He laughs at you Afronuts! distances himself from you wackos and your ancient "Black" Egypt claim!; puts to rest the question of AEian phoenotype. RFLOL!!
Damn! He also clears up Diops' position. He said Diops was WRONG! (LOL)!
Posted by Confirming Truth (Member # 17678) on :
Man! I'm still taken aback by this interview! Salsassin got himself a winner here. His interview is the death-knell to EgyptSearch (LOL). This site needs to be shut down now.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
LMAO, Keita is taking shots at you Euronuts too(The R1B in West Africa, how you Euronuts(RACISTS IN HIS WORDS) say it European in Origin). And Please Salsassin, not has said Egyptians look a certain way.
Also Asshole Salssain and Keita BOTH consider Caucasiod and Negriod an "OBSOLETE ANTRHOPOMORPHIC Term and has NOTHING TO SO WITH Genetics...
If your gonna quote Keita or Salsassin be CONSISTANT...They BOTH debunk you Caucasian/Negroid/Mongoloid non sense.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
LOL Salsassin purposefully distorts by making Keita think 'black' means only one look as in the stereotypical "negroid" Bantu-Congo look. Of course Keita disagrees that all Africans do not look like that and there was diversity!! Yet Salsassin and his mesocentric ilk fail to realize that all the indigenous diversity would still be considered BLACK by today's Western standards.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Your are a joke, First off Keita says Diop was of his time and a diffusionist and was wrong in that instance. Second he said that Diop was right in other instances such as the fact that Negro is not the sterotypical look.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
This is not new. Keita was always against racial terms "black" "white" etc
"Shomarka does not say anybody is black except himself for political reasons." [3:00]
^ evidently that went over your head fock face! LOL
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed that is the very CRUX & HEART of the issue!
Therefore we so-called Afrocentrics were right all along while YOU Eurolosers are WRONG. Now go to your white racist meetings and leave intelligent forums that deal in truth alone!
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: He laughs at you Afronuts! distances himself from you wackos and your ancient "Black" Egypt claim!; puts to rest the question of AEian phoenotype. RFLOL!!
Damn! He also clears up Diops' position. He said Diops was WRONG! (LOL)!
LOL - Good Find
But with Spin Doctors like Kwesi, Asante, Sarasutenseti and others they will resurrect the new Egocentric religion with half truths and lies. The biggest error one can make is arguing Science with Politically motivated Bigots.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LOL Salsassin purposefully distorts by making Keita think 'black' means only one look as in the stereotypical "negroid" Bantu look. Of course Keita disagrees that all Africans do not look like that and there was diversity!! Yet Salsassin and his mesocentric ilk fail to realize that all the indigenous diversity would still be considered BLACK by today's Western standards.
Notice how Salsassin says blacks are calling him Afrocentric when its the Euronuts calling him such labels.
If these Euronuts are going to be consistant then they will have to drop the "Caucasian", "Negro" Labels...OHH NOOO...lets see them Claim Egypt as Mediterranean without the Caucasian Label.
Posted by viola75 (Member # 17981) on :
"LOL Salsassin purposefully distorts by making Keita think 'black' means only one look as in the stereotypical "negroid" Bantu look. Of course Keita disagrees that all Africans look like that!!"
thats right djehuti, he condenses 3 hrs to half an hour, who knows what keita said to him in the extra 2 hours and a half. and keita dosent even mention the colur of ancient egyptians in this interview so salsassin conclusions are strange. keita also agrees with diop about saharan relationships. and listen at 3:18 on clip 3,in other words just because some nn black people were in the nile it dosent make it mixed.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: Notice how Salsassin says blacks are calling him Afrocentric when its the Euronuts calling him such labels.
Yes, noticed that one too. The boy's a snake. It sounds edited too. Some of Keita's words dont flow.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
anguishofbeing
Again nuff respect for speaking the truth about this video. I am currently in Part 2 and I see he said that R1 is not eurasian. He correctly said that he does not call anyone Black but himself.
He also said that Berbers are linked with other Africans from the PN2 clade. I also hear them talking about how defunct is Caucasoid, Negroid etc is.
Even with Salassin leading Keita with his question he still holds himself with respect. Gotta Love it.
Peace
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet:
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: He laughs at you Afronuts! distances himself from you wackos and your ancient "Black" Egypt claim!; puts to rest the question of AEian phoenotype. RFLOL!!
Damn! He also clears up Diops' position. He said Diops was WRONG! (LOL)!
LOL - Good Find
But with Spin Doctors like Kwesi, Asante, Sarasutenseti and others they will resurrect the new Egocentric religion with half truths and lies. The biggest error one can make is arguing Science with Politically motivated Bigots.
Good Find as it debunks "Caucasian" as an Obsolete Anthropomorphic Term, that has nothing to do with genetics...
So I guess this debunks the whole Caucasian Egyptians..LMAO.
What will you all do now...Hit the Decks Im coming for YOU AND SKEPTIC ..Thanks for the Upload..
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
^ It also debunks Jamie's one time claim of 40-60% Caucasians in Ethiopians. Yes King, Jamie would flunk Journalism. Most of this "interview" consists of leading questions.
Posted by viola75 (Member # 17981) on :
can someone confirm or not if he talks about blacks in europe?
Posted by Confirming Truth (Member # 17678) on :
^Afrocentrists got more of an issue with AE than Eurocentrists. Im trippin right now over how you clowns are scrambling for cover LOL!!! Ancient Egypt was NOT Black (LOL)! GAME OVER!
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
I find it funny how in one breath the Euroclowns will champion this biased study..
Local comparisons between Upper Egyptians were carried out with other ethnic groups in Egypt, based on frequency and molecular data. No differences were observed in comparison with a general Caucasian population from Cairo in any of the nine loci compared or with Egyptian Christians from Cairo…Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) based on pair-wise FST genetic distances of Upper Egyptian and other diverse global populations. OCE, Oceanian; ME, Middle Eastern; NAF, North African; EAS, East Asian; SSA, sub-Saharan African; UEGY, Upper Egyptian; SAS, South Asian; EUR, European. The figure shows that Oceania and American populations are very distant from Upper Egyptians (marked by a grey triangle) and other populations. The Upper Egyptian population is closer to the Middle Eastern, North African, South Asian and European populations than others. (Genetic variation of 15 autosomal STR loci in Upper (Southern) Egyptians, Omran et al 2008.)
but then turn around and champion this as a "Good Find" esp. Afronut who's whole argument hangs on the Negro/Caucasian label.
This debunks Afronut, Skeptic, and Nonprophet whom all use Caucasian as a label...LMAO.
Posted by Confirming Truth (Member # 17678) on :
^Your strawman tactics wont work buddy. "Black" Egypt can now be put to rest. GAME OVER.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: ^Afrocentrists got more of an issue with AE than Eurocentrists. Im trippin right now over how you clowns are scrambling for cover LOL!!! Ancient Egypt was NOT Black (LOL)! GAME OVER!
Please post where he says that specifically and please post where HE DEBUNKS Caucasian and NEGROID...You want us to quote you.??
Dumbass you don't even realize how this damages your credibility, what little you had..considering you think that 60% of 212,190 is 17,920, The Aboriginals are Africans, etc. LMAO You pathetic moron.
Posted by Confirming Truth (Member # 17678) on :
^Egypt aint black - Keita.
GAME OVER
I think I will make a requests to Salsassin that he asks Keita to mention EgyptSearch by name and tell you coon monkeys to pull the plug on your life support LOL!!!
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
Wow, good stuff. He clears up some things on Diop and the word "negro" pt. 3 [2:00]
Thanks CT. You are still a fock face simpleton, but thanks!
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: ^Your strawman tactics wont work buddy. "Black" Egypt can now be put to rest. GAME OVER.
You are too stupid to understand how this inconsistant you look. You uphold this as some proof on you argument but it debunks you "Negro, and Caucasian" belief. So if this puts away the Black Egypt debate, which I honestly don't give a damn about anyway..my conclusion is Egypt was Tropically Adapted, then it certainly debunks you. You don't even know the proper ways to debate you would lose in a Debate quoting a source that debunks your general ideas.
Also there is nothing Strawman about it, Im not alluding to ANYTHING not Mentioned by Keita and Salsassin your god, in that Clip. They BOTH make it clear that Negroid and Caucasian are OBSOLETE in Genetic Circles. That was mentioned therefore I HAVE EVERY right to reference it as it debunks YOUR, SKEPTIC'S, and NONPROPHET's base Argument..a "Caucasian" Egypt. You need to learn what a Strawman is buddy.
LMAO...And guess what it Debunks the "Caucasian" Ethiopians and East Africans TOO...
What will you DO NOW...HIT THE DECK Buddy..Thanks for Uploading this.
NO MORE CAUCASIAN ETHIOPIANS AND EAST AFRICANS...
NO MORE CAUCASIAN EGYPTIANS
What will the Euronuts do now..LMAO???
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Wow, good stuff. He clears up some things on Diop and the word "negro" pt. 3 [2:00]
Thanks CT. You are still a fock face simpleton, but thanks!
I don't think the clown realizes just how damaging this is to Eurocentrism...LMAO. HE heard Keita critisize Afrocentrics and got a boner but must have missed like 60% of the so called interview where he pretty much dismantles the Eurocentric beast at its head...the "Caucasian" ...LMAO...Lets let it sink in for a couple of hours Im sure the Simpleton will figure it out.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
I gotta say though it was very interesting esp. with reguards to the R1b that Racist(Keita's words) like to say was "European" and the Chadic being closer to Berbers than Egyptians..very interesting.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Look everyone knows Confirming-untruth is a distortion junkie..see his blackmen are superrapist post/threads amongst others
The distortion Junkie in another thread
quote:Exposed for what?Slanting the raw data? SURE! Am I allowed to do so? Of course! Stats can be used to extract different views of the data set
^ he he hee exactly
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
All in All, Keita handled himself well for someone who is being lead in a direction of speaking like how Sala was doing.
Like Jari I learned something New like how Berbers and Chadians are closer then Egyptians, Thats a First.
I also like how he broke down the R1 gene as not being european. What we really need though is someone to be plain with Keita and ask him if he thinks AE were Tropically Adapted people.
Peace
Posted by Confirming Truth (Member # 17678) on :
^Egypt aint black - Keita.
GAME OVER
Posted by viola75 (Member # 17981) on :
"Egypt aint black - Keita."
where does he say this, i didnt hear him mention any colour regarding egyptians
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: ^Egypt aint black - Keita.
GAME OVER
Is this what you are resorted to, a simple minded spam, "Egypt Aint Black"-Keita". LMAO, you are pathetic dude, You don't want to debate because Salsassin and Keita debunks your whole premise.."A Caucasian Egypt". I just commented to Salssasin and he agrees that Caucasian is debunk as well as the Variation from Berber looks to Black Looks being present ON BOTH SIDES of the Red Sea, that the Back Migrations DID NOT CHANGE ANYTHING...LMAO. So Mathilda better shut her blog Down, Skeptic and Nonprophet better run for the Hills, and you better go back to basic math for Percentages..LMAO.
I dare you to debate me on Egypt now Buddy...I DARE YOU!!
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: All in All, Keita handled himself well for someone who is being lead in a direction of speaking like how Sala was doing.
Like Jari I learned something New like how Berbers and Chadians are closer then Egyptians, Thats a First.
I also like how he broke down the R1 gene as not being european. What we really need though is someone to be plain with Keita and ask him if he thinks AE were Tropically Adapted people.
Peace
King I posted to Salsassin..here is what he said..
Yes, he said both were obsolete. He also agreed that Egypt probably had looks from Berbers, and yes, I mean modern Berbers to Ethiopians. In other words, diversity. He also agrees that similar diversity was probably occuring on both sides of the red sea. So a migration from one side to the other would not have meant a drastic change in look.
LMAO, so this Clips totally destroys the Caucasian Ethiopian theory in more ways than one, Keita is saying that the Variation ON BOTH SIDES OF THE RED SEA was the Same and did not change the populations too much..LMAO Destroying the Caucasian Ethiopians and East African non-sense.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Just call me Jari
Bahaahahahahhah, Man Jari pure Jokes.
Most of the people on this forum are always saying that AE had Berbers and Darker Africans in Egypt. We see this in Siwa where the berbers live. We also see this in Upper Egypt and Rural lower Egypt. What can be said but that all the people like nonprophet, Skeptic, and Confirming Truth have just had there legs cut out from under them since Keita debunks "Caucasian" Egypt. It just keeps getting better and better.
Peace
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
Anguishofbeing: ''It sounds edited too. Some of Keita's words dont flow.''
Yes. And it makes one wonder how much has been rearranged to suit the interviewer. Too much drop off in the flow of inflection of sentences and a sudden appearance by the interviewer.
Posted by viola75 (Member # 17981) on :
"Yes. And it makes one wonder how much has been rearranged to suit the interviewer. Too much drop off in the flow of inflection of sentences and a sudden appearance by the interviewer."
3 hour interview condensed into 27 mins
What were they talking about?
will salassin release the full interview"
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
viola75
Hopefully Salassin shows the full video unless he has something to hide. Really Keita seemed to have said many things that debunks the lies of Skeptic, Fraud etc.
I also noticed the trolls have not had much to say on the Video I posted about Upper Egyptians. Shows how defunct is there ideas.
Peace
Posted by viola75 (Member # 17981) on :
whats the ramifications on the r1b discussion.
btw nice youtube vids
whats the name of the soul raregroove song where the mans playing the drums
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
viola75
Ramification of R1b will be seen in Keitas next study. Since he claims "Racists" Make claims about R1 we can be sure he will rectify this.
As for the song, let me just say that I sadly don't know what the name of the song is. Is it found in one of the videos, or is it just a song that just came to your mind?
Peace
Posted by viola75 (Member # 17981) on :
its on your college video, where the camera is on the man playing the drums,
cant wait for the new study,
also i hear him mentioning something about the greeks and europe, can you clarify wht keita was talking about,
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
This Salsassin character is a constant fraud, liar, and complete deceiver. I immediately noticed how Salsassin claims that Afro-centrists constantly quote Keita out of context, which in essence is a quick scapegoat trying to get Keita to answer a loaded quote mined question, typical of frauds.
Supposedly Afro-centrists misunderstand Keita, in the sense that not all indigenous Africans look alike, and instead vary in looks.
Salsassin would love to belive that when Keita says this, that Keita is saying the following man is an indigenous African 100%...
^^but this is not what Keita means.
What Keita means is that the old "true Negro" is debunked and that Africans like the Tutsis, Somalis, Fulani, Ethiopians, Nubians, ancient Egyptians etc...didn't receive their cranio-facial features from non Africans (constantly referred to as "Caucasoids") but instead evolved it locally indigenous to Africa.
Instead Keita means this following Africans features are indigenous to Africa and not due to admxiture from non Africans.
I dare Salsassin to come and debate right here in this thread. We already know how he ran out on the last thread which he was debunked, so I won't hold my breath.
Keita said that the Greeks and Europe. There is people in the Balkans are PN2 clade and the greeks ARE N78 WHICH IS off of PN2 Clade also. PN2 clade if you don't know is the African Gene group that majority of Africans belong to. So finding it in Europe means some African influence happened in these regions.
He also says that people say that R1 was a back migration to Africa which he calls False because you don't have R1 in Egypt in somalia and very little R1 in AfroAsiatic countries but you have it in Chad but not in Berber and that Berber and Chad are more related to each other then Berber is to Egypt.
Hope this helps.
Peace
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
somebody please do the following:
email Dr. Keita Salsassin's youtube channel address
this way he will be aware of where Salsassin is coming from. Also advise him, if he is not familiar with youtube, to click on "more info"of his uploads in the right sidebar to show all his uploads.
This should be done without commentary or opinion so that he can judge it for himself.
Posted by Confirming Truth (Member # 17678) on :
I am only willing to concede to the term "Caucasian" or racial taxonomy itself, being outmoded. However, it still does NOT change the fact that ancient Egypt was NOT phoenotypically "Black." Afrocentrism is more problematic than Eurocentrism. It has committed the most harm to black folks with its myths and black-washing of history.
I shall now end on this note: Egypt aint black - Keita.
GAME OVER
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: ^Egypt aint black - Keita.
GAME OVER
Is this what you are resorted to, a simple minded spam, "Egypt Aint Black"-Keita". LMAO, you are pathetic dude, You don't want to debate because Salsassin and Keita debunks your whole premise.."A Caucasian Egypt". I just commented to Salssasin and he agrees that Caucasian is debunk as well as the Variation from Berber looks to Black Looks being present ON BOTH SIDES of the Red Sea, that the Back Migrations DID NOT CHANGE ANYTHING...LMAO. So Mathilda better shut her blog Down, Skeptic and Nonprophet better run for the Hills, and you better go back to basic math for Percentages..LMAO.
I dare you to debate me on Egypt now Buddy...I DARE YOU!!
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: King I posted to Salsassin..here is what he said..
Jamie clearly has mellowed over the years. The 40-60% Caucasian Ethiopian claim was one of his signature claims. Now he says to claim them and AE as "Caucasoid" as a result of some ancestral relationship is ridiculous. I think he was disappointed Keita claimed to be an agnostic on the lighter skinned N.Africans (those "white Berbers") as existing 20kya, as well as some Hgs not being nonAfrican. I dont blame him for not posting here and staying on his guarded youtube page.
quote:the Variation from Berber looks to Black Looks being present ON BOTH SIDES of the Red Sea
This creates a false dichotomy between "Berber looks" and "black looks". There are blacks among Berbers.
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
This call i believe was a waste of precious time. I actually heard the audio before it was uploaded to Youtube. This is the just of my email to Salsassin
quote: It think it is a good uploaded but I think it is somewhat of a wasted opportunity. This is why: You care too much about arguing with "Afrocentrists".............
...........Dr. Keitas points about: -CT-M168 males and African diversity -E-M35 / 81 East African males having their indigenous maternal lines replaces under certain scenarios -Specific lineages, ages, back migrations -Personal correspondence with C. Ehret (and other stuff that we will probable NEVER know about) -R1b1 in Africa -OOA
ALL This stuff was much more important to me and to anyone looking into expanding knowledge vs talk about Diop and shots at "Afrocentrism." Dr. Keita could have VERBALLY told you some of the stuff that he could be writing about that may soon end up behind a "pay wall". I think you also missed opportunity to ask about what he thinks about African Holocene migration in General and if there is anything that he can add to the stuff that he has already written (and just tell you over the phone)
My main point is this: African Americans see themselves as "Black" although their skin is typically brown in color : Like most Africans. If African Americans think the Egyptians are "Black" because of similar skin tones. why not just ask Kieta his opinions on the skin tones of Ancient Egypt? and the predominant phenotype of Ancient Egyptians? After speaking with Keita for 3 hours how do these 2 questions go unanswered?
Think of what we would have if any of the ES vets or any knowledgeable poster was able to pick Keita's brain FOR 3 HOURS!! Man....I would have a BEAST of any interview. I would have went over ALL of his stuff. Ho Hum, I would give the interview a 3/10 - some good snippets, overall wasted opportunity. Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by astenb: This call i believe was a waste of precious time. I actually heard the audio before it was uploaded to Youtube.
You heard the whole 3 hours?
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by astenb: This call i believe was a waste of precious time. I actually heard the audio before it was uploaded to Youtube.
You heard the whole 3 hours?
No, in only heard the 30 minutes. We had a discussion on you-tube after he made the call. I had been looking forward to hearing it. As far as i know this is the same 30 minutes. The only thing that has been changed is is the volume / pitch etc. But I do know the full conversation was about 3 hours. Some of the stuff had to actually be edited out because it was personal conversation.
I mean after you listen to it you are not blown away by anything Keita says. There are not epiphanies, no light bulbs go off..... cant build on any of your own personal hypothesis......Nothing.
It seems like it was just a change to take pot shots and "Afrocentrists"
Just think about the loose word "NUBIAN". IN the Cambridge video Keita said 'Nubians, modern and ancient spoke Nilo-Saharan' (not an exact quote) We people here know "Nubian" was used to describe different ethnicities past a certain boundary. I believe Puntites and Beja were dubbed at times "Nubian" but they do not and probably did not speak Nilo-Saharan....Which makes Keita factually INCORRECT. Does he know this? If it got down to the nitty gritty details...probably. But just think if this truth was introduced to him and how it may affect future writings about the Nile Valley, language, Bio-genetics etc......sigh.
Keita showed much enthusiasm in speaking about the a new Tunisian lab study coming out. Sasassin changed the subject and didnt even get the details about release date, author, conclusion ANYTHING.....and you know that **** is going to be behind a paywall......sigh.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by astenb: Keita showed much enthusiasm in speaking about the a new Tunisian lab study coming out. Sasassin changed the subject and didnt even get the details about release date, author, conclusion ANYTHING.....and you know that **** is going to be behind a paywall......sigh.
You are absolutely right about the "paywall", in relation to accessing knowledge/ research papers. You may not know this but once a paper is accepted by PloS or PNAS, along with other on-line publications the author has to pay between $1500-$2500 in publication cost.
This makes it hard for independent researchers to get their work out to the public. It is hard because you have to pay this publication charge, and if you don't have the money you have to withdraw the manuscript from the journal. As a result, eventhough you may write a great paper you have to have $1500-$2500 to see it published.
Many on-line journals charge these fees because when you get a grant to support your research--you factor the publication cost in the grant budget. There are no grants I know of that support africalogical research.
.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
I am only willing to concede to the term "Caucasian" or racial taxonomy itself, being outmoded. You are pathetic, not to long ago you were bitching and whining about not using the term negro, now thanks to your signature incompotence you are resorted to discard your belief. Also, the video makes it clear the Caucasian/Negro is "OBSOLETE" and has nothing to do with modern Anthropology and Genetic circles. You do know what this means right, Ill give you more time to allow that to sink in. So your "Caucasian as a racial Tamonomy" strawman is debunked too, they both made it clear its obsolete in Genetics etc.
However, it still does NOT change the fact that ancient Egypt was NOT phoenotypically "Black."
You are too stupid to even realize how damaging this is to you, not only is Keita saying that Egypt was indigenous to the Nile Valley but the Variation existed ON BOTH SIDES OF THE Red Sea, not only that but he MOCKS the Eurocentric myth that "Back Migrations" were a One way street..LMAO..You obviously don't know how this is destroying the crux of you claims. Not only is Keita destroying the "Stereotypical" Negro myth he is saying that if there are Light populations in Africa there was Black populations in the Near and Middle East..LMAO, and without your Negro/Caucasian Crux to save you what will you do now, hmm?? LMAO. Also as Akoben says the Berbers come in Black to White. Guess what majority of the Berbers of Siwa look like this
and guess what the Siwa(Egyptian) Berbers are genetically linked to GUESS WHERE...EAST AFRICA..LMAO.
Without the Caucasian East Africa, this is a death blow to you, skeptic, and non prophet, mathilda, and ALL THE EUROCENTRIC nay sayers.
Now we have Genetics, Language, Culture, Population Migrations, Religion, Art All saying Egypt came from more Southerly populations and are and East African Variant.
The rest of your Spam is red herring ranting.
LMAO...THANKS for this clip and Thanks to Jaimie!! I love Keita!! He has no problem kalling a spade a spade!!!
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by astenb: It seems like it was just a change to take pot shots and "Afrocentrists"
Yes, he is definitely obsessed with Afrocentrists as CT, Skeptic et al. The last thing he wants is greater clarity on biodiversity and new studies. The fact that Keita showed much enthusiasm about it might have discouraged him since most of the interview debunked so much of his "mixed" theory anyway.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
This creates a false dichotomy between "Berber looks" and "black looks". There are blacks among Berbers. LMAO, when I heard Salsassin asking this I smiled, I just pictured the Egyptians Berbers the Siwa and their DNA linking them to East Africa. I guess JAimie has not figured out that the Berbers come in Darker populations and lighter populations..and Egypt's berbers are on the Darker scale...
Funny because some posted posted on the clip that "a thousand of souls over at "Egypt Search" were crushed."..LMAO Sorry bud, a Thousand Souls in the Eurocentric establishment were crushed..
Posted by 9th Element (Member # 17629) on :
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: He laughs at you Afronuts! distances himself from you wackos and your ancient "Black" Egypt claim!; puts to rest the question of AEian phoenotype. RFLOL!!
Originally posted by Just call me Jari: Look at this man is he "Arab"...I think not, he is a native Egyptian. We have to remember that Egypt was a Nation of many tribes united under one flag, so not one Phenotype was present..We have Dark, Light, and in between in Egypt.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: ^Afrocentrists got more of an issue with AE than Eurocentrists. Im trippin right now over how you clowns are scrambling for cover LOL!!! Ancient Egypt was NOT Black (LOL)! GAME OVER!
I don't see how since AE is IN Africa. Yet it is Eurocentrists that label it as "caucasian" etc. anything but African.
quote: Egypt aint black - Keita.
GAME OVER
I think I will make a requests to Salsassin that he asks Keita to mention EgyptSearch by name and tell you coon monkeys to pull the plug on your life support LOL!!!
Hey, moron! Keita NEVER referred to ANY people as 'black' because he feels it is a political charged label. As such, he would not call Congolese black any more than Egyptians even though they looked like this:
So STOP DISTORTING KEITA'S WORDS.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
By the way, as some posters mentioned, it is very obvious that Jaimie (Salsass) was leading Keita along. Of course Keita is too smart to care for his words still ring accurately.
When it comes to Egypt, Keita's point is very clear and concise: that Egypt being part of Africa has populations that are continuous with the rest of Africa both to the south with the rest of east Africa as well as to the west. You cannot separate Africa into 'North' and Sub-Sahara and say the populations of both regions are totally different and unrelated. It is not possible. Keita has stated this over and over again, but the Euronuts can't get it!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: I gotta say though it was very interesting esp. with reguards to the R1b that Racist(Keita's words) like to say was "European" and the Chadic being closer to Berbers than Egyptians..very interesting.
LOL Indeed. I remember a time when Euronuts tried to claim the E clade as Eurasian because it was found in populations living in the regions of Eurasia adjacent to Africa-- Southwest Asia and Europe. Yet it hasn't occurred to these fools that E is predominant in Africa and has the most diversity in Africa. So when all studies verified that E is African origin, they now are claiming that R groups found in Africa are of Eurasian origin even though they predominate in West and Central Africa! Really, it doesn't take an expert like Keita to tell you that a paleolithic clade in that part of Africa means that it is also African!
quote: LMAO, so this Clips totally destroys the Caucasian Ethiopian theory in more ways than one, Keita is saying that the Variation ON BOTH SIDES OF THE RED SEA was the Same and did not change the populations too much..LMAO Destroying the Caucasian Ethiopians and East African non-sense.
Indeed. It really takes into account everything that Dana Marniche and Tariq Berry have been saying about the presence of blacks in Arabia and that these blacks are closely related and no different from those of Africa!
Hamitic Hypothesis and all Caca-zoid nonsense Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Please post where I said his phenotype was not present amoung the Siwans?? Here let me help you, here is what I posted..
Guess what majority of the Berbers of Siwa look like this
a Basic understanding of reading comprehension would help, your I.Q is showing.(Skeptics Words)...Your strawman is dismissed.
Jari's hilarious, a split personality:
Show me where anything I said contradicts my views. You are to stupid to understand what I am saying, and given your troll spin tactics you can't understand.
Siwans
Nubians
Egyptians
You're dismissed.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Anymore than your that one selective pic of a hairy Arab mixed Egyptian man can change what most Fellahin look like.
jari do you agree with this? Djehuti, like Wally mentioned, has a hairy arm therefore he is in part the result of invasions of Egypt by foreigners?
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Sorry liar, but one select picture of a fair-skinned boy cannot save you from how the MAJORITY of Siwa people look like!
Anymore than your that one selective pic of a hairy Arab mixed Egyptian man can change what most Fellahin look like.
LMAO, Just call her Lyin'ass.com..She does not comprehend the meaning of "Majority". Stupid Bird brained lying'ass Dunce.
Nice Images D.J here is some DNA results..
The mitochondrial DNA variation of 295 Berber-speakers from Morocco (Asni, Bouhria and Figuig) and the Egyptian oasis of Siwa was evaluated by sequencing a portion of the control region (including HVS-I and part of HVS-II) and surveying haplogroup-specific coding region markers. Our findings show that the Berber mitochondrial pool is characterized by an overall high frequency of Western Eurasian haplogroups, a somehow lower frequency of sub-Saharan L lineages, and a significant (but differential) presence of North African haplogroups U6 and M1, thus occupying an intermediate position between European and sub-Saharan populations in PCA analysis. A clear and significant genetic differentiation between the Berbers from Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers was also observed. The first are related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. We conclude that the origins and maternal diversity of Berber populations are old and complex, and these communities bear genetic characteristics resulting from various events of gene flow with surrounding and migrating populations.
^^^^^^^^^^ Im Done with her, you can have her Bird Brained carcass!!
Just call her lyin'ass of the morning, angel Just touch my cheek before you leave me Oh my baby Just call her lyin'ass of the morning, angel Then slowly turn away from me Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Anymore than your that one selective pic of a hairy Arab mixed Egyptian man can change what most Fellahin look like.
jari do you agree with this? Djehuti, like Wally mentioned, has a hairy arm therefore he is in part the result of invasions of Egypt by foreigners?
LMAO, Wait Did'nt you just NOT QUOTE my respone to that photo?? Dumb Lyin'ass birdbrain..BTW you have some biz. here:
Don't Run Honey... Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Wally suggested this was not an indigenous Egyptian because his arm is hairy
Originally posted by Just call me Jari: Who is Wally to pass Judgement, that man is an Upper Egyptian Fellahin, has Medium Brown skin etc. Looks Egyptian to me, again not all Egyptians were Charcoal colored.
also you have no respect for the great animals of Africa, your pictures are disusting
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: .She does not comprehend the meaning of "Majority".
Clearly she doesn't. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Looks like Lyingass is finished, just like Confirmed Untruth.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING:
He also says that people say that R1 was a back migration to Africa which he calls False because you don't have R1 in Egypt in somalia and very little R1 in AfroAsiatic countries but you have it in Chad but not in Berber and that Berber and Chad are more related to each other then Berber is to Egypt.
I agree with the general premise that labeling hg R as "Eurasian" is simplistic, if not misleading, esp. when one digs into the phylogenetic details of that lineage. However, hg R1 does in fact appear in Egypt, albeit in low frequencies. In fact, rare upstream hg R*, the ancestor of hg R1, occurs here (Egypt). He is right about the rarity of the clade in other Afrisan-speaking areas, especially in the African Horn, where one would expect the clade to have penetrated, from nearby regions across the Red sea, which in turn would have attained in from north of the Arabian peninsula.
I must say though, that imo, the interview reflects more poorly on Keita than the "Salsassin" character. One might argue that he was being generous to waste his time on a personality like that; however, as a scholar, Keita should not have allowed his interviewer, regardless of who that person is, to pigeonhole him into commenting or responding to "alleged" claims by unnamed personalities placed under a banner, which in this case is supposedly the "Afrocentrists". He could have politely refused to comment on it, on the grounds that he doesn't know who specifically is making the alleged arguments, instead of allowing himself to be arguing against fictitious characters based on what some interviewer purports to have happened. He should have forced his interviewer to give him specifics on the claims made, and importantly, specifically by whom...otherwise, as just witnessed here, Keita ends up looking like an unwitting tool for someone's dogma. Generally, scholars in academia refrain from directly addressing the "alleged" claimants, whom they don't know about or have heard, and instead just directly point out what they see as the case, based on certain underlying objective bases, and clearly laying out those objective underpinnings that drew them to their conclusions. By objecting to use the term "black", an observant one would have to take it that it was done so with the desire to be seen as being as "objective" and politically correct as possible; yet, by speaking out against alleged "Afrocentric" claims that have not been specifically directed to a specific individual (claimant), not a pseudonym, and instead relying on a "they said" hearsay, he was allowing his objectivity posturing to be chipped away, because such hearsay doesn't allow one to adjudge or one to discern the authenticity of claims contained in the hearsay, or whether even the supposed claimants were simply made up to elicit some desired response on the part of the hearsay messenger (in this case, the interwiewer/"Salsassin").
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
The Explorer
You speak nothing but the TRUTH. Keita should of known better then to allow Salsa to steer him in these directions. Sadly Salsa did not ask Keita if he believed that AE was tropically adapted which would of proven them as being indeginous Black Africans. What I want to know is if there is more to what Keita said in the 3 hour segment. Only time will tell.
Peace
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
@King
Well, anyone who frequents this site should know by now that whatever the interview's misgivings, on Keita's end, he is consistent about not using terms like "black", "negro", etc...because these are often associated with typological ideas by their advocates that are subjective, and in many cases, scientifically inaccurate. So, that matter is really not making news here. Naturally, "Salsassin" would not ask anything that defeats his dogma, which is why I referred to his interview as dogma. Unfortunately, Keita allowed himself to be caught up in it; he could have sought to offset Salsassin's dogmatic-leaning by holding his feet to the fire. How? By pressing him on the specifics I noted above about both the claimant(s) and the claim, and pressing him on what he meant by terms like say, "black", as he (Salsassin) understood it. From that point on, he could proceeded to present his take on the word. It has to be remembered, he was confronted with this word in his Cambridge video streaming, wherein again, he refused to use it. However, in one of his earlier writings, he used the word in quotation marks, saying something along the lines of...[paraphrasing here] "that if the word (black) meant so and so,...then yes, there were so and so people who would have been considered "black"". If memory serves me correctly, he was making that assessment with regards to northern coastal Africans, particularly "Berber"-speaking populations. See, I thought he handled that appropriately at the time, and could have done something similar in this interview, but this would have been contingent on him pressing "Salsassin" on what he understood by the term "black".
Posted by viola75 (Member # 17981) on :
keita says his new study is coming out soon, do you think the vids destroy the view that non africans from the "near east" came and domesticated the cattle in africa. from what you heard in the 3 vids?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
MindoverMatter718,
Why would the Moroccan in your post not be 100% African, but the siwas on the following page would be?
Are you not engaging in the same pseudoscience as the western eurocentrics?
We look forward to your defense of your statement. That is if you can defend it.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Ignoring the trash above me, I agree with Explorer. Keita failed in cutting the leash that Jaimie put around his neck. Again, this is the ONLY thing I don't like about Keita-- that he is not straight forward as she should be due to fear of political incorrectness. 'Black' may be subjective, but it is nowhere near as subjective and as FALSE as say "caucasoid". He should have stated that by today's standards YES the Egyptians were indeed black as many of their pristine descendants today in rural Egypt are.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Ignoring the trash above me, I agree with Explorer. Keita failed in cutting the leash that Jaimie put around his neck. Again, this is the ONLY thing I don't like about Keita-- that he is not straight forward as she should be due to fear of political incorrectness. 'Black' may be subjective, but it is nowhere near as subjective and as FALSE as say "caucasoid". He should have stated that by today's standards YES the Egyptians were indeed black as many of their pristine descendants today in rural Egypt are.
so you advocate the terms "black" and "white" as scientific?
Posted by Gigantic (Member # 17311) on :
^Dejehuti is bitching that Keita bunked the whole idea that ancient Egyptians were "Black."
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Focus on context. Straight up, Keita doesn't use the terms like "black", "white", "negro", "caucasoid", "negroid", et al. He has made it a policy of his own. Like I noted earlier, even in his earlier papers, these terms are often cited in quotation-marks, generally citing the context used by previous authors, wherein he would proceed onto make his commentary on them.
Jaime's interview, as I observed above, comes from a fairly dogmatic-angle right off the bat. For instance, as observed by others earlier, he opens up the interview with saying that many people generally describe Keita as an "Afrocentrist", closing the claim with a cynical chuckle. This is where even Keita asks him for the identity of the claimants, noting that he doesn't keep up with internet forum discussions and things being said about him, and by whom; he was off to a good start by asking so, and this is what he should have insisted on doing for the remainder of his exchange with this Salsassin character, particularly in the third segment wherein he purports to make a suggestion for "Afrocentrics" to zero in on PN2 clade distributions outside the continent. Naturally, "Salsassin" purposefully avoids answering Keita's query about the identity. The Salsassin character proceeds with relaying his hearsay "Afrocentric" claims to Keita, and I noticed, that in the first segment Keita was fairly silent and just chuckling through it all, as though he was trying to refrain commentary on hearsay. What "Salsassin" was doing is not only hearsay, but also using an interrogative method that is called "leading" in legal quarters; in other words, framing a statement--with a definite assumption and conclusion already in it--as though it were a question, and then compelling the respondent to chime in on it. "Salsassin" also tactfully slips in the word "light" skin color when talking about KhoiSans, in his effort to make an environmental and bio-evolutionary link to the situation in coastal northern Africa. By doing so, as he has done on this forum, with regards to Norton's paper and the tropical African "Sandawi", on which he got intellectually trashed for his ideological inconsistencies, he can turn around and say that "light" skin is not "black". He tries in vain to equate "light" skin with "white", without having to actually say the latter directly, and knowing fully well that Keita isn't psychologically far out there so as to mistake KhoiSan for "whites" instead of "blacks", were he to proscribe to such terms. Being "light" and being "black" isn't necessarily mutually exclusive of each other. The word "light" is also a vague subjective term, and lacks scientific usefulness without additional specificities attaching meaning to the word. It is simply a relative term. All in all, I agree with observers who reckon that Keita was most likely trying to plug his coming publication to any audience that "Salsassin" gets for his postings, as well trying to be polite by not refusing to comment and/or press him hard for what amounts to mostly hearsay claims that Keita himself (as he in fact openly acknowledges) cannot independently verify the veracity of. The interview itself doesn't dent anything or reveal anything further than what has already been noted/promoted here by long-standing visitors to this site like myself. As a matter of fact, it reinforces them. This interview is anything but a success to "Salsassin". The most he can do with it, is bragging rights--i.e. about being able to set up an interview with Keita, and possibly pumping up a personal ego thereof; nothing more or less.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: ^Dejehuti is bitching that Keita bunked the whole idea that ancient Egyptians were "Black."
Come clean already AMR1, I am on to you and Sammy Aka Lioness..Why not do your job an moderate already you lazy Arab. BTW, your psudo Haitian alias "Gigantic" is pathetic and racist to boot, Trying to act like such a Low I.Q person and making him a Black Haitian, you racist A-rab be yourself we all know NO ONE is THAT stupid so stop pretending already.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed, these PATHETIC LOSERS keep ignoring the fact that Keita does not even use the label 'black' OR 'white' in the first place!! Therefore, him not calling Egyptians black doesn't mean they were not!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Up...
For the losers still in denial.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed, these PATHETIC LOSERS keep ignoring the fact that Keita does not even use the label 'black' OR 'white' in the first place!! Therefore, him not calling Egyptians black doesn't mean they were not!
would you be in the loser camp since you use the word "black" and "white" all the time while Keita doesn't?
By the was I was thinking, the following could be a very rough question for you. Are you black or white? You might say one or the other. You might say neither. I really don't know what you would answer but it is a fair question because you use the word "black" a million times around here. The thing that I think would be interesting is if you say "neither" and then I say than how would you describe yourself given that you describe people using color terms as a description. You have set up the premise, that color terms can be used to describe people. So on that basis I ask you what is your color? It's only fair you call people "black" or "white" all the time so what would you be. Mike or jari, or many others would tell you in a heartbeat what they think they (are assuming that these non-Keita terms you use are relevant). But I have a feeling you wouldn't touch this question with a ten foot pole.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Wait wait wait.
This video where Keita talks about African clades in Greece and the Balkans or the African origin of "Mediterranean" type as somehow a victory for Salsassin?
LOL!
Keita makes it clear. Africa is mommy and daddy and by that, it means it is the home of most human diversity.
So I don't see how anyone could claim that this is a "victory" over Afrocentrics, when everything he says clearly that North Africa was primarily indigenous Africans since the beginning. LOL!
But of course some idiots would like to make a claim that this supports the notion that ANY person identified as a "Berber" today is a PURE example of populations in North Africa since the beginning of the human presence there.
Sorry, no he doesn't even entertain that nonsense.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed, that is what makes it even more embarassing for the euronuts. They don't realize that Keita supports everything we say here!
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: would you be in the loser camp since you use the word "black" and "white" all the time while Keita doesn't?
No because unlike Confirmed Untruth, I don't make any desperate attempts to distort Keita's words to fit my agenda. A tactic YOU are guilty of all the time.
Because of the heavy political connotations, Keita does not like to use the color labels 'black' or 'white' on other peoples because he does not want to appear bias; however he DOES label himself as 'black'! I have shown you many portraits of ancient Egyptians complexions darker than him, yet you refuse to acknowledge them as 'black'. No matter because Keita did say once that if one were to use modern color dialectics then yes the Egyptians would be considered 'black'.
So YOU too are in the pathetic loser camp!
quote:By the was I was thinking, the following could be a very rough question for you. Are you black or white? You might say one or the other. You might say neither. I really don't know what you would answer but it is a fair question because you use the word "black" a million times around here. The thing that I think would be interesting is if you say "neither" and then I say than how would you describe yourself given that you describe people using color terms as a description. You have set up the premise, that color terms can be used to describe people. So on that basis I ask you what is your color? It's only fair you call people "black" or "white" all the time so what would you be. Mike or jari, or many others would tell you in a heartbeat what they think they (are assuming that these non-Keita terms you use are relevant). But I have a feeling you wouldn't touch this question with a ten foot pole.
LOL Involving me personally won't change anything. I am ASIAN, but if I were to go by color I would be considered 'brown'. But again that doesn't change anything, because you cannot change the color dialects of the Western world or the entire world at large because YOU are blackphobic.
Face it, baby the Egyptians as indigenous Africans were indeed black. B|tch all you want about it, but it won't do any good.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Bump this S@^T UP
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
I discovered this phone conversation with Keita that Salsassin uploaded and responded to him.
The first thing to consider as many have pointed out is that Keita does NOT discuss the skin color of the Ancient Egyptians at any point during their conversation nor does Salsassin ask him about it directly. When he said that Afrocentrists were distorting his research and claiming he said the Ancient Egyptians were Black Keita agreed that he did not but that is because Keita never uses racial terminology to describe populations.
I emailed Keita myself and asked him directly what color most Ancient Egyptians were and this is what he said:
No one can say exactly what colour they were, but one might reasonably say that the typical Upper Egyptian to Nubian color would have been the modal colour in most of the country.
This is very important because this is consistent with what many Egyptsearch posters have been saying all along. Notice Keita did say they would have looked the same as they do today or that Southern Egyptians were dark and Northern Egyptians were light as Salsassin would have it. He says point blank that it is reasonable to say that ranged from the typical Upper Egyptian to Nubian color (which is medium to dark brown).
That right there is the death blow to people who want to interpret Keita's research as being against what is being said here.
Posted by TheHorsenation (Member # 18137) on :
Even though King Tut's leaked DNA excerpt shows he might be European, I don't really give much about connecting DNA discoveries to ancient civilizations because the evaluations all rely heavily on other sciences like Anthropology, and the correct analysis of migrations.
Mainstream Science says civilizations began in China/Sumeria/Egypt/India, and totally disregards that all these civilizations and many others like native Indians (US), Norse (EDDA), and African Mythology (eg. Zulu Shaman) all have VERY similar lore about former great ages.
Heck, the Mahabharata even talks about Airships, Explosions like the sun that make the waters bitter and all people die, the Bible talks about fallen Angels having Sex with earthly women... I think real history is stranger than fiction.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
Since Keita says this: No one can say exactly what colour they were, but one might reasonably say that the typical Upper Egyptian to Nubian color would have been the modal colour in most of the country.
Doesn't the bolded part of the statement negate the first?
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
Not really, he said "no one can say **exactly** what colour they were, but one **might** reasonably say that the..." Being cautious is his signature style.
Posted by TheHorsenation (Member # 18137) on :
Keita tries to please Afrocentric morons, as you can see in various of his retarded presentations, while at the same time he tries not to make too much of a fool of himself to still stay accepted in high science circles.
Everybody has an agenda. Keita works on undermining the concept of race, but everybody can see that the difference between people is not only the color of their skin.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ So says the moron who claims the ancient Egyptians were "caucasians"! LOL
Keita works to undermine race because 'race' does NOT exist as a scientific entity. But of course you are too ignorant to know this just like your are too ignorant to know that the so-called leak that Tut has European DNA is FALSE and is based on nothing more than a control sample that came from white American, or did you even read all the valid posts from this thread??
Anyway here is how Tut and his people looked like:
Welcome to reality.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
anguishofbeing:
" Being cautious is his signature style.''
Evidently. But...why not simply state ''but one might reasonably say that the typical Upper Egyptian to Nubian color would have been the modal colour in most of the country.''
Can you agree that nearly everyone on this site says Ancient Egyptians were dark skinned? If so then will those same people say ''no one can say for sure''?
I sure don't envy the man. He may be walking a taut line within the establishment and not wanting to ruffle feathers.
If one looks at how he phrases it it seems to me he's protecting two camps, the establishment and the Afrocentric scholars. I had the same impression when his views were aired a year ago on this site.
Posted by TheHorsenation (Member # 18137) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So says the moron who claims the ancient Egyptians were "caucasians"! LOL
Keita works to undermine race because 'race' does NOT exist as a scientific entity. But of course you are too ignorant to know this
You people don't have to post a shitload of images, that everybody knows already, each time you want to undermine that Egypt is BLACK, which I wont agree with anyway, no matter how often you post Queen Tiy's ugly bust.
David Duke has a nice video about this topic - yes I know everybody hates him - but what he says makes more sense than globalist funded science that wants to turn every human into the same grey consumer mass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU4cvmk44MQ
I'm sure many African Americans would also prefer to live in their own self-governed society, have their own schools that advocate their individual racial strengths, and respect the way of life they want to live.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: anguishofbeing:
" Being cautious is his signature style.''
Evidently. But...why not simply state ''but one might reasonably say that the typical Upper Egyptian to Nubian color would have been the modal colour in most of the country.''
Can you agree that nearly everyone on this site says Ancient Egyptians were dark skinned? If so then will those same people say ''no one can say for sure''?
I sure don't envy the man. He may be walking a taut line within the establishment and not wanting to ruffle feathers.
If one looks at how he phrases it it seems to me he's protecting two camps, the establishment and the Afrocentric scholars. I had the same impression when his views were aired a year ago on this site.
Having read a large amount of his literature and had a few email exchanges with him this is what I believe he meant. Keita is likely saying that there is no scientific method to determine EXACTLY what color they were but that based on the evidence available we can suggest a reasonable range in skin color that they probably had.
We have to bare in mind that Keita's research on the subject is meant to assess the biological affinities of the Ancient Egyptians not what skin color they had. I've never seen a paper from Keita where he cites melanin dosage tests on Ancient Egyptian mummies. I actually asked him about this but he stopped replying to my emails.
What's important to recognize is that Keita draws the same conclusion from the research that most of us do in regards to skin color even though he answers the question cautiously. He is not of the opinion that the modern Egyptian population is reflective of what the Ancient Egyptians looked like. He believes that during the Dynastic period the Upper Egyptian to Nubian complexion was dominant.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHorsenation:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So says the moron who claims the ancient Egyptians were "caucasians"! LOL
Keita works to undermine race because 'race' does NOT exist as a scientific entity. But of course you are too ignorant to know this
You people don't have to post a shitload of images, that everybody knows already, each time you want to undermine that Egypt is BLACK, which I wont agree with anyway, no matter how often you post Queen Tiy's ugly bust.
David Duke has a nice video about this topic - yes I know everybody hates him - but what he says makes more sense than globalist funded science that wants to turn every human into the same grey consumer mass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU4cvmk44MQ
I'm sure many African Americans would also prefer to live in their own self-governed society, have their own schools that advocate their individual racial strengths, and respect the way of life they want to live.
Duke is such a snake oil salesman.
He starts with a strawman that modern scientists maintain that race is only skin deep then in typical racialist fashion points out one evident biological difference between populations (physiological variation leading to differences in athletic potential) and proceed to point out the discredited research of Rushton on racial differences in brain size and structure.
He then talks about how wonderful it is to respect human differences leaving out the fact that the research he quotes is obviously racist and socially harmful to human progress.
I'm actually working on getting a video debate uploaded to Youtube with Rushton where he gets his ass kicked in a debate with an evolutionary biologist named Joseph L Graves (who interestingly enough is an African-American who maintains that there are no biological races).
This racist pseudoscience needs to be debunked at every turn.
Posted by TheHorsenation (Member # 18137) on :
The question about the skincolor of Egyptians is irrelevant anyway. A Caucasian is a Caucasian, no matter if he's white or dark brown. Why dont you ask Keita if they were "black men" or "negroes" or whatever you wanna call the 'race' (which doesnt exist according to keita).
Posted by viola75 (Member # 17981) on :
What is a caucasian???
Are masai caucasians??
are dravidians caucasians??
if they are, what does that tell us about them?
Posted by TheHorsenation (Member # 18137) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: I'm actually working on getting a video debate uploaded to Youtube with Rushton where he gets his ass kicked in a debate with an evolutionary biologist named Joseph L Graves (who interestingly enough is an African-American who maintains that there are no biological races).
This racist pseudoscience needs to be debunked at every turn.
why dont you get a video debate with David Duke and some other guy you like. That would be more interesting to see... if Duke gets destroyed or the other one (or none if both manage to stand their ground well).
Posted by TheHorsenation (Member # 18137) on :
quote:Originally posted by viola75: What is a caucasian???
obviously there are a few groups of different people on the planet. I dont care how you call them. white-black-asian-... what do you suggest we use?
Posted by viola75 (Member # 17981) on :
"The question about the skincolor of Egyptians is irrelevant anyway. A Caucasian is a Caucasian, no matter if he's white or dark brown."
its to inclusive of people around the world who are not white.
some pygmys are caucasian?
i dont know what to call groups ,but calling ancient egyptians caucasian dosent really mean anything if you think about it.
could for example a ancient egyptian below in the third dynasty be called caucasian?
HESI RE
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHorsenation: The question about the skincolor of Egyptians is irrelevant anyway. A Caucasian is a Caucasian, no matter if he's white or dark brown. Why dont you ask Keita if they were "black men" or "negroes" or whatever you wanna call the 'race' (which doesnt exist according to keita).
Caucasian is an outdated anthropological term with no scientific value.
I didn't ask Keita if they were "Black men" or "Negroes" because I know he doesn't use that sort of terminology. At the end of the day we want to know what the Ancient Egyptians looked like. What sort of physical traits did they have.
Anyone who can read knows that Keita maintains that the Ancient Egyptians were biologically African. What is less obvious is what it means to be biologically African and what the Ancient Egyptians actually looked like. I think I asked him the right question and he gave me an appropriate answer.
Posted by viola75 (Member # 17981) on :
"during the Dynastic period the Upper Egyptian to Nubian complexion was dominant. "
agreed
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti:
Djehuti, posts the same tired cherry picked picture spam all the time. It actually does a disservice to the Afrocentric movement. The selection shows either the darker shade of brown or the lips and are relatively full and nose relatively flat with wide nostrils.
There better tactic from a more sophisticated Afrocentric approach is to post major earlier dynasty artifacts (especially pharaohs) of which there are many that are a relatively lighter shade of brown and with thinner lips and noses and maintain that they were 100% African.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:Originally posted by TheHorsenation: The question about the skincolor of Egyptians is irrelevant anyway. A Caucasian is a Caucasian, no matter if he's white or dark brown. Why dont you ask Keita if they were "black men" or "negroes" or whatever you wanna call the 'race' (which doesnt exist according to keita).
Caucasian is an outdated anthropological term with no scientific value.
I didn't ask Keita if they were "Black men" or "Negroes" because I know he doesn't use that sort of terminology. At the end of the day we want to know what the Ancient Egyptians looked like. What sort of physical traits did they have.
Anyone who can read knows that Keita maintains that the Ancient Egyptians were biologically African. What is less obvious is what it means to be biologically African and what the Ancient Egyptians actually looked like. I think I asked him the right question and he gave me an appropriate answer.
No, you were certainly far from objective in your questions Jaime. I took the task of emailing Keita to clarify seome things but I haven't gotten a reply, maybe I was given the wrong email address perhaps.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: No, you were certainly far from objective in your questions Jaime. I took the task of emailing Keita to clarify seome things but I haven't gotten a reply, maybe I was given the wrong email address perhaps.
I can give you the email address I used to contact him. He stopped replying to me after a few exchanges though. I'm surprised that he took the time to do a lengthy phone interview with Salsassin.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: No, you were certainly far from objective in your questions Jaime. I took the task of emailing Keita to clarify seome things but I haven't gotten a reply, maybe I was given the wrong email address perhaps.
I can give you the email address I used to contact him. He stopped replying to me after a few exchanges though. I'm surprised that he took the time to do a lengthy phone interview with Salsassin.
I'm not saying you didn't raise any valid points but it is most certainly not true that "Afrocentrists" believe Africans look only one way, in fact on my board and in my own posts I have argued against that. I have always argued that Africans are Africans and there are many different variants of Africans and that none of them have a more privileged position phenotypically over the other.
If can just PM me his email.
Posted by Gigantic (Member # 17311) on :
"African" is the new race term for Afrocentrists. You guys are unbelievable. You are like a virus that jumps from host to host; in your case the host are the terms you use to steal racial legacy and history.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I'm not saying you didn't raise any valid points but it is most certainly not true that "Afrocentrists" believe Africans look only one way, in fact on my board and in my own posts I have argued against that. I have always argued that Africans are Africans and there are many different variants of Africans and that none of them have a more privileged position phenotypically over the other.
If can just PM me his email.
It sounds like you are confusing me with Jaime. I never argued that Afrocentrists think Africans have only one look.
The email should be in your PM box now.
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: "African" is the new race term for Afrocentrists. You guys are unbelievable. You are like a virus that jumps from host to host; in your case the host are the terms you use to steal racial legacy and history.
African is not a racial term. Africans simply have a wide degree of variability as scholars like Keita have proven. You have a problem with this because it threatens your racist perceptions of Africans.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by viola75: What is a caucasian???
Are masai caucasians??
are dravidians caucasians??
if they are, what does that tell us about them?
Apparently to the Horseass, a caucasian is any group of people who have created advanced culture which is something Europeans have done for the past century. This is why if you look at old Western writings, they claim everyone from the builders of Great Zimbabwe in Southern Africa to Harappan culture in India, to Polynesian towns were created by "caucasians". They are not satisfied with their own European culture so they have to claim every advanced culture outside of Europe as "caucasian", perhaps due to low self esteem (?)
We know black Africans like the Egyptians have done this, which is why she expands "caucasian" to include people who look like this.
By the way, anyone who cites David Duke as an authority must not only have low self-esteem but a low IQ to boot. Posted by TheHorsenation (Member # 18137) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: By the way, anyone who cites David Duke as an authority must not only have low self-esteem but a low IQ to boot.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHorsenation: why dont you get a video debate with David Duke and some other guy you like. That would be more interesting to see... if Duke gets destroyed or the other one (or none if both manage to stand their ground well). [/QB]
I think that the Rushton-Graves debate will be more interesting. Bare in mind that Duke is not a scientist. He is only repeating arguments that scientists he supports are making. Rushton is the real brain behind racialism.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:Originally posted by TheHorsenation: why dont you get a video debate with David Duke and some other guy you like. That would be more interesting to see... if Duke gets destroyed or the other one (or none if both manage to stand their ground well).
I think that the Rushton-Graves debate will be more interesting. Bare in mind that Duke is not a scientist. He is only repeating arguments that scientists he supports are making. Rushton is the real brain behind racialism. [/QB]
What David Duke proposes is that Humans have certain bilogical differences between races(Which can be explained by climate adaption), Im not sure if he believes these races are sub-species or adaptions....I.E does he believe in Multi-reg.(Sub species) or OOA(Adaptions)....Im sure he upholds the former.
One thing about Duke is at least he tells the Truth about the Zionist powers, and he sticks up for his people, which I have no problems with. Other than his past I don't have a problem with David Duke, Black people have Khalid Muhammed.. All I wonder is his belief on Adaptions v.s Sub species..which is a highly debated topic in biology as it is.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHorsenation:
quote:Originally posted by viola75: What is a caucasian???
obviously there are a few groups of different people on the planet. I dont care how you call them. white-black-asian-... what do you suggest we use?
Tropical, Cold and Arid Adapted..Try Racializing the Egyptians now..
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: What David Duke proposes is that Humans have certain bilogical differences between races(Which can be explained by climate adaption), Im not sure if he believes these races are sub-species or adaptions....I.E does he believe in Multi-reg.(Sub species) or OOA(Adaptions)....Im sure he upholds the former.
One thing about Duke is at least he tells the Truth about the Zionist powers, and he sticks up for his people, which I have no problems with. Other than his past I don't have a problem with David Duke, Black people have Khalid Muhammed.. All I wonder is his belief on Adaptions v.s Sub species..which is a highly debated topic in biology as it is.
Dukes's primary source for his racialist views as you can see in the video is J Philippe Rushton.
Rushton prescribes to the Out of Africa model of human migration. He believes that humans evolved into different races (Sub-Species) as they migrated and adapted to different climates and that they developed different reproductive strategies to deal with the demands of unique environments.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:Originally posted by TheHorsenation: why dont you get a video debate with David Duke and some other guy you like. That would be more interesting to see... if Duke gets destroyed or the other one (or none if both manage to stand their ground well).
I think that the Rushton-Graves debate will be more interesting. Bare in mind that Duke is not a scientist. He is only repeating arguments that scientists he supports are making. Rushton is the real brain behind racialism.
What David Duke proposes is that Humans have certain bilogical differences between races(Which can be explained by climate adaption), Im not sure if he believes these races are sub-species or adaptions....I.E does he believe in Multi-reg.(Sub species) or OOA(Adaptions)....Im sure he upholds the former.
One thing about Duke is at least he tells the Truth about the Zionist powers, and he sticks up for his people, which I have no problems with. Other than his past I don't have a problem with David Duke, Black people have Khalid Muhammed.. All I wonder is his belief on Adaptions v.s Sub species..which is a highly debated topic in biology as it is. [/QB]
If David Duke had enough power he would separate America into racially separated areas and if you didn't like the plan you would be deported or killed.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: What David Duke proposes is that Humans have certain bilogical differences between races(Which can be explained by climate adaption), Im not sure if he believes these races are sub-species or adaptions....I.E does he believe in Multi-reg.(Sub species) or OOA(Adaptions)....Im sure he upholds the former.
One thing about Duke is at least he tells the Truth about the Zionist powers, and he sticks up for his people, which I have no problems with. Other than his past I don't have a problem with David Duke, Black people have Khalid Muhammed.. All I wonder is his belief on Adaptions v.s Sub species..which is a highly debated topic in biology as it is.
Dukes's primary source for his racialist views as you can see in the video is J Philippe Rushton.
Rushton prescribes to the Out of Africa model of human migration. He believes that humans evolved into different races (Sub-Species) as they migrated and adapted to different climates and that they developed different reproductive strategies to deal with the demands of unique environments.
Oh, I get it a best of both world scenario. Well from what I can tell a simple understanding of time makes humans becoming Sub-Species via adaption impossible..
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: No, you were certainly far from objective in your questions Jaime. I took the task of emailing Keita to clarify seome things but I haven't gotten a reply, maybe I was given the wrong email address perhaps.
I can give you the email address I used to contact him. He stopped replying to me after a few exchanges though. I'm surprised that he took the time to do a lengthy phone interview with Salsassin.
I'm not saying you didn't raise any valid points but it is most certainly not true that "Afrocentrists" believe Africans look only one way, in fact on my board and in my own posts I have argued against that. I have always argued that Africans are Africans and there are many different variants of Africans and that none of them have a more privileged position phenotypically over the other.
If can just PM me his email.
for example North Africans:
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
and Southern Europeans:
quote:Originally posted by TheHorsenation: David Duke has a nice video about this topic - yes I know everybody hates him - but what he says makes more sense than globalist funded science that wants to turn every human into the same grey consumer mass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU4cvmk44MQ
TheHorsenation is a troll created by a mod or some poster to keep discussions here alive. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
_________^^^^ _________Nubian
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: and Southern Europeans:
quote:Originally posted by TheHorsenation: David Duke has a nice video about this topic - yes I know everybody hates him - but what he says makes more sense than globalist funded science that wants to turn every human into the same grey consumer mass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU4cvmk44MQ
TheHorsenation is a troll created by a mod or some poster to keep discussions here alive.
Good work so I guess according to Lioness style Archeology Greece was a Mullatto civilzation..
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
No she doesn't think so. Only ancient Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
^ non-African near Eastern.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^ he's an Algerian, that's in Afrca
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
That was a decent interview, notwithstanding the suspiciously edited segments and leading questions. How in the world did Jamie land that interview anyhow? How did Keita not realize that this was a hidden agenda under the guise of a scientific interview? Why else would a 3 hour interview be stripped down into 30 minutes of Jamie's gripes about Ethnocentrists, and Keita's subsequent responses to them?
Not worth commenting on besides that, I'm just truly surprised that he wasted a potentially good interview. Jamie took advantage of Keita's ignorance. Salassin misrepresents the Afrocentric movement on the internet by focusing on dated true negro concepts and isolationist views, when arguments used by this community have grown so sophisticated and evolved so much, that he basically has Keita responding to ghosts. Note: Keita asks why Afrocentrists haven't used the data showing ancestral linkages between Greeks and Africans, assuming they are ignorant of such data (explicitly stating so). That argument, it turns out has been beaten to death by said "afrocentrists" yet Keita obviously had no idea. This was simply 30 minutes of carefully edited straw grasping. He took advantage of an out of touch, hard-nosed scientist; that's all that went on here.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: That was a decent interview, notwithstanding the suspiciously edited segments and leading questions. How in the world did Jamie land that interview anyhow? How did Keita not realize that this was a hidden agenda under the guise of a scientific interview? Why else would a 3 hour interview be stripped down into 30 minutes of Jamie's gripes about Ethnocentrists, and Keita's subsequent responses to them?
Not worth commenting on besides that, I'm just truly surprised that he wasted a potentially good interview. Jamie took advantage of Keita's ignorance. Salassin misrepresents the Afrocentric movement on the internet by focusing on dated true negro concepts and isolationist views, when arguments used by this community have grown so sophisticated and evolved so much, that he basically has Keita responding to ghosts. Note: Keita asks why Afrocentrists haven't used the data showing ancestral linkages between Greeks and Africans, assuming they are ignorant of such data (explicitly stating so). That argument, it turns out has been beaten to death by said "afrocentrists" yet Keita obviously had no idea. This was simply 30 minutes of carefully edited straw grasping. He took advantage of an out of touch, hard-nosed scientist; that's all that went on here.
My exact sentiments also, but I'm making plans to start a blog challenging every study and opinion that anyone has to say about Africans as well as presenting new data, the only to combat ignorance is to consistently challenge it head on.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
I asked Salsassin myself how he got the interview. He says he emailed Keita and it was Keita himself who suggested talking on the phone. Salsassin probably came up with the idea to record the phone conversation and post it on Youtube, no doubt without Keita's knowledge.
I've been debating Salsassin back and fourth on this video series and he clearly has a negative opinion of Egyptsearh. He generalizes the veterans as Afrocentrists with an ethno-racial agenda. He claims that Egyptsearch posters are absolutists who insist on an all Black Egypt and see themselves as more connected to the civilization than Egypt's own African neighbors.
Anyone who has spent time here knows that this isn't true.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: I asked Salsassin myself how he got the interview. He says he emailed Keita and it was Keita himself who suggested talking on the phone. Salsassin probably came up with the idea to record the phone conversation and post it on Youtube, no doubt without Keita's knowledge.
I've been debating Salsassin back and fourth on this video series and he clearly has a negative opinion of Egyptsearh. He generalizes the veterans as Afrocentrists with an ethno-racial agenda. He claims that Egyptsearch posters are absolutists who insist on an all Black Egypt and see themselves as more connected to the civilization than Egypt's own African neighbors.
Anyone who has spent time here knows that this isn't true.
most Egyptsearch posters are absolutists who insist on an all Black Egypt
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: most Egyptsearch posters are absolutists who insist on an all Black Egypt [/QB]
Most Egyptsearch posters insist that the scientific evidence proved that the Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans. But who on here claims that all Black people have a greater connection to Egypt than Egypt's African neighbors?
Salsassin actually stated his belief that if we did a poll the majority of Egyptsearch posters would say that they have a greater connection to Egypt than Berbers.
He seems to miss the point of these discussions entirely. It's not about claiming that certain people have a greater connection to Egypt but to establish that their bio-cultural origins lie within Africa and that they were primarily dark-skinned which Keita himself contends.
Obviously this historical fact has many implications such as refuting the idea that Black Africans have not created advanced civilizations. For most of us it has nothing to do with claiming Egypt to be more our heritage than that of modern Egyptians or other groups in the area.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: I asked Salsassin myself how he got the interview. He says he emailed Keita and it was Keita himself who suggested talking on the phone. Salsassin probably came up with the idea to record the phone conversation and post it on Youtube, no doubt without Keita's knowledge.
I've been debating Salsassin back and fourth on this video series and he clearly has a negative opinion of Egyptsearh. He generalizes the veterans as Afrocentrists with an ethno-racial agenda. He claims that Egyptsearch posters are absolutists who insist on an all Black Egypt and see themselves as more connected to the civilization than Egypt's own African neighbors.
Anyone who has spent time here knows that this isn't true.
most Egyptsearch posters are absolutists who insist on an all Black Egypt
You're full of it, when people say "black Egypt" what they really mean is that culturally and biologically ancient Egyptians never ceased being Africans, idiots like to project the image that AEs had nothing to do with other Africans except as enslavers and more to do with the Near East because they have this view that all of sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa and two different places without any interconnections. Salsassin already knew this was Keita's position so instead he makes atrawman arguments about Afrocentrists.
As for Keita, for a person that claims to know nothing about whats said of him on message boards and on the net, its funny that he should tell "Afrocentrists" about the PN2 clade when we've been saying that here at egyptsearch for years, Salsassin smartly never brought that up, lest he has nothing to argue against so called "Afrocentrists."
Posted by TheHorsenation (Member # 18137) on :
Funny thing is that Afrocentrists are so proud of Africa, but most of you weren't born there and certainly would refuse to even live there.
Ah, wait, I forgot you claim the whole world was black, and all cultures are black creations, so I guess the whites should just kill themselves all and let the black greatness of civilization re-emerge on the whole planet.
What we're dealing here isn't re-discovering black history, it's paranoia paired with self-deception.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHorsenation: Funny thing is that Afrocentrists are so proud of Africa, but most of you weren't born there and certainly would refuse to even live there.
Ah, wait, I forgot you claim the whole world was black, and all cultures are black creations, so I guess the whites should just kill themselves all and let the black greatness of civilization re-emerge on the whole planet.
Racists are such strange people. You hate on people who haven't done anything to you and go to such great lengths to justify looking down on them.
Don't you realize how transparent you are? You have low self-esteem so you make yourself feel better by looking down on others. How else do you explain the obsession with trying to deny other people their place in history?
Posted by TheHorsenation (Member # 18137) on :
I just don't like frauds, and you guys are criminally insane.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHorsenation:
I just don't like frauds, and you guys are criminally insane.
Oh? How so?
Posted by TheHorsenation (Member # 18137) on :
What we're dealing here isn't re-discovering black history, it's paranoia paired with self-deception.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHorsenation: What we're dealing here isn't re-discovering black history, it's paranoia paired with self-deception.
How is providing evidence that the Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans paranoia paired with self-deception?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: That was a decent interview, notwithstanding the suspiciously edited segments and leading questions. How in the world did Jamie land that interview anyhow? How did Keita not realize that this was a hidden agenda under the guise of a scientific interview? Why else would a 3 hour interview be stripped down into 30 minutes of Jamie's gripes about Ethnocentrists, and Keita's subsequent responses to them?
Not worth commenting on besides that, I'm just truly surprised that he wasted a potentially good interview. Jamie took advantage of Keita's ignorance. Salassin misrepresents the Afrocentric movement on the internet by focusing on dated true negro concepts and isolationist views, when arguments used by this community have grown so sophisticated and evolved so much, that he basically has Keita responding to ghosts. Note: Keita asks why Afrocentrists haven't used the data showing ancestral linkages between Greeks and Africans, assuming they are ignorant of such data (explicitly stating so). That argument, it turns out has been beaten to death by said "afrocentrists" yet Keita obviously had no idea. This was simply 30 minutes of carefully edited straw grasping. He took advantage of an out of touch, hard-nosed scientist; that's all that went on here.
I emailed Keita, he did not know what Salsassin was all about. Also, he did not know that Salsassin had made the interview into three video's.
In his email response Keita was very guarded. I believe he was guarded because he may have felt I would use any comments he made to make it appear he was Afrocentric since I am well known for being an Afrocentrist.
This suggest that Jaime probably made up some lie to interview Keita. It is clear from the interview that Keita thought he was talking to a practicing attorney.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: That was a decent interview, notwithstanding the suspiciously edited segments and leading questions. How in the world did Jamie land that interview anyhow? How did Keita not realize that this was a hidden agenda under the guise of a scientific interview? Why else would a 3 hour interview be stripped down into 30 minutes of Jamie's gripes about Ethnocentrists, and Keita's subsequent responses to them?
Not worth commenting on besides that, I'm just truly surprised that he wasted a potentially good interview. Jamie took advantage of Keita's ignorance. Salassin misrepresents the Afrocentric movement on the internet by focusing on dated true negro concepts and isolationist views, when arguments used by this community have grown so sophisticated and evolved so much, that he basically has Keita responding to ghosts. Note: Keita asks why Afrocentrists haven't used the data showing ancestral linkages between Greeks and Africans, assuming they are ignorant of such data (explicitly stating so). That argument, it turns out has been beaten to death by said "afrocentrists" yet Keita obviously had no idea. This was simply 30 minutes of carefully edited straw grasping. He took advantage of an out of touch, hard-nosed scientist; that's all that went on here.
My exact sentiments also, but I'm making plans to start a blog challenging every study and opinion that anyone has to say about Africans as well as presenting new data, the only to combat ignorance is to consistently challenge it head on.
A Blog will not change anybodies mind about the confusing articles on African genetics. Explorer already has a Blog doing just that.
What we really need are more scientific articles challeging the status quo. Right now only Keita and I, are publishing research in this area. But I will admit that paying as much as $2500 in publication cost for each article accepted for publication makes it hard to support this reseach. ( I have personally withdrew articles after I discovered the publication cost I was expected to pay.)
.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
I would like to see more video debates between scholars on these subjects as well as lectures like the Black Athena debate that is on Youtube and Keita's presentation at Cambridge.
I think the public will pay far closer attention to that than scientific articles though ofcourse those are also important to publish.
Posted by TheHorsenation (Member # 18137) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:Originally posted by TheHorsenation: What we're dealing here isn't re-discovering black history, it's paranoia paired with self-deception.
How is providing evidence that the Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans paranoia paired with self-deception?
because you ignore that Egyptians were white people too. I think both were present - whites and Nubians.
Also, Afrocentrism doesn't end in Egypt. When I check the frontpage of http://realhistoryww.com and read peoples comments here, it basically say ALL of the worlds cultures were started by blacks. The madness is endless - from black Hawaiians, to black Chinese, to black american Indians, but not a single word about proven african culture on that page.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHorsenation: because you ignore that Egyptians were white people too. I think both were present - whites and Nubians.
Also, Afrocentrism doesn't end in Egypt. When I check the frontpage of http://realhistoryww.com and read peoples comments here, it basically say ALL of the worlds cultures were started by blacks. The madness is endless - from black Hawaiians, to black Chinese, to black american Indians, but not a single word about proven african culture on that page.
And what do you make of White-history.com and other Eurocentric websites with their Nordic Egyptian Empire, Aryan Invasion of India theory, White Chinese, White Samurai, White Native Americans, White Great Zimbabwe etc. etc.?
You shouldn't make generalizations like that. The veterans of this website simply maintain that the bio-cultural origins of Egypt lie in Africa and that the people were primarily dark-skinned ("Black"). Many on this website are actually quite critical of the claim that Black Africans influenced all these other ancient civilizations around the world.
Now as for Whites being present in Ancient Egypt to what degree are you suggesting? And why do you say Whites and Nubians? Are you saying that the only Black people in Egypt were Nubians?
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: I asked Salsassin myself how he got the interview. He says he emailed Keita and it was Keita himself who suggested talking on the phone. Salsassin probably came up with the idea to record the phone conversation and post it on Youtube, no doubt without Keita's knowledge.
I've been debating Salsassin back and fourth on this video series and he clearly has a negative opinion of Egyptsearh. He generalizes the veterans as Afrocentrists with an ethno-racial agenda. He claims that Egyptsearch posters are absolutists who insist on an all Black Egypt and see themselves as more connected to the civilization than Egypt's own African neighbors.
Anyone who has spent time here knows that this isn't true.
most Egyptsearch posters are absolutists who insist on an all Black Egypt
like you insist on an all white greece?
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHorsenation:
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:Originally posted by TheHorsenation: What we're dealing here isn't re-discovering black history, it's paranoia paired with self-deception.
How is providing evidence that the Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans paranoia paired with self-deception?
because you ignore that Egyptians were white people too. I think both were present - whites and Nubians.
Also, Afrocentrism doesn't end in Egypt. When I check the frontpage of http://realhistoryww.com and read peoples comments here, it basically say ALL of the worlds cultures were started by blacks. The madness is endless - from black Hawaiians, to black Chinese, to black american Indians, but not a single word about proven african culture on that page.
Kid you have no idea if you think we uphold Mike's Web Site as Scholarly..
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: I asked Salsassin myself how he got the interview. He says he emailed Keita and it was Keita himself who suggested talking on the phone. Salsassin probably came up with the idea to record the phone conversation and post it on Youtube, no doubt without Keita's knowledge.
I've been debating Salsassin back and fourth on this video series and he clearly has a negative opinion of Egyptsearh. He generalizes the veterans as Afrocentrists with an ethno-racial agenda. He claims that Egyptsearch posters are absolutists who insist on an all Black Egypt and see themselves as more connected to the civilization than Egypt's own African neighbors.
Anyone who has spent time here knows that this isn't true.
I went back and forth with Salsassin too, he was talking about how people at E.S deny Berbers as African. I told him what most here uphold and honestly he seems to be clearly mistaken.
Posted by TheHorsenation (Member # 18137) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: And why do you say Whites and Nubians? Are you saying that the only Black people in Egypt were Nubians?
Nubians were captured as slaves, some managed to reach high positions after proving themselves worthy it seems afaik, some of Pharaoh's wife were Nubians too probably, and I say Whites, because I dont really care if they were Icelanders or Indians or native whites from northern Africa, or survivors of Noah's flood or the Gilgamesh epos (which of course could be white, black or mixed).
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^What a silly conversation. A bunch of nine year olds wondering how they got here. You came from the cabbage patch - leave it at that and go play.
Posted by Gigantic (Member # 17311) on :
Is it safe to say Keita did not cosign any of your afromadness ? (LOL) Post up the email exchange and let us see what he said, if you don't mind.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I emailed Keita, he did not know what Salsassin was all about. Also, he did not know that Salsassin had made the interview into three video's.
In his email response Keita was very guarded. I believe he was guarded because he may have felt I would use any comments he made to make it appear he was Afrocentric since I am well known for being an Afrocentrist.
This suggest that Jaime probably made up some lie to interview Keita. It is clear from the interview that Keita thought he was talking to a practicing attorney.
. [/QB]
Posted by Gigantic (Member # 17311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: I asked Salsassin myself how he got the interview. He says he emailed Keita and it was Keita himself who suggested talking on the phone. Salsassin probably came up with the idea to record the phone conversation and post it on Youtube, no doubt without Keita's knowledge.
I've been debating Salsassin back and fourth on this video series and he clearly has a negative opinion of Egyptsearh. He generalizes the veterans as Afrocentrists with an ethno-racial agenda. He claims that Egyptsearch posters are absolutists who insist on an all Black Egypt and see themselves as more connected to the civilization than Egypt's own African neighbors.
His assessment is on the mark.
quote:Anyone who has spent time here knows that this isn't true.
Please tell me you are kiddin! please! Are you on drugs? ES oozes with Afrocentric fanaticism, bordering insanity. I mean, for Pete's sake! you have got people like Egmond who promotes outrageous claims like Renaissance European Whites are really light skinned Negroes. And he does this with impunity on the board. No one, except non Afrocentrists challenge him on this. Heck! Some of you even encourage his lunacy.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: I would like to see more video debates between scholars on these subjects as well as lectures like the Black Athena debate that is on Youtube and Keita's presentation at Cambridge.
I think the public will pay far closer attention to that than scientific articles though ofcourse those are also important to publish.
Unless you can get a special on Discovery or History channel the public will not know too much about what we're talking about. Very few African people view youtube.
.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: That was a decent interview, notwithstanding the suspiciously edited segments and leading questions. How in the world did Jamie land that interview anyhow? How did Keita not realize that this was a hidden agenda under the guise of a scientific interview? Why else would a 3 hour interview be stripped down into 30 minutes of Jamie's gripes about Ethnocentrists, and Keita's subsequent responses to them?
Not worth commenting on besides that, I'm just truly surprised that he wasted a potentially good interview. Jamie took advantage of Keita's ignorance. Salassin misrepresents the Afrocentric movement on the internet by focusing on dated true negro concepts and isolationist views, when arguments used by this community have grown so sophisticated and evolved so much, that he basically has Keita responding to ghosts. Note: Keita asks why Afrocentrists haven't used the data showing ancestral linkages between Greeks and Africans, assuming they are ignorant of such data (explicitly stating so). That argument, it turns out has been beaten to death by said "afrocentrists" yet Keita obviously had no idea. This was simply 30 minutes of carefully edited straw grasping. He took advantage of an out of touch, hard-nosed scientist; that's all that went on here.
My exact sentiments also, but I'm making plans to start a blog challenging every study and opinion that anyone has to say about Africans as well as presenting new data, the only to combat ignorance is to consistently challenge it head on.
A Blog will not change anybodies mind about the confusing articles on African genetics. Explorer already has a Blog doing just that.
What we really need are more scientific articles challeging the status quo. Right now only Keita and I, are publishing research in this area. But I will admit that paying as much as $2500 in publication cost for each article accepted for publication makes it hard to support this reseach. ( I have personally withdrew articles after I discovered the publication cost I was expected to pay.)
.
Ok Clyde, how about you, me and the rest of the vets get together and publish a paper outlining the problems in studying Africa and put ofrth new approaches? We have tons of data here and ESR/ES will be the first messageboard collective to publish a paper. You have clout in this respect so lets do it. Better yet, lets start our own journal forget about paying mainstream journals 2500 dollars when all the do is post distorted history on Africans anyways.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHorsenation: Nubians were captured as slaves, some managed to reach high positions after proving themselves worthy it seems afaik, some of Pharaoh's wife were Nubians too probably, and I say Whites, because I dont really care if they were Icelanders or Indians or native whites from northern Africa, or survivors of Noah's flood or the Gilgamesh epos (which of course could be white, black or mixed).
So basically you don't believe in a Multiracial Egypt you believe in a White Egypt with a Black minority who consisted of Nubians slaves that occasionally rose in station. Basically the same garbage that they teach White Nationalists on White-history.com.
This view is perfectly fine to you because you think it's the truth yet when people here show you anthropological, archeological, linguistic, cultural, genetic and artistic evidence that the Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans they're just exercising paranoia and self-deception. Unless paranoia and self-deception are new words for stating facts and backing them up with credible sources I'd say that you don't come out on the winning end of this argument.
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: Please tell me you are kiddin! please! Are you on drugs? ES oozes with Afrocentric fanaticism, bordering insanity. I mean, for Pete's sake! you have got people like Egmond who promotes outrageous claims like Renaissance European Whites are really light skinned Negroes. And he does this with impunity on the board. No one, except non Afrocentrists challenge him on this. Heck! Some of you even encourage his lunacy.
I'm not even familiar with Egmond. You may not notice this but I don't post on Egyptsearch much anymore. My statements are based on familiarity with the veterans who most often cite Keita's work. Salsassin is accusing them of advocating an ethnocentric agenda and only hearing what they want to hear when reading Keita's literature or listening to his videos which is simply not true.
Some of us have actually emailed Keita ourselves to ask him specific questions about his views on Ancient Egypt.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Better yet, lets start our own journal forget about paying mainstream journals 2500 dollars when all the do is post distorted history on Africans anyways.
The problem is that if we do that, people won't take our journal seriously, instead dismissing it as fringe. No, we need to infiltrate the mainstream if we are to have any effect.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Unless you can get a special on Discovery or History channel the public will not know too much about what we're talking about. Very few African people view youtube.
Alot more Black people view Youtube than they do scientific articles.
Plus we can always put recent scholarly articles on the subject in the description for the videos.
Posted by TheHorsenation (Member # 18137) on :
LOL Why dont you publish it in your ancestors homeland Egypt? I guess they'd burn down the distributor.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Better yet, lets start our own journal forget about paying mainstream journals 2500 dollars when all the do is post distorted history on Africans anyways.
The problem is that if we do that, people won't take our journal seriously, instead dismissing it as fringe. No, we need to infiltrate the mainstream if we are to have any effect.
It dosen't matter what other people think of your journal--what you want to do is publish the truth. Granted, you are still an undergraduate so you may want to be circumspect in what you publish because you hope to have a career in the anthropology field; and you don't want anyone to use what you have written against you.
I see great potential in you. I hope you will study physical anthropology and do graduate work at the University of Chicago.
Here they have one of the most famous archaeologist who is working in Africa excavating prehistoric animals and ancient cultures. Physical anthropology would be a good field for you because your interest lie in prehistory and is focused on Africa
Your artistic skills are a plus because you will be able to record what you find, and while you are still an undergraduate you may want to volunteer at archaeological sites to get the experience and later put on your applications for Graduate School.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Unless you can get a special on Discovery or History channel the public will not know too much about what we're talking about. Very few African people view youtube.
Alot more Black people view Youtube than they do scientific articles.
Plus we can always put recent scholarly articles on the subject in the description for the videos.
True. But most African Americans support other African Americans whose work is legitimized by Europeans. Europeans know this so they ignore the work of Black researchers whose work they can not fault.
As a result, when you get work published by Europeans--even if they disagree with your work--Black people believe you have something to say--since it was recognized by the "man".
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: I asked Salsassin myself how he got the interview. He says he emailed Keita and it was Keita himself who suggested talking on the phone. Salsassin probably came up with the idea to record the phone conversation and post it on Youtube, no doubt without Keita's knowledge.
I've been debating Salsassin back and fourth on this video series and he clearly has a negative opinion of Egyptsearh. He generalizes the veterans as Afrocentrists with an ethno-racial agenda. He claims that Egyptsearch posters are absolutists who insist on an all Black Egypt and see themselves as more connected to the civilization than Egypt's own African neighbors.
Anyone who has spent time here knows that this isn't true.
most Egyptsearch posters are absolutists who insist on an all Black Egypt
You're full of it, when people say "black Egypt" what they really mean is that culturally and biologically ancient Egyptians never ceased being Africans
That's like saying African Americans never ceased being American. Also the term "Africa" as a separate region from Asia that encompassed what we now called the African continent had no equivalent in ancient Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass: idiots like to project the image that AEs had nothing to do with other Africans except as enslavers and more to do with the Near East because they have this view that all of sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa and two different places without any interconnections.
The Egyptian Empire at it's height extended from part of Sudan to Syria. Egyptians did not settle in other regions of Africa and had little influence in those areas even though lasting for over 3000 years. The fact is you do not see their technology spreading into other areas of Africa except in the Sudan region.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass: when people say "black Egypt" what they really mean is that culturally and biologically ancient Egyptians never ceased being Africans
what they really mean is that ancient Egyptians had dark skin and no ancestry from the Levant
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: there's evidence for European (north Mediterranean) immigrants to littoral N Africa in prehistoric times
I hope somebody sent Keita the link to Salsassin's video and channel so he is aware of the context of it. Unfortunately he may be ignoring some peoples latest emails due to smelling a counter political agenda.
Obsession with Egypt is a way of ignoring our West African ancestors by applying "civilization" superiority concepts. At least Clyde does not spend 90% of his time on Egypt.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: That was a decent interview, notwithstanding the suspiciously edited segments and leading questions. How in the world did Jamie land that interview anyhow? How did Keita not realize that this was a hidden agenda under the guise of a scientific interview? Why else would a 3 hour interview be stripped down into 30 minutes of Jamie's gripes about Ethnocentrists, and Keita's subsequent responses to them?
Not worth commenting on besides that, I'm just truly surprised that he wasted a potentially good interview. Jamie took advantage of Keita's ignorance. Salassin misrepresents the Afrocentric movement on the internet by focusing on dated true negro concepts and isolationist views, when arguments used by this community have grown so sophisticated and evolved so much, that he basically has Keita responding to ghosts. Note: Keita asks why Afrocentrists haven't used the data showing ancestral linkages between Greeks and Africans, assuming they are ignorant of such data (explicitly stating so). That argument, it turns out has been beaten to death by said "afrocentrists" yet Keita obviously had no idea. This was simply 30 minutes of carefully edited straw grasping. He took advantage of an out of touch, hard-nosed scientist; that's all that went on here.
My exact sentiments also, but I'm making plans to start a blog challenging every study and opinion that anyone has to say about Africans as well as presenting new data, the only to combat ignorance is to consistently challenge it head on.
A Blog will not change anybodies mind about the confusing articles on African genetics. Explorer already has a Blog doing just that.
What we really need are more scientific articles challeging the status quo. Right now only Keita and I, are publishing research in this area. But I will admit that paying as much as $2500 in publication cost for each article accepted for publication makes it hard to support this reseach. ( I have personally withdrew articles after I discovered the publication cost I was expected to pay.)
.
Ok Clyde, how about you, me and the rest of the vets get together and publish a paper outlining the problems in studying Africa and put ofrth new approaches? We have tons of data here and ESR/ES will be the first messageboard collective to publish a paper. You have clout in this respect so lets do it. Better yet, lets start our own journal forget about paying mainstream journals 2500 dollars when all the do is post distorted history on Africans anyways.
This seems like a good idea. I will investigate the matter in the future when I have more time. Right now I'm teaching a new class which is taking up a lot of prep time.
If I see anyway to produce a journal I will announce it here and request articles for possible publication. It will probably be like the early issues of the Journal of African Civilization.
I do believe that the Vets here could do a book relating to their most important themes and publish it. Charlie you may want to organize the effort.
If you do decide to self publish a book go to , I think it is Authors Press. This company does good advertizement for their products and would give your book good exposure to the press and public. Those authors contributing papers to the book should agree to pay part of the cost for publishing the book.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Better yet, lets start our own journal forget about paying mainstream journals 2500 dollars when all the do is post distorted history on Africans anyways.
Although you will have to pay the full publication charges for your article if it is a research article or short post--if you write a letter commenting on previous published work you are usually not charged any publication cost.
.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: what they really mean is that ancient Egyptians had dark skin and no ancestry from the Levant
The ancient Egyptians didn't come from the Levant, dont be a fool.
quote: Obsession with Egypt is a way of ignoring our West African ancestors by applying "civilization" superiority concepts. At least Clyde does not spend 90% of his time on Egypt.
The site is called Egyptsearch.
Lioness complains about obsession with ancient Egypt yet shes here everyday. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
Lioness complains about obsession with ancient Egypt yet shes here everyday.
good point
"the lioness has fun here"
actually Egypt is the not the primary topic discussed here
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: actually Egypt is the not the primary topic discussed here
^ so then you and lil Mikey have something in common. OT trollers.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: actually Egypt is the not the primary topic discussed here
^ so then you and lil Mikey have something in common. OT trollers.
In the past I have put up serious posts that had excellent information on ancient Egypt. Many posts that are not racially oriented get few replies. Even though Wally is guilty of subliminals he noticed this too.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Many posts that are not racially oriented get few replies.
So thats why you turn to trolling about a multiracial ancient Egypt. Attention whore. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Many posts that are not racially oriented get few replies.
So thats why you turn to trolling about a multiracial ancient Egypt. Attention whore.
you have to have the right bait for the right fish
also, my ideas are progressing as these discussions go on. unlike some people who have haven't updated since 1974
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: actually Egypt is the not the primary topic discussed here
^ so then you and lil Mikey have something in common. OT trollers.
How many times must I tell you how stupid you are? Even something as simple as reading the purpose of the forum is beyond you. No wonder you can't start a thread.
Ancient Egypt Non-Egyptology related discussion. African roots, race, origin of man etc.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
^ "you have to have the right bait for the right fish"
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: I told him what most here uphold and honestly he seems to be clearly mistaken.
You are clearly mistaken if you think he is making mistakes here. He knows what hes doing. He's a professional propagandist.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: I went back and forth with Salsassin too, he was talking about how people at E.S deny Berbers as African. I told him what most here uphold and honestly he seems to be clearly mistaken.
You are clearly mistaken if you think he is making mistakes here. He knows what hes doing. He's a professional propagandist.
the problem is that Jari supports a multiracial Ancient Egypt while that is not the view that most ES. peeps uphold.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: I went back and forth with Salsassin too, he was talking about how people at E.S deny Berbers as African. I told him what most here uphold and honestly he seems to be clearly mistaken.
You are clearly mistaken if you think he is making mistakes here. He knows what hes doing. He's a professional propagandist.
the problem is that Jari supports a multiracial Ancient Egypt while that is not the view that most ES. peeps uphold.
It might help if he could produce some sort of authentic artifact or such, that demonstrates a pre-Greek multi-racial Egypt.
Of course I know that he can't possibly do that. But it's just plain fun to tease the idiot.
TheHorsenation - Are you paying close attention?
Posted by TheHorsenation (Member # 18137) on :
since the population of ancient Egypt was predominantly non-negro, you can be lucky if we even count any black participation except for the obvious 25th dynasty takeover and some lucky blacks who made it into the Pharaohs bedchambers or other services.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHorsenation: since the population of ancient Egypt was predominantly non-negro, you can be lucky if we even count any black participation except for the obvious 25th dynasty takeover and some lucky blacks who made it into the Pharaohs bedchambers or other services.
What is your primary source for your views on the racial makeup of Ancient Egypt?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^It's called nutty White kid dreaming.
Posted by TheHorsenation (Member # 18137) on :
everything I know and ever learned about Egypt and Africa is my primary source and points towards my conclusion above. I wont put up a list, since I already know all your counterarguments and that I cant talk sense into you. You'll get a black Pharaoh anyway soon with Will Smith on the bigscreen, playing Taharqa in "the last Pharaoh" who wasn't even the last Kushite Pharaoh, but who cares about truthful titles. The last one was of course Cleopatra VII, who's got as much right to the title as an invading Kushite clan.
Anybody knows when this film will be released?
I wonder how they will cast the population of Egypt, all black, or mixed at least.
The enemies in the flick are of course white Assyrians.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
I think your problem is that you are unable to talk sense period. You say the Ancient Egyptians were White. Based on what evidence? What is your primary source? If you can't answer that question then you have failed to make any sense on this subject.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: I think your problem is that you are unable to talk sense period. You say the Ancient Egyptians were White. Based on what evidence? What is your primary source? If you can't answer that question then you have failed to make any sense on this subject.
as if there could be evidence of people being white
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
TheHorsenation - You seem determined to persist in your fantasy. After months of dealing with nuts like Lioness and now you. I have learned to by-pass the normal give and take for you delusional loonies, and cut directly to the chase - The UV Index. Nobody can bullsh1t the The UV Index.
You may recall that ancient Egyptian farmers worked their fields "Barebacked".
The reason that they could do that, was because their skin was VERY DARK!
As you can see from the picture below, even the Brown skinned Black/Turk mixed-race farmers of modern Egypt, cover themselves from head-to-toe while in their fields, even though it is very HOT!
The reason for that is THIS!
In case you don't know what those numbers mean, I will tell you. They mean that a White person like yourself would DIE in short order, if you tried to work in the Egyptian Sun uncovered.
The same holds true for most of the world. White people are not natural Humans, therefore the thing that gives life to the natural world, is deadly to them.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Mike111
Your words a way too Harsh. White people are about as Natural Humans as Blacks.
I understand you get angry repeating yourself with people you think have no clue, But you don't Need to disrespect the entire White ethncity. Don't forget that majority of your work comes from white people who are after TRUTH like You.
Peace
Posted by TheHorsenation (Member # 18137) on :
Water gives live to the natural world too, and most blacks cant swim and sink like a stone. That alone proofs that you cant be Egyptian, remember there's that big river over there.
What do you mean with "whites are not natural humans"? Do you believe the Anunnaki Space Invaders enhanced our DNA?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^I meant unnatural in the sense that you are not pigmented, i.e. Albino.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
You may recall that ancient Egyptian farmers worked their fields "Barebacked".
The reason that they could do that, was because their skin was VERY DARK!
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
The reason for that dear girl, is because this is what four thousand year-old tombs REALLY look like! (Please note the skin color).
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
fisherman, 16th century BCE, Minoan, island of Thera, Cyclades
Posted by GlobalAfrikanSupremacy (Member # 16906) on :
Jari, Dr Khallid Muhammad is NOT the Black counterpart to David Duke. David Duke is racist against Black people for no plausible reason. He is just irritated and angry at the problems in the Black race that whites themselves are responsible for. No one has ever robbed David Duke's people of their name, religion, culture, or morals.
quote:Originally posted by GlobalAfrikanSupremacy: Jari, Dr Khallid Muhammad is NOT the Black counterpart to David Duke. David Duke is racist against Black people for no plausible reason. He is just irritated and angry at the problems in the Black race that whites themselves are responsible for. No one has ever robbed David Duke's people of their name, religion, culture, or morals.
Dr. Khalid Muhammed upholds the same views that David Duke does, except instead of Black Supremacy, WHITE Supremacy. They both recognize the Zionist Problem, they both were in Radical Racialist organizations. Both respond to attacks on their race.
The rest of your comment is Retoric to make Khalid Muhammed seem justified.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by GlobalAfrikanSupremacy: Jari, Dr Khallid Muhammad is NOT the Black counterpart to David Duke. David Duke is racist against Black people for no plausible reason. He is just irritated and angry at the problems in the Black race that whites themselves are responsible for. No one has ever robbed David Duke's people of their name, religion, culture, or morals.
GlobalAfrikanSupremacy - I don't know that it's healthy to milk the victimization thing, like NOI likes to do.
First of all it's inaccurate; those African death marches, were Africans taking Africans to slave markets, so that the White customers might be able to buy their needed product.
Off the top of my head, I would say that the people who actually DID the killing, capturing, and enslaving, are more culpable than the customers who bought the slaves. So for those looking for reparations - why not try Benin.
Then there is the proposition that Whites did something different than everyone else did, that also is wrong. Blacks were invading, conquering and enslaving, long before anyone ever heard of White people. As a matter of fact, Whites deserve credit for doing it because they had to, rather than simply for Empire.
We don't know for sure what prompted the Hellenes and Latins to leave Central Asia and enter Europe, but the guess is that it was the same reason that the later Slavs, Germans and Turks did so - those illiterate Nomadic people were being chased by Huns and Mongols.
It's basic Human nature to do whatever you have to do, in order to survive, and that's what they did.
Interestingly, history keeps repeating itself, in that 5th. century B.C. Italy, is analogous to 18th. century Africa.
In both cases, Black lands were invaded by Whites who were probably numerically inferior. Yet the Blacks in both cases, were so caught-up in their local feuds - like the people in the Americas - that they could not join forces to expel the invaders until it was too late. (The Etruscans in Italy never really joined forces, and the Celts/Gauls in France did not do so until about 50 B.C. - which was way too late). BTW - conservatively Caesar is estimated to have killed one third of the Black population of Gaul, and cut off the hands of another 40,000. Seems to me that the stupidity of the invaded, makes them more culpable than the invaders.
Then there is the fall of the ancient Black civilizations outside of Europe. Whites didn't cause that, the Persians did!
It was the Persians who destroyed the Elamites, Anatolians, Assyrians, Babylonians and Egyptians - leaving those lands open to White invasion.
And it was the Persians, who by their try and failure to conquer White Greece, precipitated the European Whites ganging-up and invading Persia. Once they took Persia, all that Persia had conquered became theirs. So who's to blame, why those ass-hole incompetent Persians!
In the Americas, Whites also acted logically - though brutally. Medieval Europe was a simmering cesspool of ignorant Whites who didn't even know about sanitation - how can they be blamed for wanting to leave?
The problem was the climate!
This is what they came from:
And initially there was no problem with them working the land in the northeast.
But once the European settlers started expanding southward, they ran into BIG problems!
Mississippi
There is just no way that a White man can safely work his stolen fields in that type of climate - they HAD to bring in Blacks in the South!
So that today in America, even though they are well covered in the fields, and ride around in air conditioned tractors. STILL, over one million White Americans come down with Skin Cancer every year!
The Mexican immigration problem isn't really about Mexicans sneaking across the border - that could be stopped if they wanted to. But if they stopped it, who in America would, who in America could, work their fields? (Most Mexicans are used as farm laborers).
So you see Supremacy, the White man has acted like everybody else, in all but one case: He created the institution of "Racism" to maintain cohesion among members of his subspecies. That had never been done before, and will in all likelihood, lead to his demise - it can work both ways!
Back to the NOI, Black backwardness is a global problem, which can only be solved by Blacks acting intelligently, and in their own self-interest. Why are they picking on the Khazar Jews? They are a global problem for Whites and have little to do with the global plight of Blacks. Me thinks they have been brainwashed by the Sand Niggers - Somebody needs to tell them that the Sand Nigger is not the Black mans friend. Posted by TheHorsenation (Member # 18137) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: sandniggers
Geez, people call me a Nazi and racist cause I like Dr. Duke, but in reality I am neither a Nazi nor do I disrespect any race, and I like 'Sandniggers', they are cool people.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by GlobalAfrikanSupremacy: Jari, Dr Khallid Muhammad is NOT the Black counterpart to David Duke. David Duke is racist against Black people for no plausible reason. He is just irritated and angry at the problems in the Black race that whites themselves are responsible for. No one has ever robbed David Duke's people of their name, religion, culture, or morals.
GlobalAfrikanSupremacy - I don't know that it's healthy to milk the victimization thing, like NOI likes to do.
First of all it's inaccurate; those African death marches, were Africans taking Africans to slave markets, so that the White customers might be able to buy their needed product.
Off the top of my head, I would say that the people who actually DID the killing, capturing, and enslaving, are more culpable than the customers who bought the slaves. So for those looking for reparations - why not try Benin.
Then there is the proposition that Whites did something different than everyone else did, that also is wrong. Blacks were invading, conquering and enslaving, long before anyone ever heard of White people. As a matter of fact, Whites deserve credit for doing it because they had to, rather than simply for Empire.
We don't know for sure what prompted the Hellenes and Latins to leave Central Asia and enter Europe, but the guess is that it was the same reason that the later Slavs, Germans and Turks did so - those illiterate Nomadic people were being chased by Huns and Mongols.
It's basic Human nature to do whatever you have to do, in order to survive, and that's what they did.
Interestingly, history keeps repeating itself, in that 5th. century B.C. Italy, is analogous to 18th. century Africa.
In both cases, Black lands were invaded by Whites who were probably numerically inferior. Yet the Blacks in both cases, were so caught-up in their local feuds - like the people in the Americas - that they could not join forces to expel the invaders until it was too late. (The Etruscans in Italy never really joined forces, and the Celts/Gauls in France did not do so until about 50 B.C. - which was way too late). BTW - conservatively Caesar is estimated to have killed one third of the Black population of Gaul, and cut off the hands of another 40,000. Seems to me that the stupidity of the invaded, makes them more culpable than the invaders.
Then there is the fall of the ancient Black civilizations outside of Europe. Whites didn't cause that, the Persians did!
It was the Persians who destroyed the Elamites, Anatolians, Assyrians, Babylonians and Egyptians - leaving those lands open to White invasion.
And it was the Persians, who by their try and failure to conquer White Greece, precipitated the European Whites ganging-up and invading Persia. Once they took Persia, all that Persia had conquered became theirs. So who's to blame, why those ass-hole incompetent Persians!
In the Americas, Whites also acted logically - though brutally. Medieval Europe was a simmering cesspool of ignorant Whites who didn't even know about sanitation - how can they be blamed for wanting to leave?
The problem was the climate!
This is what they came from:
And initially there was no problem with them working the land in the northeast.
But once the European settlers started expanding southward, they ran into BIG problems!
Mississippi
There is just no way that a White man can safely work his stolen fields in that type of climate - they HAD to bring in Blacks in the South!
So that today in America, even though they are well covered in the fields, and ride around in air conditioned tractors. STILL, over one million White Americans come down with Skin Cancer every year!
The Mexican immigration problem isn't really about Mexicans sneaking across the border - that could be stopped if they wanted to. But if they stopped it, who in America would, who in America could, work their fields? (Most Mexicans are used as farm laborers).
So you see Supremacy, the White man has acted like everybody else, in all but one case: He created the institution of "Racism" to maintain cohesion among members of his subspecies. That had never been done before, and will in all likelihood, lead to his demise - it can work both ways!
Back to the NOI, Black backwardness is a global problem, which can only be solved by Blacks acting intelligently, and in their own self-interest. Why are they picking on the Khazar Jews? They are a global problem for Whites and have little to do with the global plight of Blacks. Me thinks they have been brainwashed by the Sand Niggers - Somebody needs to tell them that the Sand Nigger is not the Black mans friend.
Damn Mike I was with you in the begining then you resorted to your typical Psudoscholarship..
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: fisherman, 16th century BCE, Minoan, island of Thera, Cyclades
same color my friend
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^I know that I"ll regret answering you, but is there a point to your cryptic "same color my friend".
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: fisherman, 16th century BCE, Minoan, island of Thera, Cyclades
same color my friend
Same color my friend
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
the point is that there's a picture of a Minoan barebacked of the same color of an Egyptian as per these paintings. His features and non-sloping forehead appear to be similar to a Greek type.
If you take a Northern European they might have problems in the southern sun. But many Europeans how would burn in a sudden sun exposure will tan if they have gradual exposure. In addition Southern Europeans, Mediterraneans are somewhat darker to begin with.
As per the Southern United States many European settlers were of English, German and Dutch stock not many Mediterraneans. Some would burn easily others could tan. The answer to the problem was simple, wear clothing, which they did. They had hats and scarves to prevent "redneck". Your theory is basically silly although it may have a small element of truth to it. You have to look at farmers today. There are many European descended American farmers out there right now all day in the Southern sun. They have clothing on to protect them. The people that do the picking these days are primarily Mexican because they can not pay them much. The primary reason for the enslavement of Africans was that it was free labor. All they had to do is supply food and shelter. It was economic exploitation similarly motivated to the indentured servitude of Europeans by other Europeans. Prior to emancipation sharecropping was limited to poor landless "whites", usually working marginal lands for absentee landlords. Mike do more research before you start freestyling. At the same time it was probably easier for the Africans of in the hot sun, not having to worry about sunburn. You act like you've discovered the Loch Ness monster when it's stating the obvious but erasing the economic motive. Because of these paintings is it proper to assume that ancient Egyptians were out in the fields all day bare back farming? Maybe. Were the UV levels the same then as they are today? I don't know. The people depicted in such paintings are various shades of brown and when they show people who look like they are farming they are not even the much darker black color they use to depict Nubians. They are that reddish brown color like the picture of the Minoan fisherman.
Texas farmer, 1939
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
Same color my friend
LOL good one! LMAO @ her desperate hill billy explanations in response!
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: He laughs at you Afronuts! distances himself from you wackos and your ancient "Black" Egypt claim!; puts to rest the question of AEian phoenotype. RFLOL!!
Damn! He also clears up Diops' position. He said Diops was WRONG! (LOL)!
There was a published paper recently about a brain related genetic mutation that may have occurred in North Africa or the Near East. Keita mentions it briefly in this interview.
If anyone can post a link to the study this will be appreciated. Just curious if that study has been validated or not and possibly explains cognition between groups who have the mutation or not.
Posted by viola75 (Member # 17981) on :
dont know?? but i think its got something to do with this man?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
