, it is accepted by people on this board to denote people by skin color because geneticists do so?!?!

4. It is more childish to describe people based on their skin color than a racial epithet like "negroid, mongoloid, cuacasoid"

5. Does not negro mean black in spanish?!

6. Why do geneticists use the term "black"; considering most Africans aren't black skinned?

7. Isn't the above actually even less precise than terms like negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid considering that precision and consistency is what motivates geneticists to abhore race in the first place?

Here is my demonstration of how this whole "color" thing stinks!!









^^^According to society all of these people would be grouped in the racial category of "black/negro/negroid"

Based on the color "black" being prefered by the people on this board and not "negroid/negro", why would these people be called "black" since neither of them have "black" skin?!?! hmmm

Especially when this is the color "black" :



and why yes, yes there are "black" people please compare:

(*snickering* sorry for using the typical Wesley Snipes example I couldn't think of any other African American celebrity that would be Internationally known)

Now based on the folks on this boards rationale, only Wesley Snipes out of the five total people I have posted fits the category "black"...YOUR WORDS NOT MINE he he he...now lets see who has put themselves in a knot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
[QB] Vida doesnt see how he is twisting himself into a knot.

We say there are no races.

He says there are since we say the Egyptians were mostly blacks.

We say black is not a race.

He says, yes it is, especially since Europeans see the Egyptians as white, which means that they werent black, which proves that there is a such thing as race.

---

quote:

---

rasol writes: Pseudo-science is that for which scientific claims are made, but in fact can in no way be sustained.

---

quote:

---

Vida respounds: Coherency? Where is this word "scientific" coming from?

---

quote:

---

Vida writes: Is race biological to Vidadavida NOOOO, is race a social construct to Vidadavida YESSSS!!!!!!!

---

quote:

---

Vida writes: Race is a biological AND social construct

---

Well, which is it?

Does Vida really know what Vida actually believes?

You may recall that I began by noting that Vida has no real definition of race, because race itself is and incoherent, and ultimately childish discourse.

15 posts, [of Vidas] and nearly as many exclamatory polemics later, isn't it fair to say that Vida has proven just that?
 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

Ok, so the problem is the word "race" --prima facie-- being used by me and not the denotation(grouping people based on appearance) of the word?

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

What word would you like me to use?

---

Anything but attribute it to 'racial' substance. E.g. there is such a term as 'ethnicity' or 'ethnic'.

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

Question: What is the "race" of Egyptians?

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

Which word should I replace for "race" [type of people]/[kind of people]?

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

When you say black and white..what is the umbrella statement for these two words? Is it "color"?

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

If yes, then why are most Egyptians not painted black

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

and what is the evidence of their skin color due to geneticists? What "color" do geneticists say Egyptians are and can you please give a citation.

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

This will be a doozy...How many "colors" are there of humans(this is where this falls apart)? Considering in my racial model I only had 8 racial types.

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

Now here is how you guys are making no sense

1. Race as a social construct is based on appearances.

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

2. The most ESSENTIAL attribute of this construct was skin color *snickering*

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

3. Because white geneticists say "race" cannot be used, it is accepted by people on this board to denote people by skin color because geneticists do so?!?!

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

4. It is more childish to describe people based on their skin color than a racial epithet like "negroid, mongoloid, cuacasoid"

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

5. Does not negro mean black in spanish?!

6. Why do geneticists use the term "black"; considering most Africans aren't black skinned?

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

7. Isn't the above actually even less precise than terms like negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid considering that precision and consistency is what motivates geneticists to abhore race in the first place?

---

quote:

---

Mystery Solver writes: Confused thinking, but if it's any constellation, ancient Egyptians were Africans.

---

quote:

---

Genetically they were certainly African

---

quote:

---

How many "colors" are there of humans(this is where this falls apart)?

---

quote:

---

It is more childish to describe people based on their skin color

---

You mean like this?

Osirus,
Kem Wer,
the Great Black,
He of the Black Face:



I will gladly entertain your view that the Ancient Egyptians regard for Blackness was childish, *provided* you can explain why you feel that way, other than out of prejudice?

Until then, my answer to your question is that the AE refering to themselves as Blacks *makes perfect sense*, and that it is only you inability to emotionally accept this fact that is childish.

^ You may now endeavor to prove otherwise....
 

---

Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Here is my demonstration of how this whole "color" thing stinks!!

---

The above is a demonstration of a childish rationalisation of one persons racism - ever looking for some kind of excuse - in order to evade confronting its own essential uglyness.

---

How can one evade something that one confronts hence the reason I am saying the color thing stinks.

quote:

---

Here is the essential fact all of this nonsense seeks to run away from:

---

How does posting equal running?

quote:

---

The AE referred to themselves by color as Blacks.

---

They refered to themselves as KM.T(a burnt stick of wood with an owl)...what this is supposed to mean who knows. Does it say anything about them being black or white noooooooooo.

quote:

---

Of course, Eurocentrists think this stinks, because they aren't Black, they hate Blacks, they worship the AE and.... they can't stand the fact that the AE were Black.

---

Non sequitor and Red herring and ad hominem to whomever you are talking about...by the way what is a Eurocentric anyway because the way you have been using it lately I am thrown off by your context? It seems "Eurocentric" = anyone that disagrees with rasol <----why?

quote:

---

Of course this says nothing about race, but reveals everything about their racism.

---

Lie and Ad hominem *yawn*

quote:

---

If you truly oppose references to skin color - then why not crusade against Europeans calling themselves whites?

---

I don't oppose skin color and you know I don't considering I use the word black and white all the time here. What the hell are you talking about?

quote:

---

Other than lie about it, or try to obscure it through passive aggressive rheotrical hand wringing, you can't do anything about Km.t being Blacks because it's a fact of history.

---

I am waiting for the citation of geneticists that says Egyptians were black...you show me this and I will shut up

quote:

---

Blacks is exactly what it means. Blacks is exactly what they were.

---

Read statement above

quote:

---

You can lie to yourself, and you can lie to yourself about why you are lying about it.

---

About what?

quote:

---

But when you are done lying Km.t will still mean Black you can't change that by lying about it.

---

I really don't know what km.t means and neither do you considering I didn't know "owls" denoted a color

quote:

---

Here's another truth for you to suck on:

You don't oppose people referring to themseves in terms of color.

---

Correct

quote:

---

You only oppose Ancient Egyptians being black.

---

Superimposing, but oh well, I don't know what Egyptians were as I have statement many times before.

quote:

---

You've failed completely to prove the existence of race, and at the same time...you've exposed your own racism. lol.

---

---

Extremely stupid comment and I have posted the social definition of race over 8 times. Not knowing that Egyptians are black does not equate to racism because if it did the whole damn world would basically be racist because the world's perception of Ancient Egypt is usually based on what they show in movies of people that aren't black and you calling me a racist is not only a lie and ad hominem it is also called "projective identification". You Rasol are the racist and you HATE the very thing you are.

That is why you keep posting things about whites being barbarians 5000 years ago yet your ancestors are still barbarians
today. So your racist agenda makes no sense.

Blacks should be weary of weak minded nigs like you that are too paranoid for their own good. You would destroy any foundation of a black organization just on how race and racism and the two words period affects you.

Are you even a man or a woman? Did you get abused as a child, I just don't see why you are so affected by silly ass white people. I grew up around white people and have experienced more racism from whites and (african americans) more than all of you combined and I am not affected by it. What gives?

Is it that most of you are raised by your momma or some fat Jamima sweet potato pie makin grand mother and not a father that makes you so weak minded jeeesh?

It frustrates you that WHITE racists can impose their will and power with their racist ideals and you can only express it in a teeny tiny corner of the cyber world on a forum while living in a studio apartment lmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not my fault or any racist white person's fault for that matter deal with it
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida Extremely stupid comment

---

^ Such childish frustrated rhetoric only shows your anger at your inability to answer the questions.
 

---

Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

quote:

---

Vida doesnt see how he is twisting himself into a knot.

---

How? Please demonstrate..

quote:

---

We say there are no races.

He says there are since we say the Egyptians were mostly blacks.

---

Wrong, I am saying there ARE races and you are saying there ARE NO races and therefore I have not choice, but to come to the conclusion that Egyptians cannot be defined by any other description but Egyptians. Not black or white etc.

Please reiterate people's points clearly and concisely otherwise that is called "lying". You are my boy and I like you so I'll let you off with a warning this time

quote:

---

We say black is not a race.

---

Ok, now please tell me why is black not a race considering this is an attribute of the social concept of race especially in western society?!?!

quote:

---

He says, yes it is, especially since Europeans see the Egyptians as white, which means that they werent black, which proves that there is a such thing as race.

---

^^^^What the hell?!?! Man are you crazy or something, where did you see me say this?

quote:

---

Vida, skin color is a fact of biology. Skin color is not race. The FACT that SOME people view skin color as a SIGNIFICANT aspect of human biology for the purposes of DEFINING and CATEGORIZING humans for SOCIAL, POLITICAL and ECONOMIC purposes does not change the fact that SKIN COLOR does not equal RACE.

---

Ok, so the problem is the word "race" --prima facie-- being used by me and not the denotation(grouping people based on appearance) of the word?

What word would you like me to use?

Question: What is the "race" of Egyptians? Which word should I replace for "race" [type of people]/[kind of people]?

When you say black and white..what is the umbrella statement for these two words? Is it "color"? If yes, then why are most Egyptians not painted black and what is the evidence of their skin color due to geneticists? What "color" do geneticists say Egyptians are and can you please give a citation.

By the way, what "color" are Armenians? What "color" are Koreans? What "color" are Brazilians?

This will be a doozy...How many "colors" are there of humans(this is where this falls apart)? Considering in my racial model I only had 8 racial types.

Now here is how you guys are making no sense

1. Race as a social construct is based on appearances.

2. The most ESSENTIAL attribute of this construct was skin color *snickering*

3. Because white geneticists say "race" cannot be used, it is accepted by people on this board to denote people by skin color because geneticists do so?!?!

4. It is more childish to describe people based on their skin color than a racial epithet like "negroid, mongoloid, cuacasoid"

5. Does not negro mean black in spanish?!

6. Why do geneticists use the term "black"; considering most Africans aren't black skinned?

7. Isn't the above actually even less precise than terms like negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid considering that precision and consistency is what motivates geneticists to abhore race in the first place?

Here is my demonstration of how this whole "color" thing stinks!!









^^^According to society all of these people would be grouped in the racial category of "black/negro/negroid"

Based on the color "black" being prefered by the people on this board and not "negroid/negro", why would these people be called "black" since neither of them have "black" skin?!?! hmmm

Especially when this is the color "black" :



and why yes, yes there are "black" people please compare:

(*snickering* sorry for using the typical Wesley Snipes example I couldn't think of any other African American celebrity that would be Internationally known)

Now based on the folks on this boards rationale, only Wesley Snipes out of the five total people I have posted fits the category "black"...YOUR WORDS NOT MINE he he he...now lets see who has put themselves in a knot.

---

quote:

---

No Vida, now you are WHINING.

Why? Because of the simple fact that BLACK skin just like WHITE skin is a FACT of biology, but it isn't RACE because the genes that determine SKIN COLOR are a TINY PORTION of the overall human genome, so much so as to be IRRELEVANT when looking at genetic markers

---

Ok, thats fine, but what YOU are saying is that only Wesley Snipes in the listed 5 is "black" because he is the only one with black skin. Considering 99.9% of Egyptian depictions don't have them with "black" skin means that they AREN'T black in YOUR CRITERIA NOT MINE!!!

quote:

---

Some people are black, some people are white. So WHAT? Skin color is a FACT of human biology and genetics, RACE IS NOT.

---

I am not disagreeing with this. What I am saying is the racial term used for freakin blacks is "black" and you are saying there is no "black race" yet saying there ARE "blacks" that is fucking rediculous and circular!!!!!!

And to top it all off..."we can't say negro because that denotes race, but we can say black which actually was the racial epithet in the first place and yet negro means black in spanish" <-----GOOFY!!!!!!!!!

quote:

---

There are WHITES in Europe. There are BLACKS in Africa. Egypt was POPULATED by AFRICANS. The fact that they largely had BLACK SKIN does not mean that RACE exists in the human species.

---

I never said race exists "in" human beings because race is not biological. I said it exists in society which human beings ARE "in".

Egyptians didn't depict themselves primarily with "black skin". So therefore in your rationale they aren't black. Yet you people say I am wrong for using the term negro when in actuality "negro" in social racial terms encompases a miriad of skin colors from black to dark brown to brown to light brown to caramel to redbone to yellowbone etc. etc.

Based on my model of race I am doing Egyptians more justice than YOU are LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

---

What it MEANS is that YOU refuse to ACCEPT that they had BLACK SKIN.

---

No, actually they did because they didn't depict themselves as such.

quote:

---

You are WHINING because RATHER THAN STICK TO THE FACTS, that the Ancient Egyptians largely had dark skin complexion, which we BLACK, you want to argue about RACE.

---

There would be no argument if people were honest about race being used socially, but this board isn't very honest I am afraid. Largely had dark skin complexion is moving the goal post and ad hocing...I thought you said they were "black"..."black" is not synonymous with "dark"..black is a color(noun) and dark is an adjective.

quote:

---

you must understand it is NOT A RACIAL ISSUE it is a PHENOTYPE ISSUE

---

Ok, but this is where the confusion sets in. The Eurocentrist is going to say their phenotype is Caucasoid lol...so then what is the response to that?!?!? That there is no Caucasoid? Ok, but then what is the Phenotype of Egyptians then?

quote:

---

And the ORIGINAL INDIGENOUS Egyptians were BLACK AFRICANS.

---

The only disagreement we have here is that I see "black Africans" as a socially racial construct and you see it as some "color" concept *shrugs*

quote:

---

The facts and evidence are there to support this.

---

Show me the citation of a geneticist that says Egyptians are black and I will shut up.

quote:

---

The EGYPTIAN civilization developed IN AFRICA from LOCAL CONDITIONS among POPULATIONS that have been LIVING and DEVELOPING for THOUSANDS OF YEARS IN AFRICA. Egypt was a CONTINUATION of the HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA, not a SEPARATE ASPECT.

---

^^^No problems here.

quote:

---

Picture spamming wont help,unless you are going to SPAM pictures from Egypt itself as opposed to MODERN people, which is IRRELEVANT to the issue

---

NO NO NO address my question...what "color" are the top 4 people?

.

---

quote:

---

That is why you keep posting things about whites being barbarians 5000 years ago yet your ancestors are still barbarians
today

---

I have no idea what you are ranting about, or why you need to humiliate yourself by attempting to insult my ancestors with such unintelligible prattle, but I am amused by the sheer frenzied nature of your nakedly hateful response.

No rebuttal is necessary....in fact I would like you to continue.

Please tell us more about 'my ancestors still being barbarians today'?
 

---

Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida Extremely stupid comment

---

^ Such childish frustrated rhetoric only shows your anger at your inability to answer the questions.

quote:

---

I have posted the social definition of race over 8 times.

---

Untrue and irrelevant. You posted -other peoples differing opinions- on race. We ask for *your definition.* You did not present it, and in fact have contradicted yourself several times.

When asked for your definition, you 1st stated that race is *not* biological, and then later claiming that it *is.*

The question you were asked was - which is it?


You respound with desparate ranting, and claims for the number of times you've cut and pasted irrelevancies, but never actually answer the question.

Why is that?

---

quote:

---

Vida writes:I have posted the social definition of race over 8 times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

It is more childish to describe people based on their skin color

---

You mean like this?

Osirus,
Kem Wer,
the Great Black,
He of the Black Face:



I will gladly entertain your view that the Ancient Egyptians regard for Blackness was childish, *provided* you can explain why you feel that way, other than out of prejudice?

Until then, my answer to your question is that the AE refering to themselves as Blacks *makes perfect sense*, and that it is only you inability to emotionally accept this fact that is childish.

^ You may now endeavor to prove otherwise....

---

Funny how the first gods of Egypt are depicted Green so based on your conclusion shouldn't Egyptians be that "color"?

This kem wer means nothing considering the sea we call the red sea was called that dumb ass lol.

Why is Geb and Nut(osirus' parents) Not depicted black?

How do you not know that black is a symbolic color just as green, gold, platinum, blue, red and yellow are.

You are saying that people are of those colors?
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Vida: LOL!!!! All lies now show me where I said race was biological....waiting.....*whistling*

---

quote:

---

Posted by Vida on 20 June, 2007 at 01:46 PM: Race is a *biological* and social construct

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Vida writes:I have posted the social definition of race over 8 times.

---

Incorrect and irrelevant. You posted -other peoples differing opinions- on race.

We asked for *your definition.*

You did not present it, and in fact have to this point contradicted yourself several times.

When asked for your definition, you 1st stated that race is *not* biological.

You later claimed that race *is* biological.

The question you were asked was - Which is it?

Apparently this question is too hard for you?

You respound with desparate off pointing ranting, and outright hatred, but never actually answer the question.

Why is that?

Is it because you're angered by your own sheer incoherence?

If no, then simply answer the question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Vida: LOL!!!! All lies now show me where I said race was biological....waiting.....*whistling*

---

quote:

---

Posted by Vida on 20 June, 2007 at 01:46 PM: Race is a *biological* and social construct

---

^ Hypothesis: Perhaps you are *losing your mind*, due to excessively polemical ranting and no longer recall what your own comments from one post to the next?

---

quote:

---

This kem wer means nothing

---

quote:

---

considering the sea we call the red sea was called that

---

quote:

---

dumb ass lol.

---

^ Frustrated Eurocentric troll, now completely outed and reduced to profane ranting.... lol.

quote:

---

How do you not know that black is a symbolic color?

---

quote:

---

Green, blue, etc.., You are saying that people are of those colors?

---

quote:

---

Vida writes: You keep doing this....

---

quote:

---

Race is a biological and social construct as far as the "WORD" itself!!!!!!!

---

quote:

---

Race being biological in Human beings is a totally different thingp and you know this you

---

I am going to ask you one last time and if don't give the required answer you will be dismissed as a ranter devoid of reason.


Is race biological yes or no?

Are there human races yes or no?

Yes or no answer please. This isn't profanity_mindless_ranting.com Vida.
 

---

Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
 
Is race biological yes or no?


Yes

Are there human races yes or no?


Biologically no, socially yes
 

---

Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
 
Been browsing and I found this great article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appearance_of_the_ancient_Egyptians

I think all of us, yes ALL of us will be happy with this.

And I like this:

quote:

---

Defining race
Main article: Race
In biology, some people use race to mean a division within a species. Thus, in certain fields it is used as a synonym for subspecies or, in botany, variety. In the case of honeybees, for instance, it stands as a synonym for subspecies. In this usage, race serves to group members of a species that have, for a period of time, become geographically or genetically isolated from other members of that species, and as a result have diverged genetically and developed certain shared characteristics that differentiate them from the others. Although these characteristics rarely appear in all members of the group, they are more marked in or appear more frequently than in the others.

The analysis of most social scientists conclude that the common notions of race are social constructs. These definitions of race are derived from custom, vary between cultures, and are described as imprecise and fluid. Often these definitions rely on phenotypic characteristics or inferred ancestry. The analysis of human genetic variation also provides insight into human population history and structure. The recent spread of humans from Africa has created a situation where the majority of human genetic variation is found within each human population. However, as a result of physical and cultural isolation of human groups, a significant subset of genetic variation is found between human groups. This variation is highly structured and therefore useful for distinguishing groups and placing individuals into groups for some scientists. Admixture and clinal variation between groups can be confounding to this kind of analysis of human variation. The relationship between social and genetic definitions of race is complex. Phenotypic racial classifications do not necessarily correspond with genotypical groups; some more than others. To the extent that ancestry corresponds to social definitions of race, groups identified by genetics will also correspond with these notions. Whether human population structure warrants the distinction of human 'races' is a matter of debate, with the majority of opinions varying between disciplines. Today, most biologists and anthropologists prefer the term population to race, avoiding the scientific stigma of predefined racial constructs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
Is race biological yes or no?


Yes

Are there human races yes or no?


Biologically no, socially yes

---

quote:

---

So the word I should be using instead of race is "population"?

Is everyone happy with this posted link?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

So the word I should be using instead of race is "population"?

Is everyone happy with this posted link?

---

Seems like and irrelevant dodge to me.

You have already admitted that the Km.t were genetically African and socially Black, so why do you imagine the non-sequitur of 'population' can help you run away from this admission?

---

quote:

---

So then what is the beef? If I admit and agree that Egyptians are genetically(biologically) African and socially black then why the debate?

---

Then we agree on the material point at hand. I can't make heads nor tails out of your opinions on race, but they are admittedly irrelevant to the above so....
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Vida's game of playing the 'run-around' with Rasol chasing has left me kind of dizzy. What was the original question again? I forgot. LOL
 

---

Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Vida's game of playing the 'run-around' with Rasol chasing has left me kind of dizzy. What was the original question again? I forgot. LOL

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

You keep doing this....Race is a biological and social construct as far as the "WORD" itself!!!!!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

Race being biological in Human beings is a totally different thing and you know this you are just trying to squirm a debate along. So if you are going to condemn me for anything it should be that I am not totally saying "race is not a human biological construct but a social human construct" If this is the case than I apologize for not fully articulating properly each and everytime.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

I think "kem" means burnt rather than black which doesn't mean Egyptians weren't "negro"(but for some reason I can't say this word) based on the burnt stick of wood. I just don't know what the "owl" means.

---

quote:

---

I think "kem" means burnt rather than black

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:


I will still ascribe to race "socially" because it is alot more sound than "color".

---

All human constructs are ultimately "social", because that's what words are meant to do, to promote communication and socialization. Race as a term, is a social construct with a 'purpose'; its function is one which is biological. Therefore, the term can only be correctly assessed biologically. Biology maintains a specific definition for the term, and so, any use of the term outside this definition, is the incorrect use of the term. Given that you made it known that you shall use the term incorrectly, then also be prepared to not criticize those who do use it correctly and thereby complain about not knowing what ancient Egyptians were, just because your concept of human 'races' is foundationless. One doesn't have to prescribe pseudo-science in order to know who ancient Nile Valley indegenes were; quite simply, they were indigenous Africans and part of the continuum of in situ African humanity.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
The term "social race" is ultimately a pseudo-scientific oxymoron.

It evokes the authority of scientific truth, [because the term is rooted in biology/science] but shrinks from the requirement of standing up to scientific scrutiny.

It is a pseudo-or-fake science in precisely the same sense as the statement 2+2 = 5 is pseudo mathamatical, ie - "social arithmatic", defined as:

Arithmatic that is not mathamatically valid.

Pseudo-mathamtics.

Fake or just plain 'bad' mathamatics.

Likewise:

Social race.

Biology that is not scientifically valid.

Pseudo biology.

SOY Kieta well understands and has seen thru this charade:

"Race draws its *power* from it's natural science root.

Simplifying: Race is socially powerful because it implies a claim of scientific truth.

Once race is exposed as pseudo-science it loses its social-grip over all but the weakest minds, who cannot perceive well enough to separate clarity [ie Keita] from babblement such as [Vida].

Vida seeks desparately to sustain a race-ist discourse to gain some distraction/relief from what she now admits as "genetically African, socially Black", Ancient Egyptians.

But it's a futile task, for with the above admission - the question is answered, and the game is over - bitter protestation to the contrary notwithstanding.
 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 
^You bet.
 

---

Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

I think "kem" means burnt rather than black which doesn't mean Egyptians weren't "negro"(but for some reason I can't say this word) based on the burnt stick of wood. I just don't know what the "owl" means.

---

According to which authorative source?
The use of the owl figure has already been touched on several times, including discussions you have participated in.

---

I draw this by the mdw ntr and its picture of a stick of burnt wood. Also phonecian/hebrew word "ham" meaning burnt/hot. Also from Arabic the wrod al khem/alchemy to where one must burn/boil water to extract elements.

All I got from the "owl" post was that it implied complete? I don't understand that nor how someone or some authority came to that conclusion.

I had a theory that maybe the "wise old owl" concept traces back to Egypt and that maybe it refered to complete as to be "finished or refined" denoting knowledge or wisdom.

To be burnt = to be complete/refined maybe? This is just my guess. Like the word for copper with the word "kem" in it. Copper is not black but maybe by this word they mean burnt/refined copper.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Incorrect.

Burn in mdw ntr is -

and is pronouncd max

Black is...

and is pronounced kem

The two words neither sound nor are written even remotely alike, which is why no scholar disputes the fact that the word for black in mdw ntr is kem.

Nor is it possible to confuse the two in actual 'egyptian' text.

I am Keme' [Black] and beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem, Like the tents of Kedar, Like the curtains of Solomon. - Coptic Bible, Song of Solomon.

^ References black and not burnt obviously.
 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 
^True, Vida's deduction, as has been in this entire discussion, yet again doesn't hold water.

As far as the purpose of the 'owl' is concerned, and one which isn't always necessarily associated with the term 'km' in its feminine singular form ['km.t'], or noun forms ['kmtnwt' et al.], it has been discussed in the following link like elsewhere, along with the precise meaning of 'km': KM.t[rmt.st] = Black[people] i.e., Word + [determinative]
 

---

Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
 
*out of reader mode*

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
[QB]

quote:

---

Vida doesnt see how he is twisting himself into a knot.

---

How? Please demonstrate..

quote:

---

We say there are no races.

He says there are since we say the Egyptians were mostly blacks.

---

Wrong, I am saying there ARE races and you are saying there ARE NO races

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida and therefore I have not choice, but to come to the conclusion that Egyptians cannot be defined by any other description but Egyptians. Not black or white etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida:

Please reiterate people's points clearly and concisely otherwise that is called "lying". You are my boy and I like you so I'll let you off with a warning this time

---

You've been applying my tips haven't you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida

quote:

---

We say black is not a race.

---

Ok, now please tell me why is black not a race considering this is an attribute of the social concept of race especially in western society?!?!

---

• Race only exists as a social construct, based off phenotypical traits.
• black and white ARE NOT 'races', biologically
• THEREFORE, we CAN DESCRIBE THE ANCIENT KEMETIANS AS THEY DESCRIBED THEMSELVES., without being advicates of 'race'.

See?

I think vida was just givnin it a real hard (depending on the individual) challenge

...not hiding as an undercover fish among piranhas...


 

---

Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ Incorrect.

Burn in mdw ntr is -

and is pronouncd max

Black is...

and is pronounced kem

The two words neither sound nor are written even remotely alike, which is why no scholar disputes the fact that the word for black in mdw ntr is kem.

Nor is it possible to confuse the two in actual 'egyptian' text.

I am Keme' [Black] and beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem, Like the tents of Kedar, Like the curtains of Solomon. - Coptic Bible, Song of Solomon.

^ References black and not burnt obviously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Willing Thinker {What Box}:
*out of reader mode*

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
[QB]

quote:

---

Vida doesnt see how he is twisting himself into a knot.

---

How? Please demonstrate..

quote:

---

We say there are no races.

He says there are since we say the Egyptians were mostly blacks.

---

Wrong, I am saying there ARE races and you are saying there ARE NO races

---

More accurately, that there is not enough difference between 'racial-groups' to substantiate the biological 'races'

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida and therefore I have not choice, but to come to the conclusion that Egyptians cannot be defined by any other description but Egyptians. Not black or white etc.

---

Why not black and white, those are just colors in reference to the percieved shades of an individual's skin color.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT SUCH A THING DOES NOT EXIST?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida:

Please reiterate people's points clearly and concisely otherwise that is called "lying". You are my boy and I like you so I'll let you off with a warning this time

---

You've been applying my tips haven't you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida

quote:

---

We say black is not a race.

---

Ok, now please tell me why is black not a race considering this is an attribute of the social concept of race especially in western society?!?!

---

It's not a race, biologically. Why is that so hard to understand?

• Race only exists as a social construct, based off phenotypical traits.
• black and white ARE NOT 'races', biologically
• THEREFORE, we CAN DESCRIBE THE ANCIENT KEMETIANS AS THEY DESCRIBED THEMSELVES., without being advicates of 'race'.

See?

I think vida was just givnin it a real hard (depending on the individual) challenge

...not hiding as an undercover fish among piranhas...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

That is why you keep posting things about whites being barbarians 5000 years ago yet your ancestors are still barbarians
today

---

^ LOL I missed this. So, it seems Vida shows his true colors!
 

---

Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
I don't know why it's so hard for Vida to understand that since race is a social construct and is NOT scientifically valid, it only exists in people's minds.

Also, race is different from color. There are black people in Africa, and there are black people in the Pacific but one of the main definitions of 'race' is common lineage. Melanesians share lineages with non-Africans even non-black ones than they do with Africans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

That is why you keep posting things about whites being barbarians 5000 years ago yet your ancestors are still barbarians
today

---

^ LOL I missed this. So, it seems Vida shows his true colors!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

If "sociology" is a pseudo-science then you need to publish something about it.

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

Don't talk about it...be about it.

---

What do you think this whole discussion was about? The facts are already out there, you just have to avail yourself of them, Vida. It ain't that hard.
 

---

Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
 
The problem is Vida's tactic of associating [melinan] color with race with the goal of invalidating terms like 'black', hence, making it fallascious to to describe Kemet as 'black'.

Though, we don't see him disputing 'white'.

I have to say, my tips must have helped..

Vida, you're much more smooth now, like you're being yourself.

If it wasn't for your overbearing effort in trying to pose as black a while back,

or your expose now, you would be believe-able.

Like rasol said, that must suck... having put so much time and effort into it.
O-well
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ LOL
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
If "sociology" is a pseudo-science

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

That is why you keep posting things about whites being barbarians 5000 years ago yet your ancestors are still barbarians
today

---

quote:

---

Djehuti: LOL I missed this. So, it seems Vida shows his true colors!

---

^ it's fun 'outing' the passive aggressive Eurocentrists who pose as 'liberals'.
 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
If "sociology" is a pseudo-science

---

Simply:

Quote someone saying 'sociology is pseudoscience'.


No quote?

Then admit that your comment is yet another strawman in which you make up stuff no one said because you can't address what *was* actually said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Willing Thinker {What Box}:
The problem is Vida's tactic of associating [melinan] color with race with the goal of invalidating terms like 'black', hence, making it fallascious to to describe Kemet as 'black'.

Though, we don't see him disputing 'white'.

I have to say, my tips must have helped..

Vida, you're much more smooth now, like you're being yourself.

If it wasn't for your overbearing effort in trying to pose as black a while back,

or your expose now, you would be believe-able.

Like rasol said, that must suck... having put so much time and effort into it.
O-well

---

How many times do I have to tell your little gay self hating azz to read the thread. This response makes no sense.

The argument is why can't I call Egyptians "black/negro" in social racial construct. They say I can't because race(not realizing that it is just a word people use in society ) is not biological in humans, but that I can call them black by way of skin color(?). I said but most Egyptians weren't black skinned so they would fall out of this category if using the color "black". Then they ad hoc by saying "dark" which is not the same word as "black". It was a rediculous argument anyway considering they didn't even understand what I was saying yet I understood them.

By the way I would be considered an "uncle Tom" black according to the poster's socio-economic backgrounds on this board so maybe that is why you feel I am "Eurocentric and white" *snickering*
 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

The argument is why can't I call Egyptians "black/negro" in social racial construct. They say I can't because race(not realizing that it is just a word people use in society ) is not biological in humans, but that I can call them black by way of skin color(?).

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

I said but most Egyptians weren't black skinned so they would fall out of this category if using the color "black". Then they ad hoc by saying "dark" which is not the same word as "black".

---

quote:

---

This is precisely the issue the person you're attacking is trying to get you to understand, and you wonder why he continues to do so - it's because you continue to not get it. "Black" is a euphemism for substantial pigmentation of people as a response to UV radiation in the tropics. It isn't 'race', but it has been known to be used in an ethnic sense socially.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

quote:

---

This is precisely the issue the person you're attacking is trying to get you to understand, and you wonder why he continues to do so - it's because you continue to not get it. "Black" is a euphemism for substantial pigmentation of people as a response to UV radiation in the tropics. It isn't 'race', but it has been known to be used in an ethnic sense socially.

---

Says who? How does black=dark!?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

quote:

---

This is precisely the issue the person you're attacking is trying to get you to understand, and you wonder why he continues to do so - it's because you continue to not get it. "Black" is a euphemism for substantial pigmentation of people as a response to UV radiation in the tropics. It isn't 'race', but it has been known to be used in an ethnic sense socially.

---

Says who? How does black=dark!?

---

*Sigh*, you mean to tell me, that you don't know what black means?

In reference to people, from your very own online dictionary.

quote:

---

(sometimes initial capital letter)

a. a member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.

b. African-American.

---

A is highlighted because it is the primary definition - in direct reference to people - in most dictionaries I've seen.

a.): a. a member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.

Dark-skinned, NOT black skinned.

If that was indeed the definition, THERE WOULD BE NO PEOPLE WHO COULD DEFINE THEMSELVES AS 'BLACK', as no body on Earth is absolute black, (not reflecting any light).

You could find many individuals close to black, but it would be arguable as there are no clear parameters in any aspect of color; the division from where 'orange' crosses over into 'peach' and 'peach' crosses over into 'red' are ambiguous.

I know right about here, you're wondering, "relevance?" because, some, aparently have an inability to put the rule of 2 + 2 = 4 into context and utilize it when adding.

Basically, since what many defines a color as varies, and is ambiguous,

then where does brown stop and red begin, or blue stop and black begin?

Darker skinned folk are described as blacks, says your dictionary.
 

---

Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
 

quote:

---

Willing thinker:
Darker skinned folk are described as blacks, says your dictionary.

---

quote:

---

This is precisely the issue the person you're attacking is trying to get you to understand, and you wonder why he continues to do so - it's because you continue to not get it. "Black" is a euphemism for substantial pigmentation of people as a response to UV radiation in the tropics.

---

Here is the definition of Black that I ascribe to -

Black - ethnicity - a person belonging to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin. - Merriam Webster.

Of course the Km.t [Blacks] of Ancient Egypt are rightfully included and moreover are one of the earliest known peoples to whom this ethnic construct was applied.

Race is irrelevant to the above.

So why are we discussing it?

Two reasons.

1) Race is the Eurocentric ruse for perverting world history and asserting white supremacy thru pseudo-science.

2) Non whites educated into this dialect - don't see the ruse, share the root assumptions it is based on, and try to argue within the structure of a supremacist discourse.

The Eurocentrists don't concern me much. They are obvious and easy to debunk....as we've seen in this thread.

The Africanists who continue to argue for *race* are of greater concern, but remind me of the Bible's call for compassion:

"Forgive them, for they know not what they do".
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
^^In other words, the Eurocentrist ruse is to say that these people were NOT DARK because the word came about in the 16th century and is an outdated "racial" concept. Obviously dark skin is not a race and being dark skinned and called black is not racial. However, since they want to deny blackness, they must find a way to argue against it without saying so directly. Hence all sorts of pseudo talk about black being a "race" or not everyone uses it, or but they weren't as dark as. All of which is to get around the fact that people in Africa have various skin complexions within the range of being considered dark. This range of complexion is labelled as black as generic adjective and not a "race". Therefore, it only means one with darker skin and obviously the Egpyptians fell into this category. It doesnt mean American, South American, Somali, Jordanian, Papuan, Hawaiian or anything else, because it is not a NATIONALISTIC adjective. It only defines the physical appearance of the person in terms of overal skin complexion, which the Eurocentrists just dont want to accept as being darker than their so called pure white skin supremacy.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

Says who? How does black=dark!?

---

Why everyone else in the Western world of course, and probably the entire world. (exept for YOU apparently)

From dictionary.com

black

3. (sometimes initial capital letter)
a. pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.

South Asian (Indian)


Southeast Asian


Pacific Islander


Australian Aborigines


Unless you do not consider the peoples above to be black despite the complexions they share with indigenous Africans.
 

---

Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
 
^^^true the top and the bottom pic aren't of blacks@djehuty
I know you are asian and think all blacks look the same as I think all asians look the same but its not the case and I know it would be vice versa even though I can't tell a korean from a Jap from a Thai
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Vida, so go ahead and expound on why these people aren't Black....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[Australian Aborigines

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

^^^true the top and the bottom pic aren't of blacks@djehuty

---

quote:

---

I know you are asian and think all blacks look the same as I think all asians look the same but its not the case and I know it would be vice versa even though I can't tell a korean from a Jap from a Thai

---

^ LOL Bad strawman argument and a false one at that! No I do not think all blacks look alike, perhaps that is YOUR views being projected on to me(?). My point was not that all black people looked alike but what makes people 'black'. All the pictures I posted were of black people.

Now explain how any of them are not.
 

---

Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
 

quote:

---

By the way I would be considered an "uncle Tom" black according to the poster's socio-economic backgrounds on this board so maybe that is why you feel I am "Eurocentric and white" *snickering*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

^^^true the top and the bottom pic aren't of blacks@djehuty

---

And why not?! You were shown the definition of 'black' several times. All the pictures show people who fall into that definition, including the top and bottom pictures, do they not?? Do not the Indian woman in the top and the Aboriginal Australian women in the bottom have heavy pigmented, dark skin as dark as indigenous Africans??!!

quote:

---

I know you are asian and think all blacks look the same as I think all asians look the same but its not the case and I know it would be vice versa even though I can't tell a korean from a Jap from a Thai

---

^ LOL Bad strawman argument and a false one at that! No I do not think all blacks look alike, perhaps that is YOUR views being projected on to me(?). My point was not that all black people looked alike but what makes people 'black'. All the pictures I posted were of black people.

Now explain how any of them are not.

---

You are being offensive you non blacks think blacks look like animals those two are australians and they don't look a damn thing like Africans with those pig noses. They have straight hair aswell. They are Australoids and not Black/negroids.

I have already given my racial categories and they are MUCH less specious as yours. Black does not mean "dark skin" that is freakin ridiculous considering dark would be relative because George Clooney and Hulk Hogan have "dark" skin relative to "white" Europeans as well as Armenians etc.

Go to India and call them black lol and see what they do to you.

"I would never sit on a train next to a Khaffir" - Ghandi


 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Vida, please cease with your senseless diatribes.

Black as an epithet for skin color means medium do dark brown skinned person. African is a geographic reference noting the continent from which the person derives. Therefore, black African, black American, black Asian and black Australian are ALL valid identifiers that specify the skin color of some of the populations in these places. Black does NOT mean African. Black does NOT mean curly hair. All that is NONSENSE that has NOTHING to do with the complexion of the skin which is denoted by the term black. And black is not a race it is only a phenotype based on the biological adaptation of various populations to UV radiation from the sun.

I think Vida WANTS to live in the fantasy world of "races" distinguished by skin color, hair texture and cranofacial dimensions. Everything being posted points to a desire to distinguish people thusly as if they are different "races". Asian is not a race, Vida and as such Asian phenotypes include dark brown skin, which indeed has nothing to do with Africa, but still makes many Asians and Australians black.
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
I reject the use of black African as an identifier of myself.
It is nothing less than an euphemism for negro.

Please call people
white European
yellow Asian
red American
just as often as you call certain other people
black African.

Naw, y'all still don't get it.

Think hard.

Why does Simon only refer to one specific set of
peoples by the interchangeable terms
negro
black African
sub-Saharan?

Why do y'all repeat what Simon Says?

Just call us Africans.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Well some Africans, most Europeans, many Asians and many Americans are not black. In places where people have various backgrounds the term does have justification. However, I do understand your point, but my point is that black skin, meaning medium to dark brown skin, exists outside of Africa in populations that are not Africans and therefore the term black is not ONLY an identification for an African, which is purely a geographic reference, but a person with such traits anywhere on earth, at least in the way I am using it.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Vida, please cease with your senseless diatribes.

---

She would have to stop posting altogether.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Black is not ONLY an identification for an African, which is purely a geographic reference, but a person with such traits anywhere on earth, at least in the way I am using it.

---

quote:

---

From dictionary.com

black

3. (sometimes initial capital letter)
a. pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Vida, please cease with your senseless diatribes.

Black as an epithet for skin color means medium do dark brown skinned person. African is a geographic reference noting the continent from which the person derives. Therefore, black African, black American, black Asian and black Australian are ALL valid identifiers that specify the skin color of some of the populations in these places. Black does NOT mean African. Black does NOT mean curly hair. All that is NONSENSE that has NOTHING to do with the complexion of the skin which is denoted by the term black. And black is not a race it is only a phenotype based on the biological adaptation of various populations to UV radiation from the sun.

I think Vida WANTS to live in the fantasy world of "races" distinguished by skin color, hair texture and cranofacial dimensions. Everything being posted points to a desire to distinguish people thusly as if they are different "races". Asian is not a race, Vida and as such Asian phenotypes include dark brown skin, which indeed has nothing to do with Africa, but still makes many Asians and Australians black.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
LMAO At Vida's emotional yet illogical outburst.

Again...

quote:

---

From dictionary.com

black

3. (sometimes initial capital letter)
a. pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.

---

---

race

1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.

4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race.
7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies.
8. a natural kind of living creature: the race of fishes.
9. any group, class, or kind, esp. of persons: Journalists are an interesting race.
10. the characteristic taste or flavor of wine.
–adjective 11. of or pertaining to the races of humankind.


 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Yes, and even the dictionary definition of 'race' does not in any way refute the dictionary meaning of 'black' which is a description of skin color and NOT race.

The fact that you cannot comprehend something so simple ( 'black' is in reference to very dark skin color, while 'race' is a different and specious social concept) only reflects either your own preconcieved bias or that you aren't that intelligent... or both.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
Vida. I'm not sure I see your point, actually I *am* sure you don't have one.

And here is why...

By definition 1 and 2, black - a reference to color - is not a race, since it does not denote a distinct lineage, nor do any of your definitions state otherwise.

Definition 3 debunks itself as it defines *supposed* anthropological constructs no longer in technical use

Definition 4 and 5 are for 'ethnicity', not race.


Definition 6 - 'the human race' is for species and not race.

Definition 7 is for subspecies - which is the correct biological definition of race, however there are no subspecies of homo sapiens, therefore there are no distinct races of humans by this definition.

Definition 8 'the race of fishes' - is genus, which is "a group of 2 or more related species". Homo sapiens are only one species so this does not apply to humans either.

Definition 9 10: "Journalists are an interesting race.", flavors of wine, denotes the use of the word race as a trivial catchphrase.

None of these definitions prove the existence of race in humans, or prove that Black is a race.

Moreover by giving 10 different and contradictary definitions - you actually show us that *you* don't have *one*, and therefore after all that cut-&-paste, you still have no definition of race.... so neither do you have a point.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ LOL I couldn't have said it better myself, Rasol!
 

---

Posted by Tyrannosaurus (Member # 3735) on :
 
Honestly, I am a little confused as to the exact definition of blackness. I know it refers to dark skin color, but exactly WHAT skin color? Is Egyptian reddish-brown skin really "black", or does the word describe only the darkest (as in very dark brown) skin?
 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 
Don't confuse yourself.

'Black' skin is a euphemism for considerable skin pigmentation as seen by the eye, in response to high UV radiation in the tropics.

It is also used in an ethnic sense, just as 'white' is used in an ethnic sense.

Neither demonstrate a discrete 'human race' from within 'human races'.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Honestly, I am a little confused as to the exact definition of blackness.

---

quote:

---

I know it refers to dark skin color, but exactly WHAT skin color?

---

quote:

---

Is Egyptian reddish-brown skin really "black"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Vida. I'm not sure I see your point, actually I *am* sure you don't have one.

And here is why...

By definition 1 and 2, black - a reference to color - is not a race, since it does not denote a distinct lineage, nor do any of your definitions state otherwise.

Definition 3 debunks itself as it defines *supposed* anthropological constructs no longer in technical use

Definition 4 and 5 are for 'ethnicity', not race.


Definition 6 - 'the human race' is for species and not race.

Definition 7 is for subspecies - which is the correct biological definition of race, however there are no subspecies of homo sapiens, therefore there are no distinct races of humans by this definition.

Definition 8 'the race of fishes' - is genus, which is "a group of 2 or more related species". Homo sapiens are only one species so this does not apply to humans either.

Definition 9 10: "Journalists are an interesting race.", flavors of wine, denotes the use of the word race as a trivial catchphrase.

None of these definitions prove the existence of race in humans, or prove that Black is a race.

Moreover by giving 10 different and contradictary definitions - you actually show us that *you* don't have *one*, and therefore after all that cut-&-paste, you still have no definition of race.... so neither do you have a point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Yes you posted it as an attempt to SUPPORT your views on "race", did you not? The problem is it doesn't so don't blame it on Webster's, because Webster did not post it.

---

quote:

---

No wishful thinking here, just my opinion

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

No wishful thinking here, just my opinion

---

Opinions that are contradicted by facts qualify as wishful thinking or bias.

Either bring facts or admit to bias.

Choose one......

---

quote:

---

I ask the same of you. Give us some unbiased facts

---

quote:

---

rasol wrote:

1) India is not a race.

2) There are Blacks in India.

3) Ancient Egyptians were not Black "Indians" they were Black Africans.

4) Being Africans they closely physically resemble many other Africans including modern day NorthEast Africans, who share a common ancestry, which is distinct from any Indian people.

---

quote:

---

Opinions that are contradicted by facts qualify as wishful thinking or bias.

Either bring facts or admit to bias.

Choose one......

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:
I never said anything about the people of India being a race even though there are groups of people that have become homogenous enough to belong in racial subclasses.

It is you that wants to put a clear defining line between what is black and what isn't. In your wishful thinking you want the Egyptians to be 100% black and they weren't. There was definitely some contrasting differences during the whole history of Egypt. My likening the most ancient of Egyptians to the people of India is merely an opinion just like yours is merely an opinion and not substantiated by hardcore unbiased facts.
Anyone can look at most of the mummies and tell they weren't 100% black. I do believe some of them did however have a considerable amount of black African in them over time. I believe King Tut definitely was one of them.

---

quote:

---

My likening the most ancient of Egyptians to the people of India is merely an opinion... not substantiated by hardcore unbiased facts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:
When there are mummies that do not have negroid type hair, I think you are going to be hard pressed to convince most people but perhaps the least educated of people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:
The simple fact is that you are trying to convince people that the ancient Egyptians were 100% black from beginning to end.

---

quote:

---

Celt admits: My likening the most ancient of Egyptians to the people of India is merely an opinion... *not substantiated* by hardcore unbiased facts.

---

quote:

---

rasol: Correct - you offer bias, and wishful thinkings which are completely devoid of fact, and therefore null and void for the purposes of assessment. This is the fact that we denoted.

You've now admitted this fact.

So why are you complaining?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:
The simple fact is that you are trying to convince people that the ancient Egyptians were 100% black from beginning to end. Nevermind if they were or they weren't. I don't believe for 1 minute that you even believe it. You really have no real evidence to even suggest that they were. Prove to us that the ancient Egyptians were 100% black with no influence from outside of Africa. Can you do that? I doubt that you can and you know this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Yes you posted it as an attempt to SUPPORT your views on "race", did you not? The problem is it doesn't so don't blame it on Webster's, because Webster did not post it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Yes you posted it as an attempt to SUPPORT your views on "race", did you not? The problem is it doesn't so don't blame it on Webster's, because Webster did not post it.

---

And they posted their definition to the contrary, big deal we come to a stalemate on our "sources". Now do me a favor Doug M...go outside and ask 10 people what "race" you are and see what they say. If they answer you then I am correct that "race" is a social construct used in society..sorry..I didn't make the rules.

The definition of "black" that Djehuty posted didn't mention anybody from the Indian sub-continent, so why did he post pics of an Indian girl? Do Indians and a lot of Pakis not have the same skin color as many Africans and those of the African diaspora? If so, then why weren't they listed in "his" definition of "black". The skin color thing doesn't work man that is all I am saying.

Will smith is not dark skinned so therefore in the skin color model him being "black" fails. In my model however him being "black" fits as well as in society hence he is called a "black actor" *shrugs*.

---

quote:

---

This sounds funny coming from someone that in an earlier post says:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

And they posted their definition to the contrary, big deal we come to a stalemate on our "sources".

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

Now do me a favor Doug M...go outside and ask 10 people what "race" you are and see what they say. If they answer you then I am correct that "race" is a social construct used in society..sorry..I didn't make the rules.

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

The definition of "black" that Djehuty posted didn't mention anybody from the Indian sub-continent, so why did he post pics of an Indian girl?

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

Do Indians and a lot of Pakis not have the same skin color as many Africans and those of the African diaspora?

---

quote:

---

If so, then why weren't they listed in "his" definition of "black". The skin color thing doesn't work man that is all I am saying.

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

Will smith is not dark skinned so therefore in the skin color model him being "black" fails.

---

quote:

---

Vidadavida:

In my model however him being "black" fits as well as in society hence he is called a "black actor" *shrugs*.

---

quote:

---

rasol writes:

Then produuce a quote from me advocating the notion of 100% blackness [for anyone], whatever that means.

And since this is your concept - feel free to define it for us.

---

quote:

---

Celt writes: This sounds funny coming from someone that in an earlier post says

---

quote:

---

Celt writes: I will agree that there is no such thing as a truly black person.

---

quote:

---

Celt writes: Maybe you should define what black is

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Yes you posted it as an attempt to SUPPORT your views on "race", did you not? The problem is it doesn't so don't blame it on Webster's, because Webster did not post it.

---

And they posted their definition to the contrary, big deal we come to a stalemate on our "sources". Now do me a favor Doug M...go outside and ask 10 people what "race" you are and see what they say. If they answer you then I am correct that "race" is a social construct used in society..sorry..I didn't make the rules.

The definition of "black" that Djehuty posted didn't mention anybody from the Indian sub-continent, so why did he post pics of an Indian girl? Do Indians and a lot of Pakis not have the same skin color as many Africans and those of the African diaspora? If so, then why weren't they listed in "his" definition of "black". The skin color thing doesn't work man that is all I am saying.

Will smith is not dark skinned so therefore in the skin color model him being "black" fails. In my model however him being "black" fits as well as in society hence he is called a "black actor" *shrugs*.

---

Vida, you answered your OWN question, race is a SOCIAL construct, not a BIOLOGICAL one. YOU just said it yourself. Race as a SOCIAL construct is NOT biology is EXACTLY what we have been saying all along. The FACT that SOME PEOPLE want to use an ARBITRARY SOCIAL CONSTRUCT and call it "race" in order to SEGREGATE people into GROUPS which have NO BIOLOGICAL BASIS, is PRECISELY what we are arguing against. Then again, it is only those Eurocentrics who feel the NEED to impress us with the SOCIAL CONSTRUCT of "race", so that THEY can define what is SOCIALLY acceptable and what is NOT, which is the point that we are arguing AGAINST.

---

*throws up hands*
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

I really don't know what has overcome me in trying to define people on the basis of their blackness

---

You don't know?

Well I do, so, let me help you.

You're a garden variety racist who can't stand the fact that the Kemetians were Blacks. This is why you're comfortable defining people as Blacks, except when it inconveniences your racism.

Still too complicated for your brain?

Then I'll dumb it down even more:

Every time you plead ignorance of -what is black-, you plead guilty to racism.

That is the only point you communicate in this thread.

You're welcome.

Feel better now?
 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 
^This celt character has fallen short on facts, but rich on unsubstantive detail. "Indian-affiliation" of the Nile Valley complexes is next to nothing in substance; any talk of "Indian-like" is just as pseudo-scientific as 'caucasoid'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:

*throws up hands*

---

quote:

---

This celt character has fallen short on facts, but rich on unsubstantive detail. "Indian-affiliation" of the Nile Valley complexes is next to nothing in substance; any talk of "Indian-like" is just as pseudo-scientific as 'caucasoid'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

I really don't know what has overcome me in trying to define people on the basis of their blackness

---

You don't know?

Well I do, so, let me help you.

You're a garden variety racist who can't stand the fact that the Kemetians were Blacks. This is why you're comfortable defining people as Blacks, except when it inconveniences your racism.

You're welcome.

Feel better now?

---

I was wondering when you were going to call me a racist. Rather typical insult coming from someone that is without a doubt what he/she accuses others of being.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

I was wondering when you were going to call me a racist

---

quote:

---

Rather typical insult coming from someone that is without a doubt what he/she accuses others of being.

---

quote:

---

Again, I have not implied that the ancient Egyptians were of Indian descent

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:
Now prove to me that the ancient Egyptians were of 100% sub-saharan descent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:

Again, I have not implied that the ancient Egyptians were of Indian descent.

---

quote:

---

Celt:

Now prove to me that the ancient Egyptians were of 100% sub-saharan descent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:
And your evidence is.....?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:
If they were 100% sub-saharan then let it be known with facts not with conjecture.

---

quote:

---

It's simply a case of anyone that does not agree with you

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:
If they were 100% sub-saharan then let it be known with facts not with conjecture.

---

What of it, if they aren't "100% sub-Saharan"? Why is that an issue with you, and not us?

---

quote:

---

I disagree that the issue lies solely with me.

I believe it is a major issue for you folks after browsing over this forum for a few weeks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:
If they were 100% sub-saharan then let it be known with facts not with conjecture.

---

What of it, if they aren't "100% sub-Saharan"? Why is that an issue with you, and not us?

---

I disagree that the issue lies solely with me.

---

quote:

---

Celt:

I believe it is a major issue for you folks after browsing over this forum for a few weeks.

---

quote:

---

Celt:

It's apparent that some people are obsessed with what race the ancient Egyptians were.

---

quote:

---

Celt:

If they proved tomorrow that they were descendents of sub-saharan Africans then I could care less.

---

quote:

---

Celt:

I like the truth to be known.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:
Rasol, it is merely my opinion from what I have objectively seen.

---

quote:

---

Celt: either present evidence or remain silent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Celt on sub-sahara:

quote:

---

I disagree that the issue lies solely with me.

I believe it is a major issue for you folks after browsing over this forum for a few weeks.

---

Then it should be easy enough to prove your point with a citation.

Meanwhile....

The original population of the Sahara were Blacks. - Cavelli Sforza.

^ We're still waiting for you to refute the above.

---

quote:

---

I won't dispute that the original inhabitants of the Sahara were black Africans.

---

quote:

---

That still doesn't answer the question as to who the proginitors of ancient Egyptian civilization were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Celt on sub-sahara:

quote:

---

I disagree that the issue lies solely with me.

I believe it is a major issue for you folks after browsing over this forum for a few weeks.

---

Then it should be easy enough to prove your point with a citation.

Meanwhile....

The original population of the Sahara were Blacks. - Cavelli Sforza.

^ We're still waiting for you to refute the above.

---

I won't dispute that the original inhabitants of the Sahara were black Africans. In fact I agree that they most probably were. That still doesn't answer the question as to who the proginitors of ancient Egyptian civilization were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:
Rasol, it is merely my opinion from what I have objectively seen.

---

The above is nonsense. A mere opinion is by definition not objective. And objective opinion is based upon gathering of data and evidence of which you have none.

Hence...

quote:

---

Celt: either present evidence or remain silent.

---

---

quote:

---

Celt:

If they proved tomorrow that they were descendents of sub-saharan Africans then I could care less.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:

That still doesn't answer the question as to who the proginitors of ancient Egyptian civilization were.

---

quote:

---

Don't confuse rebutting 19th century Eurocentric-style pseudo-science of 'racial' boxing of the ancient Nile Valley peoples into this or that, with obsession with 'race'. You can't be obsessed about something that you don't think exists as biologically-defined units in humans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:

---

Celt:

If they proved tomorrow that they were descendents of sub-saharan Africans then I could care less.

---

Well, they've already been proven yesterday and today, that they are descendants of sub-Saharan Africans. So, how does that make you feel?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:

That still doesn't answer the question as to who the proginitors of ancient Egyptian civilization were.

---

I thought you said you've been browsing this site, and have been made some "observations" [yet to be substantiated]. Were you not paying attention to the research postings also related to the biological base of the AE, when you were doing so? If not, given that there is no shortage of it on this site, then why?

---

Mystery solver, I've seen enough of the mummies to know better than to believe that. Who are you kidding?
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ This kind of empty rhetoric response reminds me of Professor Horemheb. Also, the bizarre claim to have seen mummies, and to be able to eyeball their ethnicity based on that.

Any relation?

This beautiful Black woman, is a British reconstruction of and Egyptian royale mummy [possibly Nefertiti].


 

---

Posted by Celt (Member # 13774) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
s

quote:

---

Don't confuse rebutting 19th century Eurocentric-style pseudo-science of 'racial' boxing of the ancient Nile Valley peoples into this or that, with obsession with 'race'. You can't be obsessed about something that you don't think exists as biologically-defined units in humans.

---

Indeed it is the fear of the transcendance of the dead-end discourse of race, which was invented by and for Eurocentrism, that drives these conversations.

Eurocentrism is *nothing* without the distraction of race, because without race Eurocentrism in history has only -europe-,, to claim and barely that, given that Europe is a late-comer to civilisation transmuted in part via demic diffusion from the far older civilisations of Africa and SouthWest Asia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:

Mystery solver, I've seen enough of the mummies to know better than to believe that.

---

quote:

---

Celt:

Who are you kidding?

---

quote:

---

Celt: I ask the same of you and yet you have not provided me with clear indisputable evidence

---

Incorrect.

I have provided evidences and sources that are clear enough to intelligent minds.

We don't know that said evidences are -indisputable-, but it is a fact that you've failed miserably to dispute them.

Anyone else lurking ES who feels they can dispute the evidence presented - is cordially invited to try.

They can't possibly do any worse than you, now can they?

quote:

---

Rasol you truly hate white people there is no doubt about it.

---

Nah, but I have been known to pity people of any ethnic background, who can't produce evidence in a debate, and are so forced to resort to weak personal attacks which make them appear to be even more foolish, if possible.
 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 
^Already then. I don't see any reason to go on with this Celt character. Tried to provide this person some benefit of doubt, to coherently present him/herself. Unfortunately, this person hasn't proven to be a discussant of any caliber enough to chase around. Should just be dumped along with others who don't answer questions, provide specifics, subtantiate and so, lead to an endless and unproductive chase.
 

---

Posted by Celt (Member # 13774) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
^Already then. I don't see any reason to go on with this Celt character. Tried to provide this person some benefit of doubt, to coherently present him/herself. Unfortunately, this person hasn't proven to be a discussant of any caliber enough to chase around. Should just be dumped along with others who don't answer questions, provide specifics, subtantiate and so, lead to an endless and unproductive chase.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ This kind of empty rhetoric response reminds me of Professor Horemheb. Also, the bizarre claim to have seen mummies, and to be able to eyeball their ethnicity based on that.

Any relation?

This beautiful Black woman, is a British reconstruction of and Egyptian royale mummy [possibly Nefertiti].

---

Nevermind the ancient Egyptians depiction of Queen Nefertiti.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/nefertiti.htm
 

---

Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
 
That thread is weird...anyway Celtic, why are you making so much nose about "white" people, we are all sons or Black Africans...technically we are all Black...aren't we? Anyway as I always say Europeans and Asians are a mix of Africans:


 

---

Posted by Celt (Member # 13774) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AFRICA I:
That thread is weird...anyway Celtic, why are you making so much nose about "white" people, we are all sons or Black Africans...technically we are all Black...aren't we? [/QUOTE

I prefer to think that we are all human.
 

---

Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
 
You are right, we are all human, but all humans are originally Black Africans...it's science...I'm from Africa...why Europeans and Asians look mixed from my African perspective...regardless of the skin...I'm talking about features...





 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

^Already then. I don't see any reason to go on with this Celt character. Tried to provide this person some benefit of doubt, to coherently present him/herself. Unfortunately, this person hasn't proven to be a discussant of any caliber enough to chase around. Should just be dumped along with others who don't answer questions, provide specifics, subtantiate and so, lead to an endless and unproductive chase.

---

It seems i've gotten under someones skin. lol

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AFRICA I:
You are right, we are all human, but all humans are originally Black Africans...it's science...I'm from Africa...why Europeans and Asians look mixed from my African perspective...regardless of the skin...I'm talking about features...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ This kind of empty rhetoric response reminds me of Professor Horemheb. Also, the bizarre claim to have seen mummies, and to be able to eyeball their ethnicity based on that.

Any relation?

This beautiful Black woman, is a British reconstruction of and Egyptian royale mummy [possibly Nefertiti].

---

Nevermind the ancient Egyptians depiction of Queen Nefertiti.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/nefertiti.htm

---

What about it?


Nefertiti.


Nefertiti - Daughter.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Indeed, the way this 'Celt' writes with his talk of 'spin' and how both sides (white and black) will somehow be disappointed, as well as the silly speculations, and obvious outdated racial beliefs, all sound like Hore.

The guy questions how "black" the Egyptians were, if they were 100% or not, yet does not question how white the Greeks were-- whether they were 100% white.

The guy speaks of blacks being synonymous with "sub-Saharan" even though the Sahara was not always a desert and even when it did become one, was it never a barrier between populations south or north of it, let alone in it.

This person speaks of Egyptians being of an entirely different "race" from blacks, even though Egypt is IN the continent of Africa. His first post makes some silly analogy with India, even though India's populations are of diverse backgrounds in their own right and that the black populations are the oldest.

The 'newcomer' speaks of "negroid" hair, when the hair forms of black Africans (which is what I assume he meant by negroid) vary and ranges from the tightest coiled---the spiral tuft forms seen among people like the Khoisan, to the loose-- curly and wavy forms seen among people like Ethiopians, Somalians, and.. well Egyptians!.

And most of all, this poster obviously ignores all the data collected in the years from artwork, historical records, archaeology (yes even from Egyptology itself!!), physical anthropology, and most recently genetics--- all of which prove the indigenous African (black) nature of the Egyptians.

So yeah, this person sounds alot like old Hore.
 

---

Posted by Celt (Member # 13774) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Indeed, the way this 'Celt' writes with his talk of 'spin' and how both sides (white and black) will somehow be disappointed, as well as the silly speculations, and obvious outdated racial beliefs, all sound like Hore.

The guy questions how "black" the Egyptians were, if they were 100% or not, yet does not question how white the Greeks were-- whether they were 100% white.

The guy speaks of blacks being synonymous with "sub-Saharan" even though the Sahara was not always a desert and even when it did become one, was it never a barrier between populations south or north of it, let alone in it.

This person speaks of Egyptians being of an entirely different "race" from blacks, even though Egypt is IN the continent of Africa. His first post makes some silly analogy with India, even though India's populations are of diverse backgrounds in their own right and that the black populations are the oldest.

The 'newcomer' speaks of "negroid" hair, when the hair forms of black Africans (which is what I assume he meant by negroid) vary and ranges from the tightest coiled---the spiral tuft forms seen among people like the Khoisan, to the loose-- curly and wavy forms seen among people like Ethiopians, Somalians, and.. well Egyptians!.

And most of all, this poster obviously ignores all the data collected in the years from artwork, historical records, archaeology (yes even from Egyptology itself!!), physical anthropology, and most recently genetics--- all of which prove the indigenous African (black) nature of the Egyptians.

So yeah, this person sounds alot like old Hore.

---

And you sound like you're trying your best to cover all grounds just in case.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:
...Nevermind the ancient Egyptians depiction of Queen Nefertiti.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/nefertiti.htm

---

What about it?


Nefertiti...

---

Yeah, and don't forget...











^ Now whether the above looks "100% negroid" or not is silly and specious. However, I will say that one person of Somali descent one time said that the features shown above and definitely the reconstruction of Fletcher's mummy look just like that of a Somali [East African (black)] woman.
 

---

Posted by Tyrannosaurus (Member # 3735) on :
 
To be honest, I'll have to go against the grain on this board and dispute the contention that the Ancient Egyptians were entirely or overwhelmingly "black". While I agree that the southern predynastic people who founded Egyptian civilization, as well as their southern dynastic descendents, were of tropical African affinity, the physical anthropological evidence also indicates that northern Egyptians had "coastal north African" features, and coastal north Africans aren't usually black. And frankly, I've seen a lot of this coastal north African tendency in dynastic sculptures and reserve heads, which mostly come from northern tombs like Saqqara and Giza (it's a real pity we haven't discovered many southern tombs other than the Valley of the Kings). While I like it that the greatest civilization in the pre-Roman world had a large black African population and I would prefer it to have been entirely black, the evidence clearly suggests that there were too many non-black Egyptians to call Ancient Egypt a black African civilization (just as America or the Roman Empire are not white European civilizations).

I'm going to be lynched for certain.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

I'll have to go against the grain on this board and dispute the contention that the Ancient Egyptians were entirely or overwhelmingly "black".

---

quote:

---

While I agree that the southern predynastic people who founded Egyptian civilization, as well as their southern dynastic descendents, were of tropical African affinity

---

quote:

---

the physical anthropological evidence also icates that northern Egyptians had "coastal north African" features

---

quote:

---

coastal north Africans aren't usually black.

---

quote:

---

I've seen a lot of this coastal north African tendency in dynastic sculptures and reserve heads, which mostly come from northern tombs like Saqqara and Giza

---

quote:

---

I would prefer it to have been entirely black

---

quote:

---

While I like it that the greatest civilization in the pre-Roman world had a large black African population and I would prefer it to have been entirely black,

---

quote:

---

The evidence clearly suggests that there were too many non-black Egyptians to call Ancient Egypt a black African civilization

---

quote:

---

I'm going to be lynched for certain.

---

quote:

---

We don't know that said evidences are -indisputable-, but it is a fact that you've failed miserably to dispute them.

Anyone else lurking ES who feels they can dispute the evidence presented - is cordially invited to try.

---

quote:

---

Present this evidence, and present your proof that the -original- *indiginous* population of Northern Egypt was not Black.

---

quote:

---

Please present your evidence.

---

 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 
^What is 'non-black' about the figures you posted? That dark color seems to have peeled off some, while others remain in their white clay state?

Re: Rasol,

He doesn't even know what the "northern coastal type" supposedly entails, to be calling them 'non-black'; he presumes this be the case on the dubious account that coastal north Africans aren't [living groups?] "usually" black. And of course, the recent Zakrzewski study must have flown over his head. Perhaps the bones of northern Egyptians alone won't tell us much about the skin pigmentation, but your points and questions pertaining to artwork showing visible distinctions between AE and the Aamu [Asiatic groups], are in the right direction to giving us clues straight from the people who lived the times in question, amongst other things, about this. The same goes for the questions about ancient Greek and Roman populations being entirely 'white'. Hopefully, unlike Celt, Tyranno will actually have the courage to defend his unsubstantiated propagations.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^

quote:

---

Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the [northern] Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples, and thus show that this sample CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series.

---

quote:

---

He doesn't even know what the "northern coastal type" supposedly entails, to be calling them 'non-black'

---

quote:

---

^What is 'non-black' about the figures you posted? That dark color seems to have peeled off some, while others remain in their white clay state?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus:

quote:

---

He doesn't even know what the "northern coastal type" supposedly entails, to be calling them 'non-black'

---

The north coastal type is intermediate between Europeans and tropical Africans.

---

quote:

---

Tyrannosaurus:

Usually, people of this type, while not white, aren't black, either, unless you have proof that this type is different from stereotypical "Mediterranean Caucasian" (for lack of a better descriptive term) North Africans living today.

---

quote:

---

Tyrannosaurus:

quote:

---

^What is 'non-black' about the figures you posted? That dark color seems to have peeled off some, while others remain in their white clay state?

---

Well, I suppose we cannot make any determinative statement about their skin color, so yes, they may have been "black" in skin color.

---

quote:

---

Tyrannosaurus:

However, their facial features are not like those of tropical Africans (unless you have photos of tropical Africans with similar features), and, sorry, when most people discuss the "blackness" of Egyptians, they mean their affinities with tropical Africans.

---

quote:

---

Tyrannosaurus:

That's what this debate has always been about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus:
North coastal type is intermediate between Europeans and tropical Africans.

---

quote:

---

Tyro writes: Well, I suppose we cannot make any determinative statement about their skin color, so yes, they may have been "black" in skin color

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:

---

Tyrannosaurus:

However, their facial features are not like those of tropical Africans (unless you have photos of tropical Africans with similar features), and, sorry, when most people discuss the "blackness" of Egyptians, they mean their affinities with tropical Africans.

---

What facial features are not like those of tropical Africans, and why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus:

quote:

---

He doesn't even know what the "northern coastal type" supposedly entails, to be calling them 'non-black'

---

The north coastal type is intermediate between Europeans and tropical Africans.

---

Why?

---

quote:

---

Your claim, and so, I'd like to know how you know they aren't 'white' or 'black'?

Also, what is "Mediterranean Caucasian"? Did they come from Caucasia? How are they supposed to be like "coastal north African type"? What does this have do with 'coastal north Africans', considering that Europe was to be the frontier then, and Europeans weren't coming into the Nile Valley, until much later in dynastic period?

---

quote:

---

^What is 'non-black' about the figures you posted? That dark color seems to have peeled off some, while others remain in their white clay state?

---

quote:

---

What facial features are not like those of tropical Africans, and why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus:

quote:

---

He doesn't even know what the "northern coastal type" supposedly entails, to be calling them 'non-black'

---

The north coastal type is intermediate between Europeans and tropical Africans.

---

Why?

---

Read Keita 1990 "Studies of Crania from Northern Africa".

---

quote:

---

Tyrannosaurus:

By "Mediterranean Caucasian", I'm referring to the lighter-skinned (olive) type often found on the North African coast today.

---

quote:

---

Tyrannosaurus:

I apologize for poor wording. Still, what evidence do you have that the coastal North African type observed by Keita is different from modern coastal North Africans?

---

quote:

---

Tyrannosaurus:

quote:

---

What facial features are not like those of tropical Africans, and why?

---

Pointy noses, thin lips, and lack of prognathism.

---

quote:

---

Tyrannosaurus:

If you can point out to me tropical Africans without these features, I will concede defeat.

---

quote:

---

Hopefully, unlike Celt, Tyranno will actually have the courage to defend his unsubstantiated propagations. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:
...Nevermind the ancient Egyptians depiction of Queen Nefertiti.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/nefertiti.htm

---

What about it?


Nefertiti...

---

Yeah, and don't forget...











^ Now whether the above looks "100% negroid" or not is silly and specious. However, I will say that one person of Somali descent one time said that the features shown above and definitely the reconstruction of Fletcher's mummy look just like that of a Somali [East African (black)] woman.

---

quote:

---

I see that the more realistic representations from that website were omitted

---

Well, Professor, not our fault you posts links with authentic iconography of Black Nefertiti, which bears a striking resembles to the reconstruction of the Mummy, or that you're too stupid to know how to embed pics. in posts.

quote:

---

Courage is having the intellectual honesty to admit...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

I see that the more realistic representations from that website were omitted

---

Well, Professor, not our fault you posts links with authentic iconography of Black Nefertiti, or that you're too stupid to know how to embed pics. in posts.

quote:

---

Courage is having the intellectual honesty to admit...

---

....that you can't answer the questions or present any evidence.

But then, neither you nor Tyro have such courage, so....

Anything else?

---

Rasol you are a very disrespectful individual and certainly void of any resposibility when it comes to being a purveyor of honesty and truth.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ lol. Actually I replied to your ad homina attacks regarding "courage."

Don't start what you can't finish.

Otherwise you only show us that like most bullies, you are also a cry baby a hypocrite, and a sore loser....




Black Queen of ancient Km.t

The above is in fact resonably representiave of -most- of the inscribed Nefertiti iconography, even though the objective reproduction was not based on the assumption that she was Nefertiti.

Indeed, some of the likenesses to the Nefertiti family iconography are startling.

 

---

Posted by Celt (Member # 13774) on :
 
Rasol...with an ego as big as yours,it is virtually impossible for one to be honest. Now show us the famous bust of Nefertiti. You know, the one that resides in a particular museum in Germany.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Rasol...with an ego as big as yours,it is virtually impossible for one to be honest.

---

quote:

---

Now show us the famous bust of Nefertiti.

---

The uninscribed and aptly named Berlin Bust has more to do with Adolph Hitler and his minions [who "found" it] than Ancient Egypt.

I don't advertise for the NAZI's, and I wouldn't pin my hopes on them if I were you.


 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
T-rex, we all appreciate you visiting this forum, and we encourage learning especially through asking questions but lately you’ve been asking questions that have already been answered all too many times before. Now you are making ridiculous claims based false premises which I take it are misunderstandings of the answers we have given you.

You accept that ancient Upper Egypt was black buy ancient Lower Egypt was not. I don’t understand how you can make such a claim when all evidence shows that the populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are related:

From Batrawi: Since early neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Middle Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism…

The findings of the above study from the 1940s still has not changed. Lower Egyptians differ from Upper Egyptians only in that they have a slightly larger cranial index, a smaller nasal index, and lesser prognathism (which was still present). Does this mean they were not black? Of course not. As I will explain (and has been explained innumerable times in this forum).

Among the so-called “evidence” you presented were statues of Lower Egyptians which were either unpainted or had their paint worn off. Here are images below of Lower Egyptians whose paint still hasn’t quite worn off yet.















Very nicely preserved paint on these


You cited Keita for his term ‘north African coastal type’, but you seem confused on what he meant when he described them as “intermediate”, even though we explained to you what he meant almost a dozen times now including this thread here: Inspection of Keita’s term of "coastal northern [African] pattern"

There is no excuse for such ignorance, even after we've given you all the explanations. And that especially goes for your limited views on how tropically adapted (black) Africans look. I don't know if you realize it, but you are espousing the false "true negro" fallacy that states true black Africans only have very full (broad) lips, a high degree of prognathism, and round noses. According to you, Lower Egyptians were not black because most of their depictions show long straight noses as if there aren't any black Africans who have such features.

Again as Mystery cited:

Jean Hiernaux "The People of Africa" 1975
p.53, 54

"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."

The funny thing is that most of the portraits of Lower Egyptians bear a striking resemblance to Tuareg and other Berber speaking black populations of North Africa, especially in features like the long straight nose. Such a feature is even stereotyped as the 'Tuareg nose' among peoples in West Africa while for others in East Africa such a feature is associated with some Sudanese even though they have close to jet-black skin. Such is the diversity of indigenous (black) Africans.

(Come to think of it, I was at the store today buying some 4th of July fireworks and I saw several Ethiopian youth there-- all of whom had features like long pointy noses and full but small lips. African diversity right in my hometown LOL)
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:

I see that the more realistic representations from that website were omitted. Anyone that knows anything about ancient Egyptian reliefs such as those you have chosen know that they are exaggeratted depictions of Queen Nefertiti. Care to show the other more realistic representations of the Queen?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celt:
Rasol....what are you afraid of? Are you afraid that whites may have had something to do with building ancient Egypt? You know, I really don't know why I even had to ask that question. It's blatantly obvious that you are afraid that white people may of had something to do with ancient Egypt.
Your total lack of respect and apathy for your fellow human beings as well as your disdain for intellectual honesty has me debating on whether I should take you to school on a few things.

---

What does "had something to do with" mean? Nobody said that there were no whites or other peoples in ancient Egypt. Listen carefully to what is being said. What is being said is that the ORIGINAL populations of Egypt primarily derive from Saharan and Southern Nile valley tropically adapted people from IN AFRICA. That has been shown over and over again based on up to date research. The original Northern Egyptian type, prior to the invasions and appearance of people from the Levant and Europe were of this same type. These are ALL black Africans. You are trying to say that because Egypt was so great and glorious and so large, that it is O.K. to arbitrarily determine the composition of Egyptian society based on a belief of ancient Egypt being a "melting pot", like America or Europe. Sorry, Egypt was not that sort of melting pot in dynastic times. Egypt was NOT like America or Europe where blacks are on the bottom and the whites are at the top. This is pure absolute nonsense. That doesn't mean that various non African groups were not present in Egypt. It just means that the majority of the population and ruling elite were made up of INDIGENOUS Africans. It is only someone who is desperate to make up history who would try and claim that saying the Egyptians were INDIGENOUS AFRICANS is somehow trying to distort the truth.

If you want to make such assessments about the difference between Northern and Southern Egyptians in ancient times, dont rely on a handful of images from a museum or museums(s). There are HUNDREDS of images of Northern Egyptians from the Northern Burial site of Saqqarah.

The Tomb of Kagemni at Saqqarah by itself has that many:










 

---

Posted by Celt (Member # 13774) on :