This is topic Carlos Oliver Coke--What you need to know if you've been contacted by him (repost) in forum Kemet at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000022
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
-

[ 02. June 2017, 07:04 AM: Message edited by: Punos_Rey ]
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
The above reposted, of course, since it got deleted. No doubt in my mind that it was Carlos Oliver Coke who demanded it be taken down. Note Carlos Oliver Coke's sudden change in tune from defending his behavior (albeit deceivingly) to posting an old Dutch forum thread which he thought reflected poorly on me.

Typical Carlos Oliver Coke tactic: slight of hand, evasions, deflections and other desperate acts whenever his lies and deceptions are brought to light for everyone to see.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
1) Publicly Carlos Oliver Coke boasts about commendations he gets by deceiving PhDs, but Carlos Oliver Coke knows nothing about the population history of Africa, let alone Nile Valley Africa, his obsession.














Of course, it’s never a problem to not know something. But Carlos Oliver Coke lies in public and takes credit for what he didn’t do. Also, Carlos Oliver Coke doesn’t know when the shut up and accept that he’s dead wrong, both in conversations with academics and the people who supported him. This is when you open yourself up to getting exposed for how little you know. More on this later.

2) Did I mention that Carlos Oliver Coke was channeling other people's views and their familiarity with the literature the entire time, passing them off as his own?






3) Since Carlos Oliver Coke was engaging in debates with professors using other people’s views, he was checking in with me all the time to either make sure he wasn't going to say something embarrassing, because he had no frame of reference to interpret the answers he was getting or because he didn't know the gravity of some of the common errors his correspondents were making:



4) Carlos Oliver Coke behind the scenes shaking in his boots that certain pharaohs weren't 'black' enough to his eyes. But in public he swears that they all would have been regarded as unequivocally black:






5) Even all the way back in 2013, I was persistent in telling Carlos Oliver Coke that, visually speaking, indigenous North Africans aren't necessarily going to look visibly "black" in the eyes of modern day westerners. But, being the confused psycho that Carlos Oliver Coke is, he later accused me of flip flopping when it dawned on him how threatening this concept is to his worldview:





6) Carlos Oliver Coke the creepy psycho stalker:


7) Carlos Oliver Coke the paranoid, ranting, gossiping psycho








8) Carlos Oliver Coke, the creepy who derives pleasure from getting people to do his bidding under the thread of slandering them.




9) Carlos Oliver Coke the needy commie loon, obsessed with racists and evangelizing about a “black Egypt”. Privately he doesn't even believe in this, but he needs this for his commie utopia where every professor with a different view (different view=racist in his worldview) is converted to his "black Egypt" fetish. Carlos Oliver Coke has a bizarre, tenacious obsession with insisting on using other people and their emails, views and opinions to win debates and spread this false messiah gospel:
 
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
 
I believe I've said it before, but I shall repeat it again: our buddy Carlos got himself too worked up over converting other academics to his worldview. If he simply wanted to influence the public image of ancient Egypt, all he'd have to do is write his own damn book on the subject, wherein he'd state his own damn conclusions after citing his own damn research, instead of worrying what orthodox Egyptologists think. His entire crusade to manipulate the establishment into stating his own conclusions for him is an exercise in futility even without the ethical problems. He just reeks of an insecure social-justice wannabe.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Not only that. It's also futile because competent anthropologists have abandoned the simplistic biblical race origin narrative (i.e. white, red, black) he's trying to reintroduce, a long time ago. They're removing the old racial connotations in a lot of terminology (e.g. from the old "Hamito-Semitic" to the geographic Afro-Asiatic). They're not going to go back because some illiterate nobody tries to intimidate and chastise them for their privately held views. The only people who are going to buy into his deceptions are politically correct academics whose ignorance can easily be exploited because they don't know any better (unlike Carlos Oliver Coke, who has been warned again and again).

Mota's genome is a recent example in a long line of findings that show it's not a contradiction for unadmixed indigenous Africans to be closer to coastal North Africans (with substantial admixture) than to certain Sub-Saharan African groups. Along with all the other times I pummeled Carlos Oliver Coke views until he went into hiding or ran away in tears, Mota's genome is just another epic sledgehammer blow to Carlos Oliver Coke's commie activist agenda.

Even if all these scientific setbacks didn't spell trouble, Carlos Oliver Coke's commie agenda would still be futile as he'd be left with the embarrassing fact that he's cringingly incompetent and untalented in this area. He has no progress to show for all his efforts and schooling. As I mentioned earlier, Carlos Oliver Coke doesn't seem to learn: he just parrots what you tell him like a journalist reading from a teleprompter. He can't extrapolate what you tell him to other relevant areas, i.e. true learning. All he does is search for confirmation for feel-good kumbaya views he wants to believe and then he adopts it, like a flunky looking for approval. When questioned, he simply refers back to the approval of the person or PhD he parroted (remember that embarrassing gaffe involving his use of Djehuti's posts?).

Carlos Oliver Coke seeking approval to adopt the view that Africans are capable of crossing the Sahara.

No matter how much Carlos Oliver Coke tries to hole himself up in his little comfort zone bubble of yes-men "PhDs", eventually he's going to become the loony laughing stock of all the people he pissed off and tried to slander.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Typical Carlos Oliver Coke deception below. Oldest trick in the book. Running X-rays or reconstructions of certain AE personalities by certain academics and leaving out crucial information.

Ask yourself why Carlos Oliver Coke insisted so long on using X-rays in his conversation with academics, instead of actual images of the same well-preserved mummies. Or why he picked out the ones he was most comfortable with. X-rays in profile view lend themselves better to his direct and indirect attempts to hide the fact that he felt that certain pharaohs looked racially ambiguous. Carlos Oliver Coke tries to do a similar thing in the thread he created, below. He tries to goad his audience in a certain direction with his suggestive article, knowing full well that afros were just one among many hair textures in ancient Egypt.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=007248;p=1#000000

It isn't until he's called out for something he already knew that he starts giving the information he was initially withholding with his suggestive article:

quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke:
quote:
Originally posted by lioness:
Could you run a fine-toothed comb through stereotypical Afro-type hair?
Can't remember which of the following I've heard this could signify -
-a change in the gene pool
-used to extract lice
-purely symobolic
Yeah, memory tends to get fuzzy when you're called out for your bs.

Carlos Oliver Coke's conversations with academics are fraught with these subtle deceptions and omissions.
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
What was that about using a false name?

I’ve had the chance to read through Anson’s 24-page promo material for his business/business idea. What I don’t understand is why, on the last page, under the question Who Am I? , and a photo of himself, Anson says to the reader/potential customer:

“My name is Willy Emblem, and I’m the founder of XXXXXXXXXXXXX.......”

Of course, ‘Willy Emblem’ is NOT his real name, so not entirely sure why he’d give one that's so completely different.

Maybe in this thread he could post the page referred to.
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
Brandon Pilcher says:
quote:
I believe I've said it before, but I shall repeat it again: our buddy Carlos got himself too worked up over converting other academics to his worldview. If he simply wanted to influence the public image of ancient Egypt, all he'd have to do is write his own damn book on the subject, wherein he'd state his own damn conclusions after citing his own damn research, instead of worrying what orthodox Egyptologists think. His entire crusade to manipulate the establishment into stating his own conclusions for him is an exercise in futility even without the ethical problems. He just reeks of an insecure social-justice wannabe.
But Brandon Pilcher previously sent me an unsolicited PM where he suggested:

22/10/2014

quote:
I was thinking back to all the recent conservations about Barry Kemp and his belief in African substructure, and I wanted to ask you this: has Barry Kemp, in all your various correspondences with him, ever characterized ancient Nubian people as black?

Whatever made be said about how Egypto-Nubians relate to other dark-skinned African people, we are in agreement that Nubians and Egyptians weren't really as different as popular misconception holds. To use Swenet's vocabulary, they would have been part of the same population substructure. Given Kemp's emphasis on African diversity when it comes to assigning the Egyptians to a "black" category, he really ought to do the same with the Nubians if he wanted to stay consistent.

If he doesn't, you could easily set up a trap where he's forced to reconcile his belief in Nubian blackness with his claim that African diversity precludes blackness from being a useful category for Egyptians. Have you considered this?
Have you (again) forgotten this^ Brandon?

More time wasted --with idiots-- on this site that I can't get back.
 
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
 
You do realize people can change their minds over the course of a year, don't you, O Pinnocchio Pepsi? Just because I used to think you were all right doesn't mean I do now. Especially not after I have a fuller picture of your SJW mischief.

Why don't you run over to a place like tumblr? I'm sure it'll be a better hugbox for you...as long as you avoid the wrong triggers, of course.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
I use whatever pseudonym on the internet I please. I don't answer to anyone for what I do, when I do it and how I do it. He now tries to get me to answer for using pseudonyms. What the hell!??? Are you kidding me? How bizarre. This is just like that time he asked another adult poster on Egyptsearh whether their "mom condones their online posts". SMH. Then people act surprised I use insults when he says the retarded stuff that comes out his mouth.

This is Carlos Oliver Coke's mental problem. He's too senile to correctly size up situations and people, which gets him into trouble all the time.







[list]7) Carlos Oliver Coke accuses certain academics of downplaying Greco-Roman texts that portray the ancient Egyptians as being a population with African characteristics. While this is true (with some caveats), Carlos Oliver Coke also makes the serious allegation that said academics "consistently mistranslate" said texts and tamper with them. The so-called 'evidence' Carlos Oliver Coke presented to 'prove' this claim, didn't hold up to basic scrutiny and was immediately falsified by lioness. Of course, typical of Carlos Oliver Coke, he then tries to double down and deflect, but never retracts the false "racism" allegations he keeps inventing and making up. Yet another example of how crazy and paranoid Carlos Oliver Coke is.

I could go on and on. And I'll probably make a more comprehensive post detailing this better so everyone can see what I mean when I say that Carlos Oliver Coke is batsh!t crazy.

Instead of defending the allegations I'm bringing to him here, the psycho is digging into completely irrelevant areas of my online activities, which normal people would consider harmless and even wise considering security.

Note that, if I wanted, I could post about Carlos Oliver Coke's personal life (for instance, the fact that he's a member of a political party that's filled with anti-intellectuals and commmies, his laughable short stint in low level politics and a lot more embarrassing stuff). He seems to think that, because I've so far refrained from posting such information, I must not know about it.

This is all the more evidence for people to see that Carlos Oliver Coke is a rotten psycho who gets some sick kick out of committing breaches of confidence and confidentiality all the time, which, as people could see from the other thread, he's strangely in denial about.

Carlos Oliver Coke's bizarre infatuation with my business ventures only shows that he has nothing on me in regards to the topic under discussion. Which is strange, as one would think that Carlos Oliver Coke would have all sorts of incriminating evidence against me from our many conversations to support the claims he's making about my character.

Carlos Oliver Coke's irrelevant departures into personal life paint a good portrait of his creepiness and mental problems for the people googling him as well as his employer(s), if I decide to take it there.
 
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
 
Speaking of Carlos Coke...

-

Someone out there should take a selfie of themselves drinking from this.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
If you're a professor and you've been contacted by someone named Carlos Oliver Coke, and you're doing a background check on him, answer this feral lunatic at your own risk. He's known to lie pathologically, has severe mental problems (judging by his utterly bizarre behavior) and will not hestitate to publish your private email conversations and slander your name if you exercise your right to have your own opinions and views.

Here is more of Carlos Oliver Coke's extreme mental impairedness in action. He makes a drama online about my use of pseudonyms in my private activities (which are completely irrelevant here), but he apparently has a couple pseudonyms, or "false names" as he calls it, himself. Below, you can see him addressing me using the 'Croll Duncan' moniker:

quote:
Originally posted by tropicals redacted:
What was that about using a false name
quote:
Originally posted by tropicals redacted:
Of course, ‘Willy Emblem’ is NOT his real name
-

[Eek!]

^Note also the point I've been making about Carlos Oliver Coke many times. In the screenshot above you can see him admit to getting help debating professors he can't debate on his own (something he has vehemently denied and lied about in the past, even bluffing and daring me to bring it to court). If Carlos Oliver Coke writes you, he probably has someone else in his ear (someone whom he has manipulated into thinking you're potentially a 'racist') instructing him on what to say in his conversations with you and how to interpret your answers.

Again, engage this double dealing, two-faced, rabid lunatic at your own risk.

I had no intention of posting any of his other names, although it was certainly fair game. But this psycho is forcing my hand. SMH.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
If you're a professor in some way active in the area of ancient Egypt, and you've been contacted by someone named Carlos Oliver Coke or Croll Duncan, heads up. Note that he may operate under a different name now that the truth has come out.

As someone familiar with Carlos Oliver Coke's commie views and bizarre reasoning, I've had the chance to witness first-hand the bizarre, paranoid rationale that goes into Carlos Oliver Coke's decision to secretly persecute a professor for being a so-called "racist".

All it takes for Carlos Oliver Coke to brand a professor a hypocrite and racist is a refusal to submit to his demand to stretch the western, racial use of 'black' to an African population generally not considered 'black' in the West. For example, the bio-anthropologist (G. Billy) cited below applies the term 'black' ("noire") rigidly to equatorial West/Central Africans, but not to other dark skinned African populations in North Africa and along the African side of the Red Sea.

quote:
Il apparaît que les populations actuelles d'Egypte et du Soudan sont peu influencées par celles d'Afrique Noire Equatoriale, mais sont en relation étroite avec les populations côtières d'Ethiopie et de la péninsule arabique à un degré moindre.
http://www.persee.fr/doc/bmsap_0037-8984_1988_num_5_1_1662

However, it's clear from this professor's writings that he considers these populations and their phenotypes African in principle. For example, here:

quote:
Elles se traduisent par un gradient de concentration d'éléments plus grands, à têtes et faces plus étroites en passant de la forêt à la savane et à la steppe. Leur interprétation en a été donnée comme une adaptation morphologique aux différents climats.
http://www.persee.fr/doc/bmsap_0037-8984_1988_num_5_1_1662

Here are some of Carlos Oliver Coke's two-faced pretext rationalizations as to why he persecutes academics for being racist ("racist" is the race card Carlos Oliver Coke uses on any 'white' person who refuses to use the term 'black' in a way that gels with his commie agenda).


(Carlos Oliver Coke wrote the below after I advised him to stop his obsessive focus on “black” during the time he came to me for guidance.)
quote:
"I wasn't going to adapt the term 'black' because that lies at the crux of the debate. They're more comfortable with the term 'indigenous', or 'a people of Africa', but have a visceral, inconsistent reaction to what most everyday people would readily intuit by reading the evidence/discussion; that the AEs were 'black'."
--Carlos Oliver Coke
(Carlos Oliver Coke wrote the below when his underlying hidden agenda for using 'black' was noticed for the first time.)
quote:
"Courtesy of that guy Salassin, who recorded their conversation, Keita says something like: Shomarka doesn't call you black, only himself, that's political. (The exact quote is somewhere below.) My point is that he obviously knows what the score is regarding the racial backgrounds of the Egyptians, but comes across as aloof, and at the same time timid - he even tried to advise Sally-Ann Ashton against using 'black' as a racial descriptor when referencing the Egyptians."
--Carlos Oliver Coke
quote:
"I'd actually invite them to engage in their semantics [Carlos considers confirming to the western use of 'black' "semantics"] because it foregrounds their hypocrisy and racism"
--Carlos Oliver Coke
These comments are pretexts because Carlos Oliver Coke is secretly in agreement with the people he's persecuting (i.e. Carlos Oliver Coke believes that approximations of the modal dynastic Egyptian phenotype often look racially ambiguous, using western racial standards).

But Carlos Oliver Coke is not only confused and in denial in regards to what he says about the visual appearance of the modal dynastic Egyptian; the same denial and confusion also seems to surface when it comes to what lay people in the West consider 'black' to mean.

Googling various general, non-suggestive phrases with the 'black' adjective (e.g. ‘black muslim’) mostly yields search results on African Americans and people thought to be related to/resemble West/Central Africans. This is telling because, if Carlos Oliver Coke’s made up claim above were true (that it’d be a self-evident thing for people in the West to consider dark skinned North Africans “black”) these google search results should be filled with dark brown skinned populations from the Horn, the Sahara and North Africa. In other words, places where most dark skinned Africans in the Muslim world live/have historically lived.

West/Central African and African American muslims are a lesser known minority compared to other dark brown skinned people in the muslim world. Yet, public perception associates 'black muslim' with communities of West/Central African descent who tend to keep to themselves and aren't very widely covered.

Of course, Carlos Oliver Coke doesn’t care about real world facts. The Egyptologist Barry Kemp tried to explain the western use of 'black' to him and he didn’t listen. His tutor in his anthropology classes tried to explain this to him and he didn’t listen. I told him this around the time I was schooling him and he didn’t listen.

Carlos Oliver Coke himself even cites examples of public perception about who is considered “black”, confirming what the people he’s been at odds with have been saying all along, but his epic denial is just too ingrained for him to remove the voluntary wool from his eyes and see the light:

quote:
“Kind of like the young Afro Caribbean man I referenced in the programme on UK 'ethnic minority' tensions; the Somalis are black, but they're not black.“
--Carlos Oliver Coke
^Fully aware of the rigid and selective western use of ‘black’ in one moment, in the next, Carlos Oliver Coke will flip flop, look you dead in the eye and tell you that Africans falling outside this rigid use would also be regarded as ‘black’ in the West. You’d almost think that these flip flops are Carlos alternating between his many multiple personalities in mid-conversation.

To ensure that Carlos Oliver Coke doesn't have to be reminded anymore of these uncomfortable realities, Carlos Oliver Coke has filled his support circle with ignorant politically correct yes-men who tell him everything he wants to hear. Carlos Oliver Coke is deceiving many of them about certain facts I've told Carlos about, that would cause them to have more sympathy with academics like Barry Kemp. As a result of not having any competent people around, his email discussions have gotten more dumbed down and petty as time progressed.

Only a matter of time before Carlos Oliver Coke’s gossipy tell-all book comes out before everyone can see how low on substance it will be and how paranoid, race-obsessed and crazy Carlos Oliver Coke is.

“Does the Sphinx look black”?

“But the Liverpool museum says they were ‘black’”

“If I bombard an academic with lengthy polemic emails filled with “were they black” type questions and they refuse to answer and cut off communications, its evidence that they’re racist”

"If an academic refuses to use 'black' in a way that matches my hidden agenda, it forgrounds their hypocrisy and racism"

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
Soooo..could a potential solution to this dilemma be to drop the racial term "black" entirely along with all its miserable baggage(not denying its social reality but speaking purely to its utility in discussions like this) and just stuck with dark-skinned indigenous Africans?

I never really went for the "African look" or "true negro" way of argument due to Africans innate diversity on their own, so not really sure what "black features" would be outside of the stereotypes applied to African Americans(Afros, broad noses, thick lips, which doesn't even apply to all African Americans anyway).

EDIT: Though there's also some peoples tendency to use Black and African as synonymous terms(you can see this in the field of African art which still sometimes makes a dichotomy between "African"(i.e. "Black Africa"/SSA) art and North African Art(which is sometimes just lumped in with "Middle Eastern" Art)if that's what he's going for I can see why he may try to cling to that term but posting peoples confidential emails and stuff trying to force them to adopt similar usage is silly.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Suppose some white academic come sout and says, "according to American contemporary definition, the Egyptians were black"

Then other researchers will say to him publically "so what is the definition of black precisely?"

So if he then does define it,
this is what we want ???

For some white person to define black precisely and then say who is and who isn't black ???

The problem is a lack of black academics
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
The problem is a lack of black academics
So, your solution is to simply add more muscle to this senseless rope tugging match? Interesting suggestion.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Just like other continents, Africa has lost most of its ancient diversity. Written history and descriptions of populations with the sole purpose of objectively mapping human diversity and cultures post-date these extinction and assimilation events. As a result, wrong ideas about the quintessential inhabitants of regions and continents have become the basis for our inferences about the origins of populations.

Thanks to bio-anthropology and genetics, we're only now starting to rediscover scraps of this lost diversity, but perception-wise, the damage is already done.

Today, we use racial language inherited from a period in which people had colonial views and agendas. Foreigners came to Africa and perceptions were formed based on then-prevalent demographic specifics.

Example: all the regions that favor micro-evolutions and specializations that differ from the ones we see in and near Africa's tropical rainforests, are almost all in or near admixture zones in North and East Africa. This can lead someone to think that African variations can be explained using just admixture between various types in and outside of Africa. Of course, assumptions like this have dominated anthropology for a long time.

In terms of getting an accurate picture of Africa's historic human diversity, it also doesn't help that Africa was and still is dominated by the speakers of just one language family (Niger-Kordofanian). This is a very recent demographic state of affairs (i.e. it was mostly caused by the Bantu migrations, which is recent history) and it has therefore skewed perceptions about Africa's historical diversity and who best exemplifies Africans and 'the blacks'.

This has made it so that the speakers of one large language family have become identified with an entire continent, while other equally indigenous groups were seen as atypical from that perceived norm. Thus, we see Brace say that Bernal's suggestion that the ancient Egyptians were African is "misleading" because he has hangups about what it means to be African.

We're now stuck with old language based on this perceived norm and we're still at a too early stage to have developed appropriate language. Scholars like Keita try to make the best of it with terminology like "Saharo-Tropical variants". He's trying to move the field in a more productive direction, but in the excerpt I cited above, you can see the thanks he gets from ungrateful buffoons like Carlos Oliver Coke who confuse this for a weakness on Keita's part.

Illiterate crackpots like Carlos Oliver Coke come from left field, knowing absolutely nothing about the subject, and think they can start calling people racists based on flimsy evidence and lecturing well-intentioned professors.

No matter how many times you point out to them the stupidity in what they're doing, they're too stuck on stupid to compute the notion that retroactively trying to fit all the extinct and living African populations who were unaccounted for in the old racial language, into said old racial language, doesn't work. This old language was never meant to be considerate to Africans and their best interests.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Soooo..could a potential solution to this dilemma be to drop the racial term "black" entirely along with all its miserable baggage
I have dropped it myself for reasons that include what you just mentioned. But if people want to continue to use the term in serious anthro discussions as a catchall and invite the mess it evokes, more power to them. That's exactly what many of them will do because, in my experience, most people in this community are here with an activist agenda with anthropology only serving to legitimize their pre-existing agenda.

Unlike Carlos Oliver Coke, I don't suggest imposing terminology on people and blackmailing and punishing them if they refuse.
 
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Soooo..could a potential solution to this dilemma be to drop the racial term "black" entirely along with all its miserable baggage(not denying its social reality but speaking purely to its utility in discussions like this) and just stuck with dark-skinned indigenous Africans?

I never really went for the "African look" or "true negro" way of argument due to Africans innate diversity on their own, so not really sure what "black features" would be outside of the stereotypes applied to African Americans(Afros, broad noses, thick lips, which doesn't even apply to all African Americans anyway).

EDIT: Though there's also some peoples tendency to use Black and African as synonymous terms(you can see this in the field of African art which still sometimes makes a dichotomy between "African"(i.e. "Black Africa"/SSA) art and North African Art(which is sometimes just lumped in with "Middle Eastern" Art)if that's what he's going for I can see why he may try to cling to that term but posting peoples confidential emails and stuff trying to force them to adopt similar usage is silly.
I myself have come around to the same conclusion, namely that color adjectives like "black" (which were never literally accurate to begin with) cause more trouble than they're worth. My best guess is that "black" stuck around to distinguish native Africans from descendents of later colonists. But then how many Arabs in North Africa, or Europeans in South Africa, really want to be labelled simply African alongside the natives?
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
Of course, there is casual colloquial talk which might never go away. A good example is "the sun rises in the East and sets in the West"--which is not true even when taken literally. Scientifically, it is just nonsense.

Similarly for the term "black" when used in sociological "racial" talk.

But when persons are seen visually one can easily determine their geographic "racial" affinity. One casual test would be to google all the football teams in Africa and examine them visually. One can usually tell which members of which teams show strong phenotypical affinities with each other.

Given that there are no pure in-bred large population groups then all that one can go are a mixture of phhenotypical and genotypical affinities.


But just for the sake of curiousity how might one categorise the items in the following? Generic Ancient Egyptians?

https://www.google.com/search?q=amarna+princesses+images&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigutS-5bPJAhVGWRoKHZsRD3sQ7AkIPA&biw=1600&bih=740
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamin:
But just for the sake of curiousity how might one categorise the items in the following? Generic Ancient Egyptians?
I think the sculpture with the flattish nose and smooth surface (i.e. not the one with the more porous surface, which I have a harder time assigning) is consistent with a range of looks that can be called something like 'Boreafrasan' or 'Austral-Egyptian'. That is, the group dynastic Egypt seems to have inherited its language from and which is most prevalent in Upper Egyptian cemeteries after the period of Wengrow's primary pastoral community and before the first kings.

How would you describe her?

As you know, whatever term one applies to this general phenotype, it should be used as a parallel to comparative terms we already use to draw links, like 'Khoisan', 'Cushitic', 'Maghrebi', 'Middle Eastern', etc. Or you risk that some clumsy screw up like Carlos Oliver Coke will just screw it up in some other way and blame your posts in panic when someone calls them out for getting it completely wrong. Thin line between loose labels and typology.
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
No need to split hairs on this. The appropriate term is "generic African" as found all over Africa. Simple. All of the sculptures easily fit into the phenotypical range one sees in West Africa.

Amusing how the Western onlookers seem so dismayed. I remember some years ago I went to visit an "Akhenaten and Nefertiti" museum show. I distinctly heard a Western visitor comment after gazing at some of the pieces "degenerate". That more or less sums it up--an inability by many Westerners to say that the AE were indigenous and generic Africans.
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
quote:
I think the sculpture with the flattish nose and smooth surface (i.e. not the one with the more porous surface, which I have a harder time assigning)
What difference does it make? They were all sisters with the same parents. This is very common in Africa: siblings often look different--pigmentation and physiognomic traits. Though in the case of the Amarna Princesses, they have almost identical physiognomic traits.
 
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
 
"That more or less sums it up--an inability by many Westerners to say that the AE were indigenous and generic Africans."

Not many 'Westerners', ....u mean many Whites.

....and the inability to accept reality is a sign of mental illness. They are delusional.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Splitting hairs? Look at your post. You were steering in a certain direction (i.e. that Africans picked out of a crowd or football team can often be assigned to their region with a reasonable accuracy). You then ask me a question in that context. I answer it by saying the lineage/region I would place that sculpture in, and because you don't like the answer you shift the goalpost on me. Of course it's consistent with Africans. Where did I say otherwise? Lol.

Also, you say that they're sisters. They're not people. They're stylized sculptures and, in answering your question, I treated them as such (i.e. individual cases).

quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
All of the sculptures easily fit into the phenotypical range one sees in West Africa.
That's like saying the sculptures of Romans fit into the phenotypical range of Pashtun and Punjabis. What is your point? Sure. There is going to be some overlap to the naked eye if you stare hard enough. But do you honestly think people can't tell a real-life Italian apart from a Punjabi in most cases?

Try your sleight of hand elsewhere.

quote:
That more or less sums it up--an inability by many Westerners to say that the AE were indigenous and generic Africans.
"Generic Africans". Without copping out, please elaborate. Lol. I really hope that doesn't mean what I think it means. And I don't care what western museum goers think. Take your complaints about what those westerners think to the ancient Egypt subforum where you can lament that 24/7 and have an entire audience to bask in it with you. That's not what this thread is about. If you make allegations of racism here against certain professors, you back it up. Their, or the West's refusal to use 'black' the way you want them to is not racism.

quote:
Though in the case of the Amarna Princesses, they have almost identical physiognomic traits.
Again, you're not looking at people, but wooden sculptures. The significance? You don't know what the sisters looked like or whether the resemblance between the sculptures is based on realism or an artifact of the artistic convention or something about the artist's signature style. If you bring ancient Egyptian art in the discussion, don't start making specific inferences about the portrayed subjects. It makes no sense, whatsoever.
 
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
 
'Their, or the West's refusal to use 'black' the way you want them to is not racism.'

Hahahahahahaha

Hahahahahhahahaha

You are ridiculous.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
"You are ridiculous"
Shouldn't be that hard to prove that I'm wrong. The Arabs, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and Chinese all have early written records on African populations.

Ancient Egyptians had their monuments and sharply distinguished between themselves and the Africans that looked like them on the one hand and Africans who didn't look like them on the other hand. The way medieval Arabs reserved the term Zanj for certain Africans and excluded all other dark skinned Africans also resembles today's rigid use of 'black' in the West. The way certain Greek texts compare certain "snub-nosed" Aethiopians to South Indians and Egyptians to pre-Indo-Aryan North Indians captures that exact same difference.

Is the whole world racist for making this distinction? Or is it just that you're sensitive and salty about the fact that certain patterns and linguistic, morphological and cultural fault lines between and within African meta populations are are going to naturally catch the attention of ethnographers?

Why don't you go back to the ancient Egypt subforum you crawled out of. You're clearly in way over your head.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
The ancient Greek Ptolemy (150 AD) in 'The Geography' on whom he considers 'black' (in terms of skin color, but also in terms of overall phenotype, judging by his use of "pure Aithiopians" in addition to saying that they were "black in color") among eastern and central Saharan populations. He's writing from Lower Egypt, so that's how "on our side of the equator" should be interpreted:

quote:
For in the correspondingly situated places on our side of the equator, that is those on the Summer Tropic, people do not yet have the color of the Aithiopians, and there are no rhinoceros and elephants; but in places not much to the south of these, moderately black people are to be found, such as those who live in the "Thirty Schoinoi" [region in lower Nubia] outside of Soene. Of the same type, too, are the people of Garame, whom Marinos also says (and indeed, for this very reason) live neither right on the Summer Tropic nor to the north, but entirely to the south of it. But in places around Meroe people are already quite black in color, and are at last pure Aithiopians, and the habitat of the elephants and more wonderful animals is there.
So, the Nubians near the Egyptian border and Garamantes are described as "moderately black" and the Nubians[?] around Meroe are considered "fully black". Is Ptolemy a "racist"? "Unreasonably unwilling to admit [insert concocted lie, touted as fact]"? Having a "visceral reaction"? Suffering from "mental illness"? Lol. No matter the crazy claims you think you've seen here, always expect the unexpected.

The faked outrage and complaints over long-settled issues like this and attempts to put stigmas on accepting widely recognized subsets of African variations, immediately exposes those who use ancient history as a crutch for their hidden agendas. But go ahead. By all means, put your neediness and insecurities on display.
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
Swenet,

LOL. You need to get around more. First those Armana princesses were REAL young girls sculpted realistically in the REALISM style of the Armarna period. One would think that you would know that. "Armarna" art was a distinct type of art of the 18th Dynasty, known for its {b] realistic[/b] portrayal of individuals.

I say must get around some more--especially in Africa. In Africa--just as the Egyptians portrayed them--there are very dark Africans but also many brown and yellow ones found in the general populations. I imagine that you are in the U.S., well just look at CNN sometimes. There is a well known female broadcaster from West Africa whose name is Aisha Sesay. She is brown in pigmentation with almost tiny features. There is also Femi Oke of Al Jazeera. She is yellow in colour. There is also Folly Bah of Al Jazeera, also yellow in pigmentation. They are all West Africans and generic too. There are millions like that. So do try to get around some more.
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
Swenet,

OK, you cite Ptolemy. There is nothing racist in what he wrote. Sudanese and Senegambians tend to be very dark--as you find in India, very dark people and some very light ones--but in general most Africans are dark brown but large percentages are brown in colour--with yellow ones seen here and there.

Now cite Herodotus who actually saw the Egyptians. He described them as "black skinned and woolly haired". Do you agree as you agree with your Ptolemy quote? And Aristotle's point that being too black as an Egyptian or Nubian means that you are a coward. Or too white--as in the case of women. He also wrote that the best colour is the intermediate tawny colour of lions. Do you agree with Aristotle as you agree with Ptolemy?
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Lamin

My views on ancient Egyptian phenotypical variation are well known. It's not about whether I think Ptolemy is right or wrong or whether I think Herodotus is right or wrong. I have little interest in discussing in this thread your interpretation of Greek texts or mine (I don't recall expressing agreement with Ptolemy, and, contrary to what you're insinuating, Ptolemy lived in Egypt). What I'm trying to convey here is that there is nothing racist in and of itself about placing various groups with an acknowledged local origin, within clades.

When you go to the Middle East you're advised to not mistake Kurds and other Iranic peoples for Arabs. When you go to Timbuktu and you ask the Tuareg where they fit in terms of population affinity, they might tell you a lot of things, but they're not likely to put themselves in the same lineage as Africans to the south. Only certain people here get in their feelings when this happens in Africa, even though no one denied anyone's Africanity.

This is common everywhere and I'm not going to waste any more time debating common, well-established practices. My audience for this thread is common sense folk and people in the academic world.
 
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Lamin

My views on ancient Egyptian phenotypical variation are well known. It's not about whether I think Ptolemy is right or wrong or whether I think Herodotus is right or wrong. I have little interest in discussing in this thread your interpretation of Greek texts or mine (I don't recall expressing agreement with Ptolemy, and, contrary to what you're insinuating, Ptolemy lived in Egypt). What I'm trying to convey here is that there is nothing racist in and of itself about placing various groups with an acknowledged local origin, within clades.

When you go to the Middle East you're advised to not mistake Kurds and other Iranic peoples for Arabs. When you go to Timbuktu and you ask the Tuareg where they fit in terms of population affinity, they might tell you a lot of things, but they're not likely to put themselves in the same lineage as Africans to the south. Only certain people here get in their feelings when this happens in Africa, even though no one denied anyone's Africanity.

This is common everywhere and I'm not going to waste any more time debating common, well-established practices. My audience for this thread is common sense folk and people in the academic world.
Any sensible person agrees with this.

Ancient Egyptians like Kushites, Zulu, Wolof, Ancient Greeks, French, German, English are all their own people with both differences and similarities between each others like any 2 groups of humans.

But then why does a racist idiot like you tries to say Ancient Egyptians were genetically closer to Europeans than sub-Saharan Africans even if, for example, Ramses III is determined to be E1b1a or that they are considered indigenous Africans not migrants from Eurasia by archaeologists? On one hand, you try to say Ancient Egyptians were their own people, which is true, on the other hand you try to link them with Eurasians.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Swenet before you answer this I think its important to always begin with the newer group first in an "are closer to" statement,

That clarifies things.

therefore saying
a) "Eurasians are closer to ancient Egyptians that sub-Saharan Africans are"
may or may not be true but it's an improvement over >

b) "Ancient Egyptians are closer to Europeans"'

The problem is that who you say something is 'closer to' it implies that that "closer to" thing came first. So then it makes sense to have the older thing last

Please think about this carefully, the differenent implication in those two statements

For instance if saying a boy is closer in his appearance to his father than to his mother it is a more proper statement
then to say the father is closer in appearance to his son than his mother is, it may be true but it is an awkward implication.
The who came first thing is very relevant here, the implication

"Basal Eurasian" is a bad term in my opinion. Either the person came from Eurasia or they did not. It's better to say "Future Eurasian African" it sounds awkward yet its more clear for sure

_______________________


Amun-Ra, name calling is inflamatory.
I do it myself, but only when somebody else does it to me first

If someone thinks the Egyptians were primarily Eurasian it doesn't necessarily make them racist. That may just be honestly mistaken.
It's racist when they know otherwise but say something other than what they believe
-and you cant' mind read people and be able to tell that
 
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Suppose some white academic come sout and says, "according to American contemporary definition, the Egyptians were black"

Then other researchers will say to him publically "so what is the definition of black precisely?"

So if he then does define it,
this is what we want ???

For some white person to define black precisely and then say who is and who isn't black ???

You don't have to "suppose"- some already say just that,including
Mary Lefkowitz, or mainstream Egyptologists like Tyson-Smith.

-

-


And many white people have already "defined" black time and
time again, usually in a distorted way that denies or downplays
African diversity- hence the well known "true negro" stereotype.
One key issue in the field is avoiding or rejecting such
stereotypical definitions by whites, or whomever.

-


the problem is lack of black academics
^^But there are already credible black academics in place like Keita
that reject the above stereotyped and distorted definitions.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
[

-


the problem is lack of black academics
^^But there are already credible black academics in place like Keita
that reject the above stereotyped and distorted white definitions. [/QB]
What are the proper terms to describe the ancestry of modern Tunisians and Moroccans?
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lioness:
Swenet before you answer this
But what makes you think 1) I'm going to answer a slippery wack-a-mole who is actively trying to open new discussions while on the run from numerous old discussions he ran away from and 2) I don't recall ever having made such a sweeping unqualified claim. It was always in reference to certain dynastic descendants of certain Upper Palaeolithic Saharan populations, who, BTW, also inhabit SSA in some cases. So, the claim attributed to me is false on all levels.
 
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
-
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lioness:
The problem is that who you say something is 'closer to' it implies that that "closer to" thing came first. So then it makes sense to have the older thing last
On second thought, you know what? Your post lets me know you understand the idea I've been trying to articulate and that you're not mindlessly taking that liar's bait as certain others have been doing in the past. Appreciate that.

Advice noted.
 
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
@Swenet

When you cop out, it means I win. lol
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
quote:
What are the proper terms to describe the ancestry of modern Tunisians and Moroccans?
That's a naive question. They vary in phenotype just as Brazilians do. Some are indigenous African, others are hybrids of settler Arabs, while others may be of primarily Roman, Vandal and European ancestry.

But you should know by now that Y-halogroup and MtDNA analysis has sorted that one out by now.
 
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
 
Swenet,

Hahahahahabab

Hahahahahah
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
[QB]
quote:
What are the proper terms to describe the ancestry of modern Tunisians and Moroccans?
That's a naive question.
Is it? Explain to me how terms your prefer ("generic African") are appropriate to describe the indigenous ancestry of Maghrebis. You can't get Maghrebi ancestry by mixing Eurasians with Sub-Saharan Africans. Therefore, this question, as well as the common reluctance to use old racial langauge ("black") on their native ancestry component, can imply legitimate concerns.
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
You don't understand my statement so try reading it again.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Is "indigenous African" the part you mean I missed? Ok. Explain what you mean with "indigenous African". Because I think it's just code for "generic African". Let's see if your description covers it.

EDIT:
Why you feel it's a naive thing to ask. Because a relatively tiny minority of coastal Maghrebis differ somewhat from the average coastal Maghrebi, it invalidates the question?
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
quote:
If you're a professor and you've been contacted by someone named Carlos Oliver Coke, and you're doing a background check on him, answer this feral lunatic at your own risk. He's known to lie pathologically, has severe mental problems (judging by his utterly bizarre behavior) and will not hestitate to publish your private email conversations and slander your name if you exercise your right to have your own opinions and views.

Here is more of Carlos Oliver Coke's extreme mental impairedness in action. He makes a drama online about my use of pseudonyms in my private activities (which are completely irrelevant here), but he apparently has a couple pseudonyms, or "false names" as he calls it, himself. Below, you can see him addressing me using the 'Croll Duncan' moniker:
You should be a tabloid journalist. Your overwrought,neurotic, exaggerated use of the language makes you look idiotic. The people in the Higherlevel thread owned you on that thread, calling you out for your silly recourse to the word 'slander'.

In my correspondence with Egyptologists I use my own name. Croll Duncan is an e-mail address I created specifically to deal with you because I wasn't sure about you. (My instinctive feeling was spot on.) Then my account got hacked/name revealed on this site.But so what.

Now. Let's get to the bottom of the more weighty issue of why, in your business dealings, you've used a name that's not your own.

Sidney Anson, why did you do this?

“Who am I?

[Photo of Sidney Anson]

My name is Willy Emblem, and I’m the founder of XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXX, and the developer of the XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX system. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at Willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com . or, if you prefer, by contacting me on my website: www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com

Willy Emblem”

Maybe you can explain whether introducing yourself to potential clients under a different name is acceptable practice?

What do you think the other people who participated in your disastrous Higherlevel debut would make of that?
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
16th May, 2014 Lioness said:
quote:

sometimes one notices a Swenet [Sidney Anson] postion on an early page in a thread that in a later page of the same thread he takes the opposite position and pretends he had been saying that all along
(just sayin.)
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008934;p=1


17th May 2014, same thread, Tukuler said:
quote:

For Swenet validity depends only on his
idea of reality or the word of his pals
(as long as they don't cross him).
But let's not drift from the question I posed to you, Sidney Anson,on why you use a different name in your business dealings.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Let me know when you're done, so I can continue adding to this thread.

And BTW, as people who have have engaged with me in private can testify, I have always recommended that folks of a FB group I helped set up with others, protect their identity, whether it was me suggesting to consider removing profile pictures/pictures of their children to registering with a dummy account.

People here will remember that I suggested to most/many of them to consider creating 1) dummy facebook accounts and 2) dummy email accounts (emails were required to send invitations via email) when I engaged with them beyond Egyptsearch.

My point? As a rule, I don't use my real name on the internet and always advice others not to do the same in my online dealings with them, even when I consider what I do to be safe in principle. Simply basic online security practices. But it's comical that people apparently think I'm high-profile enough to obsess over my mundane online activities and security measures.

An example of how I typically advice people to take care of their personal information. I said this in public, and often also reminded people about it when they PM'd me for access to the aforementioned facebook account:

quote:
Remember, this is a private group. No one who
isn't given access can access this group. If you
already own a Facebook account but prefer to not
use your personal info in this Facebook group,
you can make your participation in this group as
private as you want to. Just create a dummy
account or restrict your Facebook account access.
Note: Truthcentric, Beyoku, you guys are already
in this Facebook group with your name and images
out so if you want to make changes, now is the
time to do so. Jari, Sundiata, Calabooz, and
Ausar, you guys are already in this Facebook
group, just use your login info.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008626;p=1#000000

So, yeah, I follow my own advice online.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
^
So why did you use a name other than your real name in your promotional material?
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
On page 24 of Anson's promotional material, it reads:

“Who am I?

[Photo of Sidney Anson]

My name is Willy Emblem, and I’m the founder of XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXX, and the developer of the XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX system. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at Willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com . or, if you prefer, by contacting me on my website: www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com

Willy Emblem”

Again, his name isn’t Willy Emblem. An alternative business e-mail address, which he once used in correspondence with me, contained his real name.

So why give me his real name but not his customers?

Despite the use of a different name in his promotional material, and his ill-fated debut on the Higherlevel forum (April 2013)Anson told me in Facebook correspondence that he was seeking to hire a telemarketer, presumably to promote and sell his product. Anson still has access to my correspondence with him, so can readily post confirmation in this thread.

Sidney Anson says:
quote:
I almost NEvER use my name online. Again, simply basic online practices.
So wait, you're going into business and use a name that's not your own? How does that work?

How many people would feel confident buying a product from someone who used a name other than their own?

I’m taking a casual look into the ethics and legalities of attempting to trade/actually trading under a different name.

Again, why did you use a name other than your real name in your promotional material?

Info on Sidney Anson/Willy Emblem's high jinx on Dutch-language business forum, Higherlevel, where he manages to offend and bug the sh1t out of the very people he sought advice from...behind the link, scroll down to post dated 3rd Dec 2015:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009318


Here's the original Higherlevel thread in Dutch (for best results use google translate):

https://www.higherlevel.nl/forum/index.php?board=18;action=display;threadid=46722
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke:
I’m taking a casual look into the ethics and legalities of attempting to trade/actually trading under a different name.
"I'm taking a look into the ethics and legalities".

Lol. Mentally impaired fruitbasket. He actually suggested it would be illegal for me to not want my personal name and activities permanently on the internet. See the post below about Carlos Oliver Coke's cognitive dysfunction being behind his tendency to completely misdiagnose people and situations:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009323;p=1#000009

Half of Hollywood uses pseudonyms, stage names, pen names or whatever you want to call it:

http://www.ranker.com/list/celebrities-with-stage-names/celebrity-lists?page=2

http://thoughtcatalog.com/nico-lang/2013/08/55-celebrities-whose-real-names-will-surprise-you/

It's hilarious to see someone insist on 1) shooting themselves in the foot, 2) digging their own grave, 3) volunteering to lay down in it, and all the while being absolutely convinced that, 4) they're making others look bad and not themselves.

[Eek!]

To the people contacted by Carlos Oliver Coke in the academic world who are tuning into this thread while Carlos Oliver Coke is going full-fledged mental for everyone to see: do you see what I've been saying about Carlos Oliver Coke's unlawful practices, including the posting of personal and confidential information?
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
^
Haahahahahahahaahhahaahahahahahahaahaaahahaha!!

Nice try, but you're not a celebrity are you?The real name of a celebrity is verifiable, but a customer would have no way of knowing yours.

You're some guy trying to sell goods on the internet...behind a made-up name...can't help but wonder why.

You present a photo of yourself in your promo material, but then don't give your real name when introducing yourself underneath it.

What do you think your peers on that Higherlevel thread, or anywhere else in the European business world would make of this?

Again, why did/do you use a different name in business?
 
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tropicals redacted:
^
Haahahahahahahaahhahaahahahahahahaahaaahahaha!!

Nice try, but you're not a celebrity are you?The real name of a celebrity is verifiable, but a customer would have no way of knowing yours.

You're some guy trying to sell goods on the internet...behind a made-up name...can't help but wonder why.

You present a photo of yourself in your promo material, but then don't give your real name when introducing yourself underneath it.

What do you think your peers on that Higherlevel thread, or anywhere else in the European business world would make of this?

Again, why did/do you use a different name in business?
Translation:
-
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
^Really?
We can always count on Brandon Pilcher to try and get Sidney Anson out of a hole.

Now back to your imbecilic cartoons.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
The funny thing is that this is all coming from someone who goes by the following names on Egyptsearch, theGuardian.com, Facebook, etc:

1) Croll Duncan
2) ES Claus
3) Claus3600
4) Tropicals Redacted

In other words, the Carlos Oliver Coke creep doesn't use his personal name online, either. I have conversation records of this psychopath quaking in panic when he learned his government name had been posted in retaliation for posting other people's personal information. Other than in the event of doing foul stuff behind the scenes like Carlos Oliver Coke, it's perfectly normal to want to keep your name off the internet. We ALL do this here on this forum. Nobody here posts with their full name out.

This creepy middle aged Carlos Oliver Coke character gets more bizarre by the second. As if his foul behind the scenes conspiracies and antics weren't bad enough, he just can't seem to stop making himself look even worse.

Also, it seems that this double dealing Carlos Oliver Coke creep was secretly making copies of the then-active website, while he was smiling in my face. Note that this loon is deliberately silent about the contents of the website or the promotion material he keeps referencing. He consistently talks about the last page of the document he is referencing, skipping over the rest of the pages. Ask yourself why, lol. He knows there wasn't ***ANYTHING*** in there to suggest I was using a pseudonym to "hide" something from customers.

This would have been impossible to do anyway, given the laws around registering businesses and websites. As the lying creep Carlos Oliver Coke knows, the WHOIS information of the website he's is referring to, as well as all other legal documents reflected authentic information.
 
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tropicals redacted:
^Really?
We can always count on Brandon Pilcher to try and get Sidney Anson out of a hole.

Now back to your imbecilic cartoons.
Ooh...that reminds me. Didn't you claim somewhere that white women en masse were lusting after black men, as if black men really were sexually superior? And yet there's all the times you've thrown a shitfit over my interracial art. So is it OK for men of your background to sleep with white women, but not for white men to sleep with "your" own women? My sexist hypocrisy radar is picking up a signal here...
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
We can always count on Brandon Pilcher to try and get Sidney Anson out of a hole.
"Hole". Lol. His figments are going through the roof. Carlos Oliver Coke only knows what he knows about me because I gave him access to said information, which includes both a pseudonym I used at the time, as well as my government name. Spreading around this information I gave him access to, and which customers could have figured out themselves by doing a WHOIS and business registration search on me and my website, constitutes "having someone in a hole"?

[Eek!]

People contacted by Carlos Oliver Coke in the academic world, are you taking notes on this Carlos Oliver Coke creep and his bizarre insistence on posting people's personal names, private email conversations, completely unrelated and mundane (business) activities?

What a way to contribute to your exposure online as a creepy middle aged geezer who obsesses over people in their twenties and their personal information.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
I take it you had your little run with your desperate and ineffectual posts about my personal life, Carlos Oliver Coke? Just so I know I have the stage all to myself when I proceed.

I think this time, I'm going to focus on posting the emails Carlos Oliver Coke uses for his gossipy tell-all book. Not that they're that interesting to read (although there are some utterly bizarre moments), but, you know, take that whole 'exclusiveness' thing away from the launch of his gossipy tell-all book.

It should also help potential book publishers and readers find this Egyptsearch page (as well as other sites where I will repost the utterly bizarre behavior Carlos Oliver Coke is displaying here) and see what a creepy stalker he is when he's confronted publicly with his depraved and unlawful behavior.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Remember this, Carlos Oliver Coke?

quote:
I heard a couple of hours ago that I've lost [X] Wish me luck!
I suggest you go look up what you said in the blanked out part. I can understand the butthurt in having very little incriminating stuff to quote from after our many conversations, while I have shitloads of incriminating stuff on you.

But if you continue your laughably ineffective detours into my personal life, I take it I have the permission to post completely unrelated personal stuff that is of the level of 'personal' of what I just blanked out and worse. Even though I have so far refrained from going there, I suggest you thread carefully.

However you want to go from here. All you have to do is let me know.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
To the academics googling Carlos Oliver Coke, compare his most recent slanderous comments with his admission that he was completely wrong about his false allegations:

quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Carlos Oliver Coke, can you confess that your slander campaign against me for "unethically" using a professional alias, failed horribly and is just another example of mental instability in your long line of embarrassing blunders?
I've looked at this further, and sole traders don't have to use their real names in business.
More evidence that Carlos Oliver Coke habitually smears the names of people and academics, only to later realize his assumptions were completely wrong. Usually when this happens, especially when the stakes are high, Carlos Oliver Coke will typically continue to smear the names of the people he's targeting.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
To the academics who have been approached by Carlos Oliver Coke, and who are doing a background check on him.

Carlos Oliver Coke claims that his deceptive use of 'black' only intends to describe "black Africans". He claims he adheres to the US use of "black", which is, in the west at least, widely understood as code for 'African American', and extremely narrow in scope (this use of the term isn't applied to brown skinned Indians, for example, or many brown skinned North Africans).

But Carlos also tends to confuse the Unites States' use of the term with a use that is often found in the pan African movement (parallel terms [e.g 'Arab'] can be found in pan Arab movement). This use considers all dark skinned Africans "black", but also excludes all historical dark skinned Asians who fall in the same brown pigmentation range. This use is basically a race-like concept that seeks to sort dark skinned Africans and set them apart from non-Africans and certain North Africans.

I could write an entire article about why Carlos deliberately uses this term in a deceptive way in anthropological discussions (e.g. he knows full well that the African continent isn't necessarily structured based on collective relatedness vis-a-vis Eurasians, but based on the predictions of OOA theory). (See images below).

- -
https://www.academia.edu/8212781/NatGenet_Comas_et_al._2013_Out-of-Africa_migration_and_Neolithic_co-expansion_of_Mycobacterium_tuberculosis_with_modern_humans

But this is not what I'm going to discuss. What I want to discuss right now is Carlos' claim that his use of 'black African' is really as inclusive as he claims it is, or whether it's secretly his attempt to appeal to a stereotyped image of Africans, to deceive people. One of the ways we can look at Carlos true motives is by simply looking at how he responds when people observe that certain Saharan populations were "negroid" or "black", without necessarily conforming to other "negroid" or "black" people.

Now that I've provided a context for people to interpret what I'm quoting below, let's delve into it.

1) Below, we can see how Carlos reacted when we discussed the ethnic background of a recently excavated Sudanese sample (al Khiday). I told him several times that the sample differs from Sub Saharan samples in its non-metric affinities, but that it generally clusters with indigenous Saharan populations, including (pre)dynastic lower Nubians and Egyptians. Despite several times of relaying this message to him, Carlos kept fishing for me to tell him that there is no difference between Saharan and Sub-Saharan populations. Moreover, he kept fishing for me to tell him that any difference between many natives from both regions, is purely arbitrary and a man-made distinction:

quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Yes, but Khartoum is technically not sub-sahara, because its in the Sahara, geographically speaking. So, [the al Khiday people are] biologically African, but with a subset of variation which is unique to north Africa.

Therein lies the problem - arbitrary geographic convention.
2) Carlos tends to get angry with academics like Shute and Robins. It doesn't matter to Carlos that these academics repeatedly stress that the AE had "super-negroid" limb proportions. All it takes to set him off is when an academic tells him that the Egyptians differentiated themselves from certain other Africans on their monuments. See below:

quote:
originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke:
quote:
ROBINS (1983) and ROBINS & SHUTE (1983) have shown that more consistent results
are obtained for ancient Egyptian male skeletons if TROTTER & GLESER formulae for
negro subjects are used, rather than those for whites which have always been applied in
the past. This does not mean that the ancient Egyptians were negroes; indeed, in their art
they clearly distinguished between their own facial features and skin colour and those of
people from further south. It does, however, suggest that their physical proportions were
more like those of modern negroes than those of modern whites, with limbs that were
relatively long compared with the trunk, and distal limb segments that were long
compared with the proximal segments. If ancient Egyptian males had what may be termed
negroid proportions, it seems reasonable to suppose that females did likewise. Consequently,
we shall in this paper be concerned only with the applicability of TROTTER &
GLESER male and female negro formulae.
--Robins and Shute (1986)
The defensiveness and racism in this is incredible. I had to recheck the year to make sure I read 1986 and not fucking 1886!"
Why this sensitivity and defensiveness (note that he's projecting his own defensiveness), when, as far as he knows, the authors didn't say that they AE weren't indigenous Africans. Besides, if Carlos' own use of 'black African' is inclusive enough to account for Africans who don't fit the "negro” designation, what is the problem then? Maybe his problem is that he any academic who says something he doesn't like, becomes a fair target, in his mind.

3) Carlos thinks Hawass’ statement that the phenotype of “black Egyptians” differs from certain other African phenotypes is **in and of itself** “racist” and "negrophobic". Hawass made this comment in the context of Diop's book, which, at least in its translated version, used the word "negro" a lot in relation to ancient Egyptians.

In an even stranger twist, he starts calling the widespread practice of describing visual differences of various African groups "engaging in the True Negro fallacy". That's not what the True Negro fallacy means, of course. But by the time Carlos finds out what it means, he has already smeared the names of these academics.

This shows that Carlos simply doesn't tolerate ANY non-"black" academic who makes distinctions between Africans, and that his beef with certain academics is simply based on that he doesn't like what they say. From a purely factual standpoint, often it just doesn't matter to him if what they say is accurate.

quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke:
quote:
look at the features of the people, the Black, in Egypt today. Their nose, their lips is completely different from the Negro.
--Hawass
[...]
There's a pretty clear 'negrophobia' in his comments.
[...]
I note the way he tries to invoke the true negro stereotype - which, come to think of it, seems like a concession in itself, however inadvertent.
^There is more where that came from. But I think I've made my point. It makes you wonder the extent to which academics have to walk on eggshells so as to not piss Carlos off or get accused of being a "racist".

Carlos' bizarre habit of picking fights with scholars for the mere act of pointing out morphological differences between various Africans is extremely bizarre. If he doesn't agree with Hawass that there is "a type of black" in Egypt, how can his use of 'black' be truly inclusive of all indigenous Africans? "Black African" is permitted, but not "a type of black" in Egypt?

The obvious answer is that Carlos only accepts scholars who state that the AE were 'black', on the condition that their individuality is kept under wraps, becomes taboo to talk about and they became interchangeable with and indistinguishable from what he calls 'black Africans'. This is why Carlos use of 'black' a nothing other than a sneaky trojan horse that means something different from what he's making it out to be.

This is consistent with how he repeatedly kept fishing for me to say that the al Khiday people were "black Africans", even though I had already pointed out several times that they were biologically African. And even when I did, he still pretended to have not heard me when I said that indigenous Saharans aren't recent immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa and that there are demonstrable differences between both regions that are consistent with OOA.
 
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
they were biologically African
This is something we can all agree about Ancient Egyptians. They were biologically Africans. It's also true they must have linkage to the OOA migrants, as most Africans. Since most Africans share the CT and L3 haplogroups with OOA migrants for the greater part of their genome. The only exceptions are Khoisans and Mbuti people from the A and B haplogroups.
 
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
 
Would Pinocchio Pepsi's book, were he to actually write it, fall into the jurisdiction of defamation and slander laws over in the UK, perchance?
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
^Good question. Some other laws might also apply. It would be interesting to get a legal expert involved. Good to know everything has been documented since he lies about everything.

Speaking of his pathological urge of to snitch, gossip, post private conversations and/or making threats to do so..

Note how insensitive this lying clown is to other people. Bass and Sundiata have moved on to other things in life. They might not want these old things to resurface. IIRC, Sundiata never intended his correspondence with Godde to be public.

quote:
Originally posted by tropicals redacted:
Message from Swenet 02/07/2012

quote:
You've made a thread about Frank Yurco's antics regarding the appearance of Egyptians in certain versions of the book of gates. I believe the biases of many Egyptologists regarding the evidence of a predominantly African Egypt, including the Egyptologists under discussion here, are all symptoms of the same disease.

I do not believe Wilkinson or Kemp would ever go to the lengths of misinforming the public as much as certain researchers in the Theban Mapping Project and Yurco have done in the past, but they all display symptoms of the same disposition.

Thanks for bringing the Barry Kemp issue to our attention, its always good to know that some scholars, who on the surface seem to be on your wavelength, are saying contradicting stuff elsewhere.

BTW, this happens with Physical Anthropologists too. Not too long ago, a poster named Charlie Bass exposed a female Physical Anthropologist name K Godde, who concluded from her cranio-facial work in '09 that Nubians and Egyptians were mostly indistinguishable, and that some Nubian groups were closer to Egyptians than some Egyptians were to those Egyptian samples.

She cited Keita and also synthesized a lot of work in the area, which generally came to the same conclusion (about Egypto-Nubian mutual inclusivity).

She said a lot of things that were off in what she thought would remain a private email conversation between her and Sundiata (another poster who emailed her), but the thing that struck me as flatout bizarre and surreal, is that she actually believed we'd have to go back to Homo Erectus to find a common ancestor between the Nubian population, and the Egyptian population!!

In private, she also said Nubians were distinct from Sub Saharan Africans, even though she cites Keita, and notes several times that Nubians and Ancient Egyptians also show ties to Sub Saharan people.

I guess the thing to be learned from this all is to generally not make assumptions about the views of researchers who cite the same/similar studies we're citing to reinforce our positions, even if they explicitly lend credence to those works.

Take care
Stupid blockhead.
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
Perchance? Slander? Like the academics assisting with this would help produce anything libelous.

What a couple of cartoon imbeciles, it's like Laurel and Hardy.

quote:
Pinnochio pepsi
and...

quote:
Stupid blockhead.
So unbelievably immature.

quote:
Note how insensitive this lying clown is to other people. Bass and Sundiata have moved on to other things in life. They might not want these old things to resurface. IIRC, Sundiata never intended his correspondence with Godde to be public.
So, rather than simply leaving the email in the other thread, you thought you'd limit any damage done by reposting it in this one?
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
The lying lunatic psychopath is at it again. Here, below, is another example of how he will lie deliberately slander people. He's trying to make it seem like I'm contradicting myself by spamming lies I've already debunked many times. The filthy liar is deliberately quote mining from a time (April 2014) when I was genuinely beginning to suspect that an academic was selective in his use of 'black' because of racism. I then later learned (late May 2014) this wasn't necessarily the case. So, of course, not wanting to wrongly brand someone a racist, I revised my views about this scholar. But the liar Carlos Coke refused to ask himself the same critical questions about maybe being wrong on this particular issue. Instead, he realized he had too much invested in his persecution of this particular academic and that admitting that he was wrong would cause him to lose face. So instead of giving up on that particular issue, he continued to try to trick this scholar so as to justify persecuting him.

Recently I referred to this whole 2014 mess when I said:

^That's the same attitude I've had for years, until I got the chance to see some of these professors' private emails and saw my own assumptions about them fall apart of front of my eyes. Flip flops, incompetence and inconsistencies, yes, but placing the blame squarely on racism? That's a hefty accusation.
—Swenet

Below, you can see how Carlos Oliver Coke is spinning what happened to make it seem like I was contradicting myself when I said that I revised my views about certain academics. Note how Carlos Oliver Coke is deliberately quote-mining. Note how he says "mate" to try to suck up to people like the filthy boot licker he is. This filthy liar will stop at nothing to mislead people.

quote:
Originally posted by tropicals redacted:
BBHorus sez:
quote:

I still did not expect this thread to get a wopping 34 page. I did not expect this thread to even have this much of a serious discussion...
Neither did I, mate!

I've tried reading this thread from page 1, and some of the nonsense is incredible. Of course, Swenet makes a significant contribution. In reply to DougM's assertion that racism was still a problem in terms of how academics handled the population affinities of the ancient Egyptians, Swenet said:

quote:

11/12/2016
^That's the same attitude I've had for years, until I got the chance to see some of these professors' private emails and saw my own assumptions about them fall apart of front of my eyes. Flip flops, incompetence and inconsistencies, yes, but placing the blame squarely on racism? That's a hefty accusation.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009335;p=1
To be clear to anyone not apprised of this, those e-mails he refers to are the responses I received from academics that I shared with him. Anyway, let's see what he said toward the end of the time that he was privy to the correspondence:

An Egyptologist had replied:

quote:

April 17 2014
“People sometimes write books or organise exhibitions about 'black' Pharaohs. But the same people would never dare write about traditional Chinese culture under the heading 'Yellow Emperors'; and 'Red' Indians are now 'Native North Americans'. Even 'black' Americans are becoming 'Afro-Americans'.
Best wishes:
Swenet, after reading the response, replied:
quote:

April 20 2014
I misunderstood his comment. I thought his angle was to criticise the oft-expressed "black pharaoh" thing in reference to Nubians or a minority of Egyptian kings, where the tacit implication is that a black identity and an authentically ancient Egyptian identity are mutually exclusive. If that's what he was trying to say--that black in this context is offensive on par with yellow or red--that's indeed a very strange thing to say. Who exactly would feel discomfort with the use of black in reference to Ancient Egyptians? Certainly not the Afram community. He's projecting his own psychological discomfort with the term! Refer to ancient rulers as red and yellow and you may get backlash from Native Americans and East Asian communities. Refer to Egyptian kings as black and you upset racists who feel discomfort with allocating advanced societies to black people. He's literally window dressing his own discomfort with black as looking out for the interests of black people in the area of racial sensitivities. This is projecting of the highest order. He's not only being racist but, by putting black on par with truly offensive terms, he's framing the situation as if he's looking out for our interests. I think you've hit a sensitive spot; African is okay, just don't say black.”
It's said with a certain conviction, but it's hard to tell now the above all bullshit, or whether he was being sincere. I still don't fully understand this: "African is okay, just don't say black.” Was this irony, or was Swenet actually suggesting that I ditch "black" so as not to offend the sensibilities of an Egyptologist?

Whichever it was, Swenet, after his apparent disgruntlement and ensuing 180, would now have us believe that the criticisms made on this board and elsewhere of certain academic disciplines, are imaginary.

Whenever I come by this forum, and see Swenet making claims inconsistent with past utterances, then if I have any information that highlights his BS, I'll be certain to post it.

 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
I will keep updating this thread as things develop. If you don't care about this drama then don't click on this thread and just ignore it. Academics have the right to know what Carlos Oliver Coke's real intentions are when they're contacted by him.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Carlos Oliver Coke tries to clean up now. Whenever I bring up in the forum that I confronted him in May 2014 about his weak 'evidence' of academic 'racism' and that he botched several email exchanges due to his epic clumsiness, he tries to redeem himself. That's why you regularly see him posting out of private conversations—to rally clueless looney toons like him who don't know that Carlos Oliver Coke is playing them, just like he plays everyone. This is why you see him suck up to people, calling them 'mate' when he tries to spam his misinformation about me. After all the lies I exposed, he's desperate to try to make it seem like all his conversations with academics are harmless. Good thing I'm here to set the record straight about what really happened.

Recap on some of the reasons why Carlos Oliver Coke is criticized. Note that Carlos Oliver Coke deliberately stays mum on these issues when he makes he tries to window dress the situation with his email correspondence threads.







I will keep updating this thread as things develop. If you don't care about this drama then don't click on this thread and just ignore it. Academics have the right to know what Carlos Oliver Coke's real intentions are when they're contacted by him.
 
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
 
Have you ever considered contacting some of these academics directly rather than just letting this thread sit in ES where they may not see it? I think Kemp in particular would be very interested in knowing what Mr. Coke had planned to inflict on his reputation after their correspondence.
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
You guys think he's seriously going to make his book? I feel like he's blowing smoke I meat what would be the point, plus it could be seen as Libel lawfully in court.
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
Sidney Anson (Swenet) just can't bear the fact that I've brought his flip-flopping, expedient crap to light.

quote:
I will keep updating this thread as things develop. If you don't care about this drama then don't click on this thread and just ignore it. Academics have the right to know what Carlos Oliver Coke's real intentions are when they're contacted by him.
But I've already got the information I need, so your 'warning' is fatuous. The correspondence I have now is with supportive academics.

quote:
Have you ever considered contacting some of these academics directly rather than just letting this thread sit in ES where they may not see it? I think Kemp in particular would be very interested in knowing what Mr. Coke had planned to inflict on his reputation after their correspondence.
That's funny, because Sidney Anson, you know, the guy who used a fake name on LindkedIn (he used Willy Emblem), said that he'd contacted academics about me, saying that I should shut up or he'd post their responses about me in the thread.

When I called on him to do so, nothing happened.

I've also previously suggested he contact them, copying me in so I could see his bullshit.

Nothing happened.

But hey, contact them. Sidney knows the names of some of them. Get in touch.

quote:
You guys think he's seriously going to make his book? I feel like he's blowing smoke I meat what would be the point, plus it could be seen as Libel lawfully in court.
Libel?

Do you know what libel is? Anyway, thanks for your concern.
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tropicals redacted:
quote:
Libel? Do you know what libel is?
noun
1.
Law.
defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
the act or crime of publishing it.
a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.
2.
anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.

My question is have you contacted the people you plan to put in your book with your grievances against them to get their opinions on the matter, also do they know about you using them in your workd, do they have your consent. Im just saying legally you should protect yourself if your really go through with it.
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
quote:
My question is have you contacted the people you plan to put in your book with your grievances against them to get their opinions on the matter, also do they know about you using them in your workd, do they have your consent. Im just saying legally you should protect yourself if your really go through with it.
Thanks, these issues have been discussed.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
You guys think he's seriously going to make his book? I feel like he's blowing smoke I meat what would be the point, plus it could be seen as Libel lawfully in court.
Legal issues are the least of Carlos Oliver Coke's problems. He's going to self-destruct as soon as he goes public. All the deliberate lies he told his "supportive academics" are going to come to light. Half of them are going to abandon him anyway once they learn what Carlos Oliver Coke has been withholding. He has no way of coming out of this with his name untarnished. Coming out is only going to make it worse. His lies and fraud are just going to follow him wherever he goes. I'll make sure of that.

The academic community is unforgiving when it comes to fraud. The only reason his so-called supporters are still talking to him is because they're isolated from how I've been exposing him over the years. I'm willing to bet that if I can get an hour with them and relay Carlos Oliver Coke's manipulations, they're not going to want to touch him in public with a ten foot pole.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Moving on documenting Carlos Oliver Coke's fraud in this thread.

Here, below, we see Carlos Oliver Coke deliberately manipulate Irish. Carlos knows what the literature says about dynastic lower Egyptians and how they overlap extensively with Maghrebis and early European farmers (and therefore, by extension, to some extent with modern Europeans). Carlos Oliver Coke doesn't like those results, so he starts tuning them out willy nilly. Then he arbitrarily chooses to focus on non-metric data (as opposed to metric data), because the nature of this data hides that dynastic Lower Egyptians generally differ from their predynastic counterparts in ways that dynastic Upper Egyptians typically didn't. The quote below is just one of many times in which Carlos Oliver Coke tried to mislead people using this deliberately nitpicked data.

When I called Carlos out, he continued to lie and defend his manipulations throughout the thread.

quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke:
At a November 2014 British Museum lecture, Who were the Ancient Egyptians?, Joel Irish said that, based on the dental record, there was population continuity from the Badarian through to the Roman period, as well as homogeneity encompassing both Upper and Lower Egypt.

EDIT:
OK, managed to find quotes:

quote:

What you see then is that there is incredible similarity among all populations leading to the dynastic through pre-dynastic times [with a few?] post-dynastic thrown in. None of these are what you'd call significantly different from one another. They're all the same population. Whether they're from early, late, whether they're from Upper or Lower Egypt. There are two outliers though, trying to figure out what the heck are these guys doing and it now turns out the top one is a Greek site, Greek sample, that just happen to be in Egypt, and the bottom one is Roman. So what we've got here are some outside people, these cemeteries were from non-Egyptians, is what it looks like.
quote:
Dentally the ancient Egyptians show an incredible amount of internal homogeneity, between predynastic and dynastic times. They are statistically not significantly different from one another, they show tremendous similarity from south to north and through time - these are one very continuous population.

 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
More Carlos Oliver Coke lies and manipulations in regards to Irish:

quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke:
I give you a quote from an e-mail with Joel Irish to back up my comment that Greek and Egyptian dental morphologies were distinct, and you accuse me of lying. Saying that I fabricated the e-mail.
Note how Carlos Oliver Coke is deliberately spamming the same Irish quotes all over the forum because the point Irish happened to make in that instant and his wording seem to be superficially favorable. But Carlos Oliver Coke knows damn well that when you look at the actual Irish paper and what he says in it, it's nowhere even close to what Carlos Oliver Coke is doing with said citations. So, for instance, when Carlos Oliver Coke spams the part that says that it turned out that the Greco-Egyptian and Egyptian samples were statistically distinct, this only means relatively distinct. When you look at the actual paper, the Egyptian average was equidistant between the Greco-Egyptian sample and the neolithic Gebel Ramlah sample. So, according to this liar's bankrupt reasoning, the Neolithic Gebel Ramlah sample was non-metrically "distinct" from the Egyptians.

These deliberate quote-mining and misrepresentation attempts are Carlos Oliver Coke's MO. I've called him out many times over it. That's ALL the lying fraud does. He does it HERE as well as in his conversations with "supportive academics". He even does it to me, when he spams my quotes and deliberately misrepresents what they're saying.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Let's look at how Irish actually used words like "homogeneous" and "distinct" and see how Carlos Oliver Coke is deliberately misrepresenting Irish.

quote:
Not surprisingly, samples noted to exhibit
relatively high or low frequencies are most divergent.
Gebel Ramlah and the Greek Egyptians have identical
mean MMD values of 0.126. El Hesa (0.078), Saqqara
(0.079), and Lisht (0.083) are also somewhat distinct. In
contrast, Badari (0.028), Thebes (0.039), and Hawara
(0.041) show a general affinity to all samples.
Who Were the Ancient Egyptians? Dental Affinities Among Neolithic Through Postdynastic Peoples (2006)

^So, with just this small excerpt we can already see that Carlos Oliver Coke stacks lies on top of lies. Firstly, contrary to the selective Irish quotes Carlos has been spamming across the forum, typically dynastic Lower Egyptian samples do stand out somewhat and certain dynastic Upper Egyptian samples can be identified statistically as being more representative. Secondly, as Carlos Oliver Coke knows very well in spite of his lies, Irish's use of "distinct" simply means relatively distinct. The same applies to Irish' use of "homogeneous".

And the best part is this. I know for a FACT that Carlos Oliver Coke knows this as he's debated at least one academic who used Irish's work against him. So we know that every time Carlos Oliver Coke spammed this quote-mined Irish piece against an opponent, he's fully aware of the fact that Irish is more aligned with his opponent's views than his. What do we call this if not fraud? He debates easy targets who hold that Egyptians were like Maghrebi North Africans, but he uses Irish (whose work says the same thing) against them? He spams 0.0000001% of Irish's work to make a sketchy point about dynastic Lower Egyptian homogeneity, but he tries to obscure that 99.999999% of Irish' work debunks all of his claims about ancient Egyptian biological affinities. That's like a racist Euronut who uses Diop as an authoritative source to argue that Mediterranean Europeans are authentic Europeans alongside Swedes, while obscuring that Diop is polar opposite from him in almost every respect. As a matter of fact, imagine that that same racist Euronut is using Diop to debate Afrocentrics who aren't aware of Diop's work and so don't know that they're being played and lied to. That is what Carlos Oliver Coke is doing.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
As a matter of fact, imagine that that same racist Euronut is using Diop to debate Afrocentrics who aren't aware of Diop's work and so don't know that they're being played and lied to. That is what Carlos Oliver Coke is doing.
See this hilarious situation play out below. Either it's because he's too stumped or because his a fraud, or both. But this clown fraudulently uses Irish to debate opponents who are in line with Irish's views, while Irish completely differs from his views. Because Carlos Oliver coke picks his targets wisely (little to no knowledge about specific authors) he gets away with it. Carlos' opponent below had no idea that Carlos Oliver Coke was playing him:

quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver coke:
^Of course, the question is how long a black-skinned population would have to be in situ for before they become unrecognisable, no?

Don't know what bearing this has, but Joel Irish has said that:

"Dentally, the ancient Egyptians show an incredible amount of internal homogeneity..."

"They're all the same population. Whether they're from early [or] late, whether they're from Upper Egypt or Lower Egypt."
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009202;p=2#000084

"Don't know what bearing this has". Lol @ this stumped cretin. You don't know what "bearing" it has, so why are you even posting it in a debate? This same cretin wants people to believe he's in any position to write a book about academic fraud. He's obviously a bigger fraud than all of his opponents combined.

What stumped cretin starts taking on academics with a coach in his ear telling him how to respond on anthro topics. Then he realizes the awkward position he's in and he starts taking a course on anthropology halfway into his debates with academics. Lol. To make matters even worse, this cretin then started biting the hand that fed him, leaving his circle filled with yes-men who don't know what they're talking about half the time. Look where he's now in 2016. He's supposedly ready to publish a book but just in 2015 he admitted he doesn't have the foggiest clue what he's posting. WTF?

But I guess Carlos Oliver Coke is making progress. In early 2015 he was spotted on this forum stooping to an entirely new low. He was asking insulting questions that pale in comparison to his his examples of academic bias:

"Are Sub-Saharan Africans capable of crossing the Sahara desert on their own".

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008903;p=3#000113

-
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
quote:

"Are Sub-Saharan Africans capable of crossing the Sahara desert on their own".
Sidney, did they not teach you in school how to quote? Or did you spend too much time playing truant and getting stoned out of your head in coffee shops? Has this impacted your ability to recall reality and report fairly? Or are you just out to misrepresent and lie (again)?

You keep making a fool of yourself. Anyone following that link will see from my response to 'Blackman' in that thread that the Sahara claim wasn't one I entertained:

quote:
I take it you think I'm the person making and endorsing these comments?
My question arose from something academics had said at the time -- it's not enough to approach an academic and say: you know what, I think you're bullshitting. I was incredulous so brought it here for a detailed, technical rebuttal. I didn't get one. Anyway, a number of academics to whom I forwarded the Sahara statement did provide detailed, useful responses...
--------------------------
But this is what you get when you engage with Sidney Anson, someone who thinks nothing of mischaracterisation and outright lies.

For readers who may have missed it, here's content from a PM Sidney Anson sent the former forum moderator on this board, whose crime, believe it or not, was being insufficiently attentive to Anson's Facebook page (Hahahaha!!!):

quote:

I invited you, never deleted you like the others,
despite the fact that you was a no-show. Let you
walk in and out whenever you wanted to, without
asking you to lift a finger. Yet you spit in my
face and apparently don't even have the decency
to at least speak the truth. Have it your way,
then. You're no longer welcome on the FB group as
far as I'm concerned. I'm doing you a favour by
not confronting you in the open or slandering
your name by banning you and announcing why
openly. I'll leave that to you and the rest of
you ladies at the gossip table during your next
get together. The moment I see you rear your head
in the FB group, you're banned.
See.
The abject pettiness.
Still not sure whether this arises from malevolence, a personality disorder or what.
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
18/04/2013

Sidney Anson's Facebook comments on the question of population variation between Lower Egypt, Upper Egypt :
quote:

Not sure what Kemp is trying to say. There is every reason to believe that the Lower Egyptian type was the same as the Upper Egyptian type early on. Later on it never really becomes distinct from this type, it just becomes departure from it in varying degrees, much like Italians and Greeks are part of the European continuum, with some additional Near Eastern influences on top of that. It also doesn't matter what later dynastic Egyptians looked like, just like it doesn't matter what modern day Mexicans look like. Many Mexicans are primarily European and that is immaterial. The European part is only a layer on top of their Meso-American foundation. Even if their European component grows to 99% in th future. It's not native to the area; it's intrusive. You'd describe them as admixed Native Americans and take their ancestral foundation into account. You wouldn't say that they aren't Native Americans; you'd look at it from the context of them changing from their ancestral type to where they're know. Especially if they remained intact as a cultural unit and absorbed the outsiders into whatever they had going on.
Again, based on the dental record, Irish announced population continuity and dental homogeneity in front of a lecture of some 2-300 people.

Boring desperation, Sidney.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
The reason why Carlos Oliver Coke spams that Irish excerpt is because of the EXACT SAME quote-mining intention he had, below:

The images are attached- you've no doubt already seen them elsewhere. I find the image of Amenhotep I on page 2 really striking; I've got to admit that I'm thrown by the images of Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III on p.6 and p.7. Can't articulate what it is about the photo of Sitamun that jumps out at me as African. I don't want to talk about the three pictures of Sety I but would rather focus on what I think I can see in the x-ray!
—Carlos Oliver Coke (2013)

The manipulative liar is simply obscuring ancient Egyptian phenotypes that panic the crap out of him. By spamming that Irish piece Carlos Oliver coke tries to downplay already established differences between dynastic Lower Egyptians and Upper Egyptians. Painting a distorted image of ancient Egyptian variation allows Carlos to justify forcing academics to adopt his racial use of 'black'. It allows him to inject his inappropriate and political driven terminology into the conversation with scientists who would otherwise reject him. It allows him to create a racial dynamic where everyone who disagrees with Carlos on calling the AE racially 'black' is automatically a racist with no further evidence required. Carlos Oliver Coke's vested interests in his racial use of 'black' in relation to the AE requires him to tamper with data (see that quote above). If he's up front about AE variations with his "supportive correspondents", many of them are going to have sympathy for the academics he's been targeting, if not side with them on certain issues.
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
With the knowledge of African diversity especially within SSA, I can't take seriously anyone who implies there's ques that "jump out as African"...how do you *look* African???

For that same reason I don't see why diverse phenotypes among the AE mean anything at all, especially to give someone reason to take pause unless said person has a very specific idea of what an African or "Black" person is supposed to look like.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
^Alls I know is that when I say something like "looks African" is that a particular phenotype is consistent with Africans. It can be a useful shorthand in the right hands and with the right underlying intentions. But you can tell in the way he uses that phrase that he's disowning African variations.
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
Hahahahaha!!!! How embarrassing, eh Sid!!

What an idiot we have here in Sidney Anson. Someone who creates their own reality in pursuit of a grudge.

Look at how he completely avoids reference to his NOW embarrassing statement from a couple of years back, which chimes with Irish's comments. Again, Anson said:

quote:
Not sure what Kemp is trying to say. There is every reason to believe that the Lower Egyptian type was the same as the Upper Egyptian type early on. Later on it never really becomes distinct from this type, it just becomes departure from it in varying degrees, much like Italians and Greeks are part of the European continuum, with some additional Near Eastern influences on top of that.
But then, out of a grudge, after we'd fallen out , he's since tried to accuse me of misusing Irish's comments. See his comments upthread.

So very full of sh1t.
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
Punos, I don't give a toss whether you take me seriously. The feeling's mutual.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Hahahahaha!!!! How embarrassing, eh Sid!!
Look at this raving lunatic. He's literally out of his mind. How is that supposedly "embarrassing" quote different from what I've said in public MANY times.

See here, for instance, a couple of weeks ago:

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
^Do you have anything rare/new on pre-dynastic lower Egyptians? Only data that comes to mind is Petrie's Tarkhan cemetery (thought to be the "Anu" in the flesh due to their supposedly peculiar chin morphologies which they're said to share with Tera Netjer) and some other skeletal remains from Maadi and Heliopolis. Also, Junker's predynastic lower Egyptian remains from Tura come to mind. From their descriptions these all seem to be local variants of the predynastic Upper Egyptian model pattern, with some variations tending towards (but still maintaining some distance from) what would later appear in the record as the "lower Egyptian" pattern. This is also what Patricia Smith says about some of these samples. None seem to have been as distinctly "lower Egyptian" as some of the 1st dynasty royal Egyptians from Abydos.

Edit

On Maadi South (left):
- -
https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/most_ancient.pdf
This is why I ignore Carlos Oliver Coke half of the time. He is CRAZY lunatic. I have no idea what he's talking about half of the time when he contrasts my public posts with supposedly "secret" private statements.
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
You can backchat all you want. But your BS is there in the open.

quote:
Not sure what Kemp is trying to say. There is every reason to believe that the Lower Egyptian type was the same as the Upper Egyptian type early on. Later on it never really becomes distinct from this type, it just becomes departure from it in varying degrees, much like Italians and Greeks are part of the European continuum, with some additional Near Eastern influences on top of that.
You ignore me half the time?! Please, this is the man who prides himself on getting the last word, and enters a thread when there's an indirect reference to him.

Now as for lunacy, let's replay that PM you sent Tukuler:


-------------------

I invited you, never deleted you like the others,
despite the fact that you was a no-show. Let you
walk in and out whenever you wanted to, without
asking you to lift a finger. Yet you spit in my
face and apparently don't even have the decency
to at least speak the truth. Have it your way,
then. You're no longer welcome on the FB group as
far as I'm concerned. I'm doing you a favour by
not confronting you in the open or slandering
your name by banning you and announcing why
openly. I'll leave that to you and the rest of
you ladies at the gossip table during your next
get together. The moment I see you rear your head
in the FB group, you're banned.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
^Note how Carlos Oliver Coke operates again. His supposedly "embarrassing" quote has been exposed as a figment of his imagination but he's going to keep spamming it for the next 10 months. This is EXACTLY what he does when new evidence surfaces that his targets in the academic world don't deserve his slander. He just keeps persecuting them whether he's right or not.

The point about Carlos Oliver Coke's abuse of Irish is that he tries to obscure heterogeneity using convenient quotes and convenient data (non metric data) that he already knows are misleading in the way he's using them.
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
^Irish said the population was dentally homogenous and dentally continuous. That's what I've quoted. If Irish's findings irritate you, take it up with him...but then:

quote:
Not sure what Kemp is trying to say. There is every reason to believe that the Lower Egyptian type was the same as the Upper Egyptian type early on. Later on it never really becomes distinct from this type, it just becomes departure from it in varying degrees, much like Italians and Greeks are part of the European continuum, with some additional Near Eastern influences on top of that.
quote:
^Note how Carlos Oliver Coke operates again. His supposedly "embarrassing" quote has been exposed as a figment of his imagination but he's going to keep spamming it for the next 10 months.
Not sure about the timeframe, but I'll certainly repost it to highlight your insecure bullsh1t.


quote:
This is EXACTLY what he does when new evidence surfaces that his targets in the academic world don't deserve his slander. He just keeps persecuting them whether he's right or not.
You've accused me of misusing Irish, when his comments are in accordance with what you yourself said.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Recap on Carlos Oliver Coke's abuse of Irish. Carlos Oliver Coke's abuse of Irish work is evident:

1) in how he repeatedly spams quote-mined Irish excerpts to obscure heterogeneity he knows he cannot accommodate in his racial use of 'black'. As noted earlier, non-metric data can't pick up on heterogeneity as well because light skinned groups to Egypt's west had the same dental pattern as Egyptians and Nubians. But Carlos Oliver Coke has called light skinned North Africans non-black, hence, the importance of the Irish quotes in highlighting Coke's hypocrisy and fraud. Carlos Coke deliberately spams data he perfectly knows will paint the picture of Egyptian variation he wants his uneducated public to see. Without this leverage he cannot persecute people like Kemp for daring to say that many Egyptians don't fit his racial use of 'black'.

2) in how he spams Irish EVEN to debate people whose views are more in line with Irish than Coke's views are. Carlos Oliver Coke gets away with it because a lot of these people don't know about Irish's work and so have no idea that Carlos is manipulating them with his quote-mining.

3) in how he spams Irish's use of "homogeneous" but conveniently leaves out that the AE shared this "homogeneous" dental pattern with groups Carlos Oliver Coke considers non-black. He also leaves out that most of the groups he considers racially black don't share this dental pattern. When Carlos Oliver Coke is called out for his underhanded use of Irish, the best this brainless cretin can muster up in his defense is to hide behind something a forum poster said a decade ago:

I remember Djehuti commenting something along the lines of the North African/Sub-Saharan African dichotomy being a false one
—Carlos Oliver Coke

No need to go back and forth over his manipulative use of Irish. He's a compulsive liar. Compulsive liars are supposed to not admit their fraud. Carlos is simply playing the part I've described for several years. We'll see what Carlos Oliver Coke's "supportive academics" will think about his repeated attempts to obscure the ancient Egyptian characteristics he doesn't like and how he persecutes people for not going along with his lies. I doubt they will be satisfied with Carlos Oliver Coke's bizarre replies.
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tropicals redacted:
Punos, I don't give a toss whether you take me seriously. The feeling's mutual.
Yet you cared enough to let me know you don't care [Confused]
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
Anson, you're all the place. Much nutty huffing and puffing, but no reference to his own comments, which correspond with Irish's.

You repeat your accusation that I've misrepresented Irish. The bald facts remain as stated: he said that the population was dentally homogenous and that there was continuity. Yet my posting that, which again is in keeping with something you yourself suggested , somehow makes me a liar. WTF?

I suspect the reason that you're agitated is becomes it doesn't support whatever you may have argued around Egyptian 'heterogeneity'.

Don't try to hang your sh1t on me.

The point of my asking Djehuti that question seems to have flown right over your head. You might remember on FB we worked through a similar conclusion, regarding something Irish had written elsewhere. You agreed my summary. However, after we fell out, you then posted here on ES that the summary was a "reach"... even though you'd helped me with it. Of course, in executing your 180 (what's new?), you suggested that you'd had some sort of 'rethink'.

So that was why I posted that question to Djehuti...but again, seems to have gone over your head.

Anyway, this brings me to the point I made earlier in another thread on Irish's Jebel Moya findings -- that individuals with North African dental characteristics also had sub-Saharan cranio-facial features. Hence Djehuti's, mine, your conclusion that the North/sub-Saharan dichotomy is a misleading one.

Contact Irish and ask him whether or not he posits population homogeneity and continuity. I sense you won't because you know the implications if he confirms that he did, but anyway, go on

Also, you know of at least one, maybe more, academic(s) that have supported me in this. Carry through with your threat,contact them, tell them that I've misrepresented the findings of an academic.

Go on.


Your mock charges are getting boring -- all those e-mails that academics supposedly sent you about me never materialised when I challenged you to post them, did they?


Questions: Do you now reject the following?
quote:
Not sure what Kemp is trying to say. There is every reason to believe that the Lower Egyptian type was the same as the Upper Egyptian type early on. Later on it never really becomes distinct from this type, it just becomes departure from it in varying degrees, much like Italians and Greeks are part of the European continuum, with some additional Near Eastern influences on top of that.
Who are my "uneducated public"?
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
Punos, yes, it's called a response.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Continuing with documenting Carlos Oliver Coke's long track record of obscuring and quote-mining...

Somewhere around 2012 I shared a book on Old Kingdom royal family with Carlos Oliver Coke. My intention was to discuss Lower Egyptian cranio-facial variations. This was part of an on-going private conversation I had with Coke over several years wherein I tried to teach him as much as he needed to uncover academic racism. Unfortunately I failed: as you can see, he's still as incompetent today as he was back then. Anyway, the data in question can be found in the link below. See chapter 10, which is called:

Anthropological evaluation of the human skeletal remains from the mastabas of Djedkare Isesi's family cemetery (p119-32)
http://egyptologie.ff.cuni.cz/pdf/ABUSIR%20VI.pdf

Among other things I told Carlos Oliver Coke that the cranio-facial traits which group predynastic Egyptians with Nubians are expressed to a weaker degree in Djedkare's Lower Egyptian family. For those who know how to interpret skeletal remains, here are some pictures out of the book:

- - -

Now contrast this information, which we know has come to Carlos Oliver Coke's attention, with his long track record of suppressing inconvenient information about (Lower) Egyptians in public. Like I said, this was somewhere around 2012. Somewhere in between this period and 2014 Carlos Oliver Coke had gone from taking all of this into consideration to believing his own lies. In 2014 this pathological liar was convinced that if the facial features of ancient Egyptian skeletal remains don't come out recognizably racially 'black', then the forensic reconstruction is suspect. He started believing his own lie that if only someone like Keita was placed in charge of the reconstructions, they would necessarily come out racially 'black'.

Never mind that Keita's work already tells you that isn't the case. And that it doesn't have to be the case for AE to be African. What a degenerate cretin. This liar wants me to believe that he's not deliberately ignoring metric data and resorting to quote-mining Irish hearsay. We're supposed to believe that his consistent spamming of convenient Irish hearsay has nothing to do with his earlier 'creative workarounds' to cope with the way Seti looks?
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
quote:
In 2014 this pathological liar was convinced that if the facial features of ancient Egyptian skeletal remains don't come out recognizably racially 'black', then the forensic reconstruction is suspect.
Find and post the EXACT quote where I said that.
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
You didn't address my suggestions and questions:
quote:


Contact Irish and ask him whether or not he posits population homogeneity and continuity. I sense you won't because you know the implications if he confirms that he did, but anyway, go on

Also, you know of at least one, maybe more, academic(s) that have supported me in this. Carry through with your threat,contact them, tell them that I've misrepresented the findings of an academic.

Go on.


Your mock charges are getting boring -- all those e-mails that academics supposedly sent you about me never materialised when I challenged you to post them, did they?


Questions: Do you now reject the following?

quote:
Not sure what Kemp is trying to say. There is every reason to believe that the Lower Egyptian type was the same as the Upper Egyptian type early on. Later on it never really becomes distinct from this type, it just becomes departure from it in varying degrees, much like Italians and Greeks are part of the European continuum, with some additional Near Eastern influences on top of that.

Who are my "uneducated public"?
Also, when you contact Joel Irish, ask him which groups the ancient Egyptians shared dental patterns with :
quote:
in how he spams Irish's use of "homogeneous" but conveniently leaves out that the AE shared this "homogeneous" dental pattern with groups Carlos Oliver Coke considers non-black.

 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
I highly doubt anyone will pay any attention to his book and the ones that do will simply offer rebuttals. Like I said I dont think he's going to even make the book, it seems like such a silly idea. What is the end goal IMO.

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
You guys think he's seriously going to make his book? I feel like he's blowing smoke I meat what would be the point, plus it could be seen as Libel lawfully in court.
Legal issues are the least of Carlos Oliver Coke's problems. He's going to self-destruct as soon as he goes public. All the deliberate lies he told his "supportive academics" are going to come to light. Half of them are going to abandon him anyway once they learn what Carlos Oliver Coke has been withholding. He has no way of coming out of this with his name untarnished. Coming out is only going to make it worse. His lies and fraud are just going to follow him wherever he goes. I'll make sure of that.

The academic community is unforgiving when it comes to fraud. The only reason his so-called supporters are still talking to him is because they're isolated from how I've been exposing him over the years. I'm willing to bet that if I can get an hour with them and relay Carlos Oliver Coke's manipulations, they're not going to want to touch him in public with a ten foot pole.

 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
quote:
I highly doubt anyone will pay any attention to his book and the ones that do will simply offer rebuttals. Like I said I dont think he's going to even make the book, it seems like such a silly idea. What is the end goal IMO.

It's not going to be a best-seller, I want to document and air the bias.

So what do you make of those academics and writers who encourage me to write?
 
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tropicals redacted:
quote:
I highly doubt anyone will pay any attention to his book and the ones that do will simply offer rebuttals. Like I said I dont think he's going to even make the book, it seems like such a silly idea. What is the end goal IMO.

It's not going to be a best-seller, I want to document and air the bias.

So what do you make of those academics and writers who encourage me to write?
Who are these academic supporters you speak of? You have no problem disclosing private correspondences on the Internet, so I presume you wouldn't have any qualms identifying your supporters.
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
quote:
Who are these academic supporters you speak of? You have no problem disclosing private correspondences on the Internet, so I presume you wouldn't have any qualms identifying your supporters.
Actually, I would. Whether or not a troll like you believes me is immaterial.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Lol. He means the same academics who know nothing about the subject. That's what he forgets to mention. Most of his supportive academics rely on Carlos Oliver Coke's information. This is what I mean when I say that he's withholding information and that this is going to blow up in his face.

It's easy to convince a classicist that ancient Egyptians were racially 'black' because they Greeks describe their level of SKIN PIGMENTATION as melas. It's easy to convince a classicist that lower Egyptians were "homogeneous" using Irish hearsay. It's easy to convince a classist that academics are necessarily racist when they translate 'Aegyptoi' as Nubian. That's how Carlos Oliver Coke warms lay people up to his supposed evidence of academic racism.

Then he comes back on this site and pretends that their approval is going to shield him from receiving a good public spanking when he goes public. Their approval is simply a reflection of the lies he's been feeding them. They don't know any better.

Watch how many seasoned vets in AE population history he's going to mention (if he's not going to cower and avoid answering). I haven't been updated on his gossippy campaign for years, but I'm willing to bet he doesn't have anyone. And if he has even one of them I'm willing to bet that he strikes a different tone with them knowing that they'll just put him in his place with the same things I'm telling him.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
quote:
He means the same academics who know nothing about the subject.
Hahahahahahahahahahaah!!!!!!!!

One day I'm going to come looking for you and remind you of this quote...I've just e-mailed it to myself.

You're such an idiot!! But go on, keep groping in the dark, omniscient one.


Now about that quote I asked to get on the facial reconstructions...as well as my other suggestions and questions....
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tropicals redacted:
Punos, yes, it's called a response.
But why respond if you don't care? Aren't you showing you care by responding? [Confused] [Confused]
 
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tropicals redacted:
quote:
Who are these academic supporters you speak of? You have no problem disclosing private correspondences on the Internet, so I presume you wouldn't have any qualms identifying your supporters.
Actually, I would. Whether or not a troll like you believes me is immaterial.
FYI, that trolling I "admitted" to earlier was directed at VNN racists. Hardly the kind of people you'd judge to be sympathetic. Hell, they make the academics you're trying to blackmail look progressive. So I find it very strange that you're using my activities against white supremacists to discredit me, just as you tried to discredit Swenet with his earlier reaction to racist snipes on that Dutch forum. Must I conclude that Afrophobic racism is condonable to you if it's your opponents who are resisting it?

As for your unwillingness to cite your various backers, I can only conclude from it that they reside in a certain orifice of your own anatomy that's connected to the colon.
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
^Like I said, trolling is never acceptable. You meet your opponents with sound arguments. If you can't, then ignore them.

Unfortunately, I've seen enough of your presence here to know that your trolling and glib crap doesn't stop at racists.

Trying to blackmail? WTF? What financial gain do I stand to receive from self-publishing a book on academic bias? I've documented their responses and there are people out there who want me to write.

quote:
Must I conclude that Afrophobic racism is condonable to you if it's your opponents who are resisting it?
Funny. When I named Juan Castillos as the academic behind a certain quote, you were critical.

quote:
As for your unwillingness to cite your various backers, I can only conclude from it that they reside in a certain orifice of your own anatomy that's connected to the colon.
Yeah, you go on believing that.

T1t.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
I highly doubt anyone will pay any attention to his book and the ones that do will simply offer rebuttals. Like I said I dont think he's going to even make the book, it seems like such a silly idea. What is the end goal IMO.

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
You guys think he's seriously going to make his book? I feel like he's blowing smoke I meat what would be the point, plus it could be seen as Libel lawfully in court.
Legal issues are the least of Carlos Oliver Coke's problems. He's going to self-destruct as soon as he goes public. All the deliberate lies he told his "supportive academics" are going to come to light. Half of them are going to abandon him anyway once they learn what Carlos Oliver Coke has been withholding. He has no way of coming out of this with his name untarnished. Coming out is only going to make it worse. His lies and fraud are just going to follow him wherever he goes. I'll make sure of that.

The academic community is unforgiving when it comes to fraud. The only reason his so-called supporters are still talking to him is because they're isolated from how I've been exposing him over the years. I'm willing to bet that if I can get an hour with them and relay Carlos Oliver Coke's manipulations, they're not going to want to touch him in public with a ten foot pole.
It could have been a decent project in the right hands. The problem is that Carlos Oliver Coke doesn't know how to approach this professionally. He keeps making it personal and doesn't know how to act when an academic puts him in his place with correct arguments. In his conversations he acts like he's on autopilot and making random and impulsive decisions. There is no strategy or organized effort. He also doesn't have a feel for what counts as admissible evidence. Something that looks like bias to someone is not proper evidence.

The legal and ethical issues you already mentioned would make me very hesitant to publish that though. Although it could have been useful for internal consumption if it were pursued by someone who knows what he's doing. I'm glad I got out as early as I did. It's definitely not a good look to be publicly associated with a politically driven cretin who tampers with data. I feel sorry for his "supportive academics". They really have no idea what he's dragging them in.
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
quote:
It could have been a decent project in the right hands. The problem is that Carlos Oliver Coke doesn't know how to approach this professionally. In his conversations he acts like he's on autopilot and making random and impulsive decisions. There is no strategy or organized effort. He also doesn't have a feel for what counts as admissible evidence.
Yeah, you never did confirm whether the idea for a book was yours. My recollection is that it was, but when you became critical, and I asked you to confirm the very idea as yours, you said it "may" have been. You have access to our FB correspondence, so feel free to confirm, especially, for Jari, once and for all.

Doing the write-up should be a very interesting learning experience. And I've got academics who've offered to help, as well as having their e-mailed critiques and comments to refer to. Moreover, I've got an MA, so can write. I've already done a word count and have way, way enough for a book.

quote:
It's definitely not a good look to be publicly associated with a politically driven cretin who tampers with data. I feel sorry for his "supportive academics". They really have no idea what he's dragging them in.
Where have I tampered with data? Again, contact the academics you know me to have been in touch with and warn them.
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
quote:
Watch how many seasoned vets in AE population history he's going to mention (if he's not going to cower and avoid answering). I haven't been updated on his gossippy campaign for years, but I'm willing to bet he doesn't have anyone. but I'm willing to bet he doesn't have anyone. And if he has even one of them I'm willing to bet that he strikes a different tone with them knowing that they'll just put him in his place with the same things I'm telling him.
Hilarious!!! Your edits are just making you look even more ridiculous. Quit whilst you're ahead.

If you put a bet on it, you would certainly lose.

I'm looking forward to the day when I come back to you on this...
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Again, I have no doubt in my mind that Carlos is bluffing. He's not closely supported by seasoned vets in academia. Look at the difference between when Carlos Coke had me in his ear vs how sloppy his correspondences became after he no longer had me in his corner. Immediately the IQ level in his email conversations dropped to silly baiting like "were the AE black". And his abysmal level of competence hasn't improved in two years. He keeps making obtuse comments when he comments on genetics. He never makes inspired observations when people discuss advanced stuff. Who could possibly be advising him? I'm willing to bet it's not someone I respect in the field, let alone an authority on the subject.
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
quote:
Again, I have no doubt in my mind that Carlos is bluffing. He's not closely supported by seasoned vets in academia.Look at the difference between when Carlos Coke had me in his ear vs how sloppy his correspondences became after he no longer had me in his corner. Immediately the IQ level in his email conversations dropped to silly baiting like "were the AE black". And his abysmal level of competence hasn't improved in two years. He keeps making obtuse comments when he comments on genetics. He never makes inspired observations when people discuss advanced stuff. Who could possibly be advising him? I'm willing to bet it's not someone I respect in the field, let alone an authority on the subject.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaa!!!

quote:
Immediately the IQ level in his email conversations dropped to silly baiting like "were the AE black".
How do you know this? Reference any of the e-mails I've posted on this site and quote them to back your assertion.


Anyway, you're being presumptuous. The vast majority of lay people, even academics, don't understand genetics - this won't feature in the book, not heavily anyway.

What will feature are the inconsistencies, evasiveness and intemperate responses.
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
Now quit stalling:

Contact Irish and ask him whether or not he posits population homogeneity and continuity. I sense you won't because you know the implications if he confirms that he did, but anyway, go on

Also, you know of at least one, maybe more, academic(s) that have supported me in this. Carry through with your threat,contact them, tell them that I've misrepresented the findings of an academic.

Go on.

Your mock charges are getting boring -- all those e-mails that academics supposedly sent you about me never materialised when I challenged you to post them, did they?

Questions: Do you now reject the following?

quote:

Not sure what Kemp is trying to say. There is every reason to believe that the Lower Egyptian type was the same as the Upper Egyptian type early on. Later on it never really becomes distinct from this type, it just becomes departure from it in varying degrees, much like Italians and Greeks are part of the European continuum, with some additional Near Eastern influences on top of that.
Who are my "uneducated public"?


Also, when you contact Joel Irish, ask him which groups the ancient Egyptians shared dental patterns with :

quote:

in how he spams Irish's use of "homogeneous" but conveniently leaves out that the AE shared this "homogeneous" dental pattern with groups Carlos Oliver Coke considers non-black.

 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Look how his "supportive academics" are letting Carlos Oliver Coke blunder in public. Did you ever catch him saying obtuse claptrap like this when I was advising him?

quote:
Originally posted by tropicals redacted:
@Tukuler

quote:
White's footnote on dusky men says
quote:

i.e., the dark-skinned people of Africa,
the Egyptians or Aethiopians.

Egyptians or Sudanese is a direct hit on the Lower Nile Valley.
Useful. I think this came up in correspondence, where the academic concluded that the reference was to the Ethiopians. I did wonder whether an assumption had been made but didn't pursue it. Good find.
^Note that Carlos thinks the passage refers to territory near Egypt's border. I had no specific familiarity with that passage and even I was able to refute this based on general knowledge about the ancient Greek worldview. He was trying to 'pick sides' like a floundering buffoon but ending up having to backtrack.

Here is another recent example of how Carlos Coke's "supportive academics" telling him things that only embarrass him in public:

quote:
You may/may not know I corresponded with Mary Lefkowitz, and we covered the meaning of melas and melanchroes. In the discussion she mentioned the term cyanoi/kyanos:

30/03/2015
quote:
Homer talks about the Ethiopians as cyanoi, which we usually translate as dark blue, but must mean dark brown, or anyway really dark. Melas can mean dark as night, or just dark relative to something else (which is still how the term is used in modern Greek, according to a Greek friend of mine).
Interestingly, when I asked a Greek woman the meaning of melas, she instantly said 'black', and also said it can mean ink, as I think you mention upthread.

Cut a long story short, I was interested in seeing the Hesiod source describing Ethiopians as blue/black, so asked Mary Lefkowitz if she could provide it. (I wanted to know/had asked whether the Egyptians had been referred to kyanos.)She checked, and confirmed that actually melas and kyanos are interchangeable and that the Egyptians were referred to as kyanos:

19/06/2015
quote:
I checked the Hesiod passage, see p. 3 of the attached, and the standard commentaries on the passage by M.L. West. West says that melas and kyanos are interchangeable, and cites Hesiod's other epic the Theogony line 406, also attached. In the note on the passage in the Works and Days, he cites a passage where Egyptians are called kyanoi.
I hadn't heard of ML West, so googled him:

quote:
In the field of classical scholarship, as traditionally understood, Martin West is to be judged, on any reckoning, the most brilliant and productive Greek scholar of his generation, not just in the United Kingdom, but worldwide.
http://www.britac.ac.uk/about/medals/Kenyon_Medal_2002.cfm

I wanted to get in touch, but he'd recently died.

Anyway, Mary Lefkowitz finally concluded:

20/06/2015
quote:
The Greeks did distinguish between Aigyptoi and Aithiopes or the "burnt face" people who lived further south, but that doesn't mean that the Egyptians had lighter skin. Aithiops was a vague term that covered a lot of territory in Africa that Greeks had heard about but may not have seen.
Get in touch if you need any more info. [/QB]
Fortunately, Carlos is very generous with his phuckups. So we get a good idea of his progress over the years. Here this cretin goes on record insinuating that the AE didn't have somewhat lighter skin per the ancient Greeks. Also, he apparently thinks that the AE had something approaching jetblack skin by the time the Bronze Age was over. Carlos Coke also thinks that ancient Egyptians were still relatively unchanged by the time of the Islamic invasion and spams Pagani to support this laughable claim. He apparently thinks that the migrations of Arab tribes is solely responsible for making Medieval Egyptians go from looking like contemporary Nubians to ex president Mubarak. This guy is a complete retard. It's clear that no authority on this subject is closely supporting him.
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
quote:
Here this cretin goes on record insinuating that the AE didn't have somewhat lighter skin per the ancient Greeks.
What? The ancient Egyptians had lighter skin than the Greeks?

What?

quote:
Carlos Coke also thinks that ancient Egyptians were still relatively unchanged by the time of the Islamic invasion and spams Pagani to support this laughable claim.
Uh, I make the claim that indigenous ancient Egyptians were still black by the time of the Greek and Roman periods. See how he deliberately misrepresents. That's why I want him to find that facial reconstruction quote.

quote:
It's clear that no authority on this subject is closely supporting him.
Keep groping in the dark.

For the umpteenth time, when are you going to respond the suggestions and questions I put to you?
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Lol. This buffoon just accused me of making edits (which is what the edit button is for). Look at what he's now doing with two posts in a row. Is this retard completely out of his mind, or what?
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
Look at how evasive he is. Referring to edits rather than answering the questions at hand.

And what? The ancient Egyptians had lighter skin than the Greeks?

Are you serious?
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
More edits. Strange, coming from a manchild who who's fond of making a big deal when someone else uses the edit button for what it's for. All the more evidence that the mental tics I ascribed to Carlos Coke are based in reality. Don't take my word for it. Just look at his bizarre actions.
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
I'm editing because this site has a time limit on consecutive postings. I point out your edit because you commit yourself to more idiocy.

But back to the issue at hand...gee, no response to the questions I put to you. What an utter bullsh1tter you are.

And the Ancient Egyptians lighter than the Greeks?

Really, are you serious?
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
I think its pretty obvious he meant lighter skin relative to "aithiopes" but don't mind me.
 
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
 
Thanks for clarifying. I never know with his bullsh1t.

Maybe you can also prompt him to answer the suggestions and questions I put to him.

-------------------
No responses from Sidney Anson or Punos?

Then time to go.

It was good showing what lying pr1cks Sidney Anson and Brandon Pilcher are, but til next time... oh, between now and then you will remember to follow through on my points won't you Sid?

Remind him, Punos.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
@Punos

Bingo.

In 2014 Carlos Oliver Coke firmly believed that the skin tone of the 'Nefertiti' reconstruction was wrong. Supposedly, it was a compromise intended to make her lighter skinned because 'the powers that be' felt they had already made her face consistent with Africans (I'm not shitting you, he actually said that). This paranoid retard is all over the place and sees racism everywhere. If there is a reconstruction that we can look to as being fair it's the KV35YL ('Nefertiti') reconstruction:

nefertiti comes alive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9PSMNKVWMA

^Punos you might want to take a look given your recent question.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:


nefertiti comes alive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9PSMNKVWMA

A big deal out of this reconstruction??? Seriously? To me this is one of the more accurate reconstruction. This reconstruction is not even outside of the realm of what us Americans consider "black." Hell Nefertiti in that reconstruction is darker than most indigenous Khoisan tribes...

Nefertiti wouldn't look taboo if she was in African-American dominated city Atlanta. Also to me see looks similar to this AA women.
-


So again I don't get what Carlos find bad about the reconstruction. She has "full African features" like full lips. Its only if we go by the silly true negroid concept that we will think this reconstruction is "wrong."
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Another gem people might want to know given Carlos Coke's liberal use of of Keita quotes. In the same discussion where Carlos Coke tried to pick a fight with me on AE variation he was trying to lecture us about Keita being "aloof", "timid" and "placating racists" because he refuses to call anyone black other than himself:
Note that Carlos Oliver Coke is completely missing the point and outright misrepresenting Keita's arguments. He says that Keita is simply playing games and that he "obviously knows the score" as if Keita doesn't make this choice out of necessity. Ingrate cretins like Carlos Oliver Coke think it's a coincidence that even pro-African physical anthropologists who have actually measured Nile Valley remains generally don't apply a racial use of 'black' in reference to the AE.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
A big deal out of this reconstruction??? Seriously?
So now you know why I completely denounce Carlos Oliver Coke's racial use of 'black' on all possible levels.
 
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
So again I don't get what Carlos find bad about the reconstruction. She has "full African features" like full lips. Its only if we go by the silly true negroid concept that we will think this reconstruction is "wrong."
Mr. Coke just seems confused. He's acknowledged elsewhere that Northeast Africans have distinct physical features from West/Central Africans on average, yet here and in certain other exchanges he's insistent that AEs must all fit the "true Negro" stereotype. I mean, even if he insisted on calling AEs "black", he'd save himself a lot of trouble by arguing that NE Africans should qualify as "black" (in the sense of shorthand for indigenous African) instead of forcing AEs to fit a stereotype.
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
Not even West or Central Africans have a uniform look within their own region though. You would think the argument for phenotypic diversity would BOLSTER one's position. But I guess he has another agenda he wishes to advance *shrugs*
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
This is why I and others stopped using black as a descriptor simply because it can change depending on the culture, person, and topic.
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
What Academics are they if you dont mind me asking?


quote:
Originally posted by tropicals redacted:
quote:
I highly doubt anyone will pay any attention to his book and the ones that do will simply offer rebuttals. Like I said I dont think he's going to even make the book, it seems like such a silly idea. What is the end goal IMO.

It's not going to be a best-seller, I want to document and air the bias.

So what do you make of those academics and writers who encourage me to write?

 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
@Nodnard and Swenet

Indeed.

@Jari

I agree when it comes to anthropology racial terms do not bond well. What is your thoughts on this though?
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009245
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
This guy is spreading his stuff to website Historum...
http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/114589-egyptologist-barry-kemp-white-supremacist.html

Cokes... The Africanist on that site have been doing A LOT of work to make African history and Africanist to be taken seriously. What you are doing that hurts them. One poster linked this site and so it HURTS THIS SITE TOO!

Chill out.
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
I post over there frequently and do consider people like Mansamusa, Hannibal, EAdama and others allies, what a joke that we all get lopped in with this garbage and subsequently silenced
 
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
This guy is spreading his stuff to website Historum...
http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/114589-egyptologist-barry-kemp-white-supremacist.html

Cokes... The Africanist on that site have been doing A LOT of work to make African history and Africanist to be taken seriously. What you are doing that hurts them. One poster linked this site and so it HURTS THIS SITE TOO!

Chill out.
Having looked at the cache, I am not sure that's him. I've noticed someone (Atlantid) impersonating other posters with sock puppets and getting himself banned over there. I'm inclined to think this may be him again rather than the real deal.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
I can't access that link (thread seems to be deleted). But it might not be Carlos Coke who posted that. Remember that this is what Carlos Oliver Coke said when he got locked out of his account and he was scared sh!tless that his conversations with academics would be leaked:


And always good for a laugh—his dramatic monologue about becoming famous and the prospect that his persecution of academics backfires (which has become a self-fulfilling prophesy):


Other bizarre quotes from the buffoon when he got locked out of his previous account:


Someone is probably trolling Carlos Coke after visiting Egyptsearch and seeing what a cretin loser he is. I hope whoever did it continues to troll the crap out of Carlos Coke. Lol! Gives him a taste of his own medicine.
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
I Love the term Horus, Id been using Tropically Adapapted but Africoid can work as well. Nice.

quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Nodnard and Swenet

Indeed.

@Jari

I agree when it comes to anthropology racial terms do not bond well. What is your thoughts on this though?
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009245

 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
I Love the term Horus, Id been using Tropically Adapapted but Africoid can work as well. Nice.

quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Nodnard and Swenet

Indeed.

@Jari

I agree when it comes to anthropology racial terms do not bond well. What is your thoughts on this though?
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009245
I'm glad that you like my idea. [Smile]
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Sonia Zakrzewski (2002), Exploring Migration and Population Boundaries in Ancient Egypt: A Craniometric Case Study.

Another paper I handed to Carlos Oliver Coke around 2012 with the intention to inform him about ancient Egyptian variations. This was before he started tampering with his sources and spamming Irish to obscure the variations he doesn't like.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Sonia Zakrzewski (2002), Exploring Migration and Population Boundaries in Ancient Egypt: A Craniometric Case Study.

Another paper I handed to Carlos Oliver Coke around 2012 with the intention to inform him about ancient Egyptian variations. This was before he started tampering with his sources and spamming Irish to obscure the variations he doesn't like.
The specific email I sent to the fraudulent, lying, tampering, quote-mining buffoon in early 2013 (09-03-2013):

quote:
I have many more, why these specific papers..? Other than that they're interesting, I've picked
them because:

*Early humans -- to give you a perspective, a context, in which to place all modern populations.

*Egypt in an African context -- I don't know how well versed you are when it comes to the African
aspects of Egyptian culture, but this is a good place to start

*On the relevance of regional continuity -- this is what you wanted to know: the relative
frequencies fo traits in various populations that help to deduce ethnic affintiy

*Zakrezewski -- Makes it REAL clear for you to see the degree of change that occured in Egypt
from predynastic times to late dynastic. The Gizah sample in this paper is the same as the late
dynastic sample on one of Kemps dendrograms. It also goes by the name of E series. They cluster
with modern Egyptians, and away from proto-Egyptians. They are intermediate between Northern
Europeans and West Africans, while Egypto-Nubians and many East Africans (e.g., certain Masai
groups) are intermediate between West Africans and Northern Africans.

*I've included the paper to let you know how much [x] is ignoring his own data. You said
you were going to confront him with the limb proportion excerpt, well, this is the paper where he
got it from (Smith 2002).


If you have questions that pertain to the information in these papers I'll answer to the best of my ability.

Cheers

 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Some of Carlos Oliver Coke's "supportive academics" think the best representatives of the AE are southern Sudanese. Of course, people are free to make up their own make believe world, but it shows who are in Carlos Oliver Coke's circle when he talks about "supportive academics".

Carlos Oliver Coke likes to brag about having the approval of "supportive academics", when he's criticized. He thinks that will allow him to deflect criticism. So, the next time Carlos Oliver Coke brags about having the approval of "supportive academics" but refuses to mention their names, you know this is one of the reasons why.

quote:
That's interesting. In a class I attended, [x] said he thought that the people alive today most representative of the ancient Egyptians were populations in southern Sudan. This might sound superficial, but I can't get away from the sense that the Egyptians may have been significantly darker than seems to be the current understanding, as informed, it seems, by the tomb murals. If that were the case, then Maihepri's complexion wouldn't necessarily rule him out as an Egyptian. Especially since we know that Pre-dynastic Egyptians and Nubians were from a homogeneous population.
—Carlos Oliver Coke (2014)
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
^^^So whats your beef with him, are you saying he's out of his league or he's misrepresenting his critics.

BTW, Ive never heard the Southern Sudanese as being the best representation of the AE, Ive always heard Upper Egypt and Northern Sudanese. If anything Maihipra looks like a Typical Aswani Egyptian to me. Then again Im no expert.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^So whats your beef with him, are you saying he's out of his league or he's misrepresenting his critics.

BTW, Ive never heard the Southern Sudanese as being the best representation of the AE, Ive always heard Upper Egypt and Northern Sudanese. If anything Maihipra looks like a Typical Aswani Egyptian to me. Then again Im no expert.
All of the above. It's a long story. From 2012 to 2014 I brought him up to speed to help him uncover academic racism. This happened behind the scenes in private conversations. In 2014 I started realizing he was using what I told him to pursue a racial agenda. When I called him out on it, he started picking a fight with me. During that fight I noticed the extent to which he was quote-mining from the many things I told him about African variation. I never noticed this before because he camouflaged it using the same terminology as I did at the time. For instance, I used the term 'black' at the time to refer to dark skinned people regardless of their 'racial' background. Carlos Coke's use of 'black' looked similar on the surface but his actions betrayed that his use of the term was divisive.

After that fallout I noticed him lie about various things in public. For instance, he started bragging about debating academics in public, something he couldn't do without my and others' help. Carlos Oliver wouldn't be able to debate a specialist on his own if they were high on truth serum. He's that incompetent. He also started posting email conversations online from his unsuccessful attempts to bait academics to describe the AE as 'black' in the racial sense. Some of them refused so he tried to 'expose' them online by posting their email conversations and insinuating they were racist. Here is the thing. Some of these academics had already conceded that the AE were African. He just wants them to say 'black' (in the racial sense), not because it follows from the evidence but because he wants to attach himself to AE prestige. Of course, he'll deny, but his political motivations show when he talks about reading his children AE bedtime stories to boost their confidence. He's free to do that all he wants, but when I catch him lying or obscuring in the process, I'm going to call him out.

Those are some of the reasons why I'm on his bumper. If he has no qualms with 'exposing' bias in the public narrative re: the origins of ancient Egypt he should have no problem with what I'm doing right now. Of course, he does have a problem with what I'm doing. He thinks he's exempt. He wants to expose other people from a safe distance and not be held accountable for his lies in regards to AE variation.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Ive never heard the Southern Sudanese as being the best representation of the AE
I think some scholars half a century ago have made that inference I think primarily based on the cattle obsession the AE and groups like the Shilluk share, among other things. To my awareness, the sporadic people who made those claims aren't specialists in physical anthropology and merely making inferences based on culture.

But the scholar in that 2014 quote who supposedly said that during that lecture is Afro-British. He has the same political entitlement agenda as Carlos Oliver Coke.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
-


-

-

Unfinished model head of a statue of Nefertiti, New Empire, 18th dynasty, 1351-1334 BC
© Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, photo: Sandra Steiß3

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/gorbutovich/41904318/44162/44162_original.jpg


-

Head of Nefertiti from a former double seat statue of the royal couple, New Empire, 18th dynasty, 1351-1334 BC
© Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, photo: Sandra Steiß


http://www.smb-digital.de/eMuseumPlus?service=DynamicAsset&sp=SU5mxm4Yx%2FVbg9LVP7MZLDqo6z5lhONBxez%2FYx5EhVSCZjU0bcvvsnPxkoLiFJnF9QzRY98OZwV1b%0AfnOjhdzPJCrGy%2BOIZxfXys9Yi8S8yOJH 7l%2BId78oH9ZB9DZfvgZw&sp=Simage%2Fjpeg

Google translation:

quote:
This head also is identified due to the slightly accented diadem and serving as crown attachment pin with a royal lady. But not acted this head as part of a Kompositstatue, but the broken bottom of the neck and the rest of the back pillar indicate that this piece originally belonged to one among life-size statue, which was carved out of a block. In the long pin on the main presumably a wide sweeping backwards headgear was admitted, and the recesses at the height of the temples speak for a - typical for Nefertiti - Blue dome, which was placed the head. Dorothea Arnold therefore defines this type as "part-Kompositstatue". Lips, pegs and the game above the head are painted red, slight traces of black sketches have been preserved to the eyes and eyebrows that served as preparation for further elaboration. The tip of the nose is broken, and the ears do not seem completed. Compared to other Nefertiti portraits eyes narrow and mouth are drafted broadly, the cheek muscles are already at below the temples. These less individual features of their appearance they organize a as a late work of the Amarna period. The head is one of the small number granite beschaffener objects that came after the division of finds to Berlin. In 1992, Kristin Thompson discovered the rest of the debris excavations DOG 1911-1914 but additional 188 granite fragments, said she found out that the entire pieces of house P ancestral 47.03. The diary entry of December 13, 1912 contains a brief note about these "black granite pieces" and describes that these were uncovered in room 6, 10 and 12. FIG. Nevertheless, the excavation team had these fragments back locally. Among the debris was, inter alia, the part of an unmarked back pillar. Thompson moved logically connect to the Berlin granite head into the next room 11 of house P 47.03 excavated. A plaster cast was made ​​Consequently for further investigation, and it was found that back pillar and head fit together exactly. Thompson and her colleague Dimitri Laboury were a sedentary double statue of Akhenaten and Nefertiti reconstruct (s.Rekonstruktion), similar to a group of statues of the royal couple from the Louvre (AE 004 253), on the even of the diary entry referred (from the many remaining parts "As the pieces of the same material show half the group in the Louvre, "diary 1912/1913, S. 83) is due to the head of a group that should be the king next to the Queen sitting. see. Arms, feet and the head of the king have not been discovered. It is amazing that this is the only monolithic crafted object from Akhetaten. Was what reason this art and this material resorted to speculations. There remains the hope that further discoveries and accurate observations will bring more insight to the Statue program the Amarna period. For Home P 47.03 can be assumed on the basis of the Fund context that was probably processed in this workshop mainly granite.

Mettlen, J., in: F. Seyfried (ed.), In the light of Amarna. 100 years discovery of Nefertiti, Berlin 2012, S. 386 (Cat 174).
Original German source:

quote:
SMB-digital | Kopf einer Statue der Königin Nofretete

Auch dieser Kopf wird aufgrund der leicht akzentuierten Stirnbinde und dem als Kronenaufsatz dienenden Zapfen mit einer königlichen Dame identifiziert. Doch fungierte dieser Kopf nicht als Teil einer Kompositstatue, sondern vielmehr lassen die abgebrochene Unterseite des Halses sowie der Rest eines Rückenpfeilers erkennen, dass dieses Stück ursprünglich zu einer unterlebensgroßen Statue gehörte, die aus einem Block gehauen war. In den langen Zapfen auf dem Haupt war vermutlich eine weit nach hinten ausladende Kopfbedeckung eingelassen, und auch die Aussparungen auf Höhe der Schläfen sprechen für eine – für Nofretete typische – Blaue Haube, die dem Kopf aufgesetzt wurde. Dorothea Arnold definiert daher diesen Typus als „Teil-Kompositstatue“. Lippen, Zapfen sowie die Partie oberhalb des Kopfes sind rot bemalt, leichte Spuren schwarzer Vorzeichnungen sind noch an Augen und Brauen erhalten, die als Vorbereitung für eine weitere Ausarbeitung dienten. Die Nasenspitze ist abgebrochen, und auch die Ohren scheinen nicht vollendet. Im Vergleich zu Nofretetes anderen Bildnissen sind die Augen schmaler und der Mund breiter ausgearbeitet, die Wangenmuskeln setzen bereits unterhalb der Schläfen an. Diese weniger individuellen Züge ihres Erscheinungsbildes ordnen sie als ein spätes Werk der Amarna-Zeit ein. Der Kopf zählt zu der geringen Anzahl granitbeschaffener Objekte, die nach der Fundteilung nach Berlin gelangten. Im Jahre 1992 entdeckte Kristin Thompson im Restschutt der Grabungen der DOG von 1911 bis 1914 jedoch weitere 188 Granit-Fragmente, wobei sie herausfand, dass die gesamten Stücke aus Haus P 47.03 stammten. Der Tagebucheintrag vom 13. Dezember 1912 enthält eine kurze Notiz zu diesen „schwarzen Granitstücken“ und beschreibt, dass diese in Raum 6, 10 und 12 freigelegt wurden. Trotzdem ließ das Grabungsteam diese Fragmente vor Ort zurück. Unter den Bruchstücken befand sich u. a. der Teil eines unbeschrifteten Rückenpfeilers. Thompson zog konsequenterweise eine Verbindung zu dem in Nebenraum 11 von Haus P 47.03 ausgegrabenen Berliner Granitkopf. Infolgedessen wurde für weitere Untersuchungen ein Gipsabguss angefertigt, wobei sich herausstellte, dass Rückenpfeiler und Kopf haargenau aneinanderpassen. Thompson und ihr Kollege Dimitri Laboury konnten aus den vielen restlichen Teilen eine sitzende Doppelstatue Echnatons und Nofretetes rekonstruieren (s.Rekonstruktion), vergleichbar mit einer Statuengruppe des Königspaares aus dem Louvre (AE 004253), auf die auch schon der Tagebucheintrag verwies („Wie die Stücke desselben Materials zeigen, rührt der Kopf einer Gruppe her, die den König neben der Königin sitzend darstellen sollte, vgl. die halbe Gruppe im Louvre“, Tagebuch 1912/1913, S. 83). Arme, Füße sowie der Kopf des Königs wurden bisher nicht aufgefunden. Erstaunlich ist, dass es sich hierbei um das einzige monolithisch gearbeitete Objekt aus Achet-Aton handelt. Aus welchem Grund auf diese Technik und dieses Material zurückgegriffen wurde, kann nur vermutet werden. Es bleibt die Hoffnung, dass weitere Funde und genaue Beobachtungen mehr Aufschluss zum Statuenprogramm der Amarna-Zeit bringen werden. Für das Haus P 47.03 kann anhand des Fundkontextes angenommen werden, dass in dieser Werkstatt wahrscheinlich vor allem Granit bearbeitet wurde.

Mettlen, J., in: F. Seyfried (Hrsg.), Im Licht von Amarna. 100 Jahre Fund der Nofretete, Berlin 2012, S. 386 (Kat.-Nr. 174).
http://www.smb-digital.de/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&lang=en
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Do you have something you want to say to me after my posts on KV35YL? Just get it over with. What is the purpose of this cryptic post?
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Do you have something you want to say to me after my posts on KV35YL? Just get it over with. What is the purpose of this cryptic post?
There is no subliminal here. I just find it ironic that there is a lot of controversy surrounding the bust. Or should I say busts. The well known and "popular bust" looks so different, posted in my previous post, and below.


Use google translate:

http://sceptic-ratio.narod.ru/fake/fake7.htm


-
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
More examples of Carlos Oliver Coke's epic blunders. He tries to claim that the modern day translation of the Latin ethnonym 'Aegyptini' to 'Aethiopes' (as opposed to Egyptian) is necessarily based on racism. On closer inspection it turned out that this is, in fact, what has historically been the reading of this ethnonym. This tradition of translating Aegyptini to 'Aethiopes' predates modern day racist attitudes towards Africans as they exist today and therefore can't be some sort of modern 'conspiracy' among academics.


quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by lioness:
look here are some references
Festus' Latin dictionary
Aegyptīni : Aethiopes
That is his whole M.O. He knocks on a bunch of doors begging academics for opinions and sharing supposed examples of academic "racism" with them. Some generous and unsuspecting academics are receptive to his freeloading, leeching and gossiping about other academics, while other aren't. He then gets the receptive ones riled up and with more gossip and unsubstantiated examples of so-called "racism". The more his correspondents express disapproval towards their colleagues following his instigations and gossiping, the more he becomes convinced that he was right in the first place. Which is where you get his appeals to authority when he says "such and such PhD/Classicist/(insert some other person's opinion) agrees with me" in lieu of providing his own arguments and analyses. In his demented mind, approval from a PhD automatically shields him from criticism and scrutiny. Everyone who disagrees with him is supposed to fall in line following his announcement that some academic agrees with him.

But here is the thing -- and what you've posted following his allegations of "racism" re: Aegyptini, is an excellent example of this -- closer inspection shows again and again that the majority of his purported examples of "academic racism", aren't racism. They're just a reflection of his paranoia and cringing illiteracy and lack of basic reasoning skills.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. What a monumental screw up. There are actually many academics out there who are worthy of pursuing for certain views they hold. But he's too incompetent, dim-witted and ignorant of the literature to find them. That's why he settles with harassing academics who refuse to use the word "black" and other petty disagreements. [Roll Eyes]
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=010486;p=3#000125

Typical of Carlos Oliver Coke when his misinformation is exposed as false: he'll just act like he never registered the facts and simply resurface later with the same exposed misinformation. See here:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009393;p=1#000044
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
See what I mean (see the emphasized parts in Carlos' post below)? This is why Carlos Oliver coke doesn't disclose the names of his "academic supporters". His appeals to authority and constant hinting at conversations with "academic supporters" sounds more juicy than it really is. You can see how they're egging each other on to identify racism where there is none. This is Carlos Oliver Coke's fault because that's the context in which he approaches them—with false examples of racism. They can't tell they're not really examples of racism half the time because Carlos Oliver Coke deliberately approaches non-experts (e.g. he shows classicists supposed examples of racism at the hands of physical anthropologists). So when Carlos invites these "supportive academics" to look at suggestive examples of racism, they can't possibly have a neutral outlook on the situation. That's exactly what Carlos Coke wants. Any emotional reaction to his fake controversy will give him more quotable text to play academics against each other. "See, Peter, who is a PhD, agrees with me. Why don't you fall in line so I can use your reaction to my fake controversy in future conversations with other academics".

quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke:
Remembered this...

I asked a Latinist if they could translate the following passage from Poenulus, or The Young Carthaginian:

sed mea amica nunc mihi irato obviam veniat velim:
iam pol ego illam pugnis totam faciam uti sit merulea,
ita replebo atritate, atrior multo ut siet,
quam Aegyptini, qui cortinam ludis per circum ferunt.

1289-1291
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/plautus/poenulus.shtml

Their "rough" translation as follows:
30/06/2015
quote:
But I wish my girlfriend would run into me now as angry as I am:
Indeed, by Pollux, I would rain blows all over her so that she is like a blackbird! I will so fill her with blackness (darkness?) that she will be much blacker (darker) than the little Egyptians who carry a kettle through the Circus (Maximus) at the games.
For me, what's more interesting than the reference to Egyptian darkness/blackness, is the fact that, to the Latinist's annoyance, a modern academic replaced Aegyptini with Ethiopians:

24/07/2015
quote:

“You must try to get your hands on a translation by Amy Richlin (Richly, Amy. (2005) Rome and the Mysterious Orient. Berkeley: University of California Press.) …In the passage you inquire about, she changes “Aegyptini” to ETHIOPIANS!! She based this on an entry in a very obscure lexicon by a second century CE author, Sextus Pompeius Festus.”
Was the obvious reference suggestion to Egyptian blackness too much for Richlin?

I was cool with it though, since the substitution speaks to the interesting idea of the interchangeableness of Egyptians/Ethiopians; I’ve not read it, but the Sextus Pompeius Festus entry would seem to attest to this. It also chimes with something Sally-Ann Ashton said at the 2009 Manchester museum conference about the Greeks confusing the two groups – Tristan Samuels likened this to confusing Afro-Caribbeans and continental Africans on a day to day street level basis.

 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Forgot to add this latest scientific update and how it relates to Carlos Oliver Coke's attempts to bait academics to use racial language that obviously doesn't fit.

This is what happens when you don't want to listen and insult the people who helped you out. His whole book project just went pear-shaped. No one is going to associate this component with his perverted racial use of black (which recklessly excludes Maghrebis and the indigenous North African component they have). Not in a million years. The academics he's been attacking online and in conversations with their colleagues are going to have a field day picking him apart in public. I really do hope he publishes his 'PhD-approved' book and becomes even more of a laughing stock.

quote:
Craniometric analyses have suggested that the Natufians may have migrated
from north or sub-Saharan Africa, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome
analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations
carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other
ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section 6). However, no
affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as
present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other
ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1). (We could not test for a link to present-day North
Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia.)
—Lazaridis et al 2016

Presumably, and this is my guess, this rift in affinity between the Natufians and Lazaridis' SSA samples is due to a similar amount of 'basal' alleles (not necessarily Basal Eurasian but basal in a general sense) in these prehistoric Eurasians as in the Natufians. It's not the case that these Natufians don't have any SSA ancestry at all. Other analyses have found some residual ancestry in these Natufians that is SSA in affinity. The rest of the African ancestry in these Natufians belongs to type of ancestry that's habitually wished away and obfuscated by Carlos Oliver Coke.

See, for instance, the quote below, which shows his usual attempt to equate 'black African' (which, in his use, pertains to a fictitious pan-African 'racial' grouping, not a range of skin pigmentation) with African. As usual, Carlos Oliver Coke refuses to acknowledge African ancestry that's not native to people he lumps in his racial 'black Africans' group. We're supposed to believe there were only 'black Africans' and Eurasians in the >120ky that North Africa was peopled by modern humans:

quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke:
The takeaway point would seem to be that the modern Egyptian sample has 80% West Eurasian/non-African genetic input, with the admixture coinciding with the Arab conquest.

 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Interesting public exchange with Carlos Oliver Coke in 2015 that deserves to be listed with the rest of his lies and manipulations.


quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Current US views on what 'black' generally means to US citizens and how it evolved:
^Irrelevant.
So, let me get this straight. He brings in his usual citations saying that the AE would be considered black using US standards. US standards are then posted. Then he shifts the goal post to what Somali and Ethiopians reportedly believe and calls his own previously set goal post "irrelevant".

Not only that, but he then blames me for "chicanery". These extremely bizarre antics and flip flops is really all one needs to know about Carlos Oliver Coke.

This is EXACTLY what Carlos Oliver Coke does to academics who tell him they subscribe to the WESTERN use of black. He's told they're using the modern day WESTERN tradition (as most westerners do), and then he tries to debate them using his own free-floating, clumsily defined, cooked up definition. When they reject said definition (probably because they realize it's just Carlos' trojan horse), he calls them "wasist".

 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
More Carlos Oliver Coke blunders from that same thread:

quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke (12-12-2015):
Racial self-identification varied widely by African country of origin. For example, nearly all immigrants from Ghana (99.7 percent), Somalia(99.3 percent) , Cameroon (98.8 percent), Nigeria (98.7 percent), and Ethiopia (98.2 percent) reported their race as Black, either alone or in combination with another race, compared to 4.6 percent of Algerians, 5.6 percent of Egyptians, 8.1 percent of Moroccans, 13.8 percent of South Africans, 56.7 percent of Tanzanians, and 65.7percent of Cape Verdeans .
Here Carlos Oliver Coke is seen vehemently promoting the idea that self-identifications are a valid and meaningful way to classify populations.

You'd think this means Carlos Oliver Coke will back down from his irrational reliance on self-identifications as a useful means to classify populations when he's shown evidence that the facts on the ground don't support his fabricated conjecture that dark skinned Africans necessarily identify as 'black' in the narrow western sense. But no, Carlos Oliver Coke is a shameless troll and will simply continue pretending that he hasn't been thoroughly debunked again and again. I posted evidence that expose him to be a goal-post shifting fraud many times (see data below) and it still was't enough for him accept that not all Africans derive petty psychological relief from subscribing to a fictitious racial construct of 'black Africans'.

quote:
Originall posted by Swenet:
"In America, blackness simply means African American. I am not African American. I am from Kenya."
Benjamin Aigbe Okonofua - “I Am Blacker Than You” - Theorizing Conflict Between African Immigrants and African Americans in the United States

"Although conceptions about race in America among academics continue to emphasize local, mutable, and contradictory constructions (Bailey, 2001), the public continues to treat the issue of race as a dichotomy, that is in either White or Black terms."
Benjamin Aigbe Okonofua - “I Am Blacker Than You” - Theorizing Conflict Between African Immigrants and African Americans in the United States

"The construction and/or enactment of distinct ethnolinguistic identities (including preliminary construction of pseudomigrant identities) by African immigrants signify inherent contradictions within the amorphous “Black” identity that is thought to be a code word for African American."
Benjamin Aigbe Okonofua - “I Am Blacker Than You” - Theorizing Conflict Between African Immigrants and African Americans in the United States

"Third, because the prevailing system of racial classification lumps African immigrants and African Americans into the Black or African American category without enabling these elements to make clear behavioral and cultural assertions based on their sociohistorical milieus, opportunities and resources can only be accessed as African American."
Benjamin Aigbe Okonofua - “I Am Blacker Than You” - Theorizing Conflict Between African Immigrants and African Americans in the United States

How Somalis use 'black' among themselves in informal settings:

“I’m not black,” they would say, “I’m Somali
http://www.somalinet.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=366852

OMG Look what a Somali said to this black girl
http://www.somalinet.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=332652&sid=d5cffe831a1dd13f2e206c65d34e6428

one thing somali men better than black men
http://www.somalinet.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=118583&sid=d5cffe831a1dd13f2e206c65d34e6428

Am i the only somali here that LOVES black men
http://www.somalinet.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=88476&sid=d5cffe831a1dd13f2e206c65d34e6428

Am I the only half black and Somali guy on here?
http://www.somalinet.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=58146&sid=d5cffe831a1dd13f2e206c65d34e6428

Just wait. Only a matter of time before Carlos Oliver Coke starts calling them "wacist".

 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
But this is where it gets even more bizarre. The crazy Carlos Oliver Coke psychopath has gone on record throwing a fit when his opponents use modern Egyptian self-identifications to argue against a 'black' identity. This is simply mindboggling as you can see that Carlos himself uses census data (which is inherently based on self-identifications) to make some sort of uneducated point about the legitimacy of lumping all indigenous Africans into his fictitious 'black African' category, which he also strangely equates with the modern US definition of 'black'. But that's another subject we don't need to get into right now.

This is how this psychopath reacts when others (in this case, an academic) use the same bankrupt arguments he's using:

quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke (in private) 16-12-2013:
This is the same person who suggestively recommends that from a visual perspective, we could use the modern Egyptians as a guide in a TV reconstruction – but when that falls apart, and he’s losing the debate on biological affinities, he says race doesn’t matter and that metaphysical concepts of national and cultural identity are more important, and discussions of race a "red herring". Goalpost moving bullshitter.
But Carlos Oliver Coke does the EXACT same thing. In addition to his hypocritical use of census data, which I've already discussed, Carlos Oliver Coke is the epitome of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy he perceives in his opponents when he says that they dismiss real genetic relationships in favor of the scientifically inadmissible crap:

quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke 29-09-2014:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Your "street experience" test is meaningless fluff as it doesn't discriminate between Africans and pigmented Asians on the one hand or modern day SSA and preOOA Africans on the other hand (the latter are more related to Europeans than those those you consider "black", despite heavy skin pigmentation). Kemp owned you for presenting him that fallacy, as you're being owned right now.
The basic question, which you're playing around with, is whether the ancient Egytians would be considered black in Western sociological terms, or street experience.
and:

quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke 29-09-2014:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Nope, the basic question is whether you're omitting the fact that this doesn't mean what you want it to mean, considering the fact that 1) OOA populations would have passed that test for the majority of their duration of their stay outside of Africa, 2) AE with more ancestry from African preOOA individuals would have passed that test as well, and it would mean the exact opposite of what you're promoting it to mean.
Oh dear. Entirely irrelevant.

Save your nonsense for the weak-minded.

 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
When you don't stay in your lane:

-
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
This is what I was looking for. Evidence that Carlos Oliver Coke knows exactly what he's doing when he fraudulently uses quote-mined Irish excerpts to debate people who are fully in line with Irish' views, but who don't know they're being hoodwinked into believing his "homogeneous" deception. As you can see, when he reveals his familiarity with some of Irish views, the pathological liar admits that the AE share a dental pattern with a pretty disparate group of populations, making this dental data fundamentally inappropriate to do what he's using it for: ruling out the presence of non-Egyptian ancestry in dynastic Lower Egypt.

quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke (28 May, 2015):
Did Joel Irish in collaboration with the British Museum really say that? I went behind the link, but it's dead.

I know Irish suggests that, based on dental morphology, the Egyptians were pretty much homogeneous: Upper/Lower Egyptians, pre/dynastic and post dynastic. He also says that they were closest to North West Africans (Maghreb), then Mediterraneans, then Nubians.

So a little surprised to see him working on a study from 6 years ago where " Dental studies put the inhabitants of Gebel Ramlah, closest to indigenous tropical African populations."

He's a proponent of the Sahara as a barrier to SSA gene flow, btw.
I know he already knows this from what I told him privately in between 2013-2014, but this 2015 quote proves that we're not dealing with forgetfulness, but with deliberate quote-mining.

I also don't know what he's basing it on when he says that the AE were closer to "Mediterraneans" than to Nubians in terms of this non-metric data. But the fact that he believes this is the case proves that he's being deceptive when he fails to notify his dupes of the fact that Irish' data doesn't support his fictitious "black African" racial category.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Is this "PhD-approved", too?

Carlos Oliver Coke: non-metrically, Mediterraneans were closer to ancient Egyptians than the latter are to Nubians according to Irish.

quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke (28 May, 2015):
I know Irish suggests that, based on dental morphology, the Egyptians were pretty much homogeneous: Upper/Lower Egyptians, pre/dynastic and post dynastic. He also says that they were closest to North West Africans (Maghreb), then Mediterraneans, then Nubians.
Carlos Oliver Coke: non-metrically, Mediterraneans are distinct from ancient Egyptians according to Irish.

quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke (22 June, 2015):
Irish pointed out that the dental morphology of the Greeks and Romans in Egypt was different to the indigenous population.

 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
More asinine non sense from Carlos Oliver Coke. Here he's equating limb ratios with 'race':

quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke (03 May, 2015):

quote:
Now, think logically, what kind of people would there be in the South of Egypt, close to the Sudanese border?
I understand that, but the depth of stupidity in opposing is something else. Recall, the 1986 study on limb lengths (Robins and Schute) where they confirmed that the ancient Egyptians had tropical body plans, but that it didn't mean they were negroes because they made the distinction in their artwork.

HTF are tropical Africans not black?
Even though he was told the following, in a private conversation dating to 2014:

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet (25-2-2014):
Both cranio-facial analysis and limb proportion analysis are climate diagnostic. Tropical adaptations in the face and brain case just point to an African-like population (appearance wise), not necessarily to actual Africans. Same goes for tropical limb proportions. Limb proportions aren't reliable markers of ancestry for this reason, but, contrary to what [x] is implying, neither facial analyses nor [neurocranial] measurements are exempt from this caveat.
To which Carlos Oliver Coke replied:

quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke:
^Thanks for the information - it's good to get a deeper level of detail.
So he knows all of this. He's just a manipulative liar when he tries to act like Robins and Schute are principally wrong. Note also Carlos' repeated issue with Robins and Shute's statement that the AE weren't 'negroes'. Why, if, as the liar is quick to admit when he's called out, the modal phenotype of the AE population didn't conform to the 'negro' morphotype?

Carlos Oliver Coke's insistance on using of 'black African' as opposed to something more scientifically realistic is just a facade to encourage people to conjure up certain images without having to risk saying it directly and getting dismissed as a radical loon. That's why, when his 'black African' trojan horse is called out, he backtracks and acts like he doesn't know what you're talking about. When he's called out, all of a sudden this fraud is in full agreement with Robins and Shute. Only to have fake issues with Robins and Shute again, later, when he thinks the coast is clear (see that 2015 quote, above).
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
The limb ratio = not race issue also came up in a private conversation dating to 2013. Back then he was under the same illusion:

quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke (30-10-2013):
I should ask [x] about the limb lengths - Anglo used to say that anthropologists don't pay it any regard, which is bs. Lioness argues that it can't be used to disprove Eurasian influence.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Yeah, Lioness is right though
but they do argue against large scale immigration
quote:
Originally posted by Carlos Oliver Coke:
OK. So large scale immigration from non-tropically adapted groups would have altered the limb lengths of the Egyptians - but there must also be Eurasians with tropical limb lengths. Is that right?
Note that, despite several reminders in between 2013-2014, this mental case seems to have relapsed to his pre-2013 stupidity of racializing limb ratios. This is also probably why this fruit basket calls himself after a tropical adaption. How much of a corny clown can you be? Just like Amun Ra who calls himself after a haplogroup SNP mutation on other message boards. All lame buffoons.
 
Posted by Concerned member of public (Member # 22355) on :
 
Psycho creep stalker Carlos Oliver Coke, (Claus3600, aka Tropicals Redacted) still stalking me after 5-6 years after losing an internet debate about Egypt [Claus goes nuts stalking, harassing, doxing, defaming & blackmailing his online debate opponents and even their families, rather than just debate like a sane adult, obviously he has severe mental problems]:

quote:
Originally posted by Zaharan:
But no matter how wanker boy
hides, he cannot escape. Claus is again stalking him- A surprise is due soon!

 


(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3