This is topic Uncovering the Origins of Ancient Egypt in forum Egyptology at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008481

Posted by SEEKING (Member # 10105) on :
 
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/04/22/uncovering-the-origins-of-ancient-egypt/
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ So far, I see nothing new. We all know that Egyptian civilization is indigenous to the African Nile Valley and that pharaonic culture originated in the south in the Nekhen area (Hierakonpolis) though with crucial aspects originating further south still.

What I don't get despite all this knowledge Nat Geo artists still depict the Egyptians as such:

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/files/2013/04/narmer.jpg

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Son of Ra (Member # 20401) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ So far, I see nothing new. We all know that Egyptian civilization is indigenous to the African Nile Valley and that pharaonic culture originated in the south in the Nekhen area (Hierakonpolis) though with crucial aspects originating further south still.

What I don't get despite all this knowledge Nat Geo artists still depict the Egyptians as such:

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/files/2013/04/narmer.jpg

[Roll Eyes]

Remember Nat Geo's 'black Pharoah'? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
From the article

 -

there are range of skin tones in the Egyptian art but I would say the above is too light for average
Nat Geo seems still somewhat racist in 2013 in their illustrations Picks. This piece I think was made in the 1940s or 50s.

 -
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
The illustration by NGS is off, from what the real images look like. Or even what modern descendants look like. It looks like a scene of North American Amerindians.lol

Conclusion, the illustration is a lie, and that dialog will probably too. And that illustrator probably has never been to Egypt.


April 15th to 17th, 2013
Guatemala City, Guatemala
Hotel Grand Tikal Futura

http://www.visitguatemala.com/Dialogo2013/en

Here is the "uStream" post recording, in Spanish.

http://www.visitguatemala.com/live/
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
As Goebbels once said "the bigger the lie, and repeated over and over again" the more people believe it.

According to Western racial ideology the impressive civilisation of Ancient Egypt could not have been built by indigenous prognathous blacks origined in Africa proper.

Hence all those obfuscatory so-called "scholarly" articles about "sub-Saharan" and "Eurasian " genes. Plus ca change--plus c'est...la meme chose, and all that.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Lets restrict 'origins' to only refer to going from semi-nomadic to the moment of settling down, rather than showing a gradation from to hunter gatherers to Pharaonic culture. Lets talk about Hierakonpolis and hope no one notices that we've just blatantly skipped over Nabta Playa, Bir Kiseiba, Gebel Ramla, Nazlet Khater, Wadi Kubbaniya, Qadan, etc.
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
It's unbelievable, but that idiot has more of these funny imaginary troll illustrations.


 -


 -


 -
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
But in reality, this is what you will see mostly.


 -


 -


 -
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
As Goebbels once said "the bigger the lie, and repeated over and over again" the more people believe it.

According to Western racial ideology the impressive civilisation of Ancient Egypt could not have been built by indigenous prognathous blacks origined in Africa proper.

Hence all those obfuscatory so-called "scholarly" articles about "sub-Saharan" and "Eurasian " genes. Plus ca change--plus c'est...la meme chose, and all that.

If I am not mistaking this is that exact quote:

quote:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”


 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
It's unbelievable, but that idiot has more of these funny imaginary troll illustrations.


 -


 -


 -

Those images are all by the artist H M Herget from the 50s. He illustrated a book Everyday life in ancient times or something like that.

Those images are basically copies in 3d from famous tomb scenes. And basically they prove the point that European artists, mostly due to their historical racism, are NOTORIOUS for trying to depict ancient Egyptians as white.

Some of the images are based on those from the tomb of Nebamun or Nakht and some others . Now NONE of the images from those tombs look like that, but that is how he decided to portray them.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Yep. White people shirtless in the Sahara desert of Africa toiling in the sun pulling huge stoane and building stone structures. "And they lived happily ever after...."
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
Yep. White people shirtless in the Sahara desert of Africa toiling in the sun pulling huge stoane and building stone structures. "And they lived happily ever after...."

Funny how they use artistic reproductions when the originals are some of the best preserved ancient art anywhere on the planet:

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ancientartpodcast/8045884981/

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ancientartpodcast/8045846620/
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
^So true.


 -


 -
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
It's unbelievable, but that idiot has more of these funny imaginary troll illustrations.


 -

How cute they even managed to include a blond man..lol

Eurocentric Delusion compared to the Original Primary Source the artist used to make his hallucination..

 -

It amazes me the nerve and Gall of these people. I mean they were obviously lying. Its like looking at portraits of George Washington and painting him Chinese.
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
The crazy part is many of these tombs have been known to Egyptologists for a while and only recently been open to the public. These were available to the Artist who created his Eurocentric Delusions. You can go to Osiris.net and see all the Nobles Tombs from Thebes etc.

I mean really how can one look at the tomb painting and not conclude it was depicting black people?? How? I wonder what was going on in their heads as they blatantly lied to the world??

quote:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
^So true.


 -


 -


 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
quote:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
It's unbelievable, but that idiot has more of these funny imaginary troll illustrations.


 -

How cute they even managed to include a blond man..lol

Eurocentric Delusion compared to the Original Primary Source the artist used to make his hallucination..

 -

It amazes me the nerve and Gall of these people. I mean they were obviously lying. Its like looking at portraits of George Washington and painting him Chinese.

^ Good lookin' Jari, pinpointing the exact source. Here're some more vinters. Not a pink skin nor baldy among 'em.  -

Yep! Bunch of lying thieves not content with what
their people/race accomplish reach back into time
to steal another people's/race's civilization and
then dny such people had a past before meeting them.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
^^^^^ you said "How cute they even managed to include a blond man..lol"


 -

 -

I don't know if anybody knows but what is your guess as to the explanation of this hair type and color on the person at left ?
Is it a wig? Is it colored hair? Is it his natural hair?
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ [Big Grin] LMAO @ the desperate lyinass above who can't tell the difference between faded paint and actual blonde hair! By the way, those are the examples of straight/wavy hair I was looking for.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

..I mean really how can one look at the tomb painting and not conclude it was depicting black people?? How? I wonder what was going on in their heads as they blatantly lied to the world??

The psychology of white-wash was explained various times before, but I think it was best explained by Philip Emeagwali, the computer science genius from Nigeria. Emeagwali was one of the forefathers of high-speed internet processing.

In an autobiography Emeagwali wrote:

"Twelve years ago, a magazine hired a white man to prepare an illustration of a supercomputer wizard riding an ox. I was supposed to be the supercomputer wizard. But the white illustrator, who knew that I am black, portrayed me as a white person in his published illustration."

 -

The first draft of a portrait that depicted Emeagwali as a supercomputer wizard driving a carriage powered by thousands of chickens (a metaphor for his 65,000 weak processors that performed the world's fastest computation). The "Negro Emeagwali" (shown in this illustration) was rejected and replaced with a "Caucasian Emeagwali" (shown below).

 -

A "whitened" Caucasian portrait of Emeagwali was acceptable and widely published. One illustrator argued that Emeagwali has a trace of Caucasian blood and said that he could see the "Caucasian look" in his face!! [sic]

Emeagwali himself
 -
[Eek!] [Eek!]

Emeagwali wrote of the white illustrator: "I learned that the white illustrator was searching for himself in me."

And there you have it in a nutshell-- so many whites are desperate to see themselves in the peoples of great civilizations of the world. This is why back in the 19th century Euro-colonialists were proclaiming peoples from the Aztecs to the early Chinese has having "Caucasoid" ancestry. The 'Middle East' including Egypt was a hotbed of this nonsense and especially Egypt. Today while the Americas and much of Asia is purged from this nonsense unfortunately Southwest Asia and indeed Egypt and greater north Africa are not. Even Sub-Sahara is not safe and even the indigenous cultures of southern Africa are not safe from the psychotic white-wash!!

So why this need of whites like Anglo-idiot to "see themselves" in other people who are not white??

I'm no psychologist but it doesn't take an expert to know what the problem is. and I leave the answer below to Anglo-idiot and his ilk:

 -
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
If you click that pic I posted it'll take you to
a discussion of workers and foreigners and what
you ask about the bent over guy.

quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^^^^ you said "How cute they even managed to include a blond man..lol"


 -

 -

I don't know if anybody knows but what is your guess as to the explanation of this hair type and color on the person at left ?
Is it a wig? Is it colored hair? Is it his natural hair?


 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
quote:
I mean really how can one look at the tomb painting and not conclude it was depicting black people??
Because "Black" = skin colour only? [Roll Eyes]

Yea, you're retarded as ever.

So by your logic, these people are "white":

 -

 -

Do you ever think before you post? [Confused] The saddest part is that you've been here years.
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
If "Black" = dark skin, then these people are "white":

Ancient China:

 -

Ancient Japan:

 -

Suddenly though when it comes to defining who is "white", the Afrocentrics bring bone structure into account, but not for "Blacks" [suddenly they are race realists like Carleton Coon, only for "white people" LMAO [Roll Eyes] ]

Afronut logic -

"Black" = anyone with dark skin regardless of hair texture or facial features

"white" = white skin but with specific facial features only.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
Let's not also forget the other afronut lunacy logic:

Swenet -

Ancient egyptians painted dark = dark skin

Ancient egyptians painted light = symbolic only

 -

Suddenly if its light its only "symbolism" you see...
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
^Of course its just symbolism, seeing as though the skeletal remains generally show the Egyptian female population to be more African phenotyped than their male counterparts, with the mural paintings showing the exact opposite.

Don't mention my name if you know you'll just get ran out of this forum like the previous time you desperately solicited a response from me, which ended with you pathetically abandoning your own thread, and not rearing your ugly head for a week, if not longer.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
[QB] If you click that pic I posted it'll take you to
a discussion of workers and foreigners and what
you ask about the bent over guy.


I'm not seeing what is clickable. I've tried clicking on the photos in all your posts or copying URLs. Where's the discussion link?

Also my questions pertain to the standing figure as well as the bending figure. They both appear to have the same hair type.
And also this second picture below, persons showing with a sand colored hair.
I usually considered refereces alone to another discussion on a given topic if they are from a forum as an indication that the issue is unresolved because these discussions typically have different points of view expressed in them


quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
.

 -

 - [/URL][/b]



 -


 -

 -
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
[QB] Let's not also forget the other afronut lunacy logic:


 -

What about this Euronut luncy as compared to the actual art:

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ancientartpodcast/8045884981/

Faheemdunkers you would have to agree that the average male skin tone as portrayed by this 1940-50s National geographic illustrator has intentionally lightened the skin tone of what is the most commonly portrayed in actual Egyptian art.
(keep in mind scenes dealing with prior to late periods)

Now without even getting into what you think "Cacasoid" and "Negoid" is we can see a clear cut example of a racist alteration of skin tone.

hasn't the racism now been proven to you?

Look at the above illustartion. It doesn't have any type printed saying "Caucasian" or "Negoid"

Deal with what we are looking at.
You see a picture with no words.

We see the average skin tone of the ancient Egyptians in their own art is significantly darker than what this illustrator is portraying. He intentionally changed it.
This is what is being observed in the example.

Now what do you have to say about that?
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
quote:
Now what do you have to say about that?
I can cherry pick photos as well...

 -

 -
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
I can cherry pick photos as well...

So can I:

 -  -
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:
Now what do you have to say about that?
I can cherry pick photos as well...

 -


^^^ They are still darker

 -

^^^ This is Tutankhamun.

You will see numerous thousands of images with this skin tone also common in paintings of Pharoahs.
Yet the modern Western artist in many different illustration doesn't include them.

If you want to say both skin tones were present this modern illustatrator is not showing both. He is showing only one
and that skin tone is still lighter than the Egyptian art males you posted.

Surely you must see the bias and manipulation here?
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Of course this therad is being reduced to another mindless picture spam war. Yet it still does not change the relevant point I made:

quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

..I mean really how can one look at the tomb painting and not conclude it was depicting black people?? How? I wonder what was going on in their heads as they blatantly lied to the world??

The psychology of white-wash was explained various times before, but I think it was best explained by Philip Emeagwali, the computer science genius from Nigeria. Emeagwali was one of the forefathers of high-speed internet processing.

In an autobiography Emeagwali wrote:

"Twelve years ago, a magazine hired a white man to prepare an illustration of a supercomputer wizard riding an ox. I was supposed to be the supercomputer wizard. But the white illustrator, who knew that I am black, portrayed me as a white person in his published illustration."

 -

The first draft of a portrait that depicted Emeagwali as a supercomputer wizard driving a carriage powered by thousands of chickens (a metaphor for his 65,000 weak processors that performed the world's fastest computation). The "Negro Emeagwali" (shown in this illustration) was rejected and replaced with a "Caucasian Emeagwali" (shown below).

 -

A "whitened" Caucasian portrait of Emeagwali was acceptable and widely published. One illustrator argued that Emeagwali has a trace of Caucasian blood and said that he could see the "Caucasian look" in his face!! [sic]

Emeagwali himself
 -
[Eek!] [Eek!]

Emeagwali wrote of the white illustrator: "I learned that the white illustrator was searching for himself in me."

And there you have it in a nutshell-- so many whites are desperate to see themselves in the peoples of great civilizations of the world. This is why back in the 19th century Euro-colonialists were proclaiming peoples from the Aztecs to the early Chinese has having "Caucasoid" ancestry. The 'Middle East' including Egypt was a hotbed of this nonsense and especially Egypt. Today while the Americas and much of Asia is purged from this nonsense unfortunately Southwest Asia and indeed Egypt and greater north Africa are not. Even Sub-Sahara is not safe and even the indigenous cultures of southern Africa are not safe from the psychotic white-wash!!

So why this need of whites like Anglo-idiot to "see themselves" in other people who are not white??

I'm no psychologist but it doesn't take an expert to know what the problem is. and I leave the answer below to Anglo-idiot and his ilk:

 -
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Of course this therad is being reduced to another mindless picture spam war. Yet it still does not change the relevant point I made:

quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
[qb]
..I mean really how can one look at the tomb painting and not conclude it was depicting black people?? How? I wonder what was going on in their heads as they blatantly lied to the world??

The psychology of white-wash was explained various times before, but I think it was best explained by Philip Emeagwali, the computer science genius from Nigeria. Emeagwali was one of the forefathers of high-speed internet processing.

In an autobiography Emeagwali wrote:

"Twelve years ago, a magazine hired a white man to prepare an illustration of a supercomputer wizard riding an ox. I was supposed to be the supercomputer wizard. But the white illustrator, who knew that I am black, portrayed me as a white person in his published illustration."

 -

The first draft of a portrait that depicted Emeagwali as a supercomputer wizard driving a carriage powered by thousands of chickens (a metaphor for his 65,000 weak processors that performed the world's fastest computation). The "Negro Emeagwali" (shown in this illustration) was rejected and replaced with a "Caucasian Emeagwali" (shown below).




A small circulation University publication from 20 years ago

The situation is not that simple.

If the original illustation was accepted it could be construed by some as a racial competition, the figures as symbolic even though that might not be a correct interpretation of the intent of the illustator.

It also gives a first impression of a white man coming up aggressively behind a black man with a whip and at first glance has a connotaion of a slave master even though that might not have been the intent of the illustator.

The solution would be to change the illustration in some way.

However they picked the wrong worst solution and made a black man into a white man
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
^Of course its just symbolism, seeing as though the skeletal remains generally show the Egyptian female population to be more African phenotyped than their male counterparts, with the mural paintings showing the exact opposite.

Don't mention my name if you know you'll just get ran out of this forum like the previous time you desperately solicited a response from me, which ended with you pathetically abandoning your own thread, and not rearing your ugly head for a week, if not longer.

lol. That thread I left, as it was impossible to respond to. Wiercinski was a male, Professor of Anthropology and Archaeology at Warsaw University, not a female. And I cannot enter a debate on typology, when you don't know what it is.

 -

Note that Wiercinski's "Negroid" is not Negroid but Bushmanoid, his "Sudanese" is Negroid.

So around 1% of predynastic egypt's overall population was Negroid (3. 1% at Wadi). Nordics even outnumbered them by a . decimal. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
note:

Andrzej Wiercinski is a favorite of Van Sertima and Clyde Winters for his writing on Olmecs

Wiercinski's research methods and conclusions are not accepted by the vast majority of Mesoamerican scholars, in part because of his reliance on the Polish Comparative-Morphological methodology which limits the placement of skull types within a very narrow spectrum that is often within: Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid. Native Americans are thus made to fit within these groups which often yields false and contradictory assumptions as a result of sample bias.
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
note:

Andrzej Wiercinski is a favorite of Van Sertima and Clyde Winters for his writing on Olmecs

Wiercinski's research methods and conclusions are not accepted by the vast majority of Mesoamerican scholars, in part because of his reliance on the Polish Comparative-Morphological methodology which limits the placement of skull types within a very narrow spectrum that is often within: Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid. Native Americans are thus made to fit within these groups which often yields false and contradictory assumptions as a result of sample bias.

Clyde lied about Wiercinski's data.

In fact Clyde lies about everything.

When I get the time, I'll cover this in full.

But to show you briefly what Clyde was doing:

"Wiercinski's typology of Olmec crania, represent the Dongolan (19.2 percent), Armenoid (7.7 percent)"

But then Clyde says this:

"The Dongolan, Anatolian and Armenoid terms are euphemisms for the so-called "Brown Race" "Dynastic Race", "Hamitic Race",and etc., which racist Europeans claimed were the founders of civilization in Africa"

He then claims they are all "Black".

[Roll Eyes]

Here's an Armenoid actually from a plate Wiercinski used from Czekanowski:

 -

lol.

All Clyde does is claim Caucasoid types are "Black" or "Negro euphemisms".
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
link to Clyde on Wiercinski

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/arqueologia/olmecs01.htm

___________________________


African presence in early America, Volume 8, Issue 2
edited by Ivan VanSertima

on Wiercinski

http://books.google.com/books?id=uziKYgZAVS0C&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=van
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lyinass:

A small circulation University publication from 20 years ago

The situation is not that simple.

If the original illustration was accepted it could be construed by some as a racial competition, the figures as symbolic even though that might not be a correct interpretation of the intent of the illustrator.

It also gives a first impression of a white man coming up aggressively behind a black man with a whip and at first glance has a connotation of a slave master even though that might not have been the intent of the illustrator.

The solution would be to change the illustration in some way.

However they picked the wrong worst solution and made a black man into a white man

LOL Rationalize all you want. The black man was suppose to be Emeagwali himself and the white guy behind him had a whip for the bull NOT to whip Emeagwali who wasn't a "slave". The connotation was clear and there was nothing "racial" about the original. The illustrators were racists could not come to grips that a computer genius could be a black man from Africa. Just as you cannot come to grips that the Egyptians were 'pure' Africans without being mixed with Eurasians so as to claim their civilization.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dishonest Fartheadbonkers:
Let's not also forget the other afronut lunacy logic:

Swenet -

Ancient egyptians painted dark = dark skin

Ancient egyptians painted light = symbolic only

 -

Suddenly if its light its only "symbolism" you see...

Actually, the symbolic color was yellow NOT pale or pallor. The Nofret statue looks pale because the yellow paint is faded.

A close-up of Nofret reveals this:

http://www.lessing-photo.com/p3/030302/03030235.jpg

Funny how you only show Nofret but not her husband Rahotep.

 -

^ His paint is also faded which means he was even darker still.

One could only imagine that the original complexions would have looked something like these:

 -

 -

Male and female skin colors
were probabaly not uniform among the entire population of Egypt,with
pigmentation being darker in the south[closer to sub-sahara Africans]
and lighter in the north[closer to Mediterranean Near Easteners] A
woman from the south would probabaly have had darker skin than a man
from the North. Thus,the colorations used for skin tones in the art
must have been schematic [or symbolic] rather than realistic;the
clear gender distinction encoded in that scheme may have been based
on elite ideals relating to male and female roles,in which women's
responsibilities kept them indoors,so that they spent less time in
the sun than men.Nevertheless, the signifcance of the two colors may
be even deeper,making some as yet unknown but fundamental difference
between men and women in Egyptian worldview....
-- Gay Robins

 -

Real life Nofret and Rahotep couple:

 -
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djefruity

 -

Rationalize all you want. The black man was suppose to be Emeagwali himself and the white guy behind him had a whip for the bull NOT to whip Emeagwali who wasn't a "slave". The connotation was clear and there was nothing "racial" about the original.Just as you cannot come to grips that the Egyptians were 'pure' Africans without being mixed with Eurasians so as to claim their civilization.

My opinion is that should have left the man Black. The exact reasoning that they changed it I don't know. if I were Emeagwali
I would have raised hell about it regardless.

Of course you know everything, you're Djefruity

It's a pretty obscure and old example.

Nat Geo is a National Magazine. The illustarions is are from the 40s-50s but here they are using it again in a new article. And they screwed up the skin tone on the Tut reconstruct several years ago.

As for the Egyptians I think some of them had pure African ancestry and also there's a possibility that some of them might have been mixed with people in the nearby Northern region as well as all surrounding regions. I'm not a purist like you
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Like I said these people are delusional. Please show me anywhere anything resembling a European/Eurasian in Ramose's Tomb?

These are white people to them??  -

 -

 -

 -

I mean I hate Mike's and other Afrocentric radicals who claim whites are covering up some massive global black Empire, but stuff like this just adds fuel to their fire. In all honesty I think Eurocentrics are delusional. For example the loser who tried to claim Ramose's tomb as depictions of white people.


quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:
Now what do you have to say about that?
I can cherry pick photos as well...

 -


^^^ They are still darker

 -

^^^ This is Tutankhamun.

You will see numerous thousands of images with this skin tone also common in paintings of Pharoahs.
Yet the modern Western artist in many different illustration doesn't include them.

If you want to say both skin tones were present this modern illustatrator is not showing both. He is showing only one
and that skin tone is still lighter than the Egyptian art males you posted.

Surely you must see the bias and manipulation here?


 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Nice find Al! yeah goes to show you how the Egyptians depicted themselves. What gets me is that at this point in time Europeans could have claimed the Romans, Greeks, the British Empire, the French Empire and the Colonial and New World Cultures, so why lie about Egypt. I understand at the time their ideology of race prevented them from being truthful, going as far as claiming the Nubians to be whites. This goes to show that their approach was not scientific.

quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
quote:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
It's unbelievable, but that idiot has more of these funny imaginary troll illustrations.


 -

How cute they even managed to include a blond man..lol

Eurocentric Delusion compared to the Original Primary Source the artist used to make his hallucination..

 -

It amazes me the nerve and Gall of these people. I mean they were obviously lying. Its like looking at portraits of George Washington and painting him Chinese.

^ Good lookin' Jari, pinpointing the exact source. Here're some more vinters. Not a pink skin nor baldy among 'em.  -

Yep! Bunch of lying thieves not content with what
their people/race accomplish reach back into time
to steal another people's/race's civilization and
then dny such people had a past before meeting them.


 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
[QB] Like I said these people are delusional. Please show me anywhere anything resembling a European/Eurasian in Ramose's Tomb?


I mean I hate Mike's and other Afrocentric radicals who claim whites are covering up some massive global black Empire, but stuff like this just adds fuel to their fire. In all honesty I think Eurocentrics are delusional. For example the loser who tried to claim Ramose's tomb as depictions of white people.



I agree

 -

but this hair thing I haven't figured out.^^^^ I don't know what's going on here
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
Note this key repeated Afrocentric fallacy:

"White" people = pale white only.

Then the Afrocentrics say: where are pale white people in the tombs, or if they existed wouldn't they burn in the sun to death?

Just one of them "knock em downs"... [Wink]

"Whites" [Caucasoids] were never all "pale white" to begin with, as any anthropologist will confirm:

"The term 'White' is something of a misnomer, because the range of skin color in this race extends from light brown to ruddy, and there can be no doubt that the vast majority of 'White' individuals have brunet skins". (Hooton, 1946)

"Caucasian" by Bernard J. Freedman
British Medical Journal
Vol. 288, No. 6418, Mar. 1984, pp. 696-698 -

quote:
"Let us now look [...] at some terms in current use in the light of these criteria:

Caucasian - geographically wrong.
European geographical race - explicit but unwieldy.
European - excludes those living in other continents.
Caucasoid - It retains the fallacious Caucasian implication.
White - There are varying degrees of skin pigmentation in Caucasians.
Europid - (en suite with negrid, mongolid, australid, etc) adopted by Baker (1974) after its introduction by Peters. The suffix -id is stated to be a truncation of the Greek -ides, of the family of. "Europid," which will be unfamiliar to most readers, does fulfil the above mentioned criteria. Its use in a medical journal might initially evoke more letters of complaint than the use of Caucasian does now. I believe that, with repeated usage under authoritative aegis, familiarity would achieve acceptance."


 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
I thought it was depicting a fresh hair cut..revealing a paler scalp.

quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
[QB] Like I said these people are delusional. Please show me anywhere anything resembling a European/Eurasian in Ramose's Tomb?


I mean I hate Mike's and other Afrocentric radicals who claim whites are covering up some massive global black Empire, but stuff like this just adds fuel to their fire. In all honesty I think Eurocentrics are delusional. For example the loser who tried to claim Ramose's tomb as depictions of white people.



I agree

 -

but this hair thing I haven't figured out.^^^^ I don't know what's going on here


 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fartheadbonkers:

Note this key repeated Afrocentric fallacy:

"White" people = pale white only.

Then the Afrocentrics say: where are pale white people in the tombs, or if they existed wouldn't they burn in the sun to death?

Just one of them "knock em downs"... [Wink]

"Whites" [Caucasoids] were never all "pale white" to begin with, as any anthropologist will confirm:

"The term 'White' is something of a misnomer, because the range of skin color in this race extends from light brown to ruddy, and there can be no doubt that the vast majority of 'White' individuals have brunet skins". (Hooton, 1946)

"Caucasian" by Bernard J. Freedman
British Medical Journal
Vol. 288, No. 6418, Mar. 1984, pp. 696-698 -

quote:
"Let us now look [...] at some terms in current use in the light of these criteria:

Caucasian - geographically wrong.
European geographical race - explicit but unwieldy.
European - excludes those living in other continents.
Caucasoid - It retains the fallacious Caucasian implication.
White - There are varying degrees of skin pigmentation in Caucasians.
Europid - (en suite with negrid, mongolid, australid, etc) adopted by Baker (1974) after its introduction by Peters. The suffix -id is stated to be a truncation of the Greek -ides, of the family of. "Europid," which will be unfamiliar to most readers, does fulfil the above mentioned criteria. Its use in a medical journal might initially evoke more letters of complaint than the use of Caucasian does now. I believe that, with repeated usage under authoritative aegis, familiarity would achieve acceptance."


The racial nonsense of "Caucasoid/Europid" aside, the Egyptians have chocolate to mahogany complexions. Such complexions are associated with BLACKS. Of course racist idiots like yourself cling to this stereotype of "true negro" where the complexion is only ebony dark or something silly or other.

Your game of claiming the Egyptians to be "brun" colored Caucasoids is laughable at best and utterly retarded at worst. [Embarrassed]
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
[qb] ^Of course its just symbolism, seeing as though the skeletal remains generally show the Egyptian female population to be more African phenotyped than their male counterparts, with the mural paintings showing the exact opposite.

Don't mention my name if you know you'll just get ran out of this forum like the previous time you desperately solicited a response from me, which ended with you pathetically abandoning your own thread, and not rearing your ugly head for a week, if not longer.

And I cannot enter a debate on typology, when you don't know what it is.
YOU don't know what typology is, as evinced by your posting a pitch black Nilote man that you labelled ''Negroid'', but who wouldn't fall into either of Wiercinsky's Sub Saharan African (whether Bushman or Negroid proper or Pygmy) categories, nor fit the descriptions of the Negroid typology that you've listed many times here on Egyptsearch. You're a total fraud. I've never said that the analysed Egyptian skulls don't classify according to the Nordic, Armenoid etc clusters when you use those limited variables, so you're just spamming that classification table to knock down strawmen. What my issue with that table is, and what you ran away from addressing is:

Exactly, so how can you be so adamant that Wiercinski was right that her clusters represents the presence of actual Nordics, Cromagnonoids, Horners, Negroids etc, in the proportions that she says they were present? What credibility does this table have, if, as you say, there is no clear cut link between ancestry and type
--Swenet

Its one thing to say the Egyptian skulls cluster with Eurasians, Horners and West Africans in that analysis, and a totally different thing to say that those Ancient Egyptian individuals originate from the nations they were allocated to by Wiercinsky. Of course, you already know this, since you said:

quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
There is no clear cut link between ancestry and type

^You're dumber than a phucking rock. You're a phuckin buffoon. You don't even realize that this statements undermines typology--which is basically everything your confused dysfunctional azz stands for.
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
quote:
As for the Egyptians I think some of them had pure African ancestry and also there's a possibility that some of them might have been mixed with people in the nearby Northern region as well as all surrounding regions. I'm not a purist like you
I see you are back to your full spectrum defensive mode. Repeat 100 times: There is no such thing as a 'pure black' or 'pure African'.

Some posters above are asking questions about the hair of the AE generic figures above. The hair style is similar to that of the East African Hima, Acoli, Tutsi, etc. Some the men above seem to have gray hair. Or if not, the hair is coloured with henna.

But the casual observer will note the following about the AE male physiognomy: 1) dark mahogany pigmentation. Check any bill-board for West Africans and you will see the same colour, 2) short faces with moderate prognathism and a non-projecting chin, 3) thick lips, 4)depressed nasal structures, 5) lean and long-limbed bodies, 6) hairstyle approximating that of the East African Himas, Acoli, and Tutsis, 7) non-black hair: probably coloured with henna or the men are just gray, and 8) males are always beardless or with a very short goatee.

The females are sometimes(compare with mahogany brown colour of the Amarna princess and Queen Tiye) coloured brown/yellow as is the natural colour of many African females and the hair of the dancing girls and others is presented as long curled braids. Most likely such braids are wigs and extensions--given the length of the hair.

As one can see the natural hair and length of the AE females would be that of Queen Tiye or just that of the male AEs as portrayed on the murals.
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
For those puzzled by the hair of the generic AE male consider the following East African hairstyles.

 -
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
The generic physiognomy of the AE female is that of naturalistic Armana princess. The shaved is the norm for both males and females.

But note that the colour is mahagony brown on a face with normal African traits. The princess was a member of the royal caste in AE society, so clearly her physiognomic traits would represent that of her class.

 -
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
For those puzzled by the hair of the generic AE male consider the following East African hairstyles.

 -

 -
Rameses II

 -
Queen Tiye.

 -
Hatshepsut
 -
Yuya



what is your opinion on these hair types were the afros that were straightened out or did they have this type of hair?
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
Note this key repeated Afrocentric fallacy:

"White" people = pale white only.

Then the Afrocentrics say: where are pale white people in the tombs, or if they existed wouldn't they burn in the sun to death?

Just one of them "knock em downs"... [Wink]

"Whites" [Caucasoids] were never all "pale white" to begin with, as any anthropologist will confirm:

"The term 'White' is something of a misnomer, because the range of skin color in this race extends from light brown to ruddy, and there can be no doubt that the vast majority of 'White' individuals have brunet skins". (Hooton, 1946)

"Caucasian" by Bernard J. Freedman
British Medical Journal
Vol. 288, No. 6418, Mar. 1984, pp. 696-698 -

quote:
"Let us now look [...] at some terms in current use in the light of these criteria:

Caucasian - geographically wrong.
European geographical race - explicit but unwieldy.
European - excludes those living in other continents.
Caucasoid - It retains the fallacious Caucasian implication.
White - There are varying degrees of skin pigmentation in Caucasians.
Europid - (en suite with negrid, mongolid, australid, etc) adopted by Baker (1974) after its introduction by Peters. The suffix -id is stated to be a truncation of the Greek -ides, of the family of. "Europid," which will be unfamiliar to most readers, does fulfil the above mentioned criteria. Its use in a medical journal might initially evoke more letters of complaint than the use of Caucasian does now. I believe that, with repeated usage under authoritative aegis, familiarity would achieve acceptance."


 -
Rameses II
 -
Tutankhamun

 -
Siptah


But given the range of Caucasoidian skin tones aren't the above out of the range by being too dark to be Cauc-asian?

If these people were walking down the street would would say they were white?
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
QUOTE]YOU don't know what typology is, as evinced by your posting a pitch black Nilote man that you labelled ''Negroid'', but who wouldn't fall into either of Wiercinsky's Sub Saharan African (whether Bushman or Negroid proper or Pygmy) categories, nor fit the descriptions of the Negroid typology that you've listed many times here on Egyptsearch.

Nilotids are Negroid in their metrics/non-metrics. What exactly is non-Negroid about them? When I asked that last time, you ran away. Nilotids have been classified as Negroids by typologists since the early 20th century.

You claimed the Nilotid posted was mesorrhine, when his nasal index is platyrrhine. The plate XIII is from Dixon (1923) with metric data. Dixon's description: "The Nilotic Negro [Nilotid] may therefore be characterized as a very tall, very black people, with typical Negro hair and marked prognathism".

quote:

Exactly, so how can you be so adamant that Wiercinski was right that her clusters represents the presence of actual Nordics, Cromagnonoids, Horners, Negroids etc, in the proportions that she says they were present? What credibility does this table have, if, as you say, there is no clear cut link between ancestry and type
--Swenet

It shows what trait complexes/racial types existed in the pre-dynastic egyptian population (5500 - 3000 BC). And that study merely confirmed all the others (Michalski, 1958; Wiercinski, 1973). The typological/individualist cranial analyses utilising the Polish method have always been consistent in estimation:

Aethiopid ('Berberic'): 40%
Mediterranean: 30%
Orientalids (Irano-Afghanid/Iranid): 20%

All the other types in single figures. Yea, no one ever claimed there were large amounts of Nordics [that's a straw man Afrocentrics love to set up] in predynastic egypt. Even my old essay "Nordic Egypt" estimated Nordics at a single figure prior to 3000 BC, alongside Armenoids, and Negroid types.

quote:
Its one thing to say the Egyptian skulls cluster with Eurasians, Horners and West Africans in that analysis, and a totally different thing to say that those Ancient Egyptian individuals originate from the nations they were allocated to by Wiercinsky.
No they don't originate there via lineage. The traits however did in the past as a center of
crystallization. That's what makes the types non-arbitrary.

quote:
You're dumber than a phucking rock. You're a phuckin buffoon. You don't even realize that this statements undermines typology--which is basically everything your confused dysfunctional azz stands for.
"The concept of individual races (individual typology) which utilises the notion of the racial type to denote a group of human individuals irrespective their populational descent and resembling each other in a set of racial traits." (Wiercinski, 1975)

Typology is polydimensional clustering, nothing more. The same way you can group together any object, based on their physical similarities.
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
The sensible approach is place the greatest reliability on what the AEs themselves did in terms of self-presentation.

Given how the Eurocentric mind is often unable to represent the phenotypical reality of the AEs as this thread clearly demonstrates one should be cautious when important AE personalites are detombed and presented as mummies of what the AEs themselves portrayed.


Quite often there is big variance in what the tomb excavators present and how the AEs portrayed such personalities.

OK, a tomb of a Pharaoh is opened up and the embalmed mummy removed. The embalmed looks quite different from the way the AEs sculpted this pharaoh. So what is one to say?

The hieroglyphs clearly say who the scultpted personage is but the contents of the sarcophagus are less secure in their certainty as to who that individual was.

And it would seem that for embalming purposes the head would be shaved and the hair--if any--collected and stored alongside the body. Hair would tend to get in the way of the procedures done.

But in any case the curly hair may well belong to personage in question since in the Sudanic area of Africa curly hair is often observed.

But again, what the AEs did should always be treated with greater credibility than what Eurocentric excavators present to their European audiences. I mean if they can so blatantly misrepresent the phenotypes of the AEs even when they are supposedly just copying from the murals then they are capable of any fraud when they are handling mummies.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
What exactly is non-Negroid about them? When I asked that last time, you ran away.

This is exactly what I mean. You accuse others of not knowing what typology is, and then you go on to confound my comments regarding that Nilote man you posted with the Nilote meta population in general.
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
You claimed the Nilotid posted was mesorrhine, when his nasal index is platyrrhine.

Prove it
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
And that study merely confirmed all the others (Michalski, 1958; Wiercinski, 1973).

Even when I'm in your face telling you I don't necessary disagree with their allocation of predynastic skulls to those types (only that these types necessarily represent actual foreigners), you still insist that the allocation of types is correct and reproducible, as if I denied that. SMH.
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
No they don't originate there via lineage. The traits however did in the past as a center of crystallization.

So, once the traits emerge and hitch-hike along with populations who migrate, the presence of those traits in other populations who inherit them, isn't necessarily complemented by actual genetic lineages of the populations who originally carried those traits?
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
Typology is polydimensional clustering, nothing more.

LMAO. This is getting more interesting by the minute. Wiercinsky is more in agreement with me than your dumbass. Judging by that quote, Wiercinsky obviously knew its theoretically possible that all those predynastic Egyptians had 100% West African ancestry--which is something you staunchly disagree with. And guess what..when I ask you why you disagree with it, you'll argue in circles like a brain dead psycho and tell me about the presence of Caucasoid ''types'' in predynastic burials, even though you've just admitted that those types are ''irrespective their populational descent''. SMH.

quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
Typology is polydimensional clustering, nothing more. The same way you can group together any object, based on their physical similarities.

You're lying your ass off. Typology is about (sub)races, and the idea that a given set of traits can always be traced back to single (sub)race, so that it becomes possible to slice populations up and determine their underlying racial substructure (e.g., 5% European,, 10% East Asian, etc).

Typological types/(sub)races aren't superficial outer shells that are only skin deep; they imply thousands of years of isolation. Typology doesn't acknowledge parallel evolution and phenotypical plasticity, as that would mean its acute death. In fact, scientific discoveries that demonstrated cranio-facial plasticity HAVE discredited typology in academic circles.

That you're sitting here, telling me that cranio-facial plasticity and typology are logically consistent is clearly a consequence of me giving you the ass-whooping of your life twice on the topic of adaptation, since you were singing the tune of ''traits are geographically circumscribed'', and ''people of Negroid ancestry cannot have Caucasian features'' prior to these astronomical ass whoopings.
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
quote:
what is your opinion on these hair types were the afros that were straightened out or did they have this type of hair?
Given the Eurocentric penchant for blatant misrepresentation as is evidenced in the comparative analyses in this thread, the prudent approach should be to afford the most credibility to what the AEs themselves did.

The Eurocentric penchant for fraudulent behaviour should always be recognised when matters just don't seem right.

The names of noted Pharaonic personages are always attached to their sculptures of wall murals. No way the Eurocentrics can lie about that and get away with it once objective eyes observe what's being portrayed.

But when it comes to examining the embalmed remains of some sarcophagus the evidence is not as secure. I am not denying that curly hair is sometimes found on the indigenous people of the Sudanic area of Africa, all I am saying is that when,say, for example, the AE constructed bust of Queen Tiye with her hair somewhat short and non-curly is compared with that of her mummy, questions arise. The queen is prognathous while the mummy is not.

It would seem too that in the embalming process the head would be shaved to facilitate matters. The shaved hair would be put in some container and kept in the sarcophagus separately. Point is that we just don't know whether the claimed contents of a sarcophagus really belong to the personage in question. Better to put more credence in how the AEs presented themselves.

Recall the Piltdown hoax and other such and the redoing of broken AE sculptures according Eurocentric norms. And even in the sculptures fakes have often been discovered. The so-called "famous" Nefertiti bust has been seriously questioned.

So the rule should be that the most credence should be afforded to the incontrovertible evidence as presented by the AEs themselves.

In legal matters there is a phenomenon known as "planting evidence". We should not assume that Eurocentric excavators playing to their Western galleries would not stoop to "plant evidence".
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
quote:
what is your opinion on these hair types were the afros that were straightened out or did they have this type of hair?
Given the Eurocentric penchant for blatant misrepresentation as is evidenced in the comparative analyses in this thread, the prudent approach should be to afford the most credibility to what the AEs themselves did.

The Eurocentric penchant for fraudulent behaviour should always be recognised when matters just don't seem right.

The names of noted Pharaonic personages are always attached to their sculptures of wall murals. No way the Eurocentrics can lie about that and get away with it once objective eyes observe what's being portrayed.

But when it comes to examining the embalmed remains of some sarcophagus the evidence is not as secure. I am not denying that curly hair is sometimes found on the indigenous people of the Sudanic area of Africa, all I am saying is that when,say, for example, the AE constructed bust of Queen Tiye with her hair somewhat short and non-curly is compared with that of her mummy, questions arise. The queen is prognathous while the mummy is not.

It would seem too that in the embalming process the head would be shaved to facilitate matters. The shaved hair would be put in some container and kept in the sarcophagus separately. Point is that we just don't know whether the claimed contents of a sarcophagus really belong to the personage in question. Better to put more credence in how the AEs presented themselves.

Recall the Piltdown hoax and other such and the redoing of broken AE sculptures according Eurocentric norms. And even in the sculptures fakes have often been discovered. The so-called "famous" Nefertiti bust has been seriously questioned.

So the rule should be that the most credence should be afforded to the incontrovertible evidence as presented by the AEs themselves.

In legal matters there is a phenomenon known as "planting evidence". We should not assume that Eurocentric excavators playing to their Western galleries would not stoop to "plant evidence". [/qb]

^You've lost all credibility with that post, as far as this topic is concerned. You obviously have an axe to grind--one that I'm all too familiar with. Even though you've warned others about it, its obvious from this post and others you've made on this topic that the True Negro approach is something you subscribe to as well. If its not curly, the only alternative is Euronuts pulling out tightly coiled hairs out of preserved mummified remains, and stitching wavy hairs back in their scalps, right? Where the bob hairstyles on these Nubians manipulated as well?

 -
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
Why so overly sensitive on this matter? I have no axe and if I did I don't see why I should grind it.

I live in Africa so on what basis should I subscribe to some "true negro" fantasy? I leave that for people like you meekly learning your trade from your academic overseers. I see Africans all the time starting with my family.

Looks like you put too much faith in the European "scholarship" on matters you--along with others consider sensitive. LOL.

I am just being prudent and cautious given their track record. All I am saying is that there is an evident phenotypical gap between the actual Queen Tye bust which she did live while the sculpter was gazing intently at her. The bust is prognathous and the mummy is not. The nose is less prominent and convex. The mummy's nose is concave. Just noticing things.

Are you saying that it is beyond European researchers on matters they consider sensitive that they don't distort or plant evidence? The NG piece is direct proof that they do.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
What you're noting about Queen Tiye's prognathism is apparent on depictions of almost all AE royals, i.e., they all vary in terms of prognathism, lip size, etc. I'm not going to debate you on the subject as there is nothing to debate. You choose manipulation as an explanation even though the dynamics of the situation simply don't allow it. Many of these mummies were described by Europeans as they were lifted fresh out of their tombs by native Egyptians (typically), and the same descriptions are ubiquitous across many excavators along the entire Nile, including the Nubian Nile. Then there is the fact that you are patently wrong about their artwork; I've told you earlier that what you perceive to be afros aren't afros.

AFRO

 -  -
 -

NOT AN AFRO

 -  -
 -
 -
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
This is exactly what I mean. You accuse others of not knowing what typology is, and then you go on to confound my comments regarding that Nilote man you posted with the Nilote meta population in general.

You're not answering still. Nilotids are platyrrhine, prognathic, and ulotrichous. They are tall and linear in body and face - these traits emerged as adaptations to dry heat, but as shown in the other thread, thinner noses [but not as low NI as cold] are adaptations to the same arid-climatic conditions. Nilotids however are platyrrhine, so the Nilotid phenotype is not true dry heat adapted at all. And I explained why the Nilotids are platyrrhine in the other thread as well - its because of their large inter-canine breadth and megadont teeth.

quote:
Prove it
What? I gave you the reference.

quote:
So, once the traits emerge and hitch-hike along with populations who migrate, the presence of those traits in other populations who inherit them, isn't necessarily complemented by actual genetic lineages of the populations who originally carried those traits?

LMAO. This is getting more interesting by the minute. Wiercinsky is more in agreement with me than your dumbass. Judging by that quote, Wiercinsky obviously knew its theoretically possible that all those predynastic Egyptians had 100% West African ancestry--which is something you staunchly disagree with. And guess what..when I ask you why you disagree with it, you'll argue in circles like a brain dead psycho and tell me about the presence of Caucasoid ''types'' in predynastic burials, even though you've just admitted that those types are ''irrespective their populational descent''. SMH.

All populations by that time period were not genetically homogenous, but mixed. So types are not cladistic, lineal or genetic. I've opposed genetic definitions of race from the start for this reason. The Afrocentric user "Beyoku" has got hold of my posts and is now on forums, adopting my stance [Roll Eyes] :

"Europeans can look the same even though they undergo admixture, drift, and population replacement" - Beyoku

He's now claiming genetic and phenotypic continuity are two different things - a central tenet of Multiregionalism he stole off me.

quote:
You're lying your ass off. Typology is about (sub)races, and the idea that a given set of traits can always be traced back to single (sub)race, so that it becomes possible to slice populations up and determine their underlying racial substructure (e.g., 5% European,, 10% East Asian, etc).
This is precisely what I stated. The traits formerly had centers of crystallization or were geographically circumscribed [= subspecies/races and subraces].

quote:
That you're sitting here, telling me that cranio-facial plasticity and typology are logically consistent is clearly a consequence of me giving you the ass-whooping of your life twice on the topic of adaptation, since you were singing the tune of ''traits are geographically circumscribed'', and ''people of Negroid ancestry cannot have Caucasian features'' prior to these astronomical ass whoopings.
They are consistent: When the races were circumscribed geographically, they obviously adapated/changed. Types are static now though, because of migration and mixing. No population is homogenous, so only the individual represents a whole set of traits.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
Why so overly sensitive on this matter? I have no axe and if I did I don't see why I should grind it.

I live in Africa so on what basis should I subscribe to some "true negro" fantasy? I leave that for people like you meekly learning your trade from your academic overseers. I see Africans all the time starting with my family.

Looks like you put too much faith in the European "scholarship" on matters you--along with others consider sensitive. LOL.

I am just being prudent and cautious given their track record. All I am saying is that there is an evident phenotypical gap between the actual Queen Tye bust which she did live while the sculpter was gazing intently at her. The bust is prognathous and the mummy is not. The nose is less prominent and convex. The mummy's nose is concave. Just noticing things.

Are you saying that it is beyond European researchers on matters they consider sensitive that they don't distort or plant evidence? The NG piece is direct proof that they do.

 -

^^^ lamin you are dead wrong, this mummy is prognathous.
Additionally nose bone may get broken when they extract the brain through the nasal passge for mummification (same possibility with Rameses below)
The hair on the sculpture a wig


However in the case of Rameses II many (not all) artworks reflect the lack of prognathous observed in his mummy


 -
Rameses II

 -
Ramesses II-Colored Relief, Brooklyn Museum

.
 -
Rameses II statue Museo Egizio, in Turin,
.

 -
Rameses II statue saqqara_

.


 -
Rameses II
 -
Rameses II

However Troll disagrees.
of the above Rameses he said:

quote:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
^All show, maxillary (upper nasal) prognathism and platyrrhine.



 
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
Yep. White people shirtless in the Sahara desert of Africa toiling in the sun pulling huge stoane and building stone structures. "And they lived happily ever after...."

Funny how they use artistic reproductions when the originals are some of the best preserved ancient art anywhere on the planet:

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ancientartpodcast/8045884981/

 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ancientartpodcast/8045846620/

lol, funny but entirely predictable from NatGeo, with
its bullshiit distortions.

Per the article- notice the pablum they spin:

"One of the biggest questions surrounding
ancient Egypt then is “where did it come from?”
Last week at the Dialogue of Civilizations in
Guatemala, National Geographic grantee Renée
Friedman of the British Museum, and Ram.adan
Hussein, recent recipient of a Humboldt Research
Fellowship at the University of Tuebingen, set
out to answer the question"


They then go on to ramble all over the place while
avoiding the obvious answer- they came from south
of the Sahara- as even "Afrocentric" critic Mary
Lefkowitz notes. They already know this, but their
method of obfuscating the data- is to pose childish
"questions", so they can then continue the bogus diversion,
and lead people away from the hard data. They mention
Renee Friedman as part of the "investigation" but over
a decade ago, excavations at Hierakonpolis by
archaeologist Friedman (1998) also demonstrates
ritual masks similar to those used further south
of Egypt, and significant amounts of obsidian,
also traced to Ethiopian quarry sites.[168].
Nat Geo full of shiit.. There is no "Mystery" as
to indigenous tropical Africans peopling the Nile
Valley, except in the bogus "spin" no Nat Geog.
The bogus "spin" merchants cannot even mention
Nabata Playa- a key player in the formative period.

WHo the hell cares about what "Young Egyptian egyptologist Ramadan
Hussein" thinks? The hard data is already on the
floor, and has been for years. Their facile diversionary
tactics are designed to lull the hearts of the gullible,
and continue to deAfricanize Egypt under another guise-
hence their bullshiit "paleface" "Egyptian" artistic
"reproductions." Most of the people here can already
see through their bullshiit. WHat they want to do
though is bury the hard data under a misleading
cloud of "soft" propaganda.

 -

 -

^After decades of data, National Geog still can't
figute out where "they came from.." Can you say
bullshiit? I knew you could...

 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
Again, the Ramses nose sculptured live is not as humped as the one the European researchers come up with.

All I am saying is that the Euros love to front these mummies[plus that Nofret piece] as if they have some motive--we know what it is--in mind.

The AEs did their sculptures and murals live. They were from the people themselves so they knew what they looked like. Then come some grave robbers aka "Egyptologists" and they are supposed to be the experts on the AEs and the way they looked.

They lied through their yellow teeth consistently on the pages of NG. They lied when they concocted a phony representation of King Tut--when they are hundreds of depictions of him. Many claim that they lied about the Nefertiti bust too. And they think that people are not onto their tricks when they front Roman era mummies as "Egyptian".

Mind you I am not saying that all of them distort and lie. I am saying that the lies and distortions are mainstreamed and become the official statement on the topic--even when more objective findings are available. So one has to be very circumspect and cautious with what orthodox Eurocentric Egyptology and anthropology put out.

Again, the most important thing here is that research on the anthropology of Africa from prehistoric times to the present is controlled by European research centres. Africans are onlookers in this activity. That fact obviously compromises things.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ lamin does have a point about the 'type' of mummies that are shown. It's apparent by the modern Egyptian population that the majority of Egyptians today have very curly to kinky hair. Why would this not be the case with ancient Egyptians which is obviously shown in the majority of ancient artwork. That there are Egyptians with wavy type hair is not the issue, as that issue is already covered. I just agree with lamin that Egyptology is very keen in displaying only a handful of mummies with certain features while hiding a multitude of mummies in their basements.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Do the majority of Egyptian women today have very curly / kinky hair?


Don't listen to Djehootie he only pretends to know
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QB] ^ lamin does have a point about the 'type' of mummies that are shown.

post some different mummies of Egyptian kings or queens then
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
quote:
Do the majority of Egyptian women today have very curly / kinky hair?
.

LOL. Many of them do but they hide it. Of course, there are descendants of settlers in places like Alexandria and Cairo--Greek, French, Persian, Iraq, Italian, Turkish, etc. but kinks are still there--under wraps so to speak.

http://blackincairo.blogspot.com/2010/06/i-got-my-herr-did-at-egyptian-salon.html
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
Given the impressive civilisation that lasted 3,000 years + what do modern Egyptians think of such in the context of "race"?

Gamal Nkrumah(Nkrumah's son who lives in Cairo. His mother was Coptic Egyptian) writes on this.
http://www.ipoaa.com/is_racial_prejudice_on_the_rise_in_egypt.htm
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ lamin does have a point about the 'type' of mummies that are shown. It's apparent by the modern Egyptian population that the majority of Egyptians today have very curly to kinky hair. Why would this not be the case with ancient Egyptians which is obviously shown in the majority of ancient artwork. That there are Egyptians with wavy type hair is not the issue, as that issue is already covered. I just agree with lamin that Egyptology is very keen in displaying only a handful of mummies with certain features while hiding a multitude of mummies in their basements.

This is not at all what Lamin said. What he's suggesting is that European Egyptologists, Nubiologists and excavators collectively conspired to go to work with patches of wavy hair in their backpockets, ready to glue it onto any mummified head in sight.

Please lay out the specific of the majority of Egyptians having kinky afro type hair. Amsterdam and many other Dutch cities have a sizeable Northern African population. Anyone familiar with these people will tell you that what you're saying, in terms of the majority, is untrue.
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
quote:
This is not at all what Lamin said. What he's suggesting is that European Egyptologists, Nubiologists and excavators collectively conspired to go to work with patches of wavy hair in their backpockets, ready to glue it onto any mummified head in sight.
.

Surely you can do better than that. LOL. I would like to see that quote.

My point is that there are evident mismatches between the excavated tom remains of embalmed pharaohs and other royalty and how the the AE artists and sculpters represented them alive and after gazing on their features and traits for hours and hours.

If they can so blatantly misrepresent the AEs as they consistently do in media such as NG and with "reconstructions" of King Tut why shouldn't one be cautious when these grave robbers come up with finds that are at variance with what the AE artists themselves did--on live subjects.

And what makes you think that other people don't come in constant contact with North Africans? LOL.
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
quote:
This is not at all what Lamin said. What he's suggesting is that European Egyptologists, Nubiologists and excavators collectively conspired to go to work with patches of wavy hair in their backpockets, ready to glue it onto any mummified head in sight.
You can do better than that. LOL. Just cite where I write what you cite.

The point is that the AE pharaohs and royalty all had artists and sculptors gazing at their features for hours on end so the assumption is that must have accurately portrayed them. So when the murals and sculptures of certain figures are at variance with what the grave robbers come up with, one must be circumspect in analysis.

After all, there is proof of the dubious methods of mainstream Western media organs like NG which has consistently and brazenly misrepresented the AEs. Then there was that ridiculous attempt to re-portray Tut even when the "boy-King" is known by his several hundred representations. There are many other cases involving the sneaky reconstruction of the facial features of broken or damaged AE sculptures.

The same is done even more sneakily in their relentless efforts to reintroduce Seligman's "Hamitic hypothesis" by way of arcane not-easily-checked genetic analysis.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
^Of course those weren't your exact words; you were very careful to couch your rather bizarre allegation in all sorts of irrelevant anecdotal 'evidence' and suggestive language. However, it is exactly what you were hinting at. Furthermore, those who were around when this paper was discussed, know that the suggestions about the majority of Northern Africans having afro hair is false.

quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
You're not answering still.

I already have. I told you that Nilotes don't originate in hot-dry regions, they simply expanded after than proto-community dispersed. Remains that have been identified as Nilo-Saharan speakers have been relatively tall since before the Holocene (e.g., Jebel Sahaba, Wadi Halfa), showing they were always tall and that they didn't migrate to hot-dry Africa and turn tall all of a sudden. You've totally made the link between hot-dry climate and stature up, being the pathetic fraud that you are. Nilo-Saharan speakers originate in equatorial Africa, as per the prehistoric cultures that have been linked to them and by Linguistic indications.

quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
What? I gave you the reference.

Still ducking and diving, I see? Where is the direct citation saying that man is platyrrhine? Its obvious just by eye-balling that that man's NB is not 85% of his NL.

quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
All populations by that time period were not genetically homogenous, but mixed.

Irrelevant what their ethnic composition was of the original trait bearers. The presence of their traits in other populations necessitates the inheritance of actual lineages, airhead. Since this is the case, typology can, and is, easily falsified by the existence of populations who share important morphological traits but who are worlds apart in ancestry.

quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
He's now claiming genetic and phenotypic continuity are two different things - a central
tenet of Multiregionalism he stole off me.

You're crazy. Incursions need not significantly alter aboriginal populations if those immigrant populations already looked broadly similar to those aboriginal population in the first place. This is not a thought that you originated; its common sense--which you obvious lack. The Upper Palaeolithic Southern African hofmyer skull, for instance, would get lost in Upper European AMH series, but its ancestry is obviously worlds apart.

quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
This is precisely what I stated. The traits formerly had centers of crystallization or were geographically circumscribed [= subspecies/races and subraces].

This is not what you stated. You said that types are merely trivial (skin deep) outer appearances that populations all over the world can exhibit, via your Wiercinski quote:

which utilises the notion of the racial type to denote a group of human individuals irrespective their populational descent and resembling each other in a set of racial traits." (Wiercinski, 1975)
--Fareemdunkers


quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
They are consistent: When the races were circumscribed geographically, they obviously adapated/changed.

They're not consistent; they allow for parallel evolution while orthodox typology doesn't. You try to quote Wiencinsky in your confused attempt to unify basic and established biological concepts with typology, but he wasn't even a typologist, as per the excerpt you've posted (he was simply classifying the skulls according to a set of variables, while leaving it open what their ancestry was). This is consistent with what Djehuti, me and others have smacked you across the head with ever since your dumbass registered on this website, i.e., that Europeans don't have a monopoly on the features they just happen to have.

Then, to add insult to injury, you undermine yourself again by flip flopping and falling back on ''traits are geographically circumscribed'', which your own Wiercinsky excerpt has rejected by suggesting the types cannot be traced to any specific region, and should be taken to mean sharing ''mere resemblance'' with similar looking individuals elsewhere in the world.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
quote:
This is not at all what Lamin said. What he's suggesting is that European Egyptologists, Nubiologists and excavators collectively conspired to go to work with patches of wavy hair in their backpockets, ready to glue it onto any mummified head in sight.
You can do better than that. LOL. Just cite where I write what you cite.

The point is that the AE pharaohs and royalty all had artists and sculptors gazing at their features for hours on end so the assumption is that must have accurately portrayed them. So when the murals and sculptures of certain figures are at variance with what the grave robbers come up with, one must be circumspect in analysis.

After all, there is proof of the dubious methods of mainstream Western media organs like NG which has consistently and brazenly misrepresented the AEs. Then there was that ridiculous attempt to re-portray Tut even when the "boy-King" is known by his several hundred representations. There are many other cases involving the sneaky reconstruction of the facial features of broken or damaged AE sculptures.

The same is done even more sneakily in their relentless efforts to reintroduce Seligman's "Hamitic hypothesis" by way of arcane not-easily-checked genetic analysis.

 -

lamin doesn't understand the differences between a mummy with shrunken dehydrated skin is not going to look exactly like the form of the living person. This is particularly on the fleshier parts, the lips and nose tip
As we can these the mummy is indeed prognothic.
The nose's bone structure as I had mentioned could be disrupted by the mummification process when the brain is extracted through the nose by pulling it out with narrow tools through the nasal passage in pieces. That could account for the bend.
-also the bend on Rameses II mummy

,
 -

^^^^^ note the nose bridge is not that flat either.
If you look at the whole bulge for the eye each eye looks like it would be the size of a tennis ball, too large to be natural

^^^^ For anybody who thinks this is a fake version of the sculpture's actual color I provide the following:

 -

^^^ Here, Indstead of daylight conditions the same sculpture photgraphed in a dark gallery with a light on it ( you can see the sharper shines of light)
The photo was then edited on to a new white background.
Dejeshootme considers this more accurate in color so if you prefer you can refer to this one for color.
>Also notice the ear notch provided in the wig on the sculpture

^^^ this wooden head is several inches in tall (other photos include the very tall feather on top of the head)
is this sculpture definative on how she actually looked? I don't know .
The eyes seem unaturally large

Other Tiye sculptures

 -
Relief head of Queen Tiye, wife of Amenhotep III, 18th dynasty, 1386-1340
 -
QUEEN TIYE
Present location EGYPTIAN MUSEUM [01/001] CAIRO EM
Inventory number JE 38257
Dating AMENHOTEP III/AMENOPHIS III/NEBMAATRE
Archaeological Site SARABIT EL-KHADIM
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
Tye's wooden sculpture seems to be an individualist piece with the sculpture attempting to capture the individual rather than do something stylised and formuulaic. Thus every feature is that of the queen.

The sculpter seems to capture the eyes right. Lots of females have that kind of eyes in Africa. As I wrote, the nose shape is convex while the mummy has it concave with a bump. The hair represented in the sculpture: is it Tiye's natural African hair or is it a wig?

Same kind of question with the Ramses mummy. The nose of Ramses's mummy is hooked and the hair is wispy. His sculptures and murals are at variance with the traits of the mummy.

After almost 3,000 years after the end of KMT(the indigenous name) how do we know who is who? The grave robbers would not tend to differ in ideological outlook from the NG folks. They all have vested interests.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
I would compare it to a brick
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
quote:
I would compare it to a brick
You're right on that: very solid as brick after 3000 years. Just great sculpting. Arguably, one of the sculptures for all time.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
I meant your relatively more recent thickness of mind
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ LOL [Big Grin] YOU, of all people can't be talking!!
quote:
Originally posted by the lyinass,:

 -

lamin doesn't understand the differences between a mummy with shrunken dehydrated skin is not going to look exactly like the form of the living person. This is particularly on the fleshier parts, the lips and nose tip
As we can these the mummy is indeed prognothic...

LMAOH
 -

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Despite the lecture you give to lamin aren't YOU the one who posts pictures of Libyan mummies, Gebelein Man a.k.a. "Ginger", and even the Younger Lady using the complexions of the mummies' skins as somehow proof of their original complexions when alive??! [Eek!] You are a joke!

quote:
The nose's bone structure as I had mentioned could be disrupted by the mummification process when the brain is extracted through the nose by pulling it out with narrow tools through the nasal passage in pieces. That could account for the bend.
-also the bend on Rameses II mummy

Yes that is correct. Ramses nose was not only broken but stuffed. Thus the famous 'hook' shape is not that accurate though his nose may have had a slight bend if not completely straight.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

lol, funny but entirely predictable from NatGeo, with
its bullshiit distortions.

Per the article- notice the pablum they spin:

"One of the biggest questions surrounding
ancient Egypt then is “where did it come from?”
Last week at the Dialogue of Civilizations in
Guatemala, National Geographic grantee Renée
Friedman of the British Museum, and Ram.adan
Hussein, recent recipient of a Humboldt Research
Fellowship at the University of Tuebingen, set
out to answer the question"


They then go on to ramble all over the place while
avoiding the obvious answer- they came from south
of the Sahara- as even "Afrocentric" critic Mary
Lefkowitz notes. They already know this, but their
method of obfuscating the data- is to pose childish
"questions", so they can then continue the bogus diversion,
and lead people away from the hard data. They mention
Renee Friedman as part of the "investigation" but over
a decade ago, excavations at Hierakonpolis by
archaeologist Friedman (1998) also demonstrates
ritual masks similar to those used further south
of Egypt, and significant amounts of obsidian,
also traced to Ethiopian quarry sites.[168].
Nat Geo full of shiit.. There is no "Mystery" as
to indigenous tropical Africans peopling the Nile
Valley, except in the bogus "spin" no Nat Geog.
The bogus "spin" merchants cannot even mention
Nabata Playa- a key player in the formative period.

WHo the hell cares about what "Young Egyptian egyptologist Ramadan
Hussein" thinks? The hard data is already on the
floor, and has been for years. Their facile diversionary
tactics are designed to lull the hearts of the gullible,
and continue to deAfricanize Egypt under another guise-
hence their bullshiit "paleface" "Egyptian" artistic
"reproductions." Most of the people here can already
see through their bullshiit. What they want to do
though is bury the hard data under a misleading
cloud of "soft" propaganda.

 -

 -

^After decades of data, National Geog still can't
figure out where "they came from.." Can you say
bullshiit? I knew you could...

I couldn't agree more. I don't know if you know but the National Geographic Society was founded in 1888 by Gardiner Greene Hubbard who was a white Westerner of his day, if you know what I mean. The purpose of the society was to understand the world especially those regions colonized by the white man and the cultures and past histories of those regions. It was nothing more than a club for the white elite to play the adventurous 'explorer' and archaeologist. Their portrayal of ancient Egypt was typical for the Eurolunacy of their day-- the advanced civilization that it was, was naturally assumed to be created by 'Caucasian' peoples and Nat Geo long clung to the debunked notions of the 'Dynastic Race' theory. Although Nat Geo seems up to par with current Egyptology in everything else, they are still stuck in the 19th century when it comes to them admitting that ancient Egypt was African and that its creators were black.

By the way, do you have a link or other to Friedman's findings of ritual masks in predynastic Nekhen similar to Sub-Saharans? Were these animal masks?? I know that African shamans use masks in certain rituals even animal shaped ones and that part of the mummification ritual involved a priest wearing a jackal mask to symbolize Anupu (Anubis).
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
.
 
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
quote:
I meant your relatively more recent thickness of mind
.

I am talking about Tiye's sculpture. A very impressive piece of realistic artistry. I mean the eyes are so well done one gets the impression that they are actually looking at you. And the quasi-sneer on the mouth makes one think that Tiye was of imperious personality. A sculpture that looks so modern--as if it were done in very recent times.

The point of artistry is "realism"--i.e. how well did the artist or sculpter capture the essence of the subject. In this regard, Tiye is much more worthy of praise than the European Mona Lisa or any of the Greek artworks.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
It is not was simply as that...looking for himself in a black man. It is also about feeding the beast(s). Selling books to white people and feeding their delusion of grandeur.

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Of course this therad is being reduced to another mindless picture spam war. Yet it still does not change the relevant point I made:

quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

..I mean really how can one look at the tomb painting and not conclude it was depicting black people?? How? I wonder what was going on in their heads as they blatantly lied to the world??

The psychology of white-wash was explained various times before, but I think it was best explained by Philip Emeagwali, the computer science genius from Nigeria. Emeagwali was one of the forefathers of high-speed internet processing.

In an autobiography Emeagwali wrote:

"Twelve years ago, a magazine hired a white man to prepare an illustration of a supercomputer wizard riding an ox. I was supposed to be the supercomputer wizard. But the white illustrator, who knew that I am black, portrayed me as a white person in his published illustration."

 -

The first draft of a portrait that depicted Emeagwali as a supercomputer wizard driving a carriage powered by thousands of chickens (a metaphor for his 65,000 weak processors that performed the world's fastest computation). The "Negro Emeagwali" (shown in this illustration) was rejected and replaced with a "Caucasian Emeagwali" (shown below).

 -

A "whitened" Caucasian portrait of Emeagwali was acceptable and widely published. One illustrator argued that Emeagwali has a trace of Caucasian blood and said that he could see the "Caucasian look" in his face!! [sic]

Emeagwali himself
 -
[Eek!] [Eek!]

Emeagwali wrote of the white illustrator: "I learned that the white illustrator was searching for himself in me."

And there you have it in a nutshell-- so many whites are desperate to see themselves in the peoples of great civilizations of the world. This is why back in the 19th century Euro-colonialists were proclaiming peoples from the Aztecs to the early Chinese has having "Caucasoid" ancestry. The 'Middle East' including Egypt was a hotbed of this nonsense and especially Egypt. Today while the Americas and much of Asia is purged from this nonsense unfortunately Southwest Asia and indeed Egypt and greater north Africa are not. Even Sub-Sahara is not safe and even the indigenous cultures of southern Africa are not safe from the psychotic white-wash!!

So why this need of whites like Anglo-idiot to "see themselves" in other people who are not white??

I'm no psychologist but it doesn't take an expert to know what the problem is. and I leave the answer below to Anglo-idiot and his ilk:

 -


 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:

It is not was simply as that...looking for himself in a black man. It is also about feeding the beast(s). Selling books to white people and feeding their delusion of grandeur.

But that is my point exactly! Emeagwali is a computer genius who revolutionized the cyber world, yet these white illustrators were deep down disturbed that such a genius is black and not like white like them. They felt this compulsion to make him white for the sake of his ingenuity. The psychosis becomes apparent when one of the illustrators claims to see a "trace of caucasian ancestry" in Emeagwali even though he is 100% African from Nigeria! If this happened with ONE black man, what do you think happened with an entire civilization in Africa such as Egypt. Recall what happened to Great Zimbabwe and how that culture was portrayed by the Dutch Boers. [Embarrassed]
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
I already have. I told you that Nilotes don't originate in hot-dry regions, they simply expanded after than proto-community dispersed. Remains that have been identified as Nilo-Saharan speakers have been relatively tall since before the Holocene (e.g., Jebel Sahaba, Wadi Halfa), showing they were always tall and that they didn't migrate to hot-dry Africa and turn tall all of a sudden. You've totally made the link between hot-dry climate and stature up, being the pathetic fraud that you are. Nilo-Saharan speakers originate in equatorial Africa, as per the prehistoric cultures that have been linked to them and by Linguistic indications.

Nilotes and Nilotids are different. The latter is a racial type, or a trait complex. Nilotes in contrast are a meta-ethnic group. Although many Nilotes may be Nilotid (Dixon estimates up to 85% are), there are other racial types in the Nilotes as a population.

quote:
Still ducking and diving, I see? Where is the direct citation saying that man is platyrrhine? Its obvious just by eye-balling that that man's NB is not 85% of his NL.
What? If he wasn't platyrrhine he wouldn't be classified as a Nilotid (Negroid > Nilotid) in the first place. All Negroids are platyrrhine. Nilotids also have the most recognisable Negroid traits: alveolar prognathism, lip eversion, large teeth, dark skin. Buy Dixon's book if you are so interested. The plate and description of platyrrhine nasal index is on page 228.

quote:
This is not what you stated. You said that types are merely trivial (skin deep) outer appearances that populations all over the world can exhibit, via your Wiercinski quote:

which utilises the notion of the racial type to denote a group of human individuals irrespective their populational descent and resembling each other in a set of racial traits." (Wiercinski, 1975)
--Fareemdunkers

They are statistical abstractions, but the fact the trait complexes, as types, were once confined to geographical areas makes them non-arbitrary - hence they have taxonomic value.

If you want typology that just randomly chooses types in a population, look at Lawrence Angel (who taught Keita). His types were just labelled A, B, C, D etc.

quote:
You try to quote Wiencinsky in your confused attempt to unify basic and established biological concepts with typology, but he wasn't even a typologist, as per the excerpt you've posted (he was simply classifying the skulls according to a set of variables, while leaving it open what their ancestry was).

This is consistent with what Djehuti, me and others have smacked you across the head with ever since your dumbass registered on this website, i.e., that Europeans don't have a monopoly on the features they just happen to have.

Only Caucasoids have certain traits, while Negroids others. Wiercinski utilised palaeo-anthropology, as I do, to see where the trait complexes were once circumscribed. I've already shown you that Negroids don't have low NI's, small teeth, orthognathism etc. None of those traits appear in the early African fossil record.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Doesn't this guy get tired with the oids, ids, metid, zoids, rheumotoids? Is this what they teach in modern anthropology or is he a relic? Left over from the 18th century.

Where is the genetic, archeological, cultural, religious proof Europeans migrated to Africa?
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
IQ of what ...about 66? That is exactly the point.

There is no race. There are black Africans, White Europeans, White East Asians, Dark Asians, White Americans(Native), Black Americans(Native). All are "populations". Population will first cluster genetically to groups geographically closest to them. Then, 2ndly the phenotype(visual), they are best adapted to their environment.

eg Tropical, and sub tropical peoples/populations are black skin - Most Africans including AEians, anderman Islands, South Asians(Indians), indigenous Taiwan etc, plus central Americans, Peruvians.

That is how nature works. I can go on and on....

quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
If "Black" = dark skin, then these people are "white":

Ancient China:

 -

Ancient Japan:

 -

Suddenly though when it comes to defining who is "white", the Afrocentrics bring bone structure into account, but not for "Blacks" [suddenly they are race realists like Carleton Coon, only for "white people" LMAO [Roll Eyes] ]

Afronut logic -

"Black" = anyone with dark skin regardless of hair texture or facial features

"white" = white skin but with specific facial features only.

[Roll Eyes]


 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
quote:
Do the majority of Egyptian women today have very curly / kinky hair?
.

LOL. Many of them do but they hide it. Of course, there are descendants of settlers in places like Alexandria and Cairo--Greek, French, Persian, Iraq, Italian, Turkish, etc. but kinks are still there--under wraps so to speak.

http://blackincairo.blogspot.com/2010/06/i-got-my-herr-did-at-egyptian-salon.html

 -
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
Why so overly sensitive on this matter? I have no axe and if I did I don't see why I should grind it.

I live in Africa so on what basis should I subscribe to some "true negro" fantasy? I leave that for people like you meekly learning your trade from your academic overseers. I see Africans all the time starting with my family.

Looks like you put too much faith in the European "scholarship" on matters you--along with others consider sensitive. LOL.

I am just being prudent and cautious given their track record. All I am saying is that there is an evident phenotypical gap between the actual Queen Tye bust which she did live while the sculpter was gazing intently at her. The bust is prognathous and the mummy is not. The nose is less prominent and convex. The mummy's nose is concave. Just noticing things.

Are you saying that it is beyond European researchers on matters they consider sensitive that they don't distort or plant evidence? The NG piece is direct proof that they do.

 -

^^^ lamin you are dead wrong, this mummy is prognathous.
Additionally nose bone may get broken when they extract the brain through the nasal passge for mummification (same possibility with Rameses below)
The hair on the sculpture a wig


However in the case of Rameses II many (not all) artworks reflect the lack of prognathous observed in his mummy


 -
Rameses II

 -
Ramesses II-Colored Relief, Brooklyn Museum

.
 -



Rameses II statue saqqara_

 -
Rameses II
 -
Rameses II

However Troll disagrees.
of the above Rameses he said:

quote:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
^All show, maxillary (upper nasal) prognathism and platyrrhine.



It's not a matter of "agreeing or disagreeing. It's a matter of observance. What I have noticed. Even when I saw them in person. Thousands of them.

And these traits are African, which can be found in Africans no matter where they are from.


Even the obscure reserve heads show these traits.lol


 -


 -
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
^  -
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
I already have. I told you that Nilotes don't originate in hot-dry regions, they simply expanded after than proto-community dispersed. Remains that have been identified as Nilo-Saharan speakers have been relatively tall since before the Holocene (e.g., Jebel Sahaba, Wadi Halfa), showing they were always tall and that they didn't migrate to hot-dry Africa and turn tall all of a sudden. You've totally made the link between hot-dry climate and stature up, being the pathetic fraud that you are. Nilo-Saharan speakers originate in equatorial Africa, as per the prehistoric cultures that have been linked to them and by Linguistic indications.

Nilotes and Nilotids are different. The latter is a racial type, or a trait complex. Nilotes in contrast are a meta-ethnic group. Although many Nilotes may be Nilotid (Dixon estimates up to 85% are), there are other racial types in the Nilotes as a population.

quote:
Still ducking and diving, I see? Where is the direct citation saying that man is platyrrhine? Its obvious just by eye-balling that that man's NB is not 85% of his NL.
What? If he wasn't platyrrhine he wouldn't be classified as a Nilotid (Negroid > Nilotid) in the first place. All Negroids are platyrrhine. Nilotids also have the most recognisable Negroid traits: alveolar prognathism, lip eversion, large teeth, dark skin. Buy Dixon's book if you are so interested. The plate and description of platyrrhine nasal index is on page 228.

quote:
This is not what you stated. You said that types are merely trivial (skin deep) outer appearances that populations all over the world can exhibit, via your Wiercinski quote:

which utilises the notion of the racial type to denote a group of human individuals irrespective their populational descent and resembling each other in a set of racial traits." (Wiercinski, 1975)
--Fareemdunkers

They are statistical abstractions, but the fact the trait complexes, as types, were once confined to geographical areas makes them non-arbitrary - hence they have taxonomic value.

If you want typology that just randomly chooses types in a population, look at Lawrence Angel (who taught Keita). His types were just labelled A, B, C, D etc.

quote:
You try to quote Wiencinsky in your confused attempt to unify basic and established biological concepts with typology, but he wasn't even a typologist, as per the excerpt you've posted (he was simply classifying the skulls according to a set of variables, while leaving it open what their ancestry was).

This is consistent with what Djehuti, me and others have smacked you across the head with ever since your dumbass registered on this website, i.e., that Europeans don't have a monopoly on the features they just happen to have.

Only Caucasoids have certain traits, while Negroids others. Wiercinski utilised palaeo-anthropology, as I do, to see where the trait complexes were once circumscribed. I've already shown you that Negroids don't have low NI's, small teeth, orthognathism etc. None of those traits appear in the early African fossil record.

You're a lying hog.


The average Moroccan female has these traits.


 -


 -
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
[QB] Like I said these people are delusional. Please show me anywhere anything resembling a European/Eurasian in Ramose's Tomb?


I mean I hate Mike's and other Afrocentric radicals who claim whites are covering up some massive global black Empire, but stuff like this just adds fuel to their fire. In all honesty I think Eurocentrics are delusional. For example the loser who tried to claim Ramose's tomb as depictions of white people.



I agree

 -

but this hair thing I haven't figured out.^^^^ I don't know what's going on here

He is working with oats and grains.

Yes, it's really that simple.
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:
I mean really how can one look at the tomb painting and not conclude it was depicting black people??
Because "Black" = skin colour only? [Roll Eyes]

Yea, you're retarded as ever.

So by your logic, these people are "white":

 -

 -

Do you ever think before you post? [Confused] The saddest part is that you've been here years.

By "your" logic they are white. By our logic they are Asians from Asia. Your rhetoric was a failure to begin with. Next time, think before you post.


And by science:


 -

Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and
staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues

A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren
Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology1and Department of Veterinary Anatomy II2,

Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany
Submitted January 8, 2002; revised May 4, 2004; accepted August 12, 2004

Abstract

During an excavation headed by the German Institute for Archaeology, Cairo, at the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt, three types of tissues from different mummies were sampled to compare 13 well known rehydration methods for mummified tissue with three newly
developed methods. Furthermore, three fixatives were tested with each of the rehydration fluids.

Meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and a placenta were used for this study. The rehydration and fixation procedures were uniform for all methods.

Materials and methods

In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology
headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles
in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three
types of tissues were sampled from different
mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and
placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the
mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approxi-
mately 1550-1080 BC).

Skin
Skin sections showed particularly good tissue
preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1).

The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin.

In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed.

To evaluate the influence of postmortum tissue
decay by micro-organisms, the samples were
tested for the presence of fungi using silver
staining.

--Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7Á/13


 -
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:
Now what do you have to say about that?
I can cherry pick photos as well...

 -

 -

Sorry, but I don't see your point?


 -

 -
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
For those puzzled by the hair of the generic AE male consider the following East African hairstyles.

 -

 -
Rameses II

 -
Queen Tiye.

 -
Hatshepsut
 -
Yuya



what is your opinion on these hair types were the afros that were straightened out or did they have this type of hair?

It's because that hair texture in that region isn't as odd as you make it out to be.

Your brain can't process nor comprehend what I have been explaining on African hair textures.

And you still haven't explained why all Africans need to have the same hair texture, despite of living in different regions. Some times for many thousands of years.


 -  -


 -


Fragment of a relief representing queen Tiye

From Western Thebes, from the mortuary temple of Amenhotep III.
New Kingdom, 18th dynasty, 1375 BC. Quartz.
Neues Museum, Berlin AM23270
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
Note this key repeated Afrocentric fallacy:

"White" people = pale white only.

Then the Afrocentrics say: where are pale white people in the tombs, or if they existed wouldn't they burn in the sun to death?

Just one of them "knock em downs"... [Wink]

"Whites" [Caucasoids] were never all "pale white" to begin with, as any anthropologist will confirm:

"The term 'White' is something of a misnomer, because the range of skin color in this race extends from light brown to ruddy, and there can be no doubt that the vast majority of 'White' individuals have brunet skins". (Hooton, 1946)

"Caucasian" by Bernard J. Freedman
British Medical Journal
Vol. 288, No. 6418, Mar. 1984, pp. 696-698 -

quote:
"Let us now look [...] at some terms in current use in the light of these criteria:

Caucasian - geographically wrong.
European geographical race - explicit but unwieldy.
European - excludes those living in other continents.
Caucasoid - It retains the fallacious Caucasian implication.
White - There are varying degrees of skin pigmentation in Caucasians.
Europid - (en suite with negrid, mongolid, australid, etc) adopted by Baker (1974) after its introduction by Peters. The suffix -id is stated to be a truncation of the Greek -ides, of the family of. "Europid," which will be unfamiliar to most readers, does fulfil the above mentioned criteria. Its use in a medical journal might initially evoke more letters of complaint than the use of Caucasian does now. I believe that, with repeated usage under authoritative aegis, familiarity would achieve acceptance."


 -
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
Let's not also forget the other afronut lunacy logic:

Swenet -

Ancient egyptians painted dark = dark skin

Ancient egyptians painted light = symbolic only

 -

Suddenly if its light its only "symbolism" you see...

Seen from a different perspective.


 -


And in your diluted mind Africans can't have different color complexions.


 -
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
The average Moroccan female has these traits.


 -


 - [/QB]

er what? Are you saying that women is "Black"? [Roll Eyes]

Like I said, your definition of "Black" is just anything you want it to be. You actually dump on your own Afrocentric theory.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ The woman above is obviously of mixed black ancestry. This is the case with the vast majority of Moroccans and other North Africans, yet in your twisted Euronut mind they are all "Caucasians"!
quote:
Originally posted by the lyinass twit:

Do the majority of Egyptian women today have very curly / kinky hair?

Don't listen to Djehootie he only pretends to know

No. Pretending to know something is YOUR hobby, as I've proven here. [Smile]
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
The average Moroccan female has these traits.


 -


 -

er what? Are you saying that women is "Black"? [Roll Eyes]

Like I said, your definition of "Black" is just anything you want it to be. You actually dump on your own Afrocentric theory. [/QB]

They would rather cluster with black. This is a social fact.

Second, I show you this so you can have some basic understanding on the facial traits they have. These are generic and cluster with other African ethnic groups.

Suddenly you turned a blind eye. lol

The dumb is in your face, but you are too stupid to realize this. This is why you role your eyes like a bytch.

It's you who speaks in box-terms. I speak of Africans. Your cacasoid fallacy is a joke and will be laught at.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ It is typical Euronut double-think and hypocrisy. You see, that light-skinned 'mulatta' type Moroccan woman is traditionally classified as "Mediterranean" in the textbooks of Coon and other Euronuts. Yet in America such types would be considered partial-negroid or mixed "Coloured" types. Viola-- Eurolunacy. [Big Grin]

Here are some more "Mediterranean Caucasoids" of Morocco:

 -

 -

 -

 -

 -

 -

LOL
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
^ that is correct!

And no, not just in the USA.

You can see how he plays childish games. When the facial traits destroy his thesis, he quickly goes on "skin color".


 -


 -
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
quote:
They would rather cluster with black. This is a social fact.
Thanks for proving there is absolutely nothing scientific about your posts.

You base who is "Black" on socio-cultural or political views - as does Djehuti.
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:
They would rather cluster with black. This is a social fact.
Thanks for proving there is absolutely nothing scientific about your posts.

You base who is "Black" on socio-cultural or political views - as does Djehuti.

Of course such thing is not "scientific". But more of a social act. I don't base on unfounded knowledge. It's "we" who do claim who we are, not you. You don't matter to us.

I understand how it pains you. But they claim black over a so called caca-nonsense claim. And her traits destroy your caca-claim. Which is definitely scientific founded.


Shall we review the traits again? lol

Btw, this is the hair texture on average.


 -


There are those of darker complexion too.


 -
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:
They would rather cluster with black. This is a social fact.
Thanks for proving there is absolutely nothing scientific about your posts.

You base who is "Black" on socio-cultural or political views - as does Djehuti.

Of course such thing is not "scientific". But more of a social act. I don't base. It "we" who do. Not you. You don't matter to us.

I understand how it pains you. But they claim black over a so called caca-nonsense claim. And her traits destroy your caca-claim. Which is definitely scientific founded.


Shall we review the traits again? lol

So your definition of race/"Blackness" is anything a person personally feels?

You do realise you undermine Afrocentrism?

If "Black" = anything and anyone, with zero criteria, why do you claim the ancient egyptians were "Black"? What stops the "Blacks" you posting waking up and identifying as "Whites"?
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:
They would rather cluster with black. This is a social fact.
Thanks for proving there is absolutely nothing scientific about your posts.

You base who is "Black" on socio-cultural or political views - as does Djehuti.

Of course such thing is not "scientific". But more of a social act. I don't base. It "we" who do. Not you. You don't matter to us.

I understand how it pains you. But they claim black over a so called caca-nonsense claim. And her traits destroy your caca-claim. Which is definitely scientific founded.


Shall we review the traits again? lol

So your definition of race/"Blackness" is anything a person personally feels?

You do realise you undermine Afrocentrism?

If "Black" = anything and anyone, with zero criteria, why do you claim the ancient egyptians were "Black"? What stops the "Blacks" you posting waking up and identifying as "Whites"?

You keep running like a cheap ass, making up excuses, I say, let's review what the traits are like. You made a false claim. And I provided different.

I have posted scientific matter on ancient Egyptians. And the fact is that they cluster with people from the South. A Sahara- Sahel type. And yes, the they will tell you they are black. You are desperately trying to claim cacasoid when it has nothing to do with the caucasus. It's simply retarded.

According to your euronut theory Russelll Simmons is a cacasoid. You dufus.

 -


 -

 -
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
^ And this is the sheer lunacy of Afrocentrism.

Swenet, Zaharan, Troll Patrol etc who claim the ancient egyptians were predominantly "Black", cannot define what a "Black" is. Nor can they even define what an "African" entails.

Have you ever seen a single post where they outline or define a "Black"/"African"?

Nothing.

All they can do is attack what they call "Eurocentrism" or the "true negroid" model, despite the fact they fail to even define what a "Black" or "African" is...
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
^ And this is the sheer lunacy of Afrocentrism.

Swenet, Zaharan, Troll Patrol etc who claim the ancient egyptians were predominantly "Black", cannot define what a "Black" is. Nor can they even define what an "African" entails.

Have you ever seen a single post where they outline or define a "Black"/"African"?

Nothing.

All they can do is attack what they call "Eurocentrism" or the "true negroid" model, despite the fact they fail to even define what a "Black" or "African" is...

lol this is getting hilarious.


I wonder why it is so hard for you to reproduce your claims on which I commented with the photos of a Moroccan Berber woman.

Why is so hard to reproduce your claims. lol

See, it's you who speaks in terms of "race". I speak in terms of the Africans. And basic traits which can be found in Africans, no matter where they are from. Therefor I posted those pictures. And they destroy your euronut arguments. Simple!

Africans go by tribe/ ethnic group. Not by "race or color" as such names do not exist. As you keep repeating like a lunatic.

But if the question is addressed as you tend to do, then the answer would be black. Or simple will state African. Yes.


I've asked you several times, what is the true negro. And why? But thus far, no answer. All I get is distractions and deflections.
No tribe/ ethnic group goes by "the negro"!


[Frown]


And here are your super cacasoid types aka "white bothers" and sister.

 -

 -


 -





Shall we review these detailed traits once more?

 -

 -


http://www.hautefashionafrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/3.JPG




quote:
Morphological characteristics ...like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones . This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.) As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies are not shaped by these same climatic factors

--Gill, George W. Does Race Exist? A Proponent's Perspective. University of Wyoming, 2000


[Big Grin]

This is why your euronut theory is obsolete and outdated

 -
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
Nilotes and Nilotids are different.

I take it that your harping on trivial matters, rather than the core argument that you were supposed to address, means that you acknowledge that you were fabricating things when you said they’re adapted to hot-dry regions and that they turned tall after they migrated there?

quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
What? If he wasn't platyrrhine he wouldn't be classified as a Nilotid (Negroid > Nilotid) in the first place.

Circular reasoning. When a paradigm is being called into question, you can’t prove the legitimacy of that paradigm, by using logic that’s inherent to that paradigm. What you’re doing is the equivalent of trying to prove Jesus made miracles happen by citing biblical passages, when the people you’re talking to are atheists and are calling the bible into question. You’re so good at using paint apps, right? Prove it, Modo-face. Prove his NB is >85% of his NL.

quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
They are statistical abstractions, but the fact the trait complexes, as types, were once confined to geographical areas

Exactly. **Once confined to geographical areas**, meaning, they necessarily originated one time, and then spread to the rest of the world. Thanks for admitting, once again, that typology cannot even integrate simple biological concepts like parallel evolution. Per your own admission typology is pseudo-science, since science states that:

a theory is a conceptual structure used to explain existing facts and predict new ones.

Typology cannot explain and predict established and proven phenomena like drift, parallel evolution, sexual selection, etc. because it reduces all the complex changes and variations those processes bring about, to a simplistic matter of race admixture between types. You pseudo-scientists are bunch of race obsessed degenerates.

quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
Wiercinski utilised palaeo-anthropology, as I do, to see where the trait complexes were once circumscribed.

You’re a fail. European specific traits that were once circumscribed and are now global are light eyes, and that’s about it. Khoisan, East Asians and Europeans have different polymorphisms for light(er) skin color. The latter two populations (Europeans and East Asians) have different polymorphisms for wavy-straight hair. Certain Oceanic black youngsters with blondism also have entire different polymorphisms for that phenotype than Europeans. There are also different polymorphisms for lactase persistence and, not to mention, malaria resistance (sickle cell). The list goes on and on. Typology cannot explain these parallel evolutions and neither can you with your retarded ’’once circumscribed’’ bullsh!t.

quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
I've already shown you that Negroids don't have low NI's, small teeth, orthognathism etc.

You haven’t. All you have done is attribute examples that document the contrary, that I and others have posted, to race mixing. Indeed, all you have done is making an artificial and imaginary negroid construct, and then saying that that type doesn’t have certain characteristics. Of course it won’t have those characteristics; you’ve made sure of that by calling all skulls that do non-negroid and caucasoid admixed. Its like being adamant that you’ve won the lottery, right after having ridged your lottery ticket to read the winning combination. It doesn’t occur to you that you’re doing this (manipulating the data to come to your own artificial conclusions), because you’re as dumb as a rock.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:

Doesn't this guy get tired with the oids, ids, metid, zoids, rheumotoids? Is this what they teach in modern anthropology or is he a relic left over from the 18th century?

The latter-- he's a relic psychologically speaking of 19th to early 20th century debunked anthropology. Of course anthropology nowadays no longer teaches debunked nonsense, but then again Farthead is not even a student of anthropology but of 'Classical' studies!! [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Where is the genetic, archeological, cultural, religious proof Europeans migrated to Africa?
There's plenty of it! Greeks colonized Libya during the late Iron Age, then came the Romans who colonized North Africa and then finally in the 19th century there came European colonization all throughout Africa.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Follow theme DJ....pre-history!!.... which is Cass's belief.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Unless Castrated or someone else produces evidence of prehistoric Europeans in Europe, I won't even bother addressing it. [Embarrassed]
quote:
Originally posted by Fartheadbonkers:

Thanks for proving there is absolutely nothing scientific about your posts.

You base who is "Black" on socio-cultural or political views - as does Djehuti.

You fail to realize that the use of labels such as 'black' and 'white' are by and large socio-cultural and political. Thus Moroccans and 'African Americans' of mixed ancestry like Vanessa Williams and Halle Berry are called 'black' not just by Americans but by Europeans as well including your fellow Brits. Of course I acknowledge that such political labels are not as accurate as scientific ones or those based simple observation i.e. that black skin means very dark or heavy pigmented while white skin is very pale or lightly pigmented. So MY personal usage of the label depends on the context. I take it it is the same for Troll Patrol. It depends on whether the context is cultural or scientific. Of course YOUR usage which you claim to be scientific is nothing more than pseudo-scientific bunk. [Embarrassed]
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

 -

The third man from the right has a profile similar to the Ramses statue.

 -
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
By the way, I wonder what Fartheadbonkers makes of the following study on ancient Egyptian mummy skin:

A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren
Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology1and Department of Veterinary Anatomy II2,
Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany
Submitted January 8, 2002; revised May 4, 2004; accepted August 12, 2004

Skin sections showed particularly good tissue
preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had
already separated from the dermis, the remaining
epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin.
In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed...


Of course Troll Patrol and Zarahan have cited this study numerous times, but I find it funny how the Anglo-idiot seems to ignore it. [Embarrassed]
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Maybe I am slow. But I don't get Cass's argument. Does be have a problem with the words "black Africans"? Or is he stating by labeling AEians Caucasoids means Europeans migrated into NE Africans to form AE?

Is this a label thing? Is he just ranting or is he trying to make a point?

Let's call them "Caucasoids"!!!!
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
'black' and 'white' are by and large socio-cultural and political.....

So MY personal usage of the label depends on the context.


.

If your personal usuage might inidcate xyyman is Black and Truthcentric is White using a consistent type of terminology what are you?
 
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
Mary is a white jew.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
Maybe I am slow. But I don't get Cass's argument. Does be have a problem with the words "black Africans"? Or is he stating by labeling AEians Caucasoids means Europeans migrated into NE Africans to form AE?

Is this a label thing? Is he just ranting or is he trying to make a point?

Let's call them "Caucasoids"!!!!

wiki:


Caucasian

Caucasian race (also Caucasoid)[1] is the general physical type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia/Middle East, Asia Minor, Central Asia and South Asia.[2] Historically, the term was used for many people from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone.[3]
The term "Caucasian race" was coined by the German philosopher Christoph Meiners in his The Outline of History of Mankind (1785).[13] In Meiners' unique racial classification, there were only two racial divisions (Rassen): Caucasians and Mongolians. These terms were used as a collective representation of individuals he personally regarded as either good looking or less attractive, based solely on facial appearance. For example, he considered Germans and Tatars more attractive, and thus Caucasian, while he found Jews and Africans less attractive, and thus Mongolian.[14]

This racial classification did not receive much support. However, in 1795, a colleague of Meiners from the University of Göttingen, Blumenbach, one of the earliest anthropologists, adopted the term Varietas Caucasia ("Caucasian Variety"), for a new major hypothetical racial division.[8] Blumenbach named it after the Caucasian peoples (from the Southern Caucasus region), whom he considered to be the archetype for the grouping.[15][16] Unlike Meiners, Blumenbach based his classification of the Caucasian race primarily on craniology after deciding that there was more to racial difference than skin pigmentation.
In his earlier racial typology, Meiners maintained that Caucasians had the "whitest, most blooming and most delicate skin".[18] Europeans with darker skin he considered to be "dirty whites", admixed with Mongolian.Such views were typical of pre-anthropological attempts at racial classification, where skin pigmentation was regarded as the main difference between races. Meiners's view was shared by the French naturalist Julien-Joseph Virey, who believed that the Caucasians were only the palest-skinned Europeans.[19]

The earliest anthropologists, such as Blumenbach however came to recognize that skin pigmentation within European populations differed, without explaining it with the obsolete idea of admixture with another race. Thus Blumenbach, in the 3rd edition of his On the Natural Variety of Mankind, recognized that poorer European people (such as peasants) whom he observed generally worked outside, often became darker skinned ("browner") through sun exposure.[20] He also came to realize that darker skin of an "olive-tinge" was a natural feature of some European populations closer to the Mediterranean Sea.[21] Alongside the anthropologist Georges Cuvier, Blumenbach classified the Caucasian race by cranial measurements and bone morphology rather than prioritizing skin pigmentation, and thus considered more than just the palest Europeans ("white, cheeks rosy") as archetypes for the Caucasian race.[22]

The concept of a Caucasian race or Varietas Caucasia was developed around 1800 by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a German scientist and classical anthropologist.[8] Blumenbach named it after the Caucasian peoples (from the Southern Caucasus region), whom he considered to be the archetype for the grouping.[9] He based his classification of the Caucasian race primarily on craniology.[10] Blumenbach wrote:

Caucasian variety - I have taken the name of this variety from Mount Caucasus, both because its neighborhood, and especially its southern slope, produces the most beautiful race of men, I mean the Georgian; and because all physiological reasons converge to this, that in that region, if anywhere, it seems we ought with the greatest probability to place the autochthones (birth place) of mankind.

 -

There was never any scholarly consensus on the delineation between the Caucasian race, including the populations of Europe, and the Mongoloid one, including the populations of East Asia. Thus, Carleton S. Coon (1939) included the populations native to all of Central and Northern Asia under the Caucasian label, while Thomas Henry Huxley (1870) classified the same populations as Mongoloid, and Lothrop Stoddard (1920) excluded the populations of the Middle East and North Africa as well as those of Central Asia, classifying them as "brown", and counted as "white" only the European peoples.

Drawing from Petrus Camper's theory of facial angle, Blumenbach and Cuvier classified races, through their skull collections based on their cranial features and anthropometric measurements. Caucasian traits were recognised as: thin nasal aperture ("nose narrow"), a small mouth, facial angle of 100°-90°, and orthognathism, exemplified by what Blumenbach saw in most ancient Greek crania and statues.[23][24] Later anthropologists of the 19th and early 20th century such as Pritchard, Pickering, Broca, Topinard, Morton, Peschel, Seligman, Bean, Ripley, Haddon and Dixon came to recognise other Caucasian morphological features, such as prominent supraorbital ridges and a sharp nasal sill.[25] Some anthropologists in the latter half of the 20th century, used the term "Caucasoid" in their literature, such as Boyd, Gates, Coon, Cole, Brues and Krantz replacing the earlier term "Caucasian" as it had fallen out of usage.[26]

The physical traits of Caucasoid crania are still recognised as distinct (in contrast to Mongoloid and Negroid races) within modern forensic anthropology. A Caucasoid skull is identified, with an accuracy of up to 95%, by the following features:[27][28][29][30][31]

Little or no prognathism exhibited—an orthognathic profile, with minimal protrusion of the lower face.
Retreating zygomatic bones (cheekbones), making the face look more "pointed".
Narrow nasal aperture, with a tear-shaped nasal cavity.
Other physical characteristics of Caucasoids include hair texture that varies from straight to curly,[3] with wavy (cymotrichous) hair most typical on average according to Coon (1962), in contrast to the Negroid and Mongoloid races. Individual hairs are also rarely as sparsely distributed and coarse as found in Mongoloids.[3]

Skin color amongst Caucasoids ranges greatly from pale, reddish-white, olive, through to dark brown tones
Conceived as one of the great races, alongside Mongoloid and Negroid, it was taken to consist of a number of "subraces". The Caucasoid peoples were usually divided in four groups on linguistic grounds, termed Aryan (Indo-European), Dravidian (Dravidian languages), Semitic (Semitic languages), and Hamitic (Berber-Cushitic-Egyptian).

Anthropologists generally consider the Cro-Magnons to be the earliest or "proto" representatives of the Caucasoid race, who emerged during the Upper Paleolithic. In a study of Cro-Magnon crania, Jantz and Owsley (2003) have noted that: "Upper Paleolithic crania are, for the most part, larger and more generalized versions of recent Europeans."[37]

William Howells (1997) has pointed out that Cro-Magnons were Caucasoid based on their cranial traits:

"... the Cro-Magnons were already racially European, i.e., Caucasoid. This has always been accepted because of the general appearance of the skulls: straight faces, narrow noses, and so forth. It is also possible to test this arithmetically. ... Except for Predmosti 4, which is distant from every present and past population, all of these skulls show themselves to be closer to "Europeans" than to other peoples — Mladec and Abri Pataud comfortably so, the other two much more remotely."

__________________________________________________________


The Caucasus is one of the most linguistically and culturally diverse regions on Earth. The nation states that comprise the Caucasus today are the post-Soviet states Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. The Russian divisions include Krasnodar Krai, Stavropol Krai, and the autonomous republics of Adygea, Karachay–Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria, North Ossetia, Ingushetia, Chechnya, and Dagestan. Three territories in the region claim independence but are recognized as such by only a handful or by no independent states: Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and South Ossetia
Located on the peripheries of Turkey, Iran, and Russia, the region has been an arena for political, military, religious, and cultural rivalries and expansionism for centuries. Throughout its history, the Caucasus was usually incorporated into the Iranian world. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Russian Empire conquered the territory from the Qajars.

Ancient kingdoms of the region included Armenia, Albania, Colchis and Iberia, among others. These kingdoms were later incorporated into various Iranian empires, including Media, Achaemenid Empire, Parthia, and Sassanid Empire. In 95-55 BC under the reign of Armenian king of kings Tigranes the Great, the Kingdom of Armenia became an empire, growing to include: Kingdom of Armenia, vassals Iberia, Albania, Parthia and a few Arab tribes, Atropatene, Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Cilicia, Syria, Assyria, Nabataean kingdom, Judea and Atropatene. The empire stretched from the Caucasian Mountains to Egypt and from the Mediterranean Sea to the Caspian Sea, including a territory of 3,000,000 km2 (1,158,000 sq mi),

he different nationalities in the area include the Azeri, the Armenians, the Georgians and the Chechens. The Azeri are Turk and speak Turkish, the Armenians are Indo-European people and the Georgians and Chechens are often termed Paleocaucasians. Other groups include the Abkhaz, the Ingush, Avars, Lezgins, Karachi, the Balkans, the Nogais and the Kumyks. With as many as fifty ethnic groups, each differing in language, customs and appearance, Caucasus has been the hot spot of turbulence.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
By the way, I wonder what Fartheadbonkers makes of the following study on ancient Egyptian mummy skin:

A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren
Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology1and Department of Veterinary Anatomy II2,
Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany
Submitted January 8, 2002; revised May 4, 2004; accepted August 12, 2004

Skin sections showed particularly good tissue
preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had
already separated from the dermis, the remaining
epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin.
In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed...


Of course Troll Patrol and Zarahan have cited this study numerous times, but I find it funny how the Anglo-idiot seems to ignore it. [Embarrassed]

He'll simply say skin color is not a racial trait and that Caucasoids can have any skin color. Of course, in saying this he's undermining his own claims (as usual), since he has also stated that Caucasoids cannot have dark skin when he tried to keep highly melanated ''Aethiopids'' out of the Caucasoid proper category.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ That is an interesting conundrum. Castrated claims Caucasoids come in a wide range of complexions including "brun" which is how he describes the chocolate dark complexions depicted in art, yet the source I cited says the skin cells are "packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin". And these were German scientists i.e. the descendants of the Nazis! LOL
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:

Maybe I am slow. But I don't get Cass's argument. Does be have a problem with the words "black Africans"? Or is he stating by labeling AEians Caucasoids means Europeans migrated into NE Africans to form AE?

Is this a label thing? Is he just ranting or is he trying to make a point?

Let's call them "Caucasoids"!!!!

You don't understand that "Caucasoid" doesn't just cover populations of Europe but Southwest, Central and northern parts of South Asia, as well as North Africa! That's the whole twist when it comes to the 'Cockazoid' classification. 'Negroid' on the other hand covers only populations of Sub-Sahara and not even all areas of that region. This is the double-think that Euronuts use to claims entire swaths of land and the native cultures as "Caucasoid" including North Africa. [Embarrassed]
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
Dj, Not all Germans supported or support the Nazis. Anyway, I even heard/ see them claim Amerindians from North America, as cacasoid.

So, what would it make this woman. [Confused]

 -


quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
Maybe I am slow. But I don't get Cass's argument. Does be have a problem with the words "black Africans"? Or is he stating by labeling AEians Caucasoids means Europeans migrated into NE Africans to form AE?

Is this a label thing? Is he just ranting or is he trying to make a point?

Let's call them "Caucasoids"!!!!

wiki:


Caucasian

Caucasian race (also Caucasoid)[1] is the general physical type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia/Middle East, Asia Minor, Central Asia and South Asia.[2] Historically, the term was used for many people from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone.[3]
The term "Caucasian race" was coined by the German philosopher Christoph Meiners in his The Outline of History of Mankind (1785).[13] In Meiners' unique racial classification, there were only two racial divisions (Rassen): Caucasians and Mongolians. These terms were used as a collective representation of individuals he personally regarded as either good looking or less attractive, based solely on facial appearance. For example, he considered Germans and Tatars more attractive, and thus Caucasian, while he found Jews and Africans less attractive, and thus Mongolian.[14]

This racial classification did not receive much support. However, in 1795, a colleague of Meiners from the University of Göttingen, Blumenbach, one of the earliest anthropologists, adopted the term Varietas Caucasia ("Caucasian Variety"), for a new major hypothetical racial division.[8] Blumenbach named it after the Caucasian peoples (from the Southern Caucasus region), whom he considered to be the archetype for the grouping.[15][16] Unlike Meiners, Blumenbach based his classification of the Caucasian race primarily on craniology after deciding that there was more to racial difference than skin pigmentation.
In his earlier racial typology, Meiners maintained that Caucasians had the "whitest, most blooming and most delicate skin".[18] Europeans with darker skin he considered to be "dirty whites", admixed with Mongolian.Such views were typical of pre-anthropological attempts at racial classification, where skin pigmentation was regarded as the main difference between races. Meiners's view was shared by the French naturalist Julien-Joseph Virey, who believed that the Caucasians were only the palest-skinned Europeans.[19]

The earliest anthropologists, such as Blumenbach however came to recognize that skin pigmentation within European populations differed, without explaining it with the obsolete idea of admixture with another race. Thus Blumenbach, in the 3rd edition of his On the Natural Variety of Mankind, recognized that poorer European people (such as peasants) whom he observed generally worked outside, often became darker skinned ("browner") through sun exposure.[20] He also came to realize that darker skin of an "olive-tinge" was a natural feature of some European populations closer to the Mediterranean Sea.[21] Alongside the anthropologist Georges Cuvier, Blumenbach classified the Caucasian race by cranial measurements and bone morphology rather than prioritizing skin pigmentation, and thus considered more than just the palest Europeans ("white, cheeks rosy") as archetypes for the Caucasian race.[22]

The concept of a Caucasian race or Varietas Caucasia was developed around 1800 by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a German scientist and classical anthropologist.[8] Blumenbach named it after the Caucasian peoples (from the Southern Caucasus region), whom he considered to be the archetype for the grouping.[9] He based his classification of the Caucasian race primarily on craniology.[10] Blumenbach wrote:

Caucasian variety - I have taken the name of this variety from Mount Caucasus, both because its neighborhood, and especially its southern slope, produces the most beautiful race of men, I mean the Georgian; and because all physiological reasons converge to this, that in that region, if anywhere, it seems we ought with the greatest probability to place the autochthones (birth place) of mankind.

 -

There was never any scholarly consensus on the delineation between the Caucasian race, including the populations of Europe, and the Mongoloid one, including the populations of East Asia. Thus, Carleton S. Coon (1939) included the populations native to all of Central and Northern Asia under the Caucasian label, while Thomas Henry Huxley (1870) classified the same populations as Mongoloid, and Lothrop Stoddard (1920) excluded the populations of the Middle East and North Africa as well as those of Central Asia, classifying them as "brown", and counted as "white" only the European peoples.

Drawing from Petrus Camper's theory of facial angle, Blumenbach and Cuvier classified races, through their skull collections based on their cranial features and anthropometric measurements. Caucasian traits were recognised as: thin nasal aperture ("nose narrow"), a small mouth, facial angle of 100°-90°, and orthognathism, exemplified by what Blumenbach saw in most ancient Greek crania and statues.[23][24] Later anthropologists of the 19th and early 20th century such as Pritchard, Pickering, Broca, Topinard, Morton, Peschel, Seligman, Bean, Ripley, Haddon and Dixon came to recognise other Caucasian morphological features, such as prominent supraorbital ridges and a sharp nasal sill.[25] Some anthropologists in the latter half of the 20th century, used the term "Caucasoid" in their literature, such as Boyd, Gates, Coon, Cole, Brues and Krantz replacing the earlier term "Caucasian" as it had fallen out of usage.[26]

The physical traits of Caucasoid crania are still recognised as distinct (in contrast to Mongoloid and Negroid races) within modern forensic anthropology. A Caucasoid skull is identified, with an accuracy of up to 95%, by the following features:[27][28][29][30][31]

Little or no prognathism exhibited—an orthognathic profile, with minimal protrusion of the lower face.
Retreating zygomatic bones (cheekbones), making the face look more "pointed".
Narrow nasal aperture, with a tear-shaped nasal cavity.
Other physical characteristics of Caucasoids include hair texture that varies from straight to curly,[3] with wavy (cymotrichous) hair most typical on average according to Coon (1962), in contrast to the Negroid and Mongoloid races. Individual hairs are also rarely as sparsely distributed and coarse as found in Mongoloids.[3]

Skin color amongst Caucasoids ranges greatly from pale, reddish-white, olive, through to dark brown tones
Conceived as one of the great races, alongside Mongoloid and Negroid, it was taken to consist of a number of "subraces". The Caucasoid peoples were usually divided in four groups on linguistic grounds, termed Aryan (Indo-European), Dravidian (Dravidian languages), Semitic (Semitic languages), and Hamitic (Berber-Cushitic-Egyptian).

Anthropologists generally consider the Cro-Magnons to be the earliest or "proto" representatives of the Caucasoid race, who emerged during the Upper Paleolithic. In a study of Cro-Magnon crania, Jantz and Owsley (2003) have noted that: "Upper Paleolithic crania are, for the most part, larger and more generalized versions of recent Europeans."[37]

William Howells (1997) has pointed out that Cro-Magnons were Caucasoid based on their cranial traits:

"... the Cro-Magnons were already racially European, i.e., Caucasoid. This has always been accepted because of the general appearance of the skulls: straight faces, narrow noses, and so forth. It is also possible to test this arithmetically. ... Except for Predmosti 4, which is distant from every present and past population, all of these skulls show themselves to be closer to "Europeans" than to other peoples — Mladec and Abri Pataud comfortably so, the other two much more remotely."

__________________________________________________________


The Caucasus is one of the most linguistically and culturally diverse regions on Earth. The nation states that comprise the Caucasus today are the post-Soviet states Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. The Russian divisions include Krasnodar Krai, Stavropol Krai, and the autonomous republics of Adygea, Karachay–Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria, North Ossetia, Ingushetia, Chechnya, and Dagestan. Three territories in the region claim independence but are recognized as such by only a handful or by no independent states: Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and South Ossetia
Located on the peripheries of Turkey, Iran, and Russia, the region has been an arena for political, military, religious, and cultural rivalries and expansionism for centuries. Throughout its history, the Caucasus was usually incorporated into the Iranian world. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Russian Empire conquered the territory from the Qajars.

Ancient kingdoms of the region included Armenia, Albania, Colchis and Iberia, among others. These kingdoms were later incorporated into various Iranian empires, including Media, Achaemenid Empire, Parthia, and Sassanid Empire. In 95-55 BC under the reign of Armenian king of kings Tigranes the Great, the Kingdom of Armenia became an empire, growing to include: Kingdom of Armenia, vassals Iberia, Albania, Parthia and a few Arab tribes, Atropatene, Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Cilicia, Syria, Assyria, Nabataean kingdom, Judea and Atropatene. The empire stretched from the Caucasian Mountains to Egypt and from the Mediterranean Sea to the Caspian Sea, including a territory of 3,000,000 km2 (1,158,000 sq mi),

he different nationalities in the area include the Azeri, the Armenians, the Georgians and the Chechens. The Azeri are Turk and speak Turkish, the Armenians are Indo-European people and the Georgians and Chechens are often termed Paleocaucasians. Other groups include the Abkhaz, the Ingush, Avars, Lezgins, Karachi, the Balkans, the Nogais and the Kumyks. With as many as fifty ethnic groups, each differing in language, customs and appearance, Caucasus has been the hot spot of turbulence.

 -

 -
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
By the way, I wonder what Fartheadbonkers makes of the following study on ancient Egyptian mummy skin:

A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren
Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology1and Department of Veterinary Anatomy II2,
Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany
Submitted January 8, 2002; revised May 4, 2004; accepted August 12, 2004

Skin sections showed particularly good tissue
preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had
already separated from the dermis, the remaining
epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin.
In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed...


Of course Troll Patrol and Zarahan have cited this study numerous times, but I find it funny how the Anglo-idiot seems to ignore it. [Embarrassed]

He'll simply say skin color is not a racial trait and that Caucasoids can have any skin color. Of course, in saying this he's undermining his own claims (as usual), since he has also stated that Caucasoids cannot have dark skin when he tried to keep highly melanated ''Aethiopids'' out of the Caucasoid proper category.
Yep, and this is why I posted the pic Moroccan woman in the first place.

The last pic of the guy with the dreads, which I've posted. He is Asian, Fijian to be exact.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Fijian???

So Cass's is he a Negro , Caucasoid or Mongoloid??
 -
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
I take it that your harping on trivial matters, rather than the core argument that you were supposed to address, means that you acknowledge that you were fabricating things when you said they’re adapted to hot-dry regions and that they turned tall after they migrated there?

Late UP linear/leptoprosopic Negroid crania are not found in tropical (humid-heat) zones.

quote:
Circular reasoning. When a paradigm is being called into question, you can’t prove the legitimacy of that paradigm, by using logic that’s inherent to that paradigm. What you’re doing is the equivalent of trying to prove Jesus made miracles happen by citing biblical passages, when the people you’re talking to are atheists and are calling the bible into question. You’re so good at using paint apps, right? Prove it, Modo-face. Prove his NB is >85% of his NL.
The plate posted is described as platyrrhine by Dixon. And it's clear by just looking at the photo that the man has a high NI. And it's not circular reasoning if you establish where the trait complexes were once circumscribed - as i've already explained. The African fossil record shows that low NI's were fully absent during the Pleistocene. When they do finally show up by the mid-Holocene they only appear in (northern) peripheral areas where Caucasoids had settled - exactly the same for wavy hair texture. Funny that.

quote:
Exactly. **Once confined to geographical areas**, meaning, they necessarily originated one time, and then spread to the rest of the world.
Yes. Hence the low fixation index (low inter-variation/high intra-variation) in any modern population today. 85-88% of variation is found among individuals in populations, not between them. The same for any phenotype-clustering by population, this is why "averages" don't work.

quote:
Thanks for admitting, once again, that typology cannot even integrate simple biological concepts like parallel evolution. Per your own admission typology is pseudo-science, since science states that
Convergence never replicated an entire phenotype. A type only covers a whole set of traits, so it completely avoids this issue.

quote:
Typology cannot explain and predict established and proven phenomena like drift, parallel evolution, sexual selection, etc. because it reduces all the complex changes and variations those processes bring about, to a simplistic matter of race admixture between types. You pseudo-scientists are bunch of race obsessed degenerates.
See above.

quote:
You’re a fail. European specific traits that were once circumscribed and are now global are light eyes, and that’s about it.
No, there are many. However the point you overlook is that races/types aren't based on singular traits but an entire ensemble of them in polydimensional space. That is how a forensic scientist has up to 99.99% accuracy in identifying someone's racial type with a skull based on 13 metrics/non-metrics (Sesardic, 2010).
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
By the way, I wonder what Fartheadbonkers makes of the following study on ancient Egyptian mummy skin:

A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren
Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology1and Department of Veterinary Anatomy II2,
Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany
Submitted January 8, 2002; revised May 4, 2004; accepted August 12, 2004

Skin sections showed particularly good tissue
preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had
already separated from the dermis, the remaining
epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin.
In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed...


Of course Troll Patrol and Zarahan have cited this study numerous times, but I find it funny how the Anglo-idiot seems to ignore it. [Embarrassed]

He'll simply say skin color is not a racial trait and that Caucasoids can have any skin color. Of course, in saying this he's undermining his own claims (as usual), since he has also stated that Caucasoids cannot have dark skin when he tried to keep highly melanated ''Aethiopids'' out of the Caucasoid proper category.
Coon (1982) writes "almost black (dark brown)". Caucasoid pigmentation runs through to brown shades, but excludes excessively dark.

Aethiopids are not Caucasoid. And despite Baker (1974) 'lumping' them as Caucasoids, he notes they are 25% Negroid in traits [in actual fact other anthropologists extend this as high as 75%]. Baker's only reason for lumping was to save book space and for convenience [his magnum opus entitled Race is one of the largest and most detailed books on races ever written, he also lumped Turanids, who show Mongoloid features, as Caucasoids].

Go on any anthropology forum and you will see Aethiopids are universally considered a Negroid-Caucasoid hybrid type. As far as i'm aware no one claims Aethiopids are Caucasoid ('white') only the confused folk at Hamiticunion.

Anyway take a look at a UV index map, and you will see Eurasia has the most diversity in solar radiation/UV. High UV levels are found across parts of the Middle-East.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
Late UP linear/leptoprosopic Negroid crania are not found in tropical (humid-heat) zones.

Shifting the goalpost again (as expected). You defined stature as a hot-dry adaptation, and specifically used the Nilote type as an example of this. This is the second time in a row that you try to obfuscate the fact that the remains tagged as Proto-Nilotes have always been relatively tall.
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
The plate posted is described as platyrrhine by Dixon.

What are you waiting for? Prove it, as requested!
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
Hence the low fixation index (low inter-variation/high intra-variation) in any modern population today.

Complete bullsh!t. The further one goes back in time, the more intra populational variation one finds. Rather than seeing duplicate types in the same burials, the further one goes back in modern human history (up until 200kya), the remains show much more variations than modern humans do, even as small as the Pleistocene samples are. [Roll Eyes]
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
Convergence never replicated an entire phenotype.

Clearly you don't even know what phenotype means, but to address your point, this is a complete red herring. Parallel evolution doesn’t need to duplicate complete European phenotypes in Africa for me to make the point that typology falsely classifies skulls who share some traits with alleged 'original trait bearers' due to parallel evolution, as ‘mixed’. Case in point: epicanthic folds in Khoisan populations.

quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
See above.

Just seen the above and it’s a red herring, as usual.
quote:
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
No, there are many.

Other than light eyes, there are none. Every trait that Europeans have, that’s relevant to typology, evolved independently elsewhere, as demonstrated by the different genetic underpinnings for traits that look identical on the surface (e.g., pale skin). Genetics is nothing other than a big boot up in Typology’s ass. That's why you ignore genetics.

quote:
Aethiopids are not Caucasoid. And despite Baker (1974) 'lumping' them as Caucasoids, he notes they are 25% Negroid in traits [in actual fact other anthropologists extend this as high as 75%].
Irrelevant. Even with the high estimates of up to 75% negroid traits, that's still a 25% of ''pure'' Caucasoids, while population genetics has yet to find a single physically Caucasoid Horner person, with 100% or even near 100% Mediterranean ancestry. Regardless of their physical ''type'' (i.e., Negroid, Mediterranean, Nordic), they all have an almost identical amount of African ancestry. Take Tiskoff 2009, for instance. Every vertical line represents the genetic profile of a single person, and there is not a single uniformly blue vertical line in the East African samples:

 -

There isn't a single blue bar in Sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, there isn't even a single 100% blue bar in the sampled Northern Africans. If typology were scientific (reproducible) it would have no problems duplicating its observations with genetics. Instead all we see is that types have no in footing in genetic reality.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] Fijian???

So Cass's is he a Negro , Caucasoid or Mongoloid??

Under the Cassian theory somebody who has dark skin may have had ancestors that never left Africa but may also have some features that would be classified as Caucasian

-though having no connection to the Caucus or any region outside of Africa, no 'admixture'

the Africsoid
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fartheadbonkers:

Coon (1982) writes "almost black (dark brown)". Caucasoid pigmentation runs through to brown shades, but excludes excessively dark.

Is it me, or is the above self-contradictory? You cite Coon as saying Caucasoid skin color ranges to "almost black" but then YOU say Caucasoid pigmentation excludes excessively dark. Is not almost black excessively dark? And what are we to make of the skin cells of New Kingdom Pharaohs packed with melanin as expected for Negroids??
 
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by Fartheadbonkers:

Coon (1982) writes "almost black (dark brown)". Caucasoid pigmentation runs through to brown shades, but excludes excessively dark.

Is it me, or is the above self-contradictory? You cite Coon as saying Caucasoid skin color ranges to "almost black" but then YOU say Caucasoid pigmentation excludes excessively dark. Is not almost black excessively dark? And what are we to make of the skin cells of New Kingdom Pharaohs packed with melanin as expected for Negroids??
It's standard per the Fitzpatrick scale, or Luschan scale.

There's 6 skin types on the Fitzpatrick scale -

1. Pale white
2. White
3. Medium White ("brown tinge")
4. Light brown
5. Medium Brown
6. Very dark brown/black

The six types on one hand:

 -
 
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Why the fuk are you people still listening to this ^^idiot??
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
Why the fuk are you people still listening to this ^^idiot??

I have no idea, but it's a weirdo. That's for sure. He now claims that I am a dark skinned cacasoid.lol


The Fitzpatrick scale.

 -


 -


 -


 -
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
Fijian???

So Cass's is he a Negro , Caucasoid or Mongoloid??
 -

You will not receive an answer. Because the hypothesis is dishonest from the start. What you will see, is the impostor responding with comparison pics of colors and ethnic groups (usually it's Non-Africans). It's always the same lame game. As the post below.


 -
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
^^^^ what Fitzpatrick scale roman numeral are each of the following people? >
 -


 -
 -

 -
 -
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
^LOL at the above,

Here we go again, with the picture lunatic spam comparison!

How typical, for this impostor.


 -

 -


 -
 
Posted by mena7 (Member # 20555) on :
 
Nice skin color and skin tone pictures analysis by Troll Patrol.This black Ethiopian our Somalian is the carbon copy of the Mummy of Ramses II.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
[QB] ^LOL at the above,

Here we go again, with the picture lunatic spam comparison!

How typical, for this impostor.



notice how Troll puts up the Fitzpatrick scale

but if examples are given that don't have the right racial stereotype
all of the sudden you can't apply the color chart
all of the sudden forget the whole thing and he attacks me.

Once you present this chart you should be able to apply it to any examples given.

If you can't deal with that then you shouldn't have put up the chart in the first place.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ LOL He attacks you not because you somehow refute him, but because your idiotic picture spam without any explanation or point.

You attempt to bust the whole color scheme with folks of supposedly same or similar complexions but then you have that lightened up picture of Wole Soyinka. LMAO [Big Grin]

That is why nobody takes you seriously and attacks you for the lying rat that you are!
quote:
Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:

Why the fuk are you people still listening to this ^^[Anglo]idiot??

Nobody is listening to him at all so much as exposing his idiocy. Don't worry Brada, we listen to him like we do a hyper-active child with an over-active imagination. [Smile]
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fartheadbonkers:

It's standard per the Fitzpatrick scale, or Luschan scale.

There's 6 skin types on the Fitzpatrick scale -

1. Pale white
2. White
3. Medium White ("brown tinge")
4. Light brown
5. Medium Brown
6. Very dark brown/black

The six types on one hand:

 -

Okay. So let me guess Caucasoids cover types 1-5 while Negroids only cover 6 right? [Embarrassed]
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QB] ^ LOL He attacks you not because you somehow refute him, but because your idiotic picture spam without any explanation or point.

You attempt to bust the whole color scheme with folks of supposedly same or similar complexions but then you have that lightened up picture of Wole Soyinka. LMAO [Big Grin]

That is why nobody takes you seriously and attacks you for the lying rat that you are!

cheerleading again I see

you lied here.

I have already exposed this before. You don't understand that lighter skinned brown people likw Wale Solinka look darker when they have more sun exposure.

So you lie and say the photo is "lightened"
 -

 -
 -
 -
 -
 -
 -
none of thes photos are
"lightened" you lying freak
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
ISO. lol
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
This man's skin color is the "Default" type for most African Americans(Its my Skin color), from my observations. As you can see his skin can look a Yellowish Brown, to a Dark Black Brown depending on the lighting.

quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
 - [/URL]
 -
none of thes photos are
"lightened" you lying freak


 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
 -

 -

the difference here is more than just lighting.
Unlike many African Americans Wole Soyinka
spends time in Europe and also in Nigeria
which is close to the equator and has UV higher than anywhere in the U.S.
The difference is the conditions he is staying
at the moment and the degree at which he tans in high UV Nigeria.
Most Americans would not experience these drastic changes in environment.
If you want to say that the photo of
Wole Soyinka at the bottom of this post
represents the "default" complexion of
most African Americans
if Wole Soyinka was living in Chicago
he would have skin lighter then that default.
He is lighter skinned than this "default" and l
ighter skinned than most Nigerian males (females are
more often lighter) he only reaches your
default when he has been exposed to summer or Nigerian living conditions.
Unless he gets enough sun Dehootie says he isn't Black.
There is a color border line
and some people are right near it.
So conditions can push them one way or the other over the border.
Somebody who is at your default to begin with
experiences more subtle differences on high sun exposure
but if somebody is light brown,
high yellow or "white" when they go into a
high UV environment for a while
they have more dramatic chnages in
their skin tone. Wole Soyinka is naturally around light brown high/high yellow skin tone.
When he is exposed to a lot of sun he looks darker,
more like an average African American.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Now I have seen it all....arguing over skin tone on a digital screen.

Someone remind me. What does the buttons on the side of the monitor do?
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
Now I have seen it all....arguing over skin tone on a digital screen.

Someone remind me. What does the buttons on the side of the monitor do?

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mena7:
Nice skin color and skin tone pictures analysis by Troll Patrol.This black Ethiopian our Somalian is the carbon copy of the Mummy of Ramses II.

I like this one ever better.

 -

 -
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
WHAT THE WHITE MAN MEANS BY BROWN EGYPTIANS
IS HIS CAUCASIANS -- A.K.A. DARK WHITES


Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Nice find Al! yeah goes to show you how the Egyptians depicted themselves. What gets me is that at this point in time Europeans could have claimed the Romans, Greeks, the British Empire, the French Empire and the Colonial and New World Cultures, so why lie about Egypt. I understand at the time their ideology of race prevented them from being truthful, going as far as claiming the Nubians to be whites. This goes to show that their approach was not scientific.

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
It's unbelievable, but that idiot has more of these funny imaginary troll illustrations.


 -

How cute they even managed to include a blond man..lol


Eurocentric Delusion compared to the Original Primary Source the artist used to make his hallucination..

 -

It amazes me the nerve and Gall of these people. I mean they were obviously lying. Its like looking at portraits of George Washington and painting him Chinese.


^ Good lookin' Jari, pinpointing the exact source. Here're some more vinters. Not a pink skin nor baldy among 'em.  -

Yep! Bunch of lying thieves not content with what
their people/race accomplish reach back into time
to steal another people's/race's civilization and
then dny such people had a past before meeting them.


Note Kha em Waset's vintors are of various origins though they all are Egyptian citizens.
 
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

..I mean really how can one look at the tomb painting and not conclude it was depicting black people?? How? I wonder what was going on in their heads as they blatantly lied to the world??

The psychology of white-wash was explained various times before, but I think it was best explained by Philip Emeagwali, the computer science genius from Nigeria. Emeagwali was one of the forefathers of high-speed internet processing.

In an autobiography Emeagwali wrote:

"Twelve years ago, a magazine hired a white man to prepare an illustration of a supercomputer wizard riding an ox. I was supposed to be the supercomputer wizard. But the white illustrator, who knew that I am black, portrayed me as a white person in his published illustration."

 -

The first draft of a portrait that depicted Emeagwali as a supercomputer wizard driving a carriage powered by thousands of chickens (a metaphor for his 65,000 weak processors that performed the world's fastest computation). The "Negro Emeagwali" (shown in this illustration) was rejected and replaced with a "Caucasian Emeagwali" (shown below).

 -

A "whitened" Caucasian portrait of Emeagwali was acceptable and widely published. One illustrator argued that Emeagwali has a trace of Caucasian blood and said that he could see the "Caucasian look" in his face!! [sic]

Emeagwali himself
 -
[Eek!] [Eek!]

Emeagwali wrote of the white illustrator: "I learned that the white illustrator was searching for himself in me."

And there you have it in a nutshell-- so many whites are desperate to see themselves in the peoples of great civilizations of the world. This is why back in the 19th century Euro-colonialists were proclaiming peoples from the Aztecs to the early Chinese has having "Caucasoid" ancestry. The 'Middle East' including Egypt was a hotbed of this nonsense and especially Egypt. Today while the Americas and much of Asia is purged from this nonsense unfortunately Southwest Asia and indeed Egypt and greater north Africa are not. Even Sub-Sahara is not safe and even the indigenous cultures of southern Africa are not safe from the psychotic white-wash!!

So why this need of whites like Anglo-idiot to "see themselves" in other people who are not white??

I'm no psychologist but it doesn't take an expert to know what the problem is. and I leave the answer below to Anglo-idiot and his ilk:

 -

Bump
 
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
In Encyclopedia Britannica editions up to the 1980s if I remember
they classified the art of Egypt as "Western" art.
 
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
Nodnarb says:
what would you make of Afro-Diasporans using symbols from a long-dead Northeast African civilization?
Wouldn't it be like, say, Germans utilizing Greek symbols, or Malays playing with Chinese icons?


What you fail to realize is that Germans DO make use of
Greek symbols and Malays DO play with Chinese icons
and few call it cultural "appropriation." Germans
use in part a modified alphabet based on some Greek models.
ANd they use numerous Greek derived technical symbols and labels.
Malays use Chinese icons and influences in various cultural contexts
as in events and festivals.

White Americans and British use numerous Egyptian symbols
in their culture- and Egyptian iconography even appears
on their money. White people are the biggest copiers,
borrowers and users of ancient Egyptian symbolism.
But few go around talking about "appropriation."

But when a black man shows up then a double standard emerges.
Egypt is an African culture developed by African peoples.
Swedes or white Americans thousands of miles distant can use Greek
iconography and few object. But when a black man either a few score
miles south of Egypt, or few hundred on the same continent
do the same then there is a "problem." When the descendants
of those Africans in the diaspora do likewise then
there are also alleged "problems" and "appropriation."
This is the hypocritical white double standard that pervades the field.

Finally, as credible scholarship shows, much foundational
Egyptian culture, including iconography rests on and derive from an
African substratum (Frankfort 1948, Morkot 2005, Keita 1992, Bard 2001 et al).
Egyptian iconography for example while not static and
changing over time, derives from the African motifs seen in
the rock art iof the deserts. In religion the cattle cults
king a divine rainmaker, animal gods etc all derive from
other nearby African cultures. Many Afro- Disaporan people generally
don't see Egypt as the "beginning" of such things. AFRICA is the
beginning from which Egypt derived. Ivan van Sertima once wrote
a book entitled "Egypt: Child of Africa." It is a good title.
The beginning of Egypt is Africa, just as the beginning
of Kush is Africa, just as Ghana and Mali begin from African cultures.
Africans don't need to "appropriate" foundations that ALREADY
begin with and derive from Africa.
 
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
RECAP FROM RELOADED:

How Ancient Egypt became "Western"

As credible histories show, when Napoleon came back from Egypt with a huge ton of documentation
and artifacts, Westerners increasingly realized that there was a whole other massive, advanced
ancient culture that did not depend on "the West" - that was long before Greece and Rome.
Hence as some academics note- it was this "Egyptian wave" that really expanded
the museum in the West and made Egyptian art part of the Western canon. In other
words, the West co-opted and incorporated all those artifacts as part of "the West."
This is why "Egyptomania" was and is still alive in the West. Even the Romans were
collectors of Egyptian art and the Greeks recognized Egypt as superior on some counts.

So basically you have a huge amount of ego, resources, money and emotion invested
by white people in Egypt. Egyptian symbols even appear on their paper money.
This is why they will fight tooth and nail to downplay, dismiss or distort Kemet's
African roots (the "3D" strategy). They are hugely invested - body and soul in this.
 


(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3