The reason that the subject of race and the extensive racial discussions (such as the 732 responses to the obnoxious topic of "The Race of the Ancient Egyptians") is that these protesters (of the reality of Black Ancient Egypt) have silently excused the Ancient Egyptians from the room and the discussion, in order to expound upon their OWN ill-informed and pathetic self-delusions. There is no argument if the Ancient or even the modern Coptic Egyptian language is used to render the testimony of the Ancient Egyptians as to who they were; a Black African people;the protesters, alas, seem not to want to hear this
quote:Originally posted by Wally: Since there is some confusion about the use of colors in the Mdu Ntr, we will use its latest stage, the Coptic Egyptian language, to illustrate some key points; and also because there's a propensity for those, especially the newcomers to this forum, to go into catatonic shock when certain fallacies which they bring with them here are soon blown to smithereens!
the basics
nanou-f - he is good nanou-s - she is good nanou prome - the man is good prome et.nanou-f -the man who is good
and now, The Killers!
Kame-f - he is Black Twrsh-f - he is Red Mrosh-f - he is pale (yellow) Kame-s - she is Black Twrsh-s - she is Red Mrosh-s - she is pale Kame prome - the man is Black Twrsh prome - the man is Red Mrosh prome - the man is pale Prome et-Kame-f - the man who is Black (the Black man) Prome et-Twrsh-f - the man who is Red (the Red man) Prome et-Mrosh-f - the man who is pale (the pale man) (note: Prome is a combination of P = 'the' and rome = 'man' ...
You will note that "Kame (Kmt)" is referring to PEOPLE, there is no reference to the protesters favorite delusion of 'soil'...
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
Oh geez not another thread with the same redundant topic that has been beaten to death. Where is the imagination??
Posted by sammy (Member # 2) on :
you guys kill me :-)
Posted by SayWhatYouSee (Member # 11552) on :
quote:Originally posted by sammy: you guys kill me :-)
Wow...mods have a sense of humour? There is hope. Glad to see that the fights are not limited to the modern Egypt section. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Oh geez not another thread with the same redundant topic that has been beaten to death. Where is the imagination??
Which is ironic, because I believe the author of this thread was bringing up the point of a certain topic being redundant! LOL Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
Thing is, AE, afaik didn't call other "blacks" Black. That was the name they reserved for themselves. Or did they?
Define "Black African" btw? Another useless term in the long line of racial terms.
As I said in the other thread, one should not say the AE were "black africans", which means ****, and instead say who are their closest representatives today (Upper Egyptians, Nubians, Sudanese, Beja, Horners, whatever), also show the way they depicted themselves and how they were described by others. And of course, mention they called themselves "Black".
Then leat each person rationalize that information the way they want, without clinging to *modern* artifical contructs such as "black race (or any race)" I hope. I say modern because for ancient Egyptians, *they* were the "black race". But as I said up there, doesn't seem that other Africans such as Kushites were...(might be mistaken of course)
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
As I said in the other thread, one should not say the AE were "black africans", which means ****, and instead say who are their closest representatives today (Upper Egyptians, Nubians, Sudanese, Beja, Horners, whatever), also show the way they depicted themselves and how they were described by others. And of course, mention they called themselves "Black".
If you can accept that they referred to themselves as "black", then why do you have a problem with "black African"?
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
Since black and African can mean anything. They are very subjective terms. Scientifically there's no such thing as "black african". Does it make sense to refer to Romans, Greeks, Celts as "White Europeans"?
Other of course, than give the laymen an aproximate answer. I can understand why one would resort to labeling AE as black Africans in a conversation in the street, just to get the picture. But stopping there makes no sense when going into a more detailed discussion.
And of course, AE called themselves Black, not Black African... I also do need to know if the Black designation was reserved for themselves or if other dark Africans were also labeled as such.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ *All* racial or ethnic labels are social in nature and so therefore objective. That said, you are fussing over nothing. Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ *All* racial or ethnic labels are social in nature and so therefore objective. That said, you are fussing over nothing.
I agree with you, (except for your typo, I think you meant to say "so therefore subjective.") But I totally agree, and this delusional individual, who has bought into the Western Eurocentric hype is merely avoiding the issue as presented; he wants to continue to blabber. He's/She's merely cutting and running by continuing to dismiss the ancient and modern Rmnk's ideology. And as long as I've been posting this idea of using the original source, the Rmnku themselves, I have yet to see a cogent response to the Rmnku.
Again, I agree with you, it's fussing (blabbering) over nothing...
And to the delusional, this remains to be addressed:
quote: Since there is some confusion about the use of colors in the Mdu Ntr, we will use its latest stage, the Coptic Egyptian language, to illustrate some key points; and also because there's a propensity for those, especially the newcomers to this forum, to go into catatonic shock when certain fallacies which they bring with them here are soon blown to smithereens!
the basics
nanou-f - he is good nanou-s - she is good nanou prome - the man is good prome et.nanou-f -the man who is good
and now, The Killers!
Kame-f - he is Black Twrsh-f - he is Red Mrosh-f - he is pale (yellow) Kame-s - she is Black Twrsh-s - she is Red Mrosh-s - she is pale Kame prome - the man is Black Twrsh prome - the man is Red Mrosh prome - the man is pale Prome et-Kame-f - the man who is Black (the Black man) Prome et-Twrsh-f - the man who is Red (the Red man) Prome et-Mrosh-f - the man who is pale (the pale man) (note: Prome is a combination of P = 'the' and rome = 'man' ...
You will note that "Kame (Kmt)" is referring to PEOPLE, there is no reference to the protesters favorite delusion of 'soil'...
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
Since black and African can mean anything. They are very subjective terms. Scientifically there's no such thing as "black african". Does it make sense to refer to Romans, Greeks, Celts as "White Europeans"?
Do you think that the Egyptians would have used the "black" designation "scientifically", or literally? If not, then where's the beef?
Ps - As for the term "African", they would have been only aware of the extent of the landmass to a certain extent. They referred to themselves as "Kmtyw"; what do you understand by this term?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
..
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes: Thing is, AE, afaik didn't call other "blacks" Black.
You have have *proof* of this statement?
quote: That was the name they reserved for themselves. Or did they?
1st you make a declaration. Then you ask a question as to whether your own statement is true.
If you don't know, just say so.
You continue to make silly and essentially unintelligible posts.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Kame-f - he is Black Twrsh-f - he is Red Mrosh-f - he is pale (yellow) Kame-s - she is Black Twrsh-s - she is Red Mrosh-s - she is pale Kame prome - the man is Black Twrsh prome - the man is Red Mrosh prome - the man is pale Prome et-Kame-f - the man who is Black (the Black man) Prome et-Twrsh-f - the man who is Red (the Red man) Prome et-Mrosh-f - the man who is pale (the pale man) (note: Prome is a combination of P = 'the' and rome = 'man'
To further your case, you should seek to document the actual use of these terms in mdw ntr for context.
After all, most of these phrases can be found/ translated from any language to any other.
What we want to know is, in the sentense - he is Black.....Who is "he" referring to?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wally: I agree with you, (except for your typo, I think you meant to say "so therefore subjective.") But I totally agree, and this delusional individual, who has bought into the Western Eurocentric hype is merely avoiding the issue as presented; he wants to continue to blabber. He's/She's merely cutting and running by continuing to dismiss the ancient and modern Rmnk's ideology...
Yes, subjective is what I meant to write but I was typing too fast to notice. Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
Since black and African can mean anything. They are very subjective terms. Scientifically there's no such thing as "black african". Does it make sense to refer to Romans, Greeks, Celts as "White Europeans"?
Do you think that the Egyptians would have used the "black" designation "scientifically", or literally? If not, then where's the beef?
Ps - As for the term "African", they would have been only aware of the extent of the landmass to a certain extent. They referred to themselves as "Kmtyw"; what do you understand by this term?
Well, since their skin wasn't literaly black for the most part, based on the representations they left of themselves, I would assume it had other non-literal meaning. But obviously, I have no idea. What do I understand by Kmtyw? Nothing. I don't understand Ancient Egyptian unfortunately. Does it means the Black People or something?
@Rasol:
I don't know. I never encountered such ocurence, of AE labeling other Africans "Kemet". But obviously I am very unknowing when it comes to Egyptology. No one answered my question though, even you, prefer to focus on irrelevancies such as the phrasing of my setences.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: I don't know. I never encountered such ocurence, of AE labeling other Africans "Kemet".
In the Book of Gates the Rm.t and the Nehesi are labled Km.t
quote:No one answered my question.
I only read your post just now, I try to ignore you because your ignorance is offensive.
But now you aim your posts @ me, like someone farting in public making it impossible to politely ignore you.
Very well then....
quote:Define Black African?
Typically dark skinned natives of Africa.
Now that your question is answered, you are invited in kind to explain why it is you deny the existence of Black people, in Africa and elsewhere?
In other words, continue your "never ending blabber"....
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wally:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ *All* racial or ethnic labels are social in nature and so therefore objective. That said, you are fussing over nothing.
I agree with you, (except for your typo, I think you meant to say "so therefore subjective.") But I totally agree, and this delusional individual, who has bought into the Western Eurocentric hype is merely avoiding the issue as presented; he wants to continue to blabber. He's/She's merely cutting and running by continuing to dismiss the ancient and modern Rmnk's ideology. And as long as I've been posting this idea of using the original source, the Rmnku themselves, I have yet to see a cogent response to the Rmnku.
Again, I agree with you, it's fussing (blabbering) over nothing...
And to the delusional, this remains to be addressed:
quote: Since there is some confusion about the use of colors in the Mdu Ntr, we will use its latest stage, the Coptic Egyptian language, to illustrate some key points; and also because there's a propensity for those, especially the newcomers to this forum, to go into catatonic shock when certain fallacies which they bring with them here are soon blown to smithereens!
the basics
nanou-f - he is good nanou-s - she is good nanou prome - the man is good prome et.nanou-f -the man who is good
and now, The Killers!
Kame-f - he is Black Twrsh-f - he is Red Mrosh-f - he is pale (yellow) Kame-s - she is Black Twrsh-s - she is Red Mrosh-s - she is pale Kame prome - the man is Black Twrsh prome - the man is Red Mrosh prome - the man is pale Prome et-Kame-f - the man who is Black (the Black man) Prome et-Twrsh-f - the man who is Red (the Red man) Prome et-Mrosh-f - the man who is pale (the pale man) (note: Prome is a combination of P = 'the' and rome = 'man' ...
You will note that "Kame (Kmt)" is referring to PEOPLE, there is no reference to the protesters favorite delusion of 'soil'...
Western Eurocentric hype? What's that supposed to mean? Does Western Eurocentric hype advocates that AE looked like modern Upper Egyptians, Nubians, Beja, Sudanese, Horners, etc? And that such types are natives of the area? And quite dark skinned, certanly nothing European or Asian and everything African about them? If so then yes, you are correct.
You seem to miss my point. But I'll explain again.
If AE, who were not literally black for the most part, based on the representations they left of themselves, why would they name themselves black?
Now I have heard that black was divine colour, many gods and pharaous (which were gods too I suppose) are painted litereally black. This represents their divinity, or so I have been told. This does not answer why black was a divine colour though. About this, I have heard that AE had their origins in the south, where some people can get pratically black skinned, such as the Dinka and Shiluk people, and it was an homage to these ancestors? bringers of culture/civilization? Something along these lines.
There's also the black (fertile) soil answer from some. Is this black soil also literally black then?
Of course, there's always the hypothesis that the depictions AE left of themselves were actually much darker and faded with time, approaching the black colour. Or even that kmt or whatever doesn't really mean black (in the modern colour sense) sense, but that's the best word translators could oome up with. We are dealing with a very ancient language here, one must not forget this.
Now, what do you say Willy? And don't tell me that AE called themselves Black in acordance to the modern social definition of black (which isn't uniforme anyway). That they would be called black in the modern US I have no doubt off, but that they used the word with the same meaning? I am not convinced at all. If anyone can be bothered they are free to do so.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:If AE, who were not literally black for the most part, why would they name themselves black?
This question is unintelligent, and has already been answered.
The "for the most part" dark skinned, AE, referred to themselves as Blacks, and to lighter skinned peoples such as Asiatics as Reds.
Since most references to color are at best general, it is banal to observe that most things labeled a given color are not "for the most part" literally precisely that color.
We've discussed this before. You know this.
Therefore unless you can specifically refute the above, I suggest you stop repeating questions that have already been answered, unless your intention is to troll via feign retardedness.
The Black and the Reds.....
Instead of asking phony questions, you need to address the real issue.
Why do you fear and hate Blacks so much that you need to deny their very existence?
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
To MA,
Maybe you can also answer the following question:
Why have Europeans historically referred to themselves as "white" when in actual fact they are not literally white, but pinkish(Northern and Central Europe) or almost yellowish(Southern Europe)?
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote: I don't know. I never encountered such ocurence, of AE labeling other Africans "Kemet".
In the Book of Gates the Rm.t and the Nehesi are labled Km.t
quote:No one answered my question.
I only read your post just now, I try to ignore you because your ignorance is offensive.
quote:Define Black African?
Typically dark skinned natives of Africa.
Now that your question is answered, you are invited in kind to explain why it is you deny the existence of Black people, in Africa and elsewhere?
In other words, continue your "never ending blabber"....
Ok, and who are the Rm.t and the Nehesi? My ignorance may be offensive, but as far as I know, we are not born knowing things, and when one is faced with ignorance, one should seek to fight it. This is only my personal oppinion of course.
"Typically dark skinned natives of Africa"
Well, then another problem arrises. What is dark? Mind you, that AE were natives of Africa I have no doubt. And would be labeled "black" by many people today. So this questions are not to somewhoe prove that AE were "white or whatever", only that terms such as black are best left in the past. Except of course, when talking about the colour.
Why do I deny the existence of a Black People? Because there's no such thing, except in some people's minds, usually racists. The same with the White People if you are wondering. I have heard of Hausa, Igbo, Fulani, Beja, Xhosa, Zulu, KhoiKhoi, Ovimbumdu, or then Nigerians, Angolans, South Africans. Never heard of this worldwide black people. Again, except from racists. The fact that science has disproven the existence of race also helps. And yes, I know that many people from Africa, when living in a European based society usually will be labeled as black, and afterwards they will adopt this designation for themselves, somewhat forgeting their true origins and people and creating a new group, called simply black, or black african, a very artificial group usually. The New World is an exception though, African-Americans, also known as Black in the US by many are a well defined ethnic group. But some Nigerian who just arrived in the USA should not be considered part of this group simply because he happens to look like many members of it. All of what I just said can be applied to the white group if you are wondering. White (in essence WASP), as group in the USA makes sense and I accept its existence. As some mystical worldwide race/group? never.
At least not yet. It might happen that indeed, in the future all medium brown-skinned and darker (or whatever) Africans (or even not that) will be one ethnic group known as "Blacks". The same with Leucoderms being one group called "White". But such day seems quite removed to me...
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: To MA,
Maybe you can also answer the following question:
Why have Europeans historically referred to themselves as "white" when in actual fact they are not literally white, but pinkish(Northern and Central Europe) or almost yellowish(Southern Europe)?
Cause they're stupid, lol.
Also, have they really referred themselves as "white" historically? My people never did and Europeans in general I believe, only after being influenced by Americans or whoever started using that damn word, and only when confronted with non-europeans, usually in the colonies.
The oldest use of white that I know off is by Benjamin Franklyn, who says that only an handfull of Europeans are white and the rest are swarthy.
White identity seems to have appeared in the colonies, and frankly should have stayed there.
If that's your lame excuse for and answer, then maybe it's you?
quote:Ok, and who are the Rm.t and the Nehesi?
AE and other Black Africans.
quote:You have another problem, what is dark?
quote:
The Black and the Reds.....
Instead of asking phony questions, you need to address the real issue.
Why do you fear and hate Blacks so much that you need to deny their very existence
If you are so mentally impaired as to be unable to comprehend the simplist sentenses, then that's your problem, not ours.
Maybe it's you? Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
Maybe it is!
How can I fear and hate something which doesn't exist?
It is my oppinion that there's no such thing as black people, or white people, or yellow people, or red people, or race for that matter except in some people's mind. Therefore, I think such therms should not be used. Again, it's my oppinion based on my life experience and knowledge whatever that's worth. Nobody is forcing you to accept it. Go, and dream of your magical black race...
Certanly, you have met "Black Africans" who don't label themselves as such? There are even some on this board..
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Maybe it is
^ Then we agree.
quote:If you are so mentally impaired as to be unable to comprehend the simplist sentenses, then that's your problem, not ours.
Maybe it's you?
quote:How can I fear and hate something which doesn't exist?
That Black people don't exist is the typical fear and hate response of racists.
For example South Africa's Apartheid regime denied the existence of the Black majority.
So yes your behavior is typical of the fear ignorance and lies necessary to sustain racism.
quote:Go, and dream of your magical black race...
Who said anything about magical races?
Stop hating.
And stop blaming your hatred of Black on us.
The Black and the Reds..... Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
Understandind is subjective. What's dark to me, might not be dark to you and so on. Asking for something more tangible seems logical. Again, instead of answering, you proceed on insulting me.
Obviously it's me, since my mind is different from yours. Do you expect all people to think alike? Have the same concepts? Do you believe in something Absolute? Universal? Objective? I don't. Again, I don't expect you to agree with me. I express my oppinion for whoever might happen to read the forum.
Lol, what do you know about my behaviour? Some posts in the internet? In a language not native to me?
White Racists deny the black race? I think they don't talk of anything else. Well..they talk more about the Jewish race, another load of crap. South Africa? How is this relevant? And your example makes no sense, they denied a black majority, not what they called the black people...
The blacks and the reds yes, your point?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
..
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Understandind is subjective.
You have demonstrated no understanding of anything.
You possess only ignorance which is both objective and nearly absolute.
quote:what is dark to me
...is completely irrelevant, since the question pertained to the AE, not you, which was the main point of Wally's post. But again, your objective and near-absolute ignorance prevents you from grasping it.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Certanly, you have met "Black Africans" who don't label themselves as such?
Like all of your ignorant babbling, this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is that the AE and other Africans [Rm.t & Nshi] who *do* label themselves as Blacks.
That is the fact. However much pain and anguish it apparently causes you.
^ How does it help you to pretend to be so stupid as to not understand this?
What do you accomplish in this way, except to humiliate yourself?
quote:The blacks and the reds yes, your point?
Yes -> my point, the answer to your question, and the end of this conversation since you are apparently so dumbstruck as to be unable to write and intelligent reply.
You are wasting my time with your stupidity.
Please do not put my name in any more of your posts. Thank you.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Certanly, you have met "Black Africans" who don't label themselves as such?
How is this releavent to the AE and other Africans [Rm.t & Nshi] who *do* label themselves as Blacks?
Apparently you are content to babble while making no point.
quote:The blacks and the reds yes, your point?
Yes -> my point, the answer to your question, and the end of this conversation since you are apparently so dumbstruck as to be unable to write and intelligent reply.
You are wasting my time with your stupidity.
Please do not put my name in any more of your posts. Thank you.
My point is very clear. Is the definition of "Black" that AE used the same that modern society uses? Or if you prefer, what did AE mean when they used the word "Black" to label themselves and others it seems? Did it meant the same it means today (and there's no absolute meaning today anyway)?
Is it correct to label AE as "Black Africans" (the modern definition) when:
1) This definition is in the end poorly defined and meaningless (black african is dark african? how dark for example? Why not darker? Why not lighter? Why lump all those people together in a group due to simply the colour of the skin and sharing the same continent?) 2) AE didn't use the modern definition of "Black Africans" (obviously, since they lived along time ago), they used their very own definition of "Black", who might not even be related to the modern!
?
Try to anwer this time. The phenotye (which is what is meant by race, at least to me) of AE (or any other group) is not an issue here...at all! It's the labeling of such phenotype, so to speak.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:My point is clear. Is the definition of "Black" that AE used the same that modern society uses?
That's not a point, that's a question. And the question has both already been answered and is irrelevant to the fact that the AE considered themselved Blacks.
So your discourse is still unintelligent and you still have no point
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
A question which has point...which is? You guessed it..destroy concepts such as "Black African" (or White European), and specifically its usage when refering to AE. But this is merely a part of the bigger issue.
Indeed its irrelevant for how AE perceived themselves, never said otherwise.
Wally claims in the first post that AE were a black african people. What does this mean? Oh sure, pratically everyone has a meaning for it, but is it valid? Specially on a serious discussion? Since I showed what are to me the limitations of that term, is it wise to keep using it?..at all?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:A question which has point
^ Incorrect. You asked a question which was already answered and was therefore *pointless*. All your posts are exactly as Wally labeled them, mindless blabber with no point in site.
quote:Is it correct to label AE as "Black Africans"
Yes, because Blacks is what they called themselves and they were native to Africa. In fact, Blacks, or Km.t is *the most correct* term for them, by far. That you hate this term, is a reflection of your racism, which is your problem, not the KM.t's.
quote:This definition is in the end poorly defined and meaningless
It's clearly defined, very important and has a great deal meaning.
Of course, that's why the KM.t - THE BLACKS - used this term to begin with.
Any slow witted person who can't grasp this point need simply scroll their lazy eyeballs and slovenly minds up to Wally's parent post, and read it again and again, as it is this very point that Wally clearly illumines.
It's your perfidious blabbering that is ill defined and devoid of meaning.
quote:AE didn't use the modern definition of "Black Africans"
To make this statement intelligible you must provide
a) the AE definition of Black,
b) what you call the -modern- definition of Black, and then
c) show how they are in irreconsilable conflict.
Of course, I have already provided all three of the above and demonstrated how they in fact *concord*, to which you have no response other than dumbstruck silence, and irrelevant babbling.
Meanwhile, you've provided nothing, shown nothing and made no point.
I'm sorry, but to me, your posts only communicate your lack of intelligence.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
First, quote my posts fully, you are manipulating what I said.
I said the modern definition of Black African. Egyptians called themselves Blacks yes, not Black Africans. Right there, something's wrong.
a) AE definition of Black? I don't know it. I have asked many times in this forum but no one ever answered to my satisfaction. Usually it's "because they were black". Then faced with the fact that they're skin wasn't literally black I wonder how they came up with the name. You rasol, if I am not mistaken said that it was in comparison with the red asiatics, since the red black dichotomy is well present in AE culture. If so, what did they call themselves before meeting the Red Asiatics? I do think its fair to say that a people which existed 5000 of years ago isn't using a modern defition of black african, whatever it might be. Do modern black africans still call Asiatics "red"? Such dychotomi seems to me absent in the modern world, therefore their concept would be different from the modern one?
b)Actually, Wally's definition of Black African is what matters here. Or yours. Since to me, they don't exist as you know.
c)That they are in conflict remains to be seen, I never claimed they were, only that there's such possibility. I said.."might".
"I have already provided all three and demonstrated how they concord."
You gave your definition of black african. I presume the modern one.
You said: "Typically dark skinned natives of Africa"
Did the AE meant this when they used the word black? Africa wasn't a concept for them even... Typically..it's also a complicated word.
(And again, how dark? Why not darker? Why not lighter? What's the validity and interest of such label? It's at best a gross generalization, and gives little info about the AE (or any other African) phenotype, but this is another matter)
Did AE also called Kushites, Meroites, the Rebu, the Tehenu, Black as well? All of those are black africans for you I presume. Were they black for the AE? Where they Kemetians? Or am I wrong when I imply that Kemetians means Black? Where there different kinds of Blacks for AE? Like AE-Black and non-AE black? What about other Africans AE knew about? What about those they didn't know about? If an AE were tranported to our time, what peoples would he label black?
These are honest questions I assure you, just trying to understand more how AE viewed the world and themselves. Yes true, my "race doesn't exist" agenda crept up unfortunately. Again, that they were native africans and would be called "black", in other words considered socially black in many parts of the modern world is not being disputed at all! Nor that they called themselves Black!
My posts might communicate lack of intelligence. Yours on the other hand communicate lack of manners and civility, with all those ad-hominem. Don't know which is worse really. My posts do communicate lack of knownledge, that much is certain and obvious. Hence all the questions. I'm not forcing anyone to answer, but if someone has the answer, I would appreciate it. I also would appreciate if people weren't to judge me based on some posts in the internet, and imediatly label me as Eurocentrice, racist and what not, when it isn't so at all.. But then, I guess certain things can't be avoided in the internet.. Yes including annoying guys with annoying questions ,lol. Wikipedia can only go so far, lol..
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:1st quote my posts fully
You tend to babble. We need to cut thru your babbling if we are ever to address specifics.
quote: I said the modern definition of Black African.
You speak of modern definition, but you fail to provide one.
You also claim that Black African does not exist anyway, in which case their can be no definition for you to refer to in which case your reference to 'modern definition' is contradictory and makes no sense.
All I did, is ask you to define *whatever* it is you are talking about.
But then, you have no idea what you're talking about so this too is a waste time. Isn't this so?
You're just typical kemo-phobe looking for a way rationalise his hatreds to himself and twisting himself into knots in the process.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Egyptians called themselves Blacks yes
Correct. So stop feigning amnesia and forgetting this essential fact which was what you originally questioned to begin with.
quote: not Black Africans.
Are you denying that the KM.t were Africans?
As a fact of biology and geography they certainly were.
It is true that they had no word for Africa per se, as they never sailed around the continent, mapped it and named it,
However, they did describe inner Africa as Te Neter, and Ta Khent, which means the 1st land, land of the ancestors, Gods land, etc..
They also did have a word for people not of Africa - which as Aamu, which roughly equates to Asiatics. So yes the KM.t were Blacks, were Africans, and Black Africans on their own terms, to the extint that one might -reasonabily- expect "Africa" to have been defined in remote antiquity. They are Blacks in the same sense that ancient South Africans are Blacks. They are Africans in the same sense that ancient Nigerians are Africans.
Sorry if this disturbs you. Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
Exactly:
"You also claim that Black African does not exist anyway, in which case their can be no definition for you to refer to in which case your reference to 'modern definition' makes no sense"
Nor does your, or any other. My personal oppinion. I have already explained why "Black African" is a bad term to me. You don't think so, fine.
I see now, that you aren't going to let go of that term, since it's dear to you (as is not using it dear to me). So arguing about it won't achieve nothing.
Moving to the essential then:
a) AE definition of Black? And why did they call themselves black?
b) Are Black and Kemetian always the same thing in AE language? Or did they had other uses for the words? If so, what were they?
c)Who else did AE called black? If at all? (You answered by saying the R.mt and the Nehesi, though you didn't explained what were they)
c)What about other Africans AE knew about?
d)What about those they didn't know about? If an AE were tranported to our time, what peoples would he label black?
Why? Just curious. As it was said, including by me, none of these questions will change the fact that AE were native africans, and would be labeled black in Europe or the USA for example. Nor that they called themselves Black.
P.S. None of what you just said disturbs me, in fact I find it fascinating. Also, don't quit your day job to pursue a career in psychology...
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:AE definition of Black? I don't know.
Then your claim that it contradicts 'modern definition' of Black is unfounded, and your comments are pointless, just as we have stated from the beginning.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I have asked many times in this forum but no one ever answered to my satisfaction.
This is because the answer is in conflict with your bias, therefore it is impossible to provide you a truthful answer that satisfies your bias.
Again, your biases are your problem, it's a not a problem for the KM.t or anyone else.
You can always choose to remain ignorant and so keep you biases intact, and safe from all unpleasant truth.
The truth is, the AE considered themselves Blacks... you hate that fact, and don't know how to deal with it.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
The fact that I don't know it doesn't mean it was the same as the modern one. What kind of argument is that? But this no longer matter anyway. You're not going to convince me of the validity of the modern definition of black african, nor will I convince you that there's no such validity.
What bias are you talking about man? I actually thought you were knownledgeable poster, but now you are seeing things.
Of course AE considered themselves Black, and would be in turn considered Black if they were alive today by most people. What I want to know simply is who else they considered Black? Both back then with what they knew and hypotheticaly today with what they would know.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: You rasol, if I am not mistaken said that it was in comparison with the red asiatics, since the red black dichotomy is well present in AE culture. If so, what did they call themselves before meeting the Red Asiatics?
We don't know from written record anything about what the KM.t called themselves before they invented writing.
But we do know that Black and Red are the most common color-inter-ethnic and even intra-ethnic qualifiers in Africa.
Wolof refer to themselves as Blacks, and Fulani Reds.
Zulu refer to themselves as Blacks and San as red.
Among some Nigerians darker individuals are referred to as Black and lighter are referred to as red.
^ All of the above has been explained to you before.
You are simply a hard headed troll who can't stand the truth and so repeats the same questions over and over.
The answers are clear, and devastatingly in their internal logic which is why you never actually even try to refute them.
You just lay low, play dumb and repeat the questions.
But the answers won't go away no matter how many times you repeat the questions.
AE were Blacks, were Africans, were Black Africans regardless of your bias against the term. Hating isn't going to make that fact go away.
quote:Of course AE considered themselves Black, and would be in turn considered Black if they were alive today by most people.
This is precisely the fact that you set out to deny.
quote:What I want to know simply is who else they considered Black?
I already answered that question. Again he repeats questions, because he doesn't like the answers because they contradict what he wishes to believe.
Lol. You're beaten and useless. I'm thru with you. Goodbye.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:The fact that I don't know it doesn't mean it was the same as the modern one
The fact that you don't know, means that you can't make any claims, have no point, and can't refute anyone elses. In other words, you are blabbering like and idiot, just as Wally warned you against.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
"Wolof refer to themselves as Blacks, and Fulani Reds.
Zulu refer to themselves as Blacks and San as red.
Among some Nigerians darker individuals are referred to as Black and lighter are referred to as red"
Interesting for sure. The rest of your post was mindless speculation and ad-hominem, unfortunately.
"AE were Blacks" Sure, by their own definition and would be considered so by most people's definition today. (of course, it hasn't been established that their definition and any or all of the definitions that people have today are the same, and of course, black to me means nothing, but I am going by your rules)
"were Africans". Of course, no doubt about it.
"were Black Africans" By your definition for example, certanly. Though as I said to me Black African (or only Black) is as valid as Caucasoid or Negroid. Very, very little.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:The fact that I don't know it doesn't mean it was the same as the modern one
The fact that you don't know, means that you can't make any claims, have no point, and can't refute anyone elses. In other words, you are blabbering like and idiot, just as Wally warned you against.
I thought I had made it clear I wasn't prophecing any truth, but actually doubts/questions. Seems not.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I thought I had made it clear I wasn't prophecing any truth, but actually doubts/questions. Seems not.
Actually you made false statements and are now trying to worm your way out them, by fronting them off as questions.
Thought we made it obvious to you that we can see right thru your transparent bogusness.
Seems not.
quote:Wolof refer to themselves as Blacks, and Fulani Reds.
Zulu refer to themselves as Blacks and San as red.
Among some Nigerians darker individuals are referred to as Black and lighter are referred to as red"
quote:Interesting for sure.
^ dumbstruck for sure.
quote:The rest of your post was speculation
I stated that is impossible to know how the KM.t referred to themselves in pre-history. Why would you beg this question and then accuse someone of speculating by way of addressing it. Does that make any sense? How silly your posts are.
quote:and ad-hominem, unfortunately.
No it's not personal, your posts are silly and unintelligible, unfortunately.
quote: "AE were Blacks" Sure, by their own definition and would be considered so by most people's definition today.
"were Africans". Of course, no doubt about it.
"were Black Africans" By your definition for example, certanly.
Well, I don't know how one would be Black and African but not Black African.
But then you've never provided any definitions for anything because you don't have any, lol, so it's a bit of one sided debate no?
quote:Though as I said to me Black African is as valid as Caucasoid or Negroid. Very, very little.
Better way to put it:
You have no definitions evidence or proof for anything.
Therefore nothing you say about anything as any validity whatsover.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
You can claim what I say means nothing and has no validity. It doesn't matter to me, each person will make up his or her own mind anyway.
I accused you of speculating when it comes to the inner workings of my mind and my motivation. Not about what you said.
My definitions? I have already said what they were, either directly or indirectly.
Black, a colour, the one of this letters for example. African, something from Africa. Black African? Never use this term. But following logic it would be something from africa and black in colour I suppose.
As you can see, only AE who happened to be black in colour would eventually be labeled as black africans. By my personal definitions of course. Which I am perfectly aware are not mainstream. And I must point out that it would be a very very generic labeling, which wouldn't give any clue about the phenotype (aka race) of this individual, except that his skin (and hair) colour was black. Ethnically it should also mean nothing, being an exonym and obviously not paying any attention to culture, language, common ancestry and all those things who make up an ethnic group.
But all of this, doesn't answer my question... My definition is of no concern, the AE's definition is. That's what I want to know. How they viewed themselves and others around them. And also how they would view the rest of the world had they known about it. I already know they viewed themselves as the Black people. You Rasol gave your explanation why. Fair enough. You also gave other groups which were labeled as Black by AE. So what about the Kushites? The Tehenu? And other groups? Anyone knows?
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
rasol, unlike me, you have the patience; so continue to have a field day with this fool! Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
You too are keen on insults it seems. You should know, even if you are right, insulting someone will only make you seem less right.
Do you Wally, know if Kushites for example were called Black as well by AE? Or the Tehenu?
This is was in effect my first question and the reason I posted here:
"Thing is, AE, afaik didn't call other "blacks" Black. That was the name they reserved for themselves. Or did they?"
Poorly phrased it might have been, but an answer from you Wally would be appreciated.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes:
"Thing is, AE, afaik didn't call other "blacks" Black. That was the name they reserved for themselves. Or did they?"
Poorly phrased it might have been, but an answer from you Wally would be appreciated.
Rasol answered you actually..
quote:Originally posted by Rasol: In the Book of Gates the Rm.t and the Nehesi are labled Km.t
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes: The oldest use of white that I know off is by Benjamin Franklyn, who says that only an handfull of Europeans are white and the rest are swarthy.
White identity seems to have appeared in the colonies, and frankly should have stayed there.
Your ignorance is bewildering Miguel, though slightly entertaining nonetheless. As it turns out, you're hopelessly wrong.
The Greeks referred to women as white and also designated this trait to many of the Persians. Many Arabs of the Middle Ages referred to Europeans as whites and the Songhay referenced the Berber and Arab merchants at Timbuktu as "white minorities", who were under the responsibility of the Korei-Farma. "White person" is not a new concept, sorry to inform you.
Once again it is apparent that you're a rebel of practical knowledge and common sense, and expect everyone else to go along the same lines of thinking as in your isolated, radically unique world, devoid of blacks and whites.
Black person - a person with dark skin who comes from Africa (or whose ancestors came from Africa) - thefreedictionary.com
^^We have pointed out repeatedly that your worldly delusions are completely irrelevant to the real world and how things operate here. On earth, we have a system of nomenclature that us humans use to simplify and differentiate. In this case, the universally accepted appellation, "black person", literally denotes a dark-skinned native of Africa; the designation is well defined.
In the english language, which is also a part of earth culture, we have something called a homophone. A Homophone is one word that sounds exactly like another, yet has a different meaning/connotation. "Black" is a homophone, in which it can mean all sorts of things, from "wicked", to "gloomy", to a descriptive for an extremely dark color, to African natives and descendants who posses a relatively fair amount of pigment.
For you to deconstruct this concept of black people in Africa, one must simultaneously deconstruct everything else that literally doesn't suit your definition of "pure black".. Is "wicked" equatable to the color black? If not, I'd think according to your criteria that the definition be changed. Same with "gloomy", "black budget", "black market", "black balled", "black comedy", etc. Since none of these apply to the purity of the said color in which you attribute it. Disregard "black" being applied to disaster ("Black Friday") also, or security ("black operations).. The only "black" that exists is the black which is devoid of light, even though this is contrary to everything anyone else understands about the english language, I guess your opinion is valid since it is YOUR opinion right?
Let's try this once more:
Black person - a person with dark skin who comes from Africa (or whose ancestors came from Africa) - thefreedictionary.com
Unless you can give a good reason as to why a standard English definition of a word or phrase should be thrown out at your convenience, and until you provide evidence that this definition does not apply to AEs, I see no point whatsoever to your "Never-Ending Babble"..
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
"Unless you can give a good reason as to why an English definition of a word or phrase should be thrown out at your convenience..."
I already gave my reason. It makes little sense..to me. Is it a good reason? Who cares? I don't. Obviously in my mind it's a good reason but it might not be in yours. I don't expect anyone to follow my reasoning, but expressing my opinion won't hurt now will it? (even if I could have choosen a better place)
"until you provide evidence that this definition did not apply to AE..."
Never said so. In fact, I did the opposite, and I'll do it again, by that definition AE were Black persons.
Besides, I never expected my opinion to be well received, and I have said so many times. My opinion is valid to me yes, since it's my opinion. Until I change my opinion (which has happened, for example, I did believe in the past that AE were "Meds", since that was the information conveied to me, so trying to convince me of something once my mind is set is not worthless..) it will remain valid..to me. Which is what matters..to me. Don't like it? Fine by me!
Just some questions though. For example, in the case of the Greeks it seems they were merely describing a certain skin tone "white women" "white persian" and not talking about an ethnic group. Seems it was different it the Arabs (equating Europeans with white) and other groups (equating Arabs and light Berbers with white) But was it like today? I honestly didn't know about this, never really cared about the concept of white, never felt it defined me or my people. Or any European people for that matter.
"the Rm.t and the Nehesi"
Yes, I asked who they were, and the answer was quite underwhelming. Now this was my main point. I did got off on a tangent about my opinion of the term "black african" (or any other similar "racial label"), but the fact is no one seemed to care much about my question in itself, simply on "humiliating the troll" or whatever. Something which is totaly fruitless (as was my tirade about black african not meaning anything, I now recognize that, it should have been left for another topic or not mentioned at all).
So, in short, who were the Rm.t and the Nehesi? Were they the only other groups labeled as black by the AE?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Suggestion to the forum. Do not answer this dumbstruck trolls questions over and over again.
quote: You can claim what I say means nothing and has no validity.
Not a claim we make, but a fact you demonstrate everytime you open your mouth.
Obviously you don't know when to quit making a fool yourself so, by all means continue...
quote:I was quite underwhelmed
The word you are looking for is dumbstruck -
"so overwhelmed as to be unable to formulate a coherent response".
"having no rebuttal or reply"
"temporarily speechless, silenced, or forced to make incoherent noises instead of and actual point"
DUMB-STRUCK..... The Blacks and the Reds.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
You sir, are jerk, possibly even a bigger jerk than myself. Congratulations. For all the knowledge you seem to posess, you are unable to rise above your own twisted personality. I actually thought it was only me, but after seeing your general behaviour in this forum I know better. If you actually think that answering "AE and other Black Africans" when I asked who the R.mt and the Nehesi were is pertinent answer, then I do not know what to make of you.. Dumbstruck indeed, but not by what you may think..
Goodbye!
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Have a nice day. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes: [QB] "Unless you can give a good reason as to why an English definition of a word or phrase should be thrown out at your convenience..."
[quote]I already gave my reason. It makes little sense..to me. Is it a good reason? Who cares? I don't. Obviously in my mind it's a good reason but it might not be in yours. I don't expect anyone to follow my reasoning, but expressing my opinion won't hurt now will it? (even if I could have choosen a better place)
Your reasoning is crappy and I've addressed this above in detail. You're biased, which is why you're not nit-picking over the other definitions in which blackness applies, that I exemplified. You only choose to apply your critique when it is applied to AEs, yet your reasoning is arbitrary since you don't repeat this crusade in the face of all of the other definitions that correlate to the word "black". Therefore, your opinion is nonsense and I can just as easily cop-out by saying nothing exists and it is my opinion, therefore it is valid. But no, we're not kids here and we run our lives by the rules of logic, and since you do not comply with these rules, you can easily be seen as a joke. So again, you have no point and no one really cares as much as they are annoyed by your persistent appeals to ignorance and trying to pass them off as a free-right opinion.
quote:Never said so. In fact, I did the opposite, and I'll do it again, by that definition AE were Black persons.
In which I will repeat. Unless you can do so, you have no point. Bringing us back to that context, again, you have no point then.
quote:Besides, I never expected my opinion to be well received, and I have said so many times.
Probably because you realize how much of a loony opinion it is and maybe your only motivation is to troll.
quote:My opinion is valid to me yes, since it's my opinion.
Then can you not be considered a loon by social standards? Since your opinions are again, loony and seem to dwell beyond the parameters of reality or practical knowledge?
quote:Until I change my opinion (which has happened, for example, I did believe in the past that AE were "Meds", since that was the information conveied to me, so trying to convince me of something once my mind is set is not worthless..) it will remain valid..to me. Which is what matters..to me. Don't like it? Fine by me!
Do not act like a brat merely because you make no sense and others are calling you out for it. Opinions do not matter and no one here is concerned with your opinions, unless of course your opinion has some type of foundation in logic and is proposed to bridge some kind of gap in information. So far, your opinion on this is about as valid as a rooster's opinion of M-Theory as a plausible model for the universe.
quote:Just some questions though.
Is this really fair when you have not addressed the questions presented to you above? Life isn't fair however, so I'll try my best to answer your questions.
quote:For example, in the case of the Greeks it seems they were merely describing a certain skin tone "white women" "white persian" and not talking about an ethnic group.
Wait a minute!! But you claimed that no one is literally "white", yet we have references to where Greeks literally referred to people as "white". Moving the goal post is a pathetic tactic and won't work here. The ethnic appellation applies to both geography (which indicates common origins) and complexion (which is indicative of the common origin). So this is irrelevant.
quote:Seems it was different it the Arabs (equating Europeans with white) and other groups (equating Arabs and light Berbers with white) But was it like today?
It is no different since many Arabs of today won't insist on being called "white" as many are fairly dark, and the Berber and Arab traders at timbuktu were indeed relatively light complexioned relative to the indigenous people of Songhai, who were in turn referred to as Sudani, or "blacks" (Bilad al-Sudan).
quote:I honestly didn't know about this, never really cared about the concept of white, never felt it defined me or my people. Or any European people for that matter.
If you're not white, then why be concerned. If you are white and are still concerned, I'm not sure how this applies to your people adhering to the term and using it themselves for many centuries. "Your people" apparently are in the majority, while you're not so "your people" all must be as delusional as you seem to be, no?
quote:Yes, I asked who they were, and the answer was quite underwhelming.
No, it was straight forward. Rm.t = Egyptians and Nehesi = "people of the south"(other africans).
quote:Now this was my main point. I did got off on a tangent about my opinion of the term "black african" (or any other similar "racial label"), but the fact is no one seemed to care much about my question in itself, simply on "humiliating the troll" or whatever.
For one, "black african" in its literal sense is not a "racial" moniker, but a descriptive term for dark-skinned natives of Africa and their close descendants. I'm not posting the dictionary definition any longer, so please scroll up and referr to it.
quote:Something which is totaly fruitless (as was my tirade about black african not meaning anything, I now recognize that, it should have been left for another topic or not mentioned at all).
The reason that you shouldn't have mentioned it is because you only set yourself up for contradiction and humiliation; in effect, exposing yourself as a definite troll.
quote:So, in short, who were the Rm.t and the Nehesi? Were they the only other groups labeled as black by the AE?
The Rm.t were the AE, they are one and the same. The Nehesi were all other native Africans known by the Egyptians.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Suggestion to the forum. Do not answer this dumbstruck trolls questions over and over again.
Good advice.. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Miguel Antunes = an insane troll who has been banned multiple times but keeps coming back to spew his nonsense only to be humiliated as usual.
Posted by Macawiis_Bile_Nigiish (Member # 11724) on :
Djehuti, Miguel is not insane and hasn't been banned multiple times on ES, nor does he deny a african origin of AE
having observed his behaviour on different forums (most of the times white dominated forums) he is far from a troll trying to promote a non African origin for A.Egypt or a person that has a personal vendetta(or Agenda) against Africans both continental and diasporic so i don't agree with these demeaning posts towards him
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
^This is however, the same Miguel from the Biodiversity forums who thought that dark skinned people were never a substantial group in north africa, and that "Caucasoids" were even more dominant then, than even today, no?. So indeed, it may in fact be a classic case of blissful ignorance rather than trolling, concerning his so-called "opinion" at least. The fact that his responses are for the most part, completely illogical however, only leaves two options. Either he actually is a troll and this is a deliberate affront to the stability of the forum and sanity of its users, or he's irreconcilably stupid. In this case, "troll" is actually a compliment and if I were him, this is how I'd choose to self-identify. Posted by Macawiis_Bile_Nigiish (Member # 11724) on :
Sundiata i've encountered individuals much worse, and my point was; if you don't like a person's post or topic then ignore it, just let the person be don't go analyzing a person's background or start putting the ''banned individual of the past'' tag on him/her. I've seen these demeaning posts being projected at Marc Washington aswell and i personally don't agree with it
this forum receives new members each day so if some members dislike repetitive questions, ES will definitely continue to be iritating
advice: just click ''ESC'' and to Miguel i suggest you use the ''search'' engine, i'm sure most of your future queries have allready been answered there.
i have to wake up early so i'm out, please don't start psychoanalyzing my posts this is genuine advice from another member
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: ^This is however, the same Miguel from the Biodiversity forums who thought that dark skinned people were never a substantial group in north africa, and that "Caucasoids" were even more dominant then, than even today, no?.
Hahaha. Now he's a *busted* troll.
quote:Sundiata i've encountered individuals much worse.
That's called -> *damned* with feint praise.
quote:And to Miguel i suggest you use the ''search'' engine, i'm sure most of your future queries have allready been answered there.
Your advice will go unheeded. Trolls do not use the search engine.
Why?
Because they do not seek knowledge. Their goal is to gain attention for themselves and their agenda. Searching is useless for this purpose.
Posted by Henu (Member # 13490) on :
Miguel Antunes, do not call people "jerks," and rasol and Djehuti, your use of "troll" is unwarranted.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:The Greeks referred to women as white and also designated this trait to many of the Persians. Many Arabs of the Middle Ages referred to Europeans as whites and the Songhay referenced the Berber and Arab merchants at Timbuktu as "white minorities", who were under the responsibility of the Korei-Farma. "White person" is not a new concept, sorry to inform you.
"We Blacks have conquered the country of the Arabs as far as Mecca and governed them. The desert swarm with the number of our men who married your [Arab] women and who became chiefs and defended you against your enemies.
You even have sayings in your language which vaunt the deeds of our kings - deeds which you often placed above your own; this you would not have done had you not considered them superior to your own.
We defeated Dhu Nowas (Jewish ruler of Yemen) and killed all the Himyarite princes, but the Arabs and Whites (from Europe) have never conquered our country.
Our people, revolted forty times in the Euphrates, driving the inhabitants from their homes...Blacks are physically stronger. A single one of them can lift stones of great weight and carry burdens such as several whites could not lift nor carry between them. They are brave, strong...- these good traits are the gifts of God." -
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: ^This is however, the same Miguel from the Biodiversity forums who thought that dark skinned people were never a substantial group in north africa, and that "Caucasoids" were even more dominant then, than even today, no?.
Looks like Miguelito is busted! Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Henu: Miguel Antunes, do not call people "jerks," and rasol and Djehuti, your use of "troll" is unwarranted.
Moderator is a difficult and thankless task, so, much respect to you.
RE Antunes: Actually 'troll' is a warranted description and Djehuti and Sundiata are correct about Antunes and I agree with them.
Precisely - Antunes is a 'concern troll'.
A concern troll feigns 'concern' for a community or group, when his real motives are hostile towards them.
The analogy is with someone who urinates in the public water supply, then turns up at the civic council meeting expressing 'concern' about the water quality.
Antunes stated in this thread that 'caucaZoid' has no validity for him.
In fact, he is and advocate for this concept which he promotes with a great deal of zealotry.
Probably he is another ethnocentric southern European trying to rescue himself from the 'stain' of Black blood by eliminating Blacks from history.
This seems to be a common psychosis among some southern European ethnocentric ethnophobes [Jamie/Salassin, Evil Euro, Dienekes], all suffer from this inferiority complex which is manifest in their anti-Black ideology and all the fake excuses than can muster in attempt to justify it.
But regardless of the reasons for his deception and hypocrisy, Antunes is busted, and it was perceptive for Sundiata and Djehutu to recognize this and call him out.
Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
^Actually you're rather off in your assessment. He doesn't really consider himself "white" or "caucasoid" and in fact considers himself "part African" (with African referring to dark-skinned ones, not just light-skinned North Africans) since Portuguese have maternal L lineages and some E3b. I've known his views for a while now, and you just misinterpreted his views on the backdrop of the usual southern European insecurity. I can assure you that he's the complete opposite of this phenotype. So rather than Sundiata and Djehuti being perceptive, they were being overly suspicious. Macaawis knows him too, and testified as such; Yonis can also do so, as he has interacted with him plenty in the past. X-Ras/Mackandal as well.
There are concern trolls, but Miguel is not one of them.
Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
Ok, I'll be the first to assume my presence here was quite trollish, and I can understand why people reacted they way they did, specially having being trolled so much in the past. I was not totally innocent into comming here, and did made arguments out of things that really didn't matter at all. So I was acting like a fool, that much is true.
I don't see how I was busted due that post which I made more than 6 months ago. I've already admited that I used to think AE were Caucasoid Meds, and that I know I was wrong. Can't people change their oppinion? I also know that a term like caucasoid means nothing, and that there always were "black" people in the Maghreb. And that the natives received Middle-Eastern and European lineages which would have lighten them up. Looking back at those posts I do think I was wrong in my motives and in what I said. I still have some doubts obviously. By looking at UV map I can't see why indigenous Mahgrebis couldn't be light brown. Of course, I also know that being African isn't being some stereotypical congoid and that so called caucasoid features are indigenous to Africa as well so North Africans having them means nothing. Which ties with E3b which isn't a Caucasoid lineage obviously despite what I might have thought. So in short, yes I was wrong back then.
I never posted here before, nor was I banned. I don't have any racist feelings at all nor do I have anything personal at stake...now. If you go even further back you will see posts that contradict what I just said. Simply because I changed in the meanwhile. Despite the wrong things and said here and the lack of judgement I showed, the motivation that people like Rasol are trying to impose me is not true. I have no problem at all with being mixed, having black blood or any other kind of blood for that matter.
I hope this explains it well. And thanks for the support from those who gave it.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:He doesn't really consider himself "white" or "caucasoid" and in fact considers himself "part African"
I have no idea what he considers himself. But he claimed the concept of caucasoid was invalid in this thread, [for the purpose of lending some appearance of balance to his anti Black diatribe], but in fact he advocates the concept of 'africa-caucaZoids' elsewhere.
If he believes this term is invalid, then why does he advocate it? This constitutes dishonesty by way of deception and hidden agenda, which is a form of trolling.
Your defense of him doesn't address this at all, and is really irrelevant to his trolling.
quote:I can assure you that he's the complete opposite of this phenotype.
I can't speak to his phenotype, nor do I care.
Private assurance about personal appearance is immaterial to the issue at hand.
quote:In fact considers himself "part African"
Which is why he is desparate to qualify North Africa as caucaZoid. That makes sense and furthers the explanation of why he is and anti-Black-African troll.
quote:Since Portuguese have maternal L lineages and some E3b.
And Benin Hbs yes. Now, let him come back here and tell the truth and admit that the Portugese are part Black, and he can clear himself of any suggestion that he is a phony hypocritical lying troll.
quote:There are concern trolls, but Miguel is not one of them.
He is. And none of your assurances by the way of apologetics actually addressed his lies or deceptions in this regard.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
So I maybe wrong about him-- that he is not Jaimie.
Be that as it may, his behavior is still odd and somewhat suspicious as it is very similar to Jaimie's.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ No he's not Salassin/Jamie. His behavior is similar because he suffers from the same 'condition'. Posted by Miguel Antunes (Member # 13983) on :
@Rasol:
Obviously you were writing your post when I posted mine. Please read it, you will see that I changed my mind, and yes it was recently, so 6 months ago I had other ideas, and that Portuguese are the Europeans who have most black blood afaik as I know. Including E3b yes.
Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
Whoops! I did not mean to say "phenotype." I meant to say "stereotype." I hope this clarifies what I meant, rasol.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
There is hope. Glad to see that the fights are not limited to the modern Egypt section. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But I totally agree, and this delusional individual, who has bought into the Western Eurocentric hype is merely avoiding the issue as presented; he wants to continue to blabber. He's/She's merely cutting and running by continuing to dismiss the ancient and modern Rmnk's ideology.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)